Is it possible to Ready a spell to be cast just before the start of your next turn by having the trigger be an ally's attack?How long can a readied spell be held before it's lost?Timing of the Ready action when the trigger is associated with spell casting?Clarification On Staying Hidden For Long Range Spell SnipersAre there higher level spells that use attack rolls?Does a spell with a duration of one round end at the beginning or the end of my next turn?“Delay Action” instead of “Ready Action”Do you get Extra Attacks when you ready an attack and use it in your own turn?Under what circumstances does an antimagic field suppress the casting of a spell?Does Silence cancel a readied spell?Can I target multiple creatures with a readied spell that can target multiple creatures?
Which module had more 'comfort' in terms of living space, the Lunar Module or the Command module?
Out of scope work duties and resignation
Can an isometry leave entropy invariant?
Why is B♯ higher than C♭ in 31-ET?
Verb "geeitet" in an old scientific text
Where can I go to avoid planes overhead?
Did we get closer to another plane than we were supposed to, or was the pilot just protecting our delicate sensibilities?
Why do money exchangers give different rates to different bills?
Hyperlink on red background
Understanding trademark infringements in a world where many dictionary words are trademarks?
How should I tell my manager I'm not paying for an optional after work event I'm not going to?
Position of past participle and extent of the Verbklammer
Fitch Proof Question
Why Isn’t SQL More Refactorable?
If your medical expenses exceed your income does the IRS pay you?
Have I damaged my car by attempting to reverse with hand/park brake up?
Will 700 more planes a day fly because of the Heathrow expansion?
What is the name of this hexagon/pentagon polyhedron?
What does this colon mean? It is not labeling, it is not ternary operator
Does a card have a keyword if it has the same effect as said keyword?
Would Hubble Space Telescope improve black hole image observed by EHT if it joined array of telesopes?
Independent, post-Brexit Scotland - would there be a hard border with England?
Can hackers enable the camera after the user disabled it?
Why wasn't the Night King naked in S08E03?
Is it possible to Ready a spell to be cast just before the start of your next turn by having the trigger be an ally's attack?
How long can a readied spell be held before it's lost?Timing of the Ready action when the trigger is associated with spell casting?Clarification On Staying Hidden For Long Range Spell SnipersAre there higher level spells that use attack rolls?Does a spell with a duration of one round end at the beginning or the end of my next turn?“Delay Action” instead of “Ready Action”Do you get Extra Attacks when you ready an attack and use it in your own turn?Under what circumstances does an antimagic field suppress the casting of a spell?Does Silence cancel a readied spell?Can I target multiple creatures with a readied spell that can target multiple creatures?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
Can the trigger criteria for a readied action be as simple as casting after an ally's attack?
If so, are there measures to prevent a pseudo double spell casting like the following example?
Player B: "I would like to ready my action - to cast the Slow spell centered on 'this' enemy, right after Player A makes his attack." (Player A goes right before Player B in initiative.)
Right after Player A makes his attack the Slow Spell is cast.
Player A then ends his turn.
Player B now has a full turn.
Is this a plausible scenario, or does it break the game's mechanics in any way, shape, or form?
Granted, you delay the 1st turn's spell being cast, but you almost guarantee that your spells occur back-to-back without a chance for an end-of-turn save to remove the spell's effects.
Possible issue examples:
Slow -> disintegrate/fireball.
Hold Person -> Hex + Scorching Ray at higher levels
dnd-5e spells readied-action
edited Apr 28 at 22:21
V2Blast
28.6k5103173
asked Apr 28 at 21:47
WheeliumWheelium
825
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can the trigger criteria for a readied action be as simple as casting after an ally's attack?
If so, are there measures to prevent a pseudo double spell casting like the following example?
Player B: "I would like to ready my action - to cast the Slow spell centered on 'this' enemy, right after Player A makes his attack." (Player A goes right before Player B in initiative.)
Right after Player A makes his attack the Slow Spell is cast.
Player A then ends his turn.
Player B now has a full turn.
Is this a plausible scenario, or does it break the game's mechanics in any way, shape, or form?
Granted, you delay the 1st turn's spell being cast, but you almost guarantee that your spells occur back-to-back without a chance for an end-of-turn save to remove the spell's effects.
Possible issue examples:
Slow -> disintegrate/fireball.
Hold Person -> Hex + Scorching Ray at higher levels
dnd-5e spells readied-action
edited Apr 28 at 22:21
V2Blast
28.6k5103173
asked Apr 28 at 21:47
WheeliumWheelium
825
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Great question! I like your examples of possible useful applications of this idea. A small issue with the last one: Hold Person and Hex are both Concentration spells, so you couldn't have them both active at the same time. I get what you're going for, though. It is a very neat idea to hold a Hold Person spell until after that creature's turn.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 28 at 23:42
$begingroup$
Player B does not have a full turn, it just has an action
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Do note that Readying a spell requires concentration, which would automatically end any other concentration spell. So Hold Person -> Readied Hex would be no different than casting Hex on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Winterborne
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can the trigger criteria for a readied action be as simple as casting after an ally's attack?
If so, are there measures to prevent a pseudo double spell casting like the following example?
Player B: "I would like to ready my action - to cast the Slow spell centered on 'this' enemy, right after Player A makes his attack." (Player A goes right before Player B in initiative.)
Right after Player A makes his attack the Slow Spell is cast.
Player A then ends his turn.
Player B now has a full turn.
Is this a plausible scenario, or does it break the game's mechanics in any way, shape, or form?
Granted, you delay the 1st turn's spell being cast, but you almost guarantee that your spells occur back-to-back without a chance for an end-of-turn save to remove the spell's effects.
Possible issue examples:
Slow -> disintegrate/fireball.
