Let’s say, we have the paladin, Johnny Bravo. And now, the Sorcerer, Orco. Orco Readys to cast Wall of Stone when Johnny Bravo starts to swing his sword to attack, catching it with the wall. Johnny runs up and attacks, Orco makes the wall. Would that mean the attacking automatically misses?
(if that wouldn’t work, let’s take Wall of Force. It was just an example.)
(would someone tell me why my Autocorrect won’t change Auticirrect to Autocorrect, but changes Attack to attacking? :) )
It depends on what the trigger was for the readied attack.
"As soon as he attacks I'll cast Wall of Stone." The attack would happen and resolve, then the spell would be cast.
"If he attacks me." Same result as above.
"If it looks like he's going to attack me." The trigger here is going to happen prior to the attack action. However, due to the ambiguity of the trigger, just about anything could cause the trigger, from moving 5ft closer, lifting a sword, to yelling directly at the player, and many things in between.
---
In the example you've provided: "Orco Readys to cast Wall of Stone when Johnny Bravo starts to swing his sword to attack..." we find that you're parsing/separating the attack action into separate states. This is not the case, if Johnny is swinging his sword, then he is attacking, there is no interrupting this. There are some exceptions to this such as Reactions like Shield.
Taking the ready action "lets you act using your reaction," like shield does.
Shield states "...including against the triggering attack...", this is a very specific notation in the spell's description. You will notice that almost no other Reaction or Reaction spell uses that phrase.
Because we have the understanding Specific > General, that means, as a general rule, the Triggering Attack would normally occur before the Reaction.
Which means; Wall of Stone would be cast after the Attack has resolved in regards to the situation that was presented.
For me the key is "take your reaction right after the trigger finishes". "Johnny Bravo swings his sword at me" or "Johnny bravo attacks me with his sword" both seem like reasonable triggers. I would adjudicate the ending of the trigger being the resolution of Johny's word attack. If it hit and did damage Orco would have to check to see if he maintained concentration before casting the spell. I would not allow a readied action to "split" someone else's action.
Taking the ready action "lets you act using your reaction," like shield does.
Shield states "...including against the triggering attack...", this is a very specific notation in the spell's description. You will notice that almost no other Reaction or Reaction spell uses that phrase.
Because we have the understanding Specific > General, that means, as a general rule, the Triggering Attack would normally occur before the Reaction.
Which means; Wall of Stone would be cast after the Attack has resolved in regards to the situation that was presented.
That's fair. How about this: readying the action to trigger when an enemy moves into melee range ("Johnny runs up and attacks").
If the trigger was Johnny moving into melee range then I think it is completely fair to trigger the spell as he is moving up. The caster would then get to decide which side of the Wall Johnny ended up on. I would assume you would want him on the far side, but you never know. I see Movement and Attacking as being separate things in the Action economy. If the spell is triggered by the movement, then Johnny completes his movement, fulfilling the "trigger finishes" part of the Ready Action, Orco casts the spell, the Wall runs through the space Johnny is nw occupying, Orco decides which side of the Wall Johnny ends up on, Johnny can make an Attack action or not as he chooses.
I personally would not want to get into such nitty-gritty "be super precise with wording" stuff. It's clear the intention is to use their action (readied) and reaction to cast the spell defensively. In the game-world the caster isn't going to ready a spell for "after the attack" if the intent is to save themselves from harm. It's very obvious what the caster wants to do and it is perfectly acceptable for them to do it. If they want to burn a high level spell for the defense instead of a lower spell like shield: so be it. The wall is breakable, after all, and requires specific placement and a lot of space. But if they want to: sure. I see no reason why not. It isn't the job of the DM to "make the enemies go after the party", it's the job of the DM to just "resolve what happens in the world". If they find a good use of the spell to protect from the enemy, great. Being super "but you didn't specifically describe that precise moment" just to try and "get around" their spell is not going to be fun for the player which defeats the point of playing the game.
It isn't the job of the DM to "make the enemies go after the party", it's the job of the DM to just "resolve what happens in the world". If they find a good use of the spell to protect from the enemy, great.
If this was the only issue with the question being asked, I'd agree wholeheartedly. The DM's job is simply Narrate > Adjudicate > Narrate the results.
Being super "but you didn't specifically describe that precise moment" just to try and "get around" their spell is not going to be fun for the player which defeats the point of playing the game.
