That said... I think you've persuaded me. I think you CAN set the trigger as "the dragon opens his mouth for his breath weapon attack," but like you said (I think this is what you're saying) the dragon could then choose not to use his breath weapon and instead take a different action. So Wall of Force isn't really doing what the caster is hoping it will, if the intention was to get the dragon to waste his breath weapon.
However - once the breath weapon is INITIATED, I don't think anything can interrupt it unless it specifically says it can.
Er... I'm actually arguing that other way. That you SHOULD be able to block an initiated breath weapon by setting the trigger to something that occurs as part of doing it.
Otherwise, you're back to square one. If you can specify "opens its mouth for a breath weapon attack" as the trigger, but the target can then not activate the breath weapon, then why would it? Which means ANY trigger that can be "pulled back" like that will be. In which case, the readied spell is effectively wasted; you might as well have just cast it during your turn.
So again, if that's the interpretation, then you're back to only really letting movement be an effective trigger for readied spells.
I'd be fine playing that way if my DM said that that was how it was. But in that environment, I'd almost never ready an action--it would rarely be worth it.
And I just don't think the Ready action was only intended to be used in very rare circumstances, with only movement triggering it. Which is why I'd allow actions to be interrupted so long as the trigger was worded properly.
Allowing any Readied action to trigger and there by preventing say an attack that landed to than deal damage basically removes the need for certain spells or features of classes to even exist. Why ever prepare shield when I can always just ready Thunderwave. Damage and waste an attack!
Allowing any Readied action to trigger and there by preventing say an attack that landed to than deal damage basically removes the need for certain spells or features of classes to even exist. Why ever prepare shield when I can always just ready Thunderwave. Damage and waste an attack!
Because there's still a risk in readying Thunderwave. If you set the trigger to "whenever the goblin prepares to attack me," then you have multiple factors to worry about:
- What if the archers strike you before that opponent attacks? You risk losing concentration, and wasting a spell slot. - You have to give up concentration on any other (read: usually more powerful) spells to even set this up. - You spend the entire turn just Readying; usually it's more efficient to just apply all damage as soon as possible. You actually lose tempo this way. - What if they just... don't attack you (perhaps they disengage to retreat?) Again, a wasted spell slot.
Again, I would urge anyone who thinks that this method yields broken play results to actually test it out for yourself. It's really nowhere close to overpowered.
Er... I'm actually arguing that other way. That you SHOULD be able to block an initiated breath weapon by setting the trigger to something that occurs as part of doing it.
Otherwise, you're back to square one. If you can specify "opens its mouth for a breath weapon attack" as the trigger, but the target can then not activate the breath weapon, then why would it? Which means ANY trigger that can be "pulled back" like that will be. In which case, the readied spell is effectively wasted; you might as well have just cast it during your turn.
So again, if that's the interpretation, then you're back to only really letting movement be an effective trigger for readied spells.
I'd be fine playing that way if my DM said that that was how it was. But in that environment, I'd almost never ready an action--it would rarely be worth it.
And I just don't think the Ready action was only intended to be used in very rare circumstances, with only movement triggering it. Which is why I'd allow actions to be interrupted so long as the trigger was worded properly.
I don't agree with that interpretation of the rules, but ultimately it's how the DM decides.
At the same time, I also strongly disagree that there's no utility outside of interrupting movement for readied actions. Here are a few:
I want to cast Steel Wind Strike, but my team mate is going to be casting Faerie Fire on her turn. I ready the spell until after she acts.
The enemy is using cover. I ready my ranged attack for when the enemy is visible and without cover.
The nearest enemy is 45 feet away from me and my speed is 30 feet. I move 30 feet and ready a melee attack for when a hostile creature is within five feet of me.
I want to cast Fireball but my team mate is in the blast radius. I ready my spell until after he moves out of it.
My team mate is under the effects of Slow but is behind full cover. I ready Dispel Magic for when I can target her.