Hold Person -> Hex + Scorching Ray at higher levels
dnd-5e spells readied-action
edited Apr 28 at 22:21
V2Blast
28.6k5103173
asked Apr 28 at 21:47
WheeliumWheelium
825
$endgroup$
Can the trigger criteria for a readied action be as simple as casting after an ally's attack?
If so, are there measures to prevent a pseudo double spell casting like the following example?
Player B: "I would like to ready my action - to cast the Slow spell centered on 'this' enemy, right after Player A makes his attack." (Player A goes right before Player B in initiative.)
Right after Player A makes his attack the Slow Spell is cast.
Player A then ends his turn.
Player B now has a full turn.
Is this a plausible scenario, or does it break the game's mechanics in any way, shape, or form?
Granted, you delay the 1st turn's spell being cast, but you almost guarantee that your spells occur back-to-back without a chance for an end-of-turn save to remove the spell's effects.
Possible issue examples:
Slow -> disintegrate/fireball.
Hold Person -> Hex + Scorching Ray at higher levels
dnd-5e spells readied-action
dnd-5e spells readied-action
edited Apr 28 at 22:21
V2Blast
28.6k5103173
asked Apr 28 at 21:47
WheeliumWheelium
825
edited Apr 28 at 22:21
V2Blast
28.6k5103173
asked Apr 28 at 21:47
WheeliumWheelium
825
edited Apr 28 at 22:21
V2Blast
28.6k5103173
edited Apr 28 at 22:21
V2Blast
28.6k5103173
edited Apr 28 at 22:21
V2Blast
28.6k5103173
28.6k5103173
asked Apr 28 at 21:47
WheeliumWheelium
825
asked Apr 28 at 21:47
WheeliumWheelium
825
asked Apr 28 at 21:47
WheeliumWheelium
825
825
2
$begingroup$
Great question! I like your examples of possible useful applications of this idea. A small issue with the last one: Hold Person and Hex are both Concentration spells, so you couldn't have them both active at the same time. I get what you're going for, though. It is a very neat idea to hold a Hold Person spell until after that creature's turn.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 28 at 23:42
$begingroup$
Player B does not have a full turn, it just has an action
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Do note that Readying a spell requires concentration, which would automatically end any other concentration spell. So Hold Person -> Readied Hex would be no different than casting Hex on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Winterborne
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Great question! I like your examples of possible useful applications of this idea. A small issue with the last one: Hold Person and Hex are both Concentration spells, so you couldn't have them both active at the same time. I get what you're going for, though. It is a very neat idea to hold a Hold Person spell until after that creature's turn.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 28 at 23:42
$begingroup$
Player B does not have a full turn, it just has an action
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Do note that Readying a spell requires concentration, which would automatically end any other concentration spell. So Hold Person -> Readied Hex would be no different than casting Hex on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Winterborne
2 days ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Great question! I like your examples of possible useful applications of this idea. A small issue with the last one: Hold Person and Hex are both Concentration spells, so you couldn't have them both active at the same time. I get what you're going for, though. It is a very neat idea to hold a Hold Person spell until after that creature's turn.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 28 at 23:42
$begingroup$
Great question! I like your examples of possible useful applications of this idea. A small issue with the last one: Hold Person and Hex are both Concentration spells, so you couldn't have them both active at the same time. I get what you're going for, though. It is a very neat idea to hold a Hold Person spell until after that creature's turn.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 28 at 23:42
$begingroup$
Player B does not have a full turn, it just has an action
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Player B does not have a full turn, it just has an action
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Do note that Readying a spell requires concentration, which would automatically end any other concentration spell. So Hold Person -> Readied Hex would be no different than casting Hex on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Winterborne
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Do note that Readying a spell requires concentration, which would automatically end any other concentration spell. So Hold Person -> Readied Hex would be no different than casting Hex on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Winterborne
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is valid by the rules, but might get called out as metagaming
As Token's answer adequately covers, what you've described is valid according to the rules for readying a spell. However, depending on the style of play used at your table, your DM may disallow it because it is metagaming; that is, having your character act based on out-of-character knowledge. Here's what the rules have to say about rounds and turns in combat (emphasis added):
A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.
Note the sentence I have highlighted in bold: within the fiction, characters in the battle aren't really taking turns. They're all fighting simultaneously and continuously, but because simulating real-time combat is not practical, we compromise realism in favor of simplicity and have them all take turns in initiative order. However, this means that the initiative order is part of the game, not part of the game world, and thus the initiative order of combat is out-of-character knowledge, which means using that knowledge to guide your character's actions constitutes metagaming.
So, if you attempt to use this "double-spell combo" at a table that values in-character role playing and frowns on metagaming, you will probably be called out for choosing a trigger condition that has nothing to do with your readied action. You are effectively trying to find a loophole that lets you specify "after the target's turn ends" as your trigger in order to deny the target an end-of-turn save. On the other hand, other tables are happy to embrace the turn-based gameplay and treat combat like a game instead of a simulation, and they will instead congratulate you on the neat trick you found. You probably already have a pretty good idea of which kind of table you're playing at, but if not, you should ask your DM ahead of time before you try to pull out this trick during a session.