This is not the case for why I answer the way I do, it's nothing to do with being "super precise" or "getting around" my players actions, it is simply following the wording of the PHB.
When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger.
(Emphasis mine) The bold part is where the answer I gave comes from, the book states that the Reaction happens after the triggering event. If you say "When Johnny attacks I do something" then the attack has to happen otherwise there is no trigger. It's not a game of mincing words, it's giving the player exactly what they asked for.
---
I get that the situation describes a player's intent of using Wall of Stone as a defensive mechanic, something to stop an attack. However, a person cannot always interpret intent correctly so instead I must go with what is said and go with what the books explain is the process.
I am prone, the creature is sitting on my chest, I cast Gust of Wind. What is my intent? Do I simply want to push the creature off of me, do I want to slam the creature into the ceiling, do I want to propel myself out from under the creature? You don't know, so you must first understand how the spell works, then wait for me to explain my action as best I can, potentially asking clarification questions, and finally resolve the action using the spell's effects and the rules of the game.
Finally, if you allow a player's Ready Action to be inserted at any point in time during another creature's turn, it opens up a lot of doors that can really hurt the game. Let's go with the idea that the Reaction can interrupt an Attack, and I tell you:
"I ready my action to shove the next creature that attacks me." My intent is to stop the creature's attack, similar to the Wall of Stone idea.
Does this mean the Attack by the creature is negated because the creature was pushed out of range? I could save myself a lot of damage by pushing an attacking creature away and letting my party pick him off. This approach would continue to get more effective as I get the Ability scores, Skills, and Feats necessary. This could be done with a character wearing no armor, no weapons, spells, etc.
If the attack is not negated, the creature can finish their Attack after moving within range again, then my Readied Action was wasted. This could also be seen as the "get around" type approach you mentioned.
As far as I'm concerned, an attack happens when you roll a die. That being said, I can see a situation where a character might want to ready an action to happen just before an attack and I can see where a character might want to ready an action to happen when the attack happens. It's all situational, though as DM, I might also call for a clarification when the player declares the plan.
I agree with DavetheLost and DMThac0. Some specific Reaction spells/abilities specify that their trigger can interrupt whatever the trigger is, but the general rule is that a Reaction occurs after the designated trigger. The Ready action follows the general rule in all situations.
Designating your trigger with the Ready action as "an enemy enters melee range with me" or "an enemy moves within (x) feet from me" is a suitable trigger to accomplish what the OP is asking about. The Paladin has not taken an Action at this point, and they can continue to resolve their turn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Quick Question-
Let’s say, we have the paladin, Johnny Bravo. And now, the Sorcerer, Orco. Orco Readys to cast Wall of Stone when Johnny Bravo starts to swing his sword to attack, catching it with the wall. Johnny runs up and attacks, Orco makes the wall. Would that mean the attacking automatically misses?
(if that wouldn’t work, let’s take Wall of Force. It was just an example.)
(would someone tell me why my Autocorrect won’t change Auticirrect to Autocorrect, but changes Attack to attacking? :) )
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
It depends on what the trigger was for the readied attack.
"As soon as he attacks I'll cast Wall of Stone."
The attack would happen and resolve, then the spell would be cast.
"If he attacks me."
Same result as above.
"If it looks like he's going to attack me."
The trigger here is going to happen prior to the attack action. However, due to the ambiguity of the trigger, just about anything could cause the trigger, from moving 5ft closer, lifting a sword, to yelling directly at the player, and many things in between.
---
In the example you've provided: "Orco Readys to cast Wall of Stone when Johnny Bravo starts to swing his sword to attack..." we find that you're parsing/separating the attack action into separate states. This is not the case, if Johnny is swinging his sword, then he is attacking, there is no interrupting this. There are some exceptions to this such as Reactions like Shield.
Taking the ready action "lets you act using your reaction," like shield does.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Shield states "...including against the triggering attack...", this is a very specific notation in the spell's description. You will notice that almost no other Reaction or Reaction spell uses that phrase.
Because we have the understanding Specific > General, that means, as a general rule, the Triggering Attack would normally occur before the Reaction.
Which means; Wall of Stone would be cast after the Attack has resolved in regards to the situation that was presented.
"When he starts to swing his sword," maybe?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I would consider that as the Attack action, why else would you be swinging the sword at an opponent?
