Ready Attack to Disrupt Spellcasting

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hi All,
I've currently got a 3rd level Ranger (Archer-type) in our current
campaign and I've got a couple of questions about the ready action and
disrupting spellcasting.

First - Is it actually worth it? As an Archer am I better off, when
faced with an enemy wizard to ready my attack to disrupt his
spellcasting or am I better off just using Rapid Shot to take that
wizard down ASAP.

Second - Is "If x starts casting a spell" the only wording for a
readied attack that would disrupt spellcasting?
Or would, for example, a readied attack to shoot an enemy who has been
ordered to "put their hands up" if he does anything else disrupt
spellcasting if the target decided to cast a spell rather than
surrender?

Thanks,

Blath

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi All,
> I've currently got a 3rd level Ranger (Archer-type) in our current
> campaign and I've got a couple of questions about the ready action
and
> disrupting spellcasting.
>
> First - Is it actually worth it? As an Archer am I better off, when
> faced with an enemy wizard to ready my attack to disrupt his
> spellcasting or am I better off just using Rapid Shot to take that
> wizard down ASAP.

I'd say yes. You probably have a pretty good attack bonus, and the
wizard's got a low AC, so you have a good chance of hitting. If you
can keep him from casting spells it doesn't matter much if it takes a
little longer to take him out.

> Second - Is "If x starts casting a spell" the only wording for a
> readied attack that would disrupt spellcasting?
> Or would, for example, a readied attack to shoot an enemy who has
been
> ordered to "put their hands up" if he does anything else disrupt
> spellcasting if the target decided to cast a spell rather than
> surrender?

I'd say just about any obvious action can be used as a trigger for a
readied action. Including "if he moves his hands" or "if he opens his
mouth" (to cover spells with no somatic components.) Also, if the
spell has neither verbal nor somatic components (due to the spell or
metamagic feats), I wouldn't think that "if he casts a spell" would
work as a readied-action trigger.

-Pat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> illecebra wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > pluther wrote:
> > <snip>
> > |
> > | I'd say just about any obvious action can be used as a trigger
for a
> > | readied action. Including "if he moves his hands" or "if he
opens his
> > | mouth" (to cover spells with no somatic components.) Also, if
the
> > | spell has neither verbal nor somatic components (due to the spell
or
> > | metamagic feats), I wouldn't think that "if he casts a spell"
would
> > | work as a readied-action trigger.
> > |
> > | -Pat
> >
> > The only exception I would make to that, as a DM*, would be if the
> > person holding the action had spellcraft, in which case he/she
deserves
> > a chance to notice the spell being cast anyway.
>
> What if the sorcerer makes a Bluff check to "fake" spellcasting so
the
> character blows his attack? Could be quite effective if the sorc has

> that feat that lets you bluff as a MEA.
>
> - Ron ^*^

I like both of these ideas, too. Yeah, it makes sense to have someone
with spellcraft notice a spell being cast, as well as having a chance
to figure out what it is. And, sure, I don't see why the sorcerer
couldn't Bluff a fake spell, opposed by the characters Sense Motive or
Spellcraft. But then again, why would he? If he *wants* the character
to attack, he can just attack them, either with a spell or otherwise

-Pat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

illecebra wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> pluther wrote:
> <snip>
> |
> | I'd say just about any obvious action can be used as a trigger for a
> | readied action. Including "if he moves his hands" or "if he opens his
> | mouth" (to cover spells with no somatic components.) Also, if the
> | spell has neither verbal nor somatic components (due to the spell or
> | metamagic feats), I wouldn't think that "if he casts a spell" would
> | work as a readied-action trigger.
> |
> | -Pat
>
> The only exception I would make to that, as a DM*, would be if the
> person holding the action had spellcraft, in which case he/she deserves
> a chance to notice the spell being cast anyway.

What if the sorcerer makes a Bluff check to "fake" spellcasting so the
character blows his attack? Could be quite effective if the sorc has
that feat that lets you bluff as a MEA.