I'm standing next to my team mate and she has one hit point. The enemies are targeting her and doing heavy damage each round. I ready an action to administer her a health potion if she goes unconscious.
I'm a squishy Wizard fighting dire wolves. The nearest one is 25 feet away from me. I ready my movement to go ten feet back if he approaches me.
All the uses are permissible within the rules. Some of them fit your description of being tied to movement. Some don't. But they're all really good ways to use the readied action and I believe that the readied action is plenty powerful without allowing it to disrupt other action. I know both of my party's Paladin's used the one about the enemies being too far away last week and they both got an attack off as a result of it where they otherwise would have either had to dash in to melee range or just take the dodge action.
One question I’d consider in making rulings here - the basic stupid ready action of “I ready an action: when my enemy shoots at me, I move away”. Does this make me invincible? If I’m facing a goblin with a bow, does that mean that if each turn I specify that when the goblin shoots at me, I move out of that space, then the goblin would literally never be able to hit me?
Seems silly to me. Obviously you can’t dodge an attack just by saying you do - that’s what the dodge action is for, it imposes disadvantage.
Or, in melee, does that mean that instead of attacking, everyone does readied actions instead “when the enemy in front of me starts their action, I attack them to interrupt it” , thus getting a free action denial to go with the attack? No, of course not.
I don't agree with that interpretation of the rules, but ultimately it's how the DM decides.
Agreed.
At the same time, I also strongly disagree that there's no utility outside of interrupting movement for readied actions. Here are a few:
I want to cast Steel Wind Strike, but my team mate is going to be casting Faerie Fire on her turn. I ready the spell until after she acts.
The enemy is using cover. I ready my ranged attack for when the enemy is visible and without cover.
The nearest enemy is 45 feet away from me and my speed is 30 feet. I move 30 feet and ready a melee attack for when a hostile creature is within five feet of me.
I want to cast Fireball but my team mate is in the blast radius. I ready my spell until after he moves out of it.
My team mate is under the effects of Slow but is behind full cover. I ready Dispel Magic for when I can target her.
I'm standing next to my team mate and she has one hit point. The enemies are targeting her and doing heavy damage each round. I ready an action to administer her a health potion if she goes unconscious.
I'm a squishy Wizard fighting dire wolves. The nearest one is 25 feet away from me. I ready my movement to go ten feet back if he approaches me.
Well, just to point out: all but two of those are still literally setting a trigger based on movement.
But that's just a nitpick; your point still stands: waiting until after a teammate has acted, or healing after a teammate goes down, are both good applications that I don't think anyone would disagree with. Which suggests that there are yet other possible triggers that also don't need to interrupt actions to be useful applications.
All the uses are permissible within the rules. Some of them fit your description of being tied to movement. Some don't. But they're all really good ways to use the readied action and I believe that the readied action is plenty powerful without allowing it to disrupt other action. I know both of my party's Paladin's used the one about the enemies being too far away last week and they both got an attack off as a result of it where they otherwise would have either had to dash in to melee range or just take the dodge action.
Well, you've certainly convinced me that disallowing action interruption doesn't make it as useless as I'd thought. Food for thought.
This issue is not broken play - the issue is using the feature the way the rules allow it. Thereby making those spells and features do their jobs and be required to fulfill the desired result of action interruption there by damage negated. If any magic caster can sub any spell for shield. Than shield becomes obsolete as per the way you interpret the rules, there by making a feature of the game redundant.
One question I’d consider in making rulings here - the basic stupid ready action of “I ready an action: when my enemy shoots at me, I move away”. Does this make me invincible? If I’m facing a goblin with a bow, does that mean that if each turn I specify that when the goblin shoots at me, I move out of that space, then the goblin would literally never be able to hit me?
As DM, I'd rule that your movement can well occur before he finishes attacking, and that they have to finish the attack, but that it would in no way interfere with their ability to hit you; you've only moved over a bit.