answered Apr 28 at 22:47
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
13.2k24598
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
I wouldn't rush to call this metagaming, since in combat (even in a fantasy world) actions you decide to take can be and often are influenced by what those around you are doing at any given moment. Thinking tactically about the situation and making decisions based on observations in the midst of a fight is exactly what someone with high intelligence (like a Wizard) would do. You can see your Fighter friend laying into some hapless Orc and decide you want to get in on that in the most advantageous way possible without it being metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 23:38
5
$begingroup$
@Seidr I would say that it is definitely metagaming if your motivation for choosing a trigger condition is to approximate an invalid trigger ("after the enemy's turn ends"). However, there is definitely a gray area. If the choice of trigger is strategically defensible but your real reason for choosing it to release the spell after the enemy's turn, is it metagaming? I think these things vary from table to table, which is why I said it might be disallowed as metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 28 at 23:46
2
$begingroup$
I agree with Ryan. It is especially questionable in this case as the trigger (an ally's attack) is something you'd usually want the spell (Slow or Hold Person) to be active for. Thus, choosing to activate the spell after such an occurrence is hard to justify for any reason other than the order of respective creatures' turns. It might be more defensible if your ally had several attacks in one turn, and you were thus ensuring that the rest of those attacks benefitted from this spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 29 at 0:11
3
$begingroup$
@Seidr The OP stated that the motivation was to deny an end-of-turn save by delaying the spell's release until after the target's next turn. Otherwise there is no reason not to cast the first spell immediately in either of the OP's examples.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 29 at 0:50
2
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson, denying a save is a very valid, very in-game reason to delay your casting. Yes, rounds are a meta-concept, but you could rephrase it: "the longer I wait between my spells the more likely it is the target shakes off the effect, so I delay the first as much as I can"
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Yes, that can be a declared trigger for the ready Action.
The rules for readying that apply here:
Ready, PHB p. 193
First, you decide what perceivable circumstances will trigger your
reaction... When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction
right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger.
This does allow for the pseudo double spellcasting that you mentioned, though this may not be as much of an issue as one might think.
To accomplish this the PC has to take on a few risks and drawbacks:
He needs to maintain concentration on the spell throughout the entire round; if he loses concentration, he loses the spell.
It's also possible that the ally (by his own volition or otherwise) might not attack in order to complete the trigger. This would give the PC in question no opportunity to cast his spell.
The PC will not be able to use any other reaction. A hefty cost when considering counterspell and other useful reaction spells.
The PC will also not be able to concentrate on any other spell while he holds his readied spell. Also a hefty cost.
If the spell cast by the PC had any perceivable casting components, he has then telegraphed his next move. Hostile creatures that understand a spell is being cast may act accordingly. (The PC can't counter the counter!)
This does not break the action economy or constitute an exploit. I can't extrapolate the player's reasoning for doing this, but it does seem to be a rather suboptimal choice to incur all of those negatives instead of an exploit that breaks anything. There is the payoff of being able to disadvantage the creature on its saving throw against his next spell, but, at least to me, it doesn't seem to outweigh all of the opportunity cost involved.
answered Apr 28 at 21:52
TokenToken
1,294120
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The issue isn't necessarily concentration - it's combo'ing spells as a solo PC. Slow specifically makes it that units affected are disadvantaged on DEX save throws which means you're free to shoot a Fireball/Disintegrate on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Wheelium
Apr 28 at 21:56
6
$begingroup$
The mention of concentration was to show that this tactic has some risks attached to it, making it a bit more 'fair' and not so much a perceived exploit. I maintain that the rules seem to allow this.
$endgroup$
– Token
Apr 28 at 21:56
4
$begingroup$
I would also add that if the ally does not attack for whatever reason the spell slot is wasted, which is yet another risk. Not to mention the caster would be "wasting" their earlier turn in order to ready the spell. The turn is essentially just being pushed back in the order, it's not more "broken" than casting on your own turn, you only take on additional risk.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 22:00
1
$begingroup$
It may also be worth noting that the PC in question casts the spell on their turn, but holds its energy using concentration (as you mention) - which means it's clear to anyone who sees them perform the V/S/M spell components that they have cast a spell but it hasn't taken effect yet. This might draw the focus of intelligent enemies who could guess that they're holding the spell's energy. (This is up to how the DM runs the enemy, though.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 28 at 22:24
1
$begingroup$
@Wheelium: I think the point is that you are unable to use any other reaction (e.g. an opportunity attack, or casting shield or absorb elements) between turn 1 and turn 2 without losing the readied spell.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 29 at 1:18
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f147079%2fis-it-possible-to-ready-a-spell-to-be-cast-just-before-the-start-of-your-next-tu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is valid by the rules, but might get called out as metagaming
As Token's answer adequately covers, what you've described is valid according to the rules for readying a spell. However, depending on the style of play used at your table, your DM may disallow it because it is metagaming; that is, having your character act based on out-of-character knowledge. Here's what the rules have to say about rounds and turns in combat (emphasis added):
A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.
Note the sentence I have highlighted in bold: within the fiction, characters in the battle aren't really taking turns. They're all fighting simultaneously and continuously, but because simulating real-time combat is not practical, we compromise realism in favor of simplicity and have them all take turns in initiative order. However, this means that the initiative order is part of the game, not part of the game world, and thus the initiative order of combat is out-of-character knowledge, which means using that knowledge to guide your character's actions constitutes metagaming.
So, if you attempt to use this "double-spell combo" at a table that values in-character role playing and frowns on metagaming, you will probably be called out for choosing a trigger condition that has nothing to do with your readied action. You are effectively trying to find a loophole that lets you specify "after the target's turn ends" as your trigger in order to deny the target an end-of-turn save. On the other hand, other tables are happy to embrace the turn-based gameplay and treat combat like a game instead of a simulation, and they will instead congratulate you on the neat trick you found. You probably already have a pretty good idea of which kind of table you're playing at, but if not, you should ask your DM ahead of time before you try to pull out this trick during a session.