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> >> > The only exception I would make to that, as a DM*, would be if
the
> >> > person holding the action had spellcraft, in which case he/she
> >deserves
> >> > a chance to notice the spell being cast anyway.
> >>
> >> What if the sorcerer makes a Bluff check to "fake" spellcasting so
> >the
> >> character blows his attack? Could be quite effective if the sorc
has
>
> >> that feat that lets you bluff as a MEA.
> >>
> >> - Ron ^*^
>
> >I like both of these ideas, too. Yeah, it makes sense to have
someone
> >with spellcraft notice a spell being cast, as well as having a
chance
> >to figure out what it is. And, sure, I don't see why the sorcerer
> >couldn't Bluff a fake spell, opposed by the characters Sense Motive
or
> >Spellcraft. But then again, why would he? If he *wants* the
character
> >to attack, he can just attack them, either with a spell or otherwise

>
> If he can bluff as a move equivalent action, then he can triggere
> the readied attack before he starts casting and avoid the
> possibility of the spell fizzling due to damage from the attack.
>

OK Fair enough.

However you might run into problems in that most "fighter-types" who
would want to use this type of ready action don't normally have any
spellcraft (taking us back to the "better off just shooting him" side
of the argument).

As a wider question, what kind of wording do you guys allow on readied
actions?

for example do you allow the "negative ready" - readying to take an
action if the opponent *doesn't* take a specified action?
ie - ordering an opponent to throw down his weapon and surrender and
readying an action to shoot him if he *doesn't* do that within a
certain time frame.

Blath

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> As a wider question, what kind of wording do you guys allow on readied
> actions?
>
> for example do you allow the "negative ready" - readying to take an
> action if the opponent *doesn't* take a specified action?
> ie - ordering an opponent to throw down his weapon and surrender and
> readying an action to shoot him if he *doesn't* do that within a
> certain time frame.

The way I would word such a Ready action is: "If he
begins to do anything *other than* 'X', I do 'Y'."

The "time frame" issue is resolved simply enough by the
fact that it eventually comes around to the Readied
character's turn again. (In other words, if the target
hasn't done "X" by the time it's your turn again--and
he hasn't done anything *else* to trigger your Readied
action, either--you can decide at that point if you
want to Ready yourself for another round or just go
ahead and shoot him.)

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In <1110134663.181800.39820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> "pluther" <pluther@usa.net> writes:


>Werebat wrote:
>> illecebra wrote:
>>
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > pluther wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> > |
>> > | I'd say just about any obvious action can be used as a trigger
>for a
>> > | readied action. Including "if he moves his hands" or "if he
>opens his
>> > | mouth" (to cover spells with no somatic components.) Also, if
>the
>> > | spell has neither verbal nor somatic components (due to the spell
>or
>> > | metamagic feats), I wouldn't think that "if he casts a spell"
>would
>> > | work as a readied-action trigger.
>> > |
>> > | -Pat
>> >
>> > The only exception I would make to that, as a DM*, would be if the
>> > person holding the action had spellcraft, in which case he/she
>deserves
>> > a chance to notice the spell being cast anyway.
>>
>> What if the sorcerer makes a Bluff check to "fake" spellcasting so
>the
>> character blows his attack? Could be quite effective if the sorc has

>> that feat that lets you bluff as a MEA.
>>
>> - Ron ^*^

>I like both of these ideas, too. Yeah, it makes sense to have someone
>with spellcraft notice a spell being cast, as well as having a chance
>to figure out what it is. And, sure, I don't see why the sorcerer
>couldn't Bluff a fake spell, opposed by the characters Sense Motive or
>Spellcraft. But then again, why would he? If he *wants* the character
>to attack, he can just attack them, either with a spell or otherwise

If he can bluff as a move equivalent action, then he can triggere
the readied attack before he starts casting and avoid the
possibility of the spell fizzling due to damage from the attack.

> -Pat

--
Remove any bits of tatt after the at in my address to reply

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <tiGWd.49007$7z6.18771@lakeread04>,
Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>
>What if the sorcerer makes a Bluff check to "fake" spellcasting so the
>character blows his attack? Could be quite effective if the sorc has
>that feat that lets you bluff as a MEA.

Yeah, but then he eats an arrow.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > As a wider question, what kind of wording do you guys allow on
readied
> > actions?
> >
> > for example do you allow the "negative ready" - readying to take an
> > action if the opponent *doesn't* take a specified action?
> > ie - ordering an opponent to throw down his weapon and surrender
and
> > readying an action to shoot him if he *doesn't* do that within a
> > certain time frame.
>
> The way I would word such a Ready action is: "If he
> begins to do anything *other than* 'X', I do 'Y'."
>
> The "time frame" issue is resolved simply enough by the
> fact that it eventually comes around to the Readied
> character's turn again. (In other words, if the target
> hasn't done "X" by the time it's your turn again--and
> he hasn't done anything *else* to trigger your Readied
> action, either--you can decide at that point if you
> want to Ready yourself for another round or just go
> ahead and shoot him.)