There might be a case to be made that by moving from just into range to just out of range, you can cause the attack to fail, but you'd have to position yourself just right to do so, and then you spent your entire action to do just that; doing it over and over seems pointless (if harmless.)
Seems silly to me. Obviously you can’t dodge an attack just by saying you do - that’s what the dodge action is for, it imposes disadvantage.
Or, in melee, does that mean that instead of attacking, everyone does readied actions instead “when the enemy in front of me starts their action, I attack them to interrupt it” , thus getting a free action denial to go with the attack? No, of course not.
By "interrupt," it doesn't mean the action never occurs (such as with Shield; I concede that that is a unique case.) In fact, I use it to mean that the readied action goes first but that the triggering action MUST attempt to conclude as normal.
In the case of readying melee attacks, the only thing it would gain you is that you can attack them before they attack you (at which point, they then still attack you.) But then, if you readied the action beforehand, you still were able to act before them anyway, sooooo...... again it seems pointless, if harmless.
This issue is not broken play - the issue is using the feature the way the rules allow it. Thereby making those spells and features do their jobs and be required to fulfill the desired result of action interruption there by damage negated. If any magic caster can sub any spell for shield. Than shield becomes obsolete as per the way you interpret the rules, there by making a feature of the game redundant.
But the point is, the rules boil down to: what triggers are actually allowed? Movement can be interrupted; can anything else?
Since it does NOT result in broken play, what merit is there in one interpretation over the other, other than "I think the rules should work like this?" Which again, is completely understandable, provided one is willing to accept that there is no action interruption. And if you accept that, then you've got a consistant stance that is respectable.
Personally, I think the rules are meant to allow action interruption--or to be more accurate, that the trigger definition is flexible enough that it was expected that well-defined triggers could legitimately interrupt some/many actions.
Allowing for that, I don't see how readying a barrier makes Shield obsolete. Every means of doing so that I can think of literally costs more, in terms of spell slots, concentration, tempo and risk. That you can do something similar to Shield at a higher cost... I don't see why that's a bad thing at all.
Well, just to point out: all but two of those are still literally setting a trigger based on movement.
But that's just a nitpick; your point still stands: waiting until after a teammate has acted, or healing after a teammate goes down, are both good applications that I don't think anyone would disagree with. Which suggests that there are yet other possible triggers that also don't need to interrupt actions to be useful applications.
Hah, I guess they are. I didn't really think of the ones about cover as being movement based, but you're right, they are. I guess I was thinking of things that interrupt movement, like the example in the PHB. "When the enemy steps on the trap I trigger the trap."
To be nit picky a sqishy wizard can not ready their movement if the wolves approach they would have to ready the dash action.
Another good use of the rady action is to help party members that have a big hit. For example if after my turn is the fighter (with lots of relatively small damage attacks) followed by the rogue, I could ready an action to cast guiding bolt triggered at the end of the fighters turn.
Thanks, everyone. These are all fantastic (and potentially valid) points. However, like some others on this thread (eg. @RodTheBard), I still hold my original point of view:)
For example, readying a spell in this manner does not decrease the usefulness of another spell (let's say Shield, as it has been the hottest topic on this thread recently). While readying WoF would potentially negate enemy attacks during a round, you would:
Have to spend your turn readying the spell, wasting your precious action in doing so (and praying that no effect ends your concentration prematurely). Whereas with Shield, you can still cast other spells/ take other actions as normal, without the bother of having to hold concentration of any sort.
Have to end concentration on any other active concentration spell. There is no such bother with casting Shield.
Have to burn a far higher level spell slot to produce the desired effect than you would with Shield.
Again, it is all up to your DM's interpretation of the rules.
In response to @ftl:
This again? No, you can't just ...move out of the way of an enemy strike. It would require feat of skill, unlike just triggering WoF.
And yes, we use said feat of skill every round of combat, in order to potentially avoid being damaged....it is our Armour Class, (your proficiency with armour, your agility used to dodge attacks etc.) even though this is represented by a static bonus to make gameplay easier.