answered Apr 28 at 22:47
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
13.2k24598
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
I wouldn't rush to call this metagaming, since in combat (even in a fantasy world) actions you decide to take can be and often are influenced by what those around you are doing at any given moment. Thinking tactically about the situation and making decisions based on observations in the midst of a fight is exactly what someone with high intelligence (like a Wizard) would do. You can see your Fighter friend laying into some hapless Orc and decide you want to get in on that in the most advantageous way possible without it being metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 23:38
5
$begingroup$
@Seidr I would say that it is definitely metagaming if your motivation for choosing a trigger condition is to approximate an invalid trigger ("after the enemy's turn ends"). However, there is definitely a gray area. If the choice of trigger is strategically defensible but your real reason for choosing it to release the spell after the enemy's turn, is it metagaming? I think these things vary from table to table, which is why I said it might be disallowed as metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 28 at 23:46
2
$begingroup$
I agree with Ryan. It is especially questionable in this case as the trigger (an ally's attack) is something you'd usually want the spell (Slow or Hold Person) to be active for. Thus, choosing to activate the spell after such an occurrence is hard to justify for any reason other than the order of respective creatures' turns. It might be more defensible if your ally had several attacks in one turn, and you were thus ensuring that the rest of those attacks benefitted from this spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 29 at 0:11
3
$begingroup$
@Seidr The OP stated that the motivation was to deny an end-of-turn save by delaying the spell's release until after the target's next turn. Otherwise there is no reason not to cast the first spell immediately in either of the OP's examples.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 29 at 0:50
2
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson, denying a save is a very valid, very in-game reason to delay your casting. Yes, rounds are a meta-concept, but you could rephrase it: "the longer I wait between my spells the more likely it is the target shakes off the effect, so I delay the first as much as I can"
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This is valid by the rules, but might get called out as metagaming
As Token's answer adequately covers, what you've described is valid according to the rules for readying a spell. However, depending on the style of play used at your table, your DM may disallow it because it is metagaming; that is, having your character act based on out-of-character knowledge. Here's what the rules have to say about rounds and turns in combat (emphasis added):
A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.
Note the sentence I have highlighted in bold: within the fiction, characters in the battle aren't really taking turns. They're all fighting simultaneously and continuously, but because simulating real-time combat is not practical, we compromise realism in favor of simplicity and have them all take turns in initiative order. However, this means that the initiative order is part of the game, not part of the game world, and thus the initiative order of combat is out-of-character knowledge, which means using that knowledge to guide your character's actions constitutes metagaming.
So, if you attempt to use this "double-spell combo" at a table that values in-character role playing and frowns on metagaming, you will probably be called out for choosing a trigger condition that has nothing to do with your readied action. You are effectively trying to find a loophole that lets you specify "after the target's turn ends" as your trigger in order to deny the target an end-of-turn save. On the other hand, other tables are happy to embrace the turn-based gameplay and treat combat like a game instead of a simulation, and they will instead congratulate you on the neat trick you found. You probably already have a pretty good idea of which kind of table you're playing at, but if not, you should ask your DM ahead of time before you try to pull out this trick during a session.
answered Apr 28 at 22:47
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
13.2k24598
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
I wouldn't rush to call this metagaming, since in combat (even in a fantasy world) actions you decide to take can be and often are influenced by what those around you are doing at any given moment. Thinking tactically about the situation and making decisions based on observations in the midst of a fight is exactly what someone with high intelligence (like a Wizard) would do. You can see your Fighter friend laying into some hapless Orc and decide you want to get in on that in the most advantageous way possible without it being metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 23:38
5
$begingroup$
@Seidr I would say that it is definitely metagaming if your motivation for choosing a trigger condition is to approximate an invalid trigger ("after the enemy's turn ends"). However, there is definitely a gray area. If the choice of trigger is strategically defensible but your real reason for choosing it to release the spell after the enemy's turn, is it metagaming? I think these things vary from table to table, which is why I said it might be disallowed as metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 28 at 23:46
2
$begingroup$
I agree with Ryan. It is especially questionable in this case as the trigger (an ally's attack) is something you'd usually want the spell (Slow or Hold Person) to be active for. Thus, choosing to activate the spell after such an occurrence is hard to justify for any reason other than the order of respective creatures' turns. It might be more defensible if your ally had several attacks in one turn, and you were thus ensuring that the rest of those attacks benefitted from this spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 29 at 0:11
3
$begingroup$
@Seidr The OP stated that the motivation was to deny an end-of-turn save by delaying the spell's release until after the target's next turn. Otherwise there is no reason not to cast the first spell immediately in either of the OP's examples.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 29 at 0:50
2
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson, denying a save is a very valid, very in-game reason to delay your casting. Yes, rounds are a meta-concept, but you could rephrase it: "the longer I wait between my spells the more likely it is the target shakes off the effect, so I delay the first as much as I can"
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This is valid by the rules, but might get called out as metagaming
As Token's answer adequately covers, what you've described is valid according to the rules for readying a spell. However, depending on the style of play used at your table, your DM may disallow it because it is metagaming; that is, having your character act based on out-of-character knowledge. Here's what the rules have to say about rounds and turns in combat (emphasis added):
A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.
Note the sentence I have highlighted in bold: within the fiction, characters in the battle aren't really taking turns. They're all fighting simultaneously and continuously, but because simulating real-time combat is not practical, we compromise realism in favor of simplicity and have them all take turns in initiative order. However, this means that the initiative order is part of the game, not part of the game world, and thus the initiative order of combat is out-of-character knowledge, which means using that knowledge to guide your character's actions constitutes metagaming.
So, if you attempt to use this "double-spell combo" at a table that values in-character role playing and frowns on metagaming, you will probably be called out for choosing a trigger condition that has nothing to do with your readied action. You are effectively trying to find a loophole that lets you specify "after the target's turn ends" as your trigger in order to deny the target an end-of-turn save. On the other hand, other tables are happy to embrace the turn-based gameplay and treat combat like a game instead of a simulation, and they will instead congratulate you on the neat trick you found. You probably already have a pretty good idea of which kind of table you're playing at, but if not, you should ask your DM ahead of time before you try to pull out this trick during a session.
answered Apr 28 at 22:47
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
13.2k24598
$endgroup$
This is valid by the rules, but might get called out as metagaming
As Token's answer adequately covers, what you've described is valid according to the rules for readying a spell. However, depending on the style of play used at your table, your DM may disallow it because it is metagaming; that is, having your character act based on out-of-character knowledge. Here's what the rules have to say about rounds and turns in combat (emphasis added):
A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.