Yeah, sounds reasonable, but...

Doesn't that mean that, in this case this "Ready" action would cover
multiple conditions?
(If he moves, shoot him, If he attacks, shoot him, if he casts a spell,
shoot him)

Doesn't this move us on to slightly shaky ground rules-wise?
(As a ready action appears to be a specific response to a specific
action)

Also, wouldn't an "If they do anything other than X, I do Y" put the
character on a "reactive" stance as opposed to an "active" one (To
borrow some languange from the gun thread) and therefore be better
modelled by a "delay" action (I know that this doesn't work so well
from *my* perspective, but I am more interested in finding the best fit
with both the spirit and wording of the rules).

As an alternate example of a similar situation from another perspective
I offer the "hostage" situation - Bad-guy holding a helpless commoner
hostage shouting "Drop your weapons and surrender or I kill him" -
Is this a readied attack with the condition "If they do anything other
than drop their weapons I attack this person" (the aforementioned
multiple-condition ready) or a Delayed Coup "If they do something I
don't like, I kill this person"?

The delayed coup has the advantage from a story POV of giving the
Good-guys the opportunity to interrupt the Bad-guys action an possibly
save the hostage.
Of course that would be a big disadvantage from the Bad-guys POV, but
OTOH there is no guarantee that a single attack will kill the hostage.

Blath

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> >
> > The way I would word such a Ready action is: "If he
> > begins to do anything *other than* 'X', I do 'Y'."
> >
> > The "time frame" issue is resolved simply enough by the
> > fact that it eventually comes around to the Readied
> > character's turn again. (In other words, if the target
> > hasn't done "X" by the time it's your turn again--and
> > he hasn't done anything *else* to trigger your Readied
> > action, either--you can decide at that point if you
> > want to Ready yourself for another round or just go
> > ahead and shoot him.)
>
> Yeah, sounds reasonable, but...
>
> Doesn't that mean that, in this case this "Ready" action would cover
> multiple conditions?
> (If he moves, shoot him, If he attacks, shoot him, if he casts a spell,
> shoot him)

So what if it does? The rules say: "You can ready a
standard action, a move action, or a free action. To
do so, specify the action you will take and the
CONDITIONS under which you will take it." (Emphasis
added, of course.) The rules themselves use the plural
form!

The only reason that Ready actions are typically
limited to a single "trigger" is that most DMs don't
want to keep track of multiple triggering conditions.

> Doesn't this move us on to slightly shaky ground rules-wise?
> (As a ready action appears to be a specific response to a specific
> action)

No, it doesn't.

> Also, wouldn't an "If they do anything other than X, I do Y" put the
> character on a "reactive" stance as opposed to an "active" one (To
> borrow some languange from the gun thread) and therefore be better
> modelled by a "delay" action (I know that this doesn't work so well
> from *my* perspective, but I am more interested in finding the best fit
> with both the spirit and wording of the rules).

I'm not familiar with the gun thread, so I don't know
how you are using the terms "active" and "reactive,"
but I'm inclined to say no, since Ready actions are
about as reactive as anything can be.

> As an alternate example of a similar situation from another perspective
> I offer the "hostage" situation - Bad-guy holding a helpless commoner
> hostage shouting "Drop your weapons and surrender or I kill him" -
> Is this a readied attack with the condition "If they do anything other
> than drop their weapons I attack this person" (the aforementioned
> multiple-condition ready) or a Delayed Coup "If they do something I
> don't like, I kill this person"?

It could be either one, of course. As you note, each
tactic has a benefit and a consequence. Isn't it great
that 3.x gives us so many options of how to model
dramatic scenarios?

-Bluto

> The delayed coup has the advantage from a story POV of giving the
> Good-guys the opportunity to interrupt the Bad-guys action an possibly
> save the hostage.
> Of course that would be a big disadvantage from the Bad-guys POV, but
> OTOH there is no guarantee that a single attack will kill the hostage.