For me the key is "take your reaction right after the trigger finishes". "Johnny Bravo swings his sword at me" or "Johnny bravo attacks me with his sword" both seem like reasonable triggers. I would adjudicate the ending of the trigger being the resolution of Johny's word attack. If it hit and did damage Orco would have to check to see if he maintained concentration before casting the spell. I would not allow a readied action to "split" someone else's action.
Didn't notice that you'd already claimed that there was no difference between starting to attack and attacking. Sorry.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
That's fair. How about this: readying the action to trigger when an enemy moves into melee range ("Johnny runs up and attacks").
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
If the trigger was Johnny moving into melee range then I think it is completely fair to trigger the spell as he is moving up. The caster would then get to decide which side of the Wall Johnny ended up on. I would assume you would want him on the far side, but you never know. I see Movement and Attacking as being separate things in the Action economy. If the spell is triggered by the movement, then Johnny completes his movement, fulfilling the "trigger finishes" part of the Ready Action, Orco casts the spell, the Wall runs through the space Johnny is nw occupying, Orco decides which side of the Wall Johnny ends up on, Johnny can make an Attack action or not as he chooses.
I personally would not want to get into such nitty-gritty "be super precise with wording" stuff. It's clear the intention is to use their action (readied) and reaction to cast the spell defensively. In the game-world the caster isn't going to ready a spell for "after the attack" if the intent is to save themselves from harm. It's very obvious what the caster wants to do and it is perfectly acceptable for them to do it. If they want to burn a high level spell for the defense instead of a lower spell like shield: so be it. The wall is breakable, after all, and requires specific placement and a lot of space. But if they want to: sure. I see no reason why not. It isn't the job of the DM to "make the enemies go after the party", it's the job of the DM to just "resolve what happens in the world". If they find a good use of the spell to protect from the enemy, great. Being super "but you didn't specifically describe that precise moment" just to try and "get around" their spell is not going to be fun for the player which defeats the point of playing the game.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
If this was the only issue with the question being asked, I'd agree wholeheartedly. The DM's job is simply Narrate > Adjudicate > Narrate the results.
This is not the case for why I answer the way I do, it's nothing to do with being "super precise" or "getting around" my players actions, it is simply following the wording of the PHB.
(Emphasis mine) The bold part is where the answer I gave comes from, the book states that the Reaction happens after the triggering event. If you say "When Johnny attacks I do something" then the attack has to happen otherwise there is no trigger. It's not a game of mincing words, it's giving the player exactly what they asked for.
---
I get that the situation describes a player's intent of using Wall of Stone as a defensive mechanic, something to stop an attack. However, a person cannot always interpret intent correctly so instead I must go with what is said and go with what the books explain is the process.
I am prone, the creature is sitting on my chest, I cast Gust of Wind. What is my intent? Do I simply want to push the creature off of me, do I want to slam the creature into the ceiling, do I want to propel myself out from under the creature? You don't know, so you must first understand how the spell works, then wait for me to explain my action as best I can, potentially asking clarification questions, and finally resolve the action using the spell's effects and the rules of the game.
Finally, if you allow a player's Ready Action to be inserted at any point in time during another creature's turn, it opens up a lot of doors that can really hurt the game. Let's go with the idea that the Reaction can interrupt an Attack, and I tell you:
"I ready my action to shove the next creature that attacks me." My intent is to stop the creature's attack, similar to the Wall of Stone idea.
Does this mean the Attack by the creature is negated because the creature was pushed out of range? I could save myself a lot of damage by pushing an attacking creature away and letting my party pick him off. This approach would continue to get more effective as I get the Ability scores, Skills, and Feats necessary. This could be done with a character wearing no armor, no weapons, spells, etc.
If the attack is not negated, the creature can finish their Attack after moving within range again, then my Readied Action was wasted. This could also be seen as the "get around" type approach you mentioned.
As far as I'm concerned, an attack happens when you roll a die. That being said, I can see a situation where a character might want to ready an action to happen just before an attack and I can see where a character might want to ready an action to happen when the attack happens. It's all situational, though as DM, I might also call for a clarification when the player declares the plan.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I agree with DavetheLost and DMThac0. Some specific Reaction spells/abilities specify that their trigger can interrupt whatever the trigger is, but the general rule is that a Reaction occurs after the designated trigger. The Ready action follows the general rule in all situations.
Designating your trigger with the Ready action as "an enemy enters melee range with me" or "an enemy moves within (x) feet from me" is a suitable trigger to accomplish what the OP is asking about. The Paladin has not taken an Action at this point, and they can continue to resolve their turn.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.