The advantage of Shield is that you DON'T have to prepare it to use it ahead of time. All the others require you to Ready them to use them with a reaction. I'm confused why that seems to be a sticking point...
One question I’d consider in making rulings here - the basic stupid ready action of “I ready an action: when my enemy shoots at me, I move away”. Does this make me invincible? If I’m facing a goblin with a bow, does that mean that if each turn I specify that when the goblin shoots at me, I move out of that space, then the goblin would literally never be able to hit me?
Seems silly to me. Obviously you can’t dodge an attack just by saying you do - that’s what the dodge action is for, it imposes disadvantage.
Or, in melee, does that mean that instead of attacking, everyone does readied actions instead “when the enemy in front of me starts their action, I attack them to interrupt it” , thus getting a free action denial to go with the attack? No, of course not.
If you set the trigger to "when the enemy shoots at me" the enemy would actually have to shoot you before your trigger triggers. Which means that unless you're faster than the goblin's arrow you probably won't be able to duck out of the way. Or if you do and like you say, you've basically just taken the Dodge action so that would be the effect of you readied action.
As for readying a Dash action to move away from an apporaching enemy, I'd say that all depends on how you phrase it. If you say "when the enemy attacks I Dash away" then sorry, you will have to take the hit. If the enemy (with 30' of movement) is standing 20' away from you and you say "if the enemy moves any closer, I'm gonna run like hell" and you manage to move away far enough that the enemy can't catch up with you, that's perfectly valid. Basically you it's a 6 second race and you have a headstart. When those 6 second are up the enemy haven't caught up with you.
But like you say, you can't deny attacks that are made within range with a readied action.
I would also say that we have 3.5 encroachment on this topic. The system that had a rule for everything... and if not, suggest it and it'll be in a book soon enough. Remember that we are playing in a sandbox that boils most things down to Advantage or Disadvantage. It's not about nths of a second, it is about order of process.
To be nit picky a sqishy wizard can not ready their movement if the wolves approach they would have to ready the dash action.
PHB Page 193 under "Ready" says: "First, you decide which perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you chose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or your choose to move up to your speed in response to this."
EDIT: I think I was actually misreading this and also misread your post. You're right, you can't ready your movement. You can use your action to Ready a dash. My bad.
I would also say that we have 3.5 encroachment on this topic. The system that had a rule for everything... and if not, suggest it and it'll be in a book soon enough. Remember that we are playing in a sandbox that boils most things down to Advantage or Disadvantage. It's not about nths of a second, it is about order of process.
I started with 5th edition, so I can't compare the two, but I get your point. It was that complexity in older editions that the designers of 5th were intentionally avoiding. They wanted a system that was just easy to get in it, and so they gave a lot to the DM to adjudicate. Of course that leads to discussions like this. But remember - even among D&D players, not everyone is as nerdy as those of us in this thread, arguing over the wording of clauses in the PHB. In most cases a DM will just make a ruling and it's not going to really matter much.
Like - I've clearly argued for what I think the RAW on this topic is. But I also believe that if a DM goes the other way it won't make a lick of difference for "balance" reasons. Spending time here debating this stuff is just a fun exercise.
One final thought, just because it amuses me. Before I ever played any D&D I actually played a different TTRPG with my kids called Hero Kids (it's actually through that that I came to start playing D&D). Hero Kids is basically D&D Jr. Given that I've only ever played that and 5e, it's funny to think of 5e as a "rules light" game, because Hero Kids (which, again, is designed for five year olds to be able to play) barely has any rules. It's just all rule of cool, with a few d6s and three ability scores. That's it.
I think it's cool that there are different games out there, though, for whatever you're interested in. If you want a rules heavy approach, you can play an older edition or play Pathfinder. And if you want the "just pick it up and play it" experience of 5e, then you've got 5e. And further, if you want something you can play with your kindergartner without having to explain any of this nonsense, you've got that, too, lol.
