|
4 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 3:36PM
#21
|
|
|
Your understanding is incorrect, you are conflating ready with delay.
If you delay, your entire turn happens later in the initiative order.
If you ready, you spend your standard action to do it (regardless of which action type the action you ready is, so it still costs you a standard to ready a minor-action power), and later spend your immediate action in response to a trigger of your choice when you readied, to take an action which you decided upon when you readied.
So a player could take a move and a minor, and then ready a standard as an immediate reaction for later in the round? Sounds a bit OP'd to me.
Imagine a party of four, one barbarian, one leader, one striker and one paladin. Each of the latter three could easily have a power that allows an ally to spend a surge. Using the above, the barbarian could effectively tank and immediately receive a whole bunch of heals upon taking damage.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 5:37PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2003
|
It is way easier to abuse readying players than it is for players to abuse readied actions.
That and I would like to see the conversation where the barbarian convinces the other striker to lose his Standard to possibly cast a heal.
INSIDE SCOOP GAMERS: In the new version of D&D, it will no longer be "Edition Wars." It will be "Edition Lair Assault." - dungeonbastard
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 10:19PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
Imagine a party of four, one barbarian, one leader, one striker and one paladin. Each of the latter three could easily have a power that allows an ally to spend a surge. Using the above, the barbarian could effectively tank and immediately receive a whole bunch of heals upon taking damage.
Yes. At the cost of the whole rest of the party doing nothing but healing the barbarian and risking wasting their standard if the trigger doesn't actually happen. So if the barbarian thinks he can handle the whole encounter on his own ... hey, great strategy. Not.
Readying an action CAN actually be "abused" (using it to avoid OAs is an infamous example) but that street goes both ways (monsters can do it too), and even then it's still not exactly a win button.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 12:42AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
Your understanding is incorrect, you are conflating ready with delay.
If you delay, your entire turn happens later in the initiative order.
If you ready, you spend your standard action to do it (regardless of which action type the action you ready is, so it still costs you a standard to ready a minor-action power), and later spend your immediate action in response to a trigger of your choice when you readied, to take an action which you decided upon when you readied.
So a player could take a move and a minor, and then ready a standard as an immediate reaction for later in the round? Sounds a bit OP'd to me.
Imagine a party of four, one barbarian, one leader, one striker and one paladin. Each of the latter three could easily have a power that allows an ally to spend a surge. Using the above, the barbarian could effectively tank and immediately receive a whole bunch of heals upon taking damage.
They could. Buit that would mean instead of a standard and an immediate action each round, they would get only one of the two, effective - and that Barbarian then loses the ability to use, say, the Battle Awareness interrupt, or one of the Barb's singularly best powers, Curtain of Steel, if he doesn't want to lose his standard.
This is a game in which action economy is vital, you don't use standards for anything other than attacks if you can possibly avoid it.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 8:56AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2003
|
Also note that if your readied action triggers, not only does it use up your immediate action for the round, but it also moves your turn in the initiative order to be immediately before the turn of the creature during whose turn your readied action was triggered, so you then have to wait longer for your next turn and for your immediate action to recharge.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 9:40AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
BTW, you can't ready an action outside of the formal combat turn structure.
???
This was clarified in 3.5e, and the consensus is that the writers did not change paradigms (as the associated rules did not change). From the Rules of the Game: All About Initiative (Part Two), if desired:"you cannot delay or ready until after you've made an initiative check."
An easy way to look at it though is: those that would've readied an action (were it allowed) get to act on the surprise round... which is even better (and easier to adjudicate). And of course: if everyone could act on the surprise round, the surprise round can be skipped.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 10:05AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
My preference would be to remove any "cannot be surprised" powers/feats from the game, or at least from PC selection. As it stands, it's awkward at best.
They've actually made initiating encounters less awkward for me, allowing me to skip the surprise round and go straight to regular initiative.
Granted, some PC's might start their first round without seeing any enemies to target... but they can just delay or ready an action.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 5:27PM
#28
|
|
|
BTW, you can't ready an action outside of the formal combat turn structure.
???
This was clarified in 3.5e, and the consensus is that the writers did not change paradigms (as the associated rules did not change). From the Rules of the Game: All About Initiative (Part Two), if desired:"you cannot delay or ready until after you've made an initiative check."
Uh, D20 rules do NOT apply to D&D, not even "because it doesn't say otherwise".
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 9:19PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
This was clarified in 3.5e, and the consensus is that the writers did not change paradigms
Uh, D20 rules do NOT apply to D&D
Are you trying to say "D&D 3.5e rules do not apply to D&D 4e"? If so, did you possibly misunderstand what I wrote?
Besides, the RotG quote was not even a 3.5e rule (it was merely a clarification).
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 3:31AM
#30
|
|
|
This was clarified in 3.5e, and the consensus is that the writers did not change paradigms
Uh, D20 rules do NOT apply to D&D
Are you trying to say "D&D 3.5e rules do not apply to D&D 4e"? If so, did you possibly misunderstand what I wrote?
Besides, the RotG quote was not even a 3.5e rule (it was merely a clarification).
I meant exactly what I said, including the unsubtle suggestion that D20 is not D&D while 4th edition is.
The fact that something was set or "clarified" in 3.5 does not make it relevant, for or against, in 4, because the games are not the same. Rules from other games do not apply in 4, not even "unless 4 doesn't explicitly contradict them".
|
|
|