Note the sentence I have highlighted in bold: within the fiction, characters in the battle aren't really taking turns. They're all fighting simultaneously and continuously, but because simulating real-time combat is not practical, we compromise realism in favor of simplicity and have them all take turns in initiative order. However, this means that the initiative order is part of the game, not part of the game world, and thus the initiative order of combat is out-of-character knowledge, which means using that knowledge to guide your character's actions constitutes metagaming.
So, if you attempt to use this "double-spell combo" at a table that values in-character role playing and frowns on metagaming, you will probably be called out for choosing a trigger condition that has nothing to do with your readied action. You are effectively trying to find a loophole that lets you specify "after the target's turn ends" as your trigger in order to deny the target an end-of-turn save. On the other hand, other tables are happy to embrace the turn-based gameplay and treat combat like a game instead of a simulation, and they will instead congratulate you on the neat trick you found. You probably already have a pretty good idea of which kind of table you're playing at, but if not, you should ask your DM ahead of time before you try to pull out this trick during a session.
answered Apr 28 at 22:47
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
13.2k24598
edited Apr 29 at 0:09
answered Apr 28 at 22:47
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
13.2k24598
answered Apr 28 at 22:47
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
13.2k24598
answered Apr 28 at 22:47
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
13.2k24598
13.2k24598
3
$begingroup$
I wouldn't rush to call this metagaming, since in combat (even in a fantasy world) actions you decide to take can be and often are influenced by what those around you are doing at any given moment. Thinking tactically about the situation and making decisions based on observations in the midst of a fight is exactly what someone with high intelligence (like a Wizard) would do. You can see your Fighter friend laying into some hapless Orc and decide you want to get in on that in the most advantageous way possible without it being metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 23:38
5
$begingroup$
@Seidr I would say that it is definitely metagaming if your motivation for choosing a trigger condition is to approximate an invalid trigger ("after the enemy's turn ends"). However, there is definitely a gray area. If the choice of trigger is strategically defensible but your real reason for choosing it to release the spell after the enemy's turn, is it metagaming? I think these things vary from table to table, which is why I said it might be disallowed as metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 28 at 23:46
2
$begingroup$
I agree with Ryan. It is especially questionable in this case as the trigger (an ally's attack) is something you'd usually want the spell (Slow or Hold Person) to be active for. Thus, choosing to activate the spell after such an occurrence is hard to justify for any reason other than the order of respective creatures' turns. It might be more defensible if your ally had several attacks in one turn, and you were thus ensuring that the rest of those attacks benefitted from this spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 29 at 0:11
3
$begingroup$
@Seidr The OP stated that the motivation was to deny an end-of-turn save by delaying the spell's release until after the target's next turn. Otherwise there is no reason not to cast the first spell immediately in either of the OP's examples.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 29 at 0:50
2
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson, denying a save is a very valid, very in-game reason to delay your casting. Yes, rounds are a meta-concept, but you could rephrase it: "the longer I wait between my spells the more likely it is the target shakes off the effect, so I delay the first as much as I can"
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
3
$begingroup$
I wouldn't rush to call this metagaming, since in combat (even in a fantasy world) actions you decide to take can be and often are influenced by what those around you are doing at any given moment. Thinking tactically about the situation and making decisions based on observations in the midst of a fight is exactly what someone with high intelligence (like a Wizard) would do. You can see your Fighter friend laying into some hapless Orc and decide you want to get in on that in the most advantageous way possible without it being metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 23:38
5
$begingroup$
@Seidr I would say that it is definitely metagaming if your motivation for choosing a trigger condition is to approximate an invalid trigger ("after the enemy's turn ends"). However, there is definitely a gray area. If the choice of trigger is strategically defensible but your real reason for choosing it to release the spell after the enemy's turn, is it metagaming? I think these things vary from table to table, which is why I said it might be disallowed as metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 28 at 23:46
2
$begingroup$
I agree with Ryan. It is especially questionable in this case as the trigger (an ally's attack) is something you'd usually want the spell (Slow or Hold Person) to be active for. Thus, choosing to activate the spell after such an occurrence is hard to justify for any reason other than the order of respective creatures' turns. It might be more defensible if your ally had several attacks in one turn, and you were thus ensuring that the rest of those attacks benefitted from this spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 29 at 0:11
3
$begingroup$
@Seidr The OP stated that the motivation was to deny an end-of-turn save by delaying the spell's release until after the target's next turn. Otherwise there is no reason not to cast the first spell immediately in either of the OP's examples.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 29 at 0:50
2
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson, denying a save is a very valid, very in-game reason to delay your casting. Yes, rounds are a meta-concept, but you could rephrase it: "the longer I wait between my spells the more likely it is the target shakes off the effect, so I delay the first as much as I can"
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
3
3
$begingroup$
I wouldn't rush to call this metagaming, since in combat (even in a fantasy world) actions you decide to take can be and often are influenced by what those around you are doing at any given moment. Thinking tactically about the situation and making decisions based on observations in the midst of a fight is exactly what someone with high intelligence (like a Wizard) would do. You can see your Fighter friend laying into some hapless Orc and decide you want to get in on that in the most advantageous way possible without it being metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 23:38
$begingroup$
I wouldn't rush to call this metagaming, since in combat (even in a fantasy world) actions you decide to take can be and often are influenced by what those around you are doing at any given moment. Thinking tactically about the situation and making decisions based on observations in the midst of a fight is exactly what someone with high intelligence (like a Wizard) would do. You can see your Fighter friend laying into some hapless Orc and decide you want to get in on that in the most advantageous way possible without it being metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 23:38
5
5
$begingroup$
