You're Readying for "start of turn", or for "some Free Action that I then take on that dude's turn" or even "as soon as he does something (like Ready An Action himself)".
At that point, you're trading Immediates and some timing for "target can't take OAs or IAs". And ihe point we're making.
What? Your point has nothing to do with a joke about everybody is sitting with readied actions that never trigger, because they're all waiting for someone else to do something.
To address your point, No.
You cannot ready for "Start of Turn" because it is not an observable event. You cannot "Free Action on his turn" because that is a blatant attempt to use the ready rules without actually saying so - mechanically it translates to ready the free action on his turn, which is still illegal. You can ready as soon as he does something, but you cannot ready for "ready an action" because that is not an observable event.
My point remains that your point isn't applicable because it isn't legal. You cannot ready for non-observable events.
You cannot ready for "Start of Turn" because it is not an observable event.
It is a knowable event. The only reason to *not* use it as a trigger is if the GM is hiding information and making the mechanics non-transparent, both of which are bad things. And because it's dumb and leads to an arms race. See: All the previous posts on this thread, where we've covered this endlessly.
You cannot "Free Action on his turn" because that is a blatant attempt to use the ready rules without actually saying so - mechanically it translates to ready the free action on his turn, which is still illegal.
See, this is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said (earlier in this thread - seriously, go read from the start and catch up, it will help and stop us from needing to repeat quite so much) that limiting Free Actions is a very bad idea.
You, for example, have just altered the Ready An Action rules to require Readying to use Free Actions (which is crazy) or to use something LIKE the "ready" rules for Free Actions (which is less crazy because it doesn't require a Standard but still crazy) AND to flatly prohibit taking Free Actions on other people's turns, both of which are bad decisions with bad consequences for the playability of the game - and you've done it to try to apply a mechanical fix to a problem *for which no mechanical fix can possibly be sufficient*.
Which is something *else* we've already established, and now we're repeating. Seriously, read the rest of this thread. It will save us time.
You can ready as soon as he does something, but you cannot ready for "ready an action" because that is not an observable event.
#1: Why shouldn't it be? "The orc sets himself and tenses, warily watching for someone to approach. He Readies an attack to hit anyone who comes into his reach." "I charge him before he's set, using my Readied Action".
All the PLAYERS know who is Readying an action, and for what. Why not describe it?
My point remains that your point isn't applicable because it isn't legal. You cannot ready for non-observable events.
... #2: There is no such rule, anywhere. And even if there was such a rule, which there isn't{1}, there's no rule about which actions and events are "observable" and which aren't. Which means, in essence, that you're adding a house rule whose sole purpose is to say "you can't do that" based on your subjective at-the-time determination of which PCs actions you would like to have automatically fail. See also: Arms race, escalation, not a solution, creates more problems, read the rest of this thread.
{1} For the entirely sensible reason that "Ready An Action" is not something a character does, it's something a PLAYER does. Characters don't wait their turn to act, either. Turns and Rounds and Squares and Actions are an abstraction to give the game structure and make it playable, not laws of in-game physics.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Oops, I didn't mean to start a huge debate over whether or not everyone readying actions would lead to a fun stalemate (it would, because in my example the players aren't looking for loopholes, so they are all readying for when an enemy attacks or moves).
The main point I was making is that abusing the Ready an Action tactic, like all abuses, is something that should be discouraged. Not through the rules, but through the Don't Be a Jerk method (Player's Strategy Guide, p. 158). I know many groups enjoy playing to get full tactical advantage, and that is fine. My group plays to have fun, and part of that fun is using immediate actions. If everyone is going to ready attacks then no one can use immediate actions in response to being attacked. If that is something your group finds acceptable, than go with it. But I'd recommend against it.
Also, I think the trigger to a readied action must be something observable. You can't ready an action to attack when the orc thinks about his girlfriend back home. In addition, if we use the interpretation that the act of readying an action is itself an observable event, readying an action to attack when another creature readies an action would be very silly. Here is how it would play out: Fighter: I ready an action to attack the orc when he readies an action. Orc: I see the fighter preparing to attack and so I will do something else. Fighter: Doh! Before anyone cries, "Metagame!" let me point out that this is no different from the following scenario Orc: I ready an action to attack anyone who comes adjacent Fighter: I see the orc preparing to attack, so I will charge the goblin
Readying an action comes with a risk: the trigger might not occur. But it is still very useful. Say you are fighting something like a Shadowhunter Bat that has flyby attack. The poor fighter can't attack it, because the Bat keeps flying away. So he readies an attack to get that pesky bat the next time he flies in.
It is a knowable event. The only reason to *not* use it as a trigger is if the GM is hiding information and making the mechanics non-transparent, both of which are bad things.
