Ready Action and "combat"

[Lombra]

OK, but what if multiple people ready actions with the same trigger? Who goes first "When the door opens"?

Readying an action isn't about being rewarded for thinking ahead. Readying an action is about being able to act when it isn't your turn. Most readying I see at my table is "I'm going to stab him once gary moves into flanking position."

So it's not about being rewarded for gaining, in your example, advantage to an attack roll after thinkng about the positioning and the coordination of the team? Because that's exactly what I get from your example.

[Unoriginal]

So it's not about being rewarded for gaining, in your example, advantage to an attack roll after thinkng about the positioning and the coordination of the team? Because that's exactly what I get from your example.

It's not rewarding you for thinking ahead, it's rewarding your for *acting later*.

[Lombra]

What is the cost of just always having a readied action? Why would not every character say "I will ready an attack to shoot if I see a hostile creature."

Everyone is considered alert generally, but nothing prevents one from focusing on a specific thing. If the trigger is as broad as your example, I would have an hard time seeing it as an effective trigger.

If you focus on that hole in the cave while exploring, among the branches of that tree, or under that table at the inn, then it would make sense, but "I stay alert for anything" isn't really helping you.

[Lombra]

It's not rewarding you for thinking ahead, it's rewarding your for *acting later*.

Acting later is the cost, but you have nothing before your acting if you choose to act after a trigger that happens before anything else.

[strangebloke]

So it's not about being rewarded for gaining, in your example, advantage to an attack roll after thinkng about the positioning and the coordination of the team? Because that's exactly what I get from your example.

They're rewarded for their tactics, yes, and they used the ready action tactically. But you can use anything tactically. "I move next to Bob so that if he tries to attack Sam I'll get an Opportunity Attack." Movement is as much "about" rewarding a player for thinking ahead as the ready action is.

The Ready action is specifically about taking actions not on your turn.

Also, could you answer my question I posed? Three people take the ready action with the trigger "When the door opens." Which reaction triggers first "When the door opens"?

[Lombra]

They're rewarded for their tactics, yes, and they used the ready action tactically. But you can use anything tactically. "I move next to Bob so that if he tries to attack Sam I'll get an Opportunity Attack." Movement is as much "about" rewarding a player for thinking ahead as the ready action is.

The Ready action is specifically about taking actions not on your turn.

Also, could you answer my question I posed? Three people take the ready action with the trigger "When the door opens." Which reaction triggers first "When the door opens"?

So it rewards you for using it tactically, like movement, yes, does this make it any less tactical of a choice just because other different tactical choices exist?

Answer to the question: since this can happen even in combat scenarios, how would you do it? It is no more controversial to my argument than it is to any other here. I would either roll initiative if it weren't already rolled and make players decide in initiative order (I actually would make everyone roll initiative anyways in modt cases. My point is that if someone readies something before rolling initiative, he should get what he planned, which is a reaction upon the trigger, which happens at the first turn of combat/fast-paced scenario that just started, if nothing important starts upon the trigger, the players decide what to do with their readied actions and no initiative needs to be rolled), or make them act in order of readied actions, I don't know if the book addresses this issue tho.

[Malifice]

Everyone is considered alert generally, but nothing prevents one from focusing on a specific thing.

But thats exactly what everyone is doing though isnt it?

You archer in the party will always have a readied arrow. Your barbarian a readied charge. And so forth. I dont know about you but I presume my PCs arent just wandering down the dungeon twiddling their thumbs. They're advancing with weapons drawn, covering doorways, leapfrogging from door to door, ready with a a sword, spell or bow to kill the horrible monster that lurks around the next corner.

And my monsters? They all also take the ready action 'to attack the PCs as soon as they notice them, using their most dangerous attack, spell or special ability as the case may be from monster to monster'.

Every single monster in the world.

Hey look, my monsters all start every combat with readied actions. Sadly the players all also have readied actions though... hmmmm now what to do? Pity there isnt some kind of rule in relation to sequencing attacks when everyone is aware of each other and ready for combat, and wishing hostile acts on each other... such as by making an opposed Dexterity ability check to see who gets to do that hostile act first...

Everyone is either ready for combat (and it boils down to reaction speed and luck as to which attack gets resolved first) or they are not ready for combat and they get surprised (unless very Alert due to special training, and amazing reflexes).

Its just silly ignoring the rules for combat in the PHB (awareness, positioning, initiative, then you take turns) and ignoring the rules for the Ready action in particular (you can only take the Ready action on your turn, and you dont have turns until the DM has determined initiative for all combatants, determined surprise and positioning).

Attacks 'outside of initiative order' and 'ready actions outside of combat' are something that would lead me to bail on a game. Its as annoying as DMs who dont understand the rest/ encounter meta of 5E.

[Kuu Lightwing]

You've presented reasons that support your interpretation of what the rules say (an interpretation I agree with). But what you haven't presented is reasons why the rules should be that way.

Kuu has presented a scenario where (to some posters, including me) the abstraction of initiative has the heavy believability cost of irrationally preventing characters from sequencing their actions on the first round of combat (because they can't have taken the Ready action yet) even though they can freely sequence their subsequent actions.

I believe what Kuu is looking for from you (and everyone else) is a discussion of why the rules are that way, a discussion of what breaks if those rules are modified, and how those rules might best be modified to avoid a situation he considers absurd.

I think he (and everyone else) is well aware of your (probably correct, imo) interpretation of what the rules say.