@Seidr I would say that it is definitely metagaming if your motivation for choosing a trigger condition is to approximate an invalid trigger ("after the enemy's turn ends"). However, there is definitely a gray area. If the choice of trigger is strategically defensible but your real reason for choosing it to release the spell after the enemy's turn, is it metagaming? I think these things vary from table to table, which is why I said it might be disallowed as metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 28 at 23:46
$begingroup$
@Seidr I would say that it is definitely metagaming if your motivation for choosing a trigger condition is to approximate an invalid trigger ("after the enemy's turn ends"). However, there is definitely a gray area. If the choice of trigger is strategically defensible but your real reason for choosing it to release the spell after the enemy's turn, is it metagaming? I think these things vary from table to table, which is why I said it might be disallowed as metagaming.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 28 at 23:46
2
2
$begingroup$
I agree with Ryan. It is especially questionable in this case as the trigger (an ally's attack) is something you'd usually want the spell (Slow or Hold Person) to be active for. Thus, choosing to activate the spell after such an occurrence is hard to justify for any reason other than the order of respective creatures' turns. It might be more defensible if your ally had several attacks in one turn, and you were thus ensuring that the rest of those attacks benefitted from this spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 29 at 0:11
$begingroup$
I agree with Ryan. It is especially questionable in this case as the trigger (an ally's attack) is something you'd usually want the spell (Slow or Hold Person) to be active for. Thus, choosing to activate the spell after such an occurrence is hard to justify for any reason other than the order of respective creatures' turns. It might be more defensible if your ally had several attacks in one turn, and you were thus ensuring that the rest of those attacks benefitted from this spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 29 at 0:11
3
3
$begingroup$
@Seidr The OP stated that the motivation was to deny an end-of-turn save by delaying the spell's release until after the target's next turn. Otherwise there is no reason not to cast the first spell immediately in either of the OP's examples.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 29 at 0:50
$begingroup$
@Seidr The OP stated that the motivation was to deny an end-of-turn save by delaying the spell's release until after the target's next turn. Otherwise there is no reason not to cast the first spell immediately in either of the OP's examples.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Apr 29 at 0:50
2
2
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson, denying a save is a very valid, very in-game reason to delay your casting. Yes, rounds are a meta-concept, but you could rephrase it: "the longer I wait between my spells the more likely it is the target shakes off the effect, so I delay the first as much as I can"
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@RyanThompson, denying a save is a very valid, very in-game reason to delay your casting. Yes, rounds are a meta-concept, but you could rephrase it: "the longer I wait between my spells the more likely it is the target shakes off the effect, so I delay the first as much as I can"
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Yes, that can be a declared trigger for the ready Action.
The rules for readying that apply here:
Ready, PHB p. 193
First, you decide what perceivable circumstances will trigger your
reaction... When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction
right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger.
This does allow for the pseudo double spellcasting that you mentioned, though this may not be as much of an issue as one might think.
To accomplish this the PC has to take on a few risks and drawbacks:
He needs to maintain concentration on the spell throughout the entire round; if he loses concentration, he loses the spell.
It's also possible that the ally (by his own volition or otherwise) might not attack in order to complete the trigger. This would give the PC in question no opportunity to cast his spell.
The PC will not be able to use any other reaction. A hefty cost when considering counterspell and other useful reaction spells.
The PC will also not be able to concentrate on any other spell while he holds his readied spell. Also a hefty cost.
If the spell cast by the PC had any perceivable casting components, he has then telegraphed his next move. Hostile creatures that understand a spell is being cast may act accordingly. (The PC can't counter the counter!)
This does not break the action economy or constitute an exploit. I can't extrapolate the player's reasoning for doing this, but it does seem to be a rather suboptimal choice to incur all of those negatives instead of an exploit that breaks anything. There is the payoff of being able to disadvantage the creature on its saving throw against his next spell, but, at least to me, it doesn't seem to outweigh all of the opportunity cost involved.
answered Apr 28 at 21:52
TokenToken
1,294120
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The issue isn't necessarily concentration - it's combo'ing spells as a solo PC. Slow specifically makes it that units affected are disadvantaged on DEX save throws which means you're free to shoot a Fireball/Disintegrate on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Wheelium
Apr 28 at 21:56
6
$begingroup$
The mention of concentration was to show that this tactic has some risks attached to it, making it a bit more 'fair' and not so much a perceived exploit. I maintain that the rules seem to allow this.
$endgroup$
– Token
Apr 28 at 21:56
4
$begingroup$
I would also add that if the ally does not attack for whatever reason the spell slot is wasted, which is yet another risk. Not to mention the caster would be "wasting" their earlier turn in order to ready the spell. The turn is essentially just being pushed back in the order, it's not more "broken" than casting on your own turn, you only take on additional risk.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 22:00
1
$begingroup$
It may also be worth noting that the PC in question casts the spell on their turn, but holds its energy using concentration (as you mention) - which means it's clear to anyone who sees them perform the V/S/M spell components that they have cast a spell but it hasn't taken effect yet. This might draw the focus of intelligent enemies who could guess that they're holding the spell's energy. (This is up to how the DM runs the enemy, though.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 28 at 22:24
1
$begingroup$
@Wheelium: I think the point is that you are unable to use any other reaction (e.g. an opportunity attack, or casting shield or absorb elements) between turn 1 and turn 2 without losing the readied spell.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 29 at 1:18
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Yes, that can be a declared trigger for the ready Action.
The rules for readying that apply here:
Ready, PHB p. 193
First, you decide what perceivable circumstances will trigger your
reaction... When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction
right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger.
This does allow for the pseudo double spellcasting that you mentioned, though this may not be as much of an issue as one might think.
To accomplish this the PC has to take on a few risks and drawbacks:
He needs to maintain concentration on the spell throughout the entire round; if he loses concentration, he loses the spell.
It's also possible that the ally (by his own volition or otherwise) might not attack in order to complete the trigger. This would give the PC in question no opportunity to cast his spell.