NO. This is incorrect, and is a Strawman you keep trying to misdirect the topic to - I play online, with everything visible. You cannot be any more transparent. Transparency is irrelevant. Event is not defined in the rules. That means it's up to the DM. Is rolling a die an event? Is selecting a target an event? Of course they are - by the linguistic definition of event. They're still is not valid triggers. Please see the Ready an Action FAQ. (Which you should be familiar with, seeing as how you've posted there.)
See, this is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said (earlier in this thread - seriously, go read from the start and catch up, it will help and stop us from needing to repeat quite so much) that limiting Free Actions is a very bad idea.
You, for example, have just altered the Ready An Action rules to require Readying to use Free Actions (which is crazy) or to use something LIKE the "ready" rules for Free Actions (which is less crazy because it doesn't require a Standard but still crazy) AND to flatly prohibit taking Free Actions on other people's turns, both of which are bad decisions with bad consequences for the playability of the game - and you've done it to try to apply a mechanical fix to a problem *for which no mechanical fix can possibly be sufficient*.
Which is something *else* we've already established, and now we're repeating. Seriously, read the rest of this thread. It will save us time.
And yet you still don't get it. At all. This is not adding a limit to Free Actions. This was never legal in the first place. There is no prohibition on Free Actions on other peoples' turns. However, there is also absolutely no way to arbitrarily time this Free Action.
#1: Why shouldn't it be? "The orc sets himself and tenses, warily watching for someone to approach. He Readies an attack to hit anyone who comes into his reach." "I charge him before he's set, using my Readied Action".
You're right, the "Ready An Action" Standard Action is a valid trigger for readied actions, my bad.
... #2: There is no such rule, anywhere. And even if there was such a rule, which there isn't{1}, there's no rule about which actions and events are "observable" and which aren't. Which means, in essence, that you're adding a house rule whose sole purpose is to say "you can't do that" based on your subjective at-the-time determination of which PCs actions you would like to have automatically fail. See also: Arms race, escalation, not a solution, creates more problems, read the rest of this thread.
Please see the Ready an Action FAQ. As you keep failing to hear, no house rule has been added. You can't exploit the rules like this in the first place.
{1} For the entirely sensible reason that "Ready An Action" is not something a character does, it's something a PLAYER does. Characters don't wait their turn to act, either. Turns and Rounds and Squares and Actions are an abstraction to give the game structure and make it playable, not laws of in-game physics.
The player chooses something for the character to do. The player isn't readying an action, that's just hilarious. "What are you doing?" "I'm readied, man. The moment the DM says the monster attacks I'm going to interrupt him!"
The Player selects the Ready An Action Standard Action for his Character to perform. It is the Character who has the readied action, not the Player.
To put it another way: 1. We know you can ready against an action, or an event. 2. The event has to be a perceivable event. (If you want to debate that, go argue in the Ready An Action FAQ thread. I'm merely using the concensus, which is what I generally do.) 3. You can ready an action against a free action.
Now, given all of the above, the issue is: How fine is the control over timing a Free Action? How precise is the control, and how thinly can you slice actions?
Can you time your Free Action: ...between multi-attacks? ...between the resolution of the attack rolls of a burst? ...after an attack roll but before the damage roll? ...after a creature's last action, but before the turn ends? ...before a creature's first action, but after the turn starts? ...in the middle of someone else's Free Action? ...before someone's immediate interrupt? ...after someone takes an immediate interrupt, before the triggering action? ...before an immediate reaction, after the triggering action? ...before an immediate reaction, after the triggering action, in response to the immediate reaction? ...after an action triggers an OA, before the opportunity action?
We know that "On your turn, you take actions: a standard action, a move action, a minor action, and any number of free actions, in any order you wish." How freely can you use your Free Action? "You can take as many free actions as you want during your or another combatant’s turn." "You can take any number of free actions on other combatants’ turns." The only thing the rules permit is that you can take free actions "during a turn" or "on a turn". On your turn you take them in any order you wish. However, it looks like you do not determine when during another combatant's turn.
If you take a Free Action when it's not your turn, when does it occur? As far as I can tell, the rules don't say. It's up to the DM. All you are given is that you can take Free Actions during/on their turn. (However, there are obviously powers/features with Free Actions that are specifically timed. Specific supersedes General, of course.)
If you take a Free Action when it's not your turn, when does it occur?
When you take it, duh. See also: Only one non-stupid answer exists, and that's "you can take a Free Action any time you want, unless the DM specifically says you can't". Which JUST HAPPENS to be the exact rule in the book.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Only one non-stupid answer exists, and that's "you can take a Free Action any time you want, unless the DM specifically says you can't". Which JUST HAPPENS to be the exact rule in the book.
Actually, that's exactly the opposite. when you take a Free Action on another combatant's turn, you can merely choose to take it during their turn - you are not given the ability to insert your Free Action in the order. It is the DM who adjucates when the Free Action takes place during that turn. Which is the "only non-stupid answer" similiar to the answer to "What benefits do I get from being in X shape in Wild Shape?" (Answer: Nothing other than 1. What the power says you get, and 2. What the DM lets you have.)