I would also say that we have 3.5 encroachment on this topic. The system that had a rule for everything... and if not, suggest it and it'll be in a book soon enough. Remember that we are playing in a sandbox that boils most things down to Advantage or Disadvantage. It's not about nths of a second, it is about order of process.
I started with 5th edition, so I can't compare the two, but I get your point. It was that complexity in older editions that the designers of 5th were intentionally avoiding. They wanted a system that was just easy to get in it, and so they gave a lot to the DM to adjudicate. Of course that leads to discussions like this. But remember - even among D&D players, not everyone is as nerdy as those of us in this thread, arguing over the wording of clauses in the PHB. In most cases a DM will just make a ruling and it's not going to really matter much.
Like - I've clearly argued for what I think the RAW on this topic is. But I also believe that if a DM goes the other way it won't make a lick of difference for "balance" reasons. Spending time here debating this stuff is just a fun exercise.
One final thought, just because it amuses me. Before I ever played any D&D I actually played a different TTRPG with my kids called Hero Kids (it's actually through that that I came to start playing D&D). Hero Kids is basically D&D Jr. Given that I've only ever played that and 5e, it's funny to think of 5e as a "rules light" game, because Hero Kids (which, again, is designed for five year olds to be able to play) barely has any rules. It's just all rule of cool, with a few d6s and three ability scores. That's it.
I think it's cool that there are different games out there, though, for whatever you're interested in. If you want a rules heavy approach, you can play an older edition or play Pathfinder. And if you want the "just pick it up and play it" experience of 5e, then you've got 5e. And further, if you want something you can play with your kindergartner without having to explain any of this nonsense, you've got that, too, lol.
Yeah, completely up to DM interpretation.
Also, I'm sold. Anyone for a Hero Kids campaign? 😂
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
That's awesome! Not having kids, I've not really been looking for something like that... though Hero Quest was it's own intro to the arena... if you could find it. I was one of the lucky ones that for some unknown reason my parents bought me the Red Box edition in 1983 for Christmas (the same year I got my Bear Compound bow). That truly kicked me off for being a Ranger from 8th grade until recent years... and though there were some great years and editions through the ages, I gotta say, we are living in a a Golden Age of Gaming right now and I hope I don't live to see the end of it! (And I'm hoping to live a good long while yet if you were adding up decades with my previous statements).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Allowing any Readied action to trigger and there by preventing say an attack that landed to than deal damage basically removes the need for certain spells or features of classes to even exist. Why ever prepare shield when I can always just ready Thunderwave. Damage and waste an attack!
Because there's still a risk in readying Thunderwave. If you set the trigger to "whenever the goblin prepares to attack me," then you have multiple factors to worry about:
- What if the archers strike you before that opponent attacks? You risk losing concentration, and wasting a spell slot.
- You have to give up concentration on any other (read: usually more powerful) spells to even set this up.
- You spend the entire turn just Readying; usually it's more efficient to just apply all damage as soon as possible. You actually lose tempo this way.
- What if they just... don't attack you (perhaps they disengage to retreat?) Again, a wasted spell slot.
Again, I would urge anyone who thinks that this method yields broken play results to actually test it out for yourself. It's really nowhere close to overpowered.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
I don't agree with that interpretation of the rules, but ultimately it's how the DM decides.
At the same time, I also strongly disagree that there's no utility outside of interrupting movement for readied actions. Here are a few:
All the uses are permissible within the rules. Some of them fit your description of being tied to movement. Some don't. But they're all really good ways to use the readied action and I believe that the readied action is plenty powerful without allowing it to disrupt other action. I know both of my party's Paladin's used the one about the enemies being too far away last week and they both got an attack off as a result of it where they otherwise would have either had to dash in to melee range or just take the dodge action.