The PC will not be able to use any other reaction. A hefty cost when considering counterspell and other useful reaction spells.
The PC will also not be able to concentrate on any other spell while he holds his readied spell. Also a hefty cost.
If the spell cast by the PC had any perceivable casting components, he has then telegraphed his next move. Hostile creatures that understand a spell is being cast may act accordingly. (The PC can't counter the counter!)
This does not break the action economy or constitute an exploit. I can't extrapolate the player's reasoning for doing this, but it does seem to be a rather suboptimal choice to incur all of those negatives instead of an exploit that breaks anything. There is the payoff of being able to disadvantage the creature on its saving throw against his next spell, but, at least to me, it doesn't seem to outweigh all of the opportunity cost involved.
answered Apr 28 at 21:52
TokenToken
1,294120
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The issue isn't necessarily concentration - it's combo'ing spells as a solo PC. Slow specifically makes it that units affected are disadvantaged on DEX save throws which means you're free to shoot a Fireball/Disintegrate on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Wheelium
Apr 28 at 21:56
6
$begingroup$
The mention of concentration was to show that this tactic has some risks attached to it, making it a bit more 'fair' and not so much a perceived exploit. I maintain that the rules seem to allow this.
$endgroup$
– Token
Apr 28 at 21:56
4
$begingroup$
I would also add that if the ally does not attack for whatever reason the spell slot is wasted, which is yet another risk. Not to mention the caster would be "wasting" their earlier turn in order to ready the spell. The turn is essentially just being pushed back in the order, it's not more "broken" than casting on your own turn, you only take on additional risk.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 22:00
1
$begingroup$
It may also be worth noting that the PC in question casts the spell on their turn, but holds its energy using concentration (as you mention) - which means it's clear to anyone who sees them perform the V/S/M spell components that they have cast a spell but it hasn't taken effect yet. This might draw the focus of intelligent enemies who could guess that they're holding the spell's energy. (This is up to how the DM runs the enemy, though.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 28 at 22:24
1
$begingroup$
@Wheelium: I think the point is that you are unable to use any other reaction (e.g. an opportunity attack, or casting shield or absorb elements) between turn 1 and turn 2 without losing the readied spell.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 29 at 1:18
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Yes, that can be a declared trigger for the ready Action.
The rules for readying that apply here:
Ready, PHB p. 193
First, you decide what perceivable circumstances will trigger your
reaction... When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction
right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger.
This does allow for the pseudo double spellcasting that you mentioned, though this may not be as much of an issue as one might think.
To accomplish this the PC has to take on a few risks and drawbacks:
He needs to maintain concentration on the spell throughout the entire round; if he loses concentration, he loses the spell.
It's also possible that the ally (by his own volition or otherwise) might not attack in order to complete the trigger. This would give the PC in question no opportunity to cast his spell.
The PC will not be able to use any other reaction. A hefty cost when considering counterspell and other useful reaction spells.
The PC will also not be able to concentrate on any other spell while he holds his readied spell. Also a hefty cost.
If the spell cast by the PC had any perceivable casting components, he has then telegraphed his next move. Hostile creatures that understand a spell is being cast may act accordingly. (The PC can't counter the counter!)
This does not break the action economy or constitute an exploit. I can't extrapolate the player's reasoning for doing this, but it does seem to be a rather suboptimal choice to incur all of those negatives instead of an exploit that breaks anything. There is the payoff of being able to disadvantage the creature on its saving throw against his next spell, but, at least to me, it doesn't seem to outweigh all of the opportunity cost involved.
answered Apr 28 at 21:52
TokenToken
1,294120
$endgroup$
Yes, that can be a declared trigger for the ready Action.
The rules for readying that apply here:
Ready, PHB p. 193
First, you decide what perceivable circumstances will trigger your
reaction... When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction
right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger.
This does allow for the pseudo double spellcasting that you mentioned, though this may not be as much of an issue as one might think.
To accomplish this the PC has to take on a few risks and drawbacks:
He needs to maintain concentration on the spell throughout the entire round; if he loses concentration, he loses the spell.
It's also possible that the ally (by his own volition or otherwise) might not attack in order to complete the trigger. This would give the PC in question no opportunity to cast his spell.
The PC will not be able to use any other reaction. A hefty cost when considering counterspell and other useful reaction spells.
The PC will also not be able to concentrate on any other spell while he holds his readied spell. Also a hefty cost.
If the spell cast by the PC had any perceivable casting components, he has then telegraphed his next move. Hostile creatures that understand a spell is being cast may act accordingly. (The PC can't counter the counter!)
This does not break the action economy or constitute an exploit. I can't extrapolate the player's reasoning for doing this, but it does seem to be a rather suboptimal choice to incur all of those negatives instead of an exploit that breaks anything. There is the payoff of being able to disadvantage the creature on its saving throw against his next spell, but, at least to me, it doesn't seem to outweigh all of the opportunity cost involved.
answered Apr 28 at 21:52
TokenToken
1,294120
edited yesterday
answered Apr 28 at 21:52
TokenToken
1,294120
answered Apr 28 at 21:52
TokenToken
1,294120
answered Apr 28 at 21:52
TokenToken
1,294120
1,294120
$begingroup$
The issue isn't necessarily concentration - it's combo'ing spells as a solo PC. Slow specifically makes it that units affected are disadvantaged on DEX save throws which means you're free to shoot a Fireball/Disintegrate on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Wheelium
Apr 28 at 21:56
6
$begingroup$
The mention of concentration was to show that this tactic has some risks attached to it, making it a bit more 'fair' and not so much a perceived exploit. I maintain that the rules seem to allow this.