By the way, I like how I explicitly quoted the rules to arrive at an answer, and you simply state the opposite without any reference to the rules while saying it's supported by the rules. Then saying any dissent with your completely unsupported interpretation is stupid. Bravo.
How fine is the control over timing a Free Action? How precise is the control, and how thinly can you slice actions?
At any time, during or between any turns, with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever except the restrictions a DM chooses to add.
You see, this is why you're absolutely wrong, and why I now see that I'm .
You've got some ridiculous player-entitlement going on. The DM doesn't need to add a restriction for your entitlement to already be denied. You can only take Free Actions on your turn, and during another combatant's turn. Not between turns.
So I guess it's pretty obvious you're not even bothering to look up the rules before proclaiming you're right. I don't know why I'm bothering.
The FAQ is not an official rules source. There are areas of the ready an action mechanic that are murky, especially when it comes to triggers. DMs will need to decide on a consistent way of ruling on them in their own games. A summary of a debate (which is all the section on triggers in the FAQ is), is not a rule. It is neither authoritative nor binding. At best, it gives you the shape of the debate so you can be prepared to rule on it in your own games. The perceiveability thing was something people seemed to be largely in agreement on when I was updating the FAQ and it made sense to me as a potential guideline, so I included it. It's not as though I did a formal survey, or am a designated prepresentative of "the majority" on the boards, whatever that is.
2. The event has to be a perceivable event. (If you want to debate that, go argue in the Ready An Action FAQ thread. I'm merely using the concensus, which is what I generally do.)
The FAQ is not intended as a bulwark against debate or discussion on the topic elsewhere, nor should it be. If people start using it this way, I will erase it, as it will be doing more harm than good. Once again, my well-intentioned attempt to consolidate points of confusion and debate in one place is not an authoritative rules compendium you can cite to win arguments. Weasel doesn't need to post in my thread first in order to make his point, or get the FAQ updated, or convince me of anything. Sheesh.
Fine, then in his own words, I'll simply use the "non-stupid" answer.
The definition of the word "event" is "something that happens". This means that anything that happens is a valid trigger, including "an attack hits me". This is therefore the "stupid" answer. The term event is undefined in game terms. As such, it is up to the DM if any event is applicable as a game event.
When something is not covered in the rules - it is up to DM arbitration. This covers "event" for Ready An Action, as well as "during" or "on" another combatant's turn.
Thus those rules cannot be abused because they do not cover it - it relies on the Player arbitrating its use, superseding the DM's job.
DMs will need to decide on a consistent way of ruling on them in their own games.
Which in fact still supports my point - the rules require DM arbitration. By default, they do not give Players the support to control the issue. They cannot say "The rules let me!" because the rules call for the DM to decide.
You've got some ridiculous player-entitlement going on. The DM doesn't need to add a restriction for your entitlement to already be denied. You can only take Free Actions on your turn, and during another combatant's turn. Not between turns.
Semi-related question: Does time *exist* between turns? Or does a new turn immediately start when the last turn ends?
(And if time exists between turns, at some point when it is no person's turn because the last person has finished and the next person hasn't started yet, what's your justification for denying Free Actions there? And if it DOESN'T exist between turns and there is no interstitial no-turn time, how does someone who has Delayed get to take their turn?)
I tend to view there being no time between turns - but, then, I also let people take Free Actions *when the rules say they can*, which is at absolutely any time where I don't specifically prohibit it. Which means that someone who's Delayed can choose to add themselves in between any two initiatives as a free/no/irrelevant action.
So I guess it's pretty obvious you're not even bothering to look up the rules before proclaiming you're right. I don't know why I'm bothering.
You've taken the idea that Free Actions can be taken at any point during any person's turn and decided that this means they can be taken during any person's turn, but that you have no choice in when during that turn to take them and no ability to control when they actually happen relative to the turn.
This is adding all kinds of restrictions that aren't there to begin with, and leads to really, really dumb results.
Free Actions can happen at absolutely any point during any person's turn, and the only restriction on them is "your DM might add a restriction if he thinks the situation warrants it".
Meaning, your "you can't POSSIBLY know when your Free Action might resolve! It doesn't SAY it happens when you take it, so it might happen, like, AFTER the guy Moves and Attacks and spends a Minor and an Action Point and attacks again and ends his turn!" is a restriction. That you've added. Because you think the situation warrants it. And you're wrong.
By default, they do not give Players the support to control the issue. They cannot say "The rules let me!" because the rules call for the DM to decide.
No, they explicitly *do* let the players decide when to take their free actions, and rely on the DM to *overrule* if he feels the situation requires it.
Which is to say, any time you tell a player he can't take a Free Action, you're adding a restriction because, until you told him that, he COULD have taken that Free Action at that time.
Not all such restrictions are bad. Your suggested restriction? Bad. And also does not fix the root problem.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
. 