One question I’d consider in making rulings here - the basic stupid ready action of “I ready an action: when my enemy shoots at me, I move away”. Does this make me invincible? If I’m facing a goblin with a bow, does that mean that if each turn I specify that when the goblin shoots at me, I move out of that space, then the goblin would literally never be able to hit me?
Seems silly to me. Obviously you can’t dodge an attack just by saying you do - that’s what the dodge action is for, it imposes disadvantage.
Or, in melee, does that mean that instead of attacking, everyone does readied actions instead “when the enemy in front of me starts their action, I attack them to interrupt it” , thus getting a free action denial to go with the attack? No, of course not.
Agreed.
Well, just to point out: all but two of those are still literally setting a trigger based on movement.
But that's just a nitpick; your point still stands: waiting until after a teammate has acted, or healing after a teammate goes down, are both good applications that I don't think anyone would disagree with. Which suggests that there are yet other possible triggers that also don't need to interrupt actions to be useful applications.
Well, you've certainly convinced me that disallowing action interruption doesn't make it as useless as I'd thought. Food for thought.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
This issue is not broken play - the issue is using the feature the way the rules allow it. Thereby making those spells and features do their jobs and be required to fulfill the desired result of action interruption there by damage negated. If any magic caster can sub any spell for shield. Than shield becomes obsolete as per the way you interpret the rules, there by making a feature of the game redundant.
As DM, I'd rule that your movement can well occur before he finishes attacking, and that they have to finish the attack, but that it would in no way interfere with their ability to hit you; you've only moved over a bit.
There might be a case to be made that by moving from just into range to just out of range, you can cause the attack to fail, but you'd have to position yourself just right to do so, and then you spent your entire action to do just that; doing it over and over seems pointless (if harmless.)
By "interrupt," it doesn't mean the action never occurs (such as with Shield; I concede that that is a unique case.) In fact, I use it to mean that the readied action goes first but that the triggering action MUST attempt to conclude as normal.
In the case of readying melee attacks, the only thing it would gain you is that you can attack them before they attack you (at which point, they then still attack you.) But then, if you readied the action beforehand, you still were able to act before them anyway, sooooo...... again it seems pointless, if harmless.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
But the point is, the rules boil down to: what triggers are actually allowed? Movement can be interrupted; can anything else?
Since it does NOT result in broken play, what merit is there in one interpretation over the other, other than "I think the rules should work like this?" Which again, is completely understandable, provided one is willing to accept that there is no action interruption. And if you accept that, then you've got a consistant stance that is respectable.
Personally, I think the rules are meant to allow action interruption--or to be more accurate, that the trigger definition is flexible enough that it was expected that well-defined triggers could legitimately interrupt some/many actions.
Allowing for that, I don't see how readying a barrier makes Shield obsolete. Every means of doing so that I can think of literally costs more, in terms of spell slots, concentration, tempo and risk. That you can do something similar to Shield at a higher cost... I don't see why that's a bad thing at all.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Hah, I guess they are. I didn't really think of the ones about cover as being movement based, but you're right, they are. I guess I was thinking of things that interrupt movement, like the example in the PHB. "When the enemy steps on the trap I trigger the trap."
To be nit picky a sqishy wizard can not ready their movement if the wolves approach they would have to ready the dash action.
Another good use of the rady action is to help party members that have a big hit. For example if after my turn is the fighter (with lots of relatively small damage attacks) followed by the rogue, I could ready an action to cast guiding bolt triggered at the end of the fighters turn.
Wow...I just woke up to find this!
Thanks, everyone. These are all fantastic (and potentially valid) points. However, like some others on this thread (eg. @RodTheBard), I still hold my original point of view:)
For example, readying a spell in this manner does not decrease the usefulness of another spell (let's say Shield, as it has been the hottest topic on this thread recently). While readying WoF would potentially negate enemy attacks during a round, you would:
Again, it is all up to your DM's interpretation of the rules.
In response to @ftl:
This again? No, you can't just ...move out of the way of an enemy strike. It would require feat of skill, unlike just triggering WoF.