$endgroup$
– Token
Apr 28 at 21:56
4
$begingroup$
I would also add that if the ally does not attack for whatever reason the spell slot is wasted, which is yet another risk. Not to mention the caster would be "wasting" their earlier turn in order to ready the spell. The turn is essentially just being pushed back in the order, it's not more "broken" than casting on your own turn, you only take on additional risk.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 22:00
1
$begingroup$
It may also be worth noting that the PC in question casts the spell on their turn, but holds its energy using concentration (as you mention) - which means it's clear to anyone who sees them perform the V/S/M spell components that they have cast a spell but it hasn't taken effect yet. This might draw the focus of intelligent enemies who could guess that they're holding the spell's energy. (This is up to how the DM runs the enemy, though.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 28 at 22:24
1
$begingroup$
@Wheelium: I think the point is that you are unable to use any other reaction (e.g. an opportunity attack, or casting shield or absorb elements) between turn 1 and turn 2 without losing the readied spell.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 29 at 1:18
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The issue isn't necessarily concentration - it's combo'ing spells as a solo PC. Slow specifically makes it that units affected are disadvantaged on DEX save throws which means you're free to shoot a Fireball/Disintegrate on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Wheelium
Apr 28 at 21:56
6
$begingroup$
The mention of concentration was to show that this tactic has some risks attached to it, making it a bit more 'fair' and not so much a perceived exploit. I maintain that the rules seem to allow this.
$endgroup$
– Token
Apr 28 at 21:56
4
$begingroup$
I would also add that if the ally does not attack for whatever reason the spell slot is wasted, which is yet another risk. Not to mention the caster would be "wasting" their earlier turn in order to ready the spell. The turn is essentially just being pushed back in the order, it's not more "broken" than casting on your own turn, you only take on additional risk.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 22:00
1
$begingroup$
It may also be worth noting that the PC in question casts the spell on their turn, but holds its energy using concentration (as you mention) - which means it's clear to anyone who sees them perform the V/S/M spell components that they have cast a spell but it hasn't taken effect yet. This might draw the focus of intelligent enemies who could guess that they're holding the spell's energy. (This is up to how the DM runs the enemy, though.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 28 at 22:24
1
$begingroup$
@Wheelium: I think the point is that you are unable to use any other reaction (e.g. an opportunity attack, or casting shield or absorb elements) between turn 1 and turn 2 without losing the readied spell.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 29 at 1:18
$begingroup$
The issue isn't necessarily concentration - it's combo'ing spells as a solo PC. Slow specifically makes it that units affected are disadvantaged on DEX save throws which means you're free to shoot a Fireball/Disintegrate on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Wheelium
Apr 28 at 21:56
$begingroup$
The issue isn't necessarily concentration - it's combo'ing spells as a solo PC. Slow specifically makes it that units affected are disadvantaged on DEX save throws which means you're free to shoot a Fireball/Disintegrate on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Wheelium
Apr 28 at 21:56
6
6
$begingroup$
The mention of concentration was to show that this tactic has some risks attached to it, making it a bit more 'fair' and not so much a perceived exploit. I maintain that the rules seem to allow this.
$endgroup$
– Token
Apr 28 at 21:56
$begingroup$
The mention of concentration was to show that this tactic has some risks attached to it, making it a bit more 'fair' and not so much a perceived exploit. I maintain that the rules seem to allow this.
$endgroup$
– Token
Apr 28 at 21:56
4
4
$begingroup$
I would also add that if the ally does not attack for whatever reason the spell slot is wasted, which is yet another risk. Not to mention the caster would be "wasting" their earlier turn in order to ready the spell. The turn is essentially just being pushed back in the order, it's not more "broken" than casting on your own turn, you only take on additional risk.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 22:00
$begingroup$
I would also add that if the ally does not attack for whatever reason the spell slot is wasted, which is yet another risk. Not to mention the caster would be "wasting" their earlier turn in order to ready the spell. The turn is essentially just being pushed back in the order, it's not more "broken" than casting on your own turn, you only take on additional risk.
$endgroup$
– Seidr
Apr 28 at 22:00
1
1
$begingroup$
It may also be worth noting that the PC in question casts the spell on their turn, but holds its energy using concentration (as you mention) - which means it's clear to anyone who sees them perform the V/S/M spell components that they have cast a spell but it hasn't taken effect yet. This might draw the focus of intelligent enemies who could guess that they're holding the spell's energy. (This is up to how the DM runs the enemy, though.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 28 at 22:24
$begingroup$
It may also be worth noting that the PC in question casts the spell on their turn, but holds its energy using concentration (as you mention) - which means it's clear to anyone who sees them perform the V/S/M spell components that they have cast a spell but it hasn't taken effect yet. This might draw the focus of intelligent enemies who could guess that they're holding the spell's energy. (This is up to how the DM runs the enemy, though.)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 28 at 22:24
1
1
$begingroup$
@Wheelium: I think the point is that you are unable to use any other reaction (e.g. an opportunity attack, or casting shield or absorb elements) between turn 1 and turn 2 without losing the readied spell.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 29 at 1:18
$begingroup$
@Wheelium: I think the point is that you are unable to use any other reaction (e.g. an opportunity attack, or casting shield or absorb elements) between turn 1 and turn 2 without losing the readied spell.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Apr 29 at 1:18
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f147079%2fis-it-possible-to-ready-a-spell-to-be-cast-just-before-the-start-of-your-next-tu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Great question! I like your examples of possible useful applications of this idea. A small issue with the last one: Hold Person and Hex are both Concentration spells, so you couldn't have them both active at the same time. I get what you're going for, though. It is a very neat idea to hold a Hold Person spell until after that creature's turn.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Apr 28 at 23:42
$begingroup$
Player B does not have a full turn, it just has an action
$endgroup$
– András
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Do note that Readying a spell requires concentration, which would automatically end any other concentration spell. So Hold Person -> Readied Hex would be no different than casting Hex on your turn.
$endgroup$
– Winterborne
2 days ago