And yes, we use said feat of skill every round of combat, in order to potentially avoid being damaged....it is our Armour Class, (your proficiency with armour, your agility used to dodge attacks etc.) even though this is represented by a static bonus to make gameplay easier.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
The advantage of Shield is that you DON'T have to prepare it to use it ahead of time. All the others require you to Ready them to use them with a reaction. I'm confused why that seems to be a sticking point...
If you set the trigger to "when the enemy shoots at me" the enemy would actually have to shoot you before your trigger triggers. Which means that unless you're faster than the goblin's arrow you probably won't be able to duck out of the way. Or if you do and like you say, you've basically just taken the Dodge action so that would be the effect of you readied action.
As for readying a Dash action to move away from an apporaching enemy, I'd say that all depends on how you phrase it. If you say "when the enemy attacks I Dash away" then sorry, you will have to take the hit. If the enemy (with 30' of movement) is standing 20' away from you and you say "if the enemy moves any closer, I'm gonna run like hell" and you manage to move away far enough that the enemy can't catch up with you, that's perfectly valid. Basically you it's a 6 second race and you have a headstart. When those 6 second are up the enemy haven't caught up with you.
But like you say, you can't deny attacks that are made within range with a readied action.
I would also say that we have 3.5 encroachment on this topic. The system that had a rule for everything... and if not, suggest it and it'll be in a book soon enough. Remember that we are playing in a sandbox that boils most things down to Advantage or Disadvantage. It's not about nths of a second, it is about order of process.
PHB Page 193 under "Ready" says: "First, you decide which perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you chose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or your choose to move up to your speed in response to this."
EDIT: I think I was actually misreading this and also misread your post. You're right, you can't ready your movement. You can use your action to Ready a dash. My bad.
I started with 5th edition, so I can't compare the two, but I get your point. It was that complexity in older editions that the designers of 5th were intentionally avoiding. They wanted a system that was just easy to get in it, and so they gave a lot to the DM to adjudicate. Of course that leads to discussions like this. But remember - even among D&D players, not everyone is as nerdy as those of us in this thread, arguing over the wording of clauses in the PHB. In most cases a DM will just make a ruling and it's not going to really matter much.
Like - I've clearly argued for what I think the RAW on this topic is. But I also believe that if a DM goes the other way it won't make a lick of difference for "balance" reasons. Spending time here debating this stuff is just a fun exercise.
One final thought, just because it amuses me. Before I ever played any D&D I actually played a different TTRPG with my kids called Hero Kids (it's actually through that that I came to start playing D&D). Hero Kids is basically D&D Jr. Given that I've only ever played that and 5e, it's funny to think of 5e as a "rules light" game, because Hero Kids (which, again, is designed for five year olds to be able to play) barely has any rules. It's just all rule of cool, with a few d6s and three ability scores. That's it.
I think it's cool that there are different games out there, though, for whatever you're interested in. If you want a rules heavy approach, you can play an older edition or play Pathfinder. And if you want the "just pick it up and play it" experience of 5e, then you've got 5e. And further, if you want something you can play with your kindergartner without having to explain any of this nonsense, you've got that, too, lol.
Yeah, completely up to DM interpretation.
Also, I'm sold. Anyone for a Hero Kids campaign? 😂
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
did the same sorta thing. power, stamina agility. it was a pretty fun time.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
That's awesome! Not having kids, I've not really been looking for something like that... though Hero Quest was it's own intro to the arena... if you could find it. I was one of the lucky ones that for some unknown reason my parents bought me the Red Box edition in 1983 for Christmas (the same year I got my Bear Compound bow). That truly kicked me off for being a Ranger from 8th grade until recent years... and though there were some great years and editions through the ages, I gotta say, we are living in a a Golden Age of Gaming right now and I hope I don't live to see the end of it! (And I'm hoping to live a good long while yet if you were adding up decades with my previous statements).