Thank you. Pretty much this, yes.

However, some clarification on the actual rules wouldn't hurt either, and I find that some of the interpretations I read here lead to unfortunate consequences.

A DM calls for initiative (an opposed Dexterity ability check) when there is something for each party to react to, and abstract 'turn' sequencing is important (i.e. when combat starts). Until combat abstraction starts, you're in narrative time and 'turns' dont exist. They dont exist 'in the game' - only outside of it to assist the players (and DM) in sequencing largely simultaneous activity in portioned off six second combat rounds.

Abstract turn sequencing becomes important when player characters decided to execute the plan I've described.

Finally remember, by RAW you can only take the ready action on your turn, and turns do not exist until the DM has called for initiative (an opposed Dexterity Ability Check) from all combatants (and after he has also determined awareness and surprise, and position of all parties) in the following steps (also RAW, from the PHB):

If turns do not exist outside combat - that's a whole new can of worms. The way I see, PHB only describes Actions in the context of a Turn. So, if that's your reading of RAW, then you shouldn't allow players to do anything that requires an Action, since you can only take Actions on your turn. Same goes for Bonus Actions and Reactions, actually, as they also only defined in the context of turns and rounds. Therefore, if there's no turns, there's no Bonus Actions and Reactions either.

Im just showing you the rules (which show you're wrong) and indicating to you that (outside of those rules) there is zero support for everyone 'readying actions outside of combat'. Im also showing you the rules already take into account how to resolve a group of combatants sneaking up to another group with 'readied actions'. If they are not discovered before they take those 'readied actions' then they get off a full rounds worth of attacks before the enemy can react; maybe even two

And I'm pointing you that your interpretation of the rules has some noticeable holes. And in the end, even if that's what rules actually mean, I did not start this thread by asking "what the rules say", I asked how would people interpret these situations and whether they find it acceptable to do one or the other.

[strangebloke]

Answer to the question: since this can happen even in combat scenarios, how would you do it? It is no more controversial to my argument than it is to any other here. I would either roll initiative if it weren't already rolled and make players decide in initiative order (I actually would make everyone roll initiative anyways in modt cases. My point is that if someone readies something before rolling initiative, he should get what he planned, which is a reaction upon the trigger, which happens at the first turn of combat/fast-paced scenario that just started, if nothing important starts upon the trigger, the players decide what to do with their readied actions and no initiative needs to be rolled), or make them act in order of readied actions, I don't know if the book addresses this issue tho.

I would use initiative. Same as you. It is 5e's mechanic for determining order of actions, after all.

But here's the thing: Everyone will take the ready action before combat every time, unless there's stealth/surprise involved. Why wouldn't you? What possible downside is there to "I use the ready action to shoot an arrow when the door is opened."? Everyone will ready that action.

So, quite literally, all this ruling does is add a 1-second mini-round to the start of combat where no one can take reactions or bonus actions or move.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it's an added complication to the rules that serves no purpose. Complication of the rules should serve a purpose.

[Malifice]

If turns do not exist outside combat - that's a whole new can of worms.

No it does no such thing.

Turns exist only when I (the DM) switch to combat sequencing and round based/ turn based structure. They exist when I say they exist, and only then to structure simultaneous action between two (or more) opposing forces.

When the players actions (or the actions of the monsters) indicate to me that a hostile act is about to be inflicted on another creature and there is a chance people can react to that, I call for an opposed Dexterity ability check to determine reaction speeds of those involved.

At the same time, I determine surprise, awareness and so forth.

Then, in turn based order counting down from the fastest (on account of his Dexterity check) to the slowest all aware combatants (non surprised ones) get a chance to act and react to that stimuli.

The way I see, PHB only describes Actions in the context of a Turn. So, if that's your reading of RAW, then you shouldn't allow players to do anything that requires an Action, since you can only take Actions on your turn. Same goes for Bonus Actions and Reactions, actually, as they also only defined in the context of turns and rounds. Therefore, if there's no turns, there's no Bonus Actions and Reactions either.

A turn is an abstraction that has no meaning in game. The characters in the game dont take turns in isolation. Turns only matter in the context of sequencing contested action where reaction speed has been determined in contest with a secondary hostile party.

If you havent rolled initiative yet you dont have turns. Your turn is set based on how well you made an ability check in oppopsition to someone else. I mean, a player cant sit there and announce to the DM that his PC is going to 'roll initiative' while alone in his room. He can make an attack, or cast a spell, or use a skill or whatever he wants (and if doing so against someone else, who is aware of him and not surprised, this simply triggers initiative) but he cant ready an action, because everyone aware of a hostile creature is always readying actions (dodge his punch, run away stab him in the face, etc).

Look its RAW, and confirmed by the devs as RAI. I see no reason to break from either that isnt already covered by the rules, and as I pointed out earlier, would bail from a game where the DM had monsters shooting me 'outside of initiative because they have readied actions'.

Play it how you want though if it makes you happy.

[Hecuba]

I think it's probably helpful here to distinguish what we mean when we're talking about readying an action.

• If you just mean "prepare for something to happen:" yes, you should absolutely be able to do such a thing out of combat. An in general, there are mechanisms to do so.
• If you mean "try to influence the flow of an initiative-controlled action for an initiative order not yet rolled:" you can do that too - what you are doing is attempting to arrange a surprise round.
• if you mean "try to entirely preempt the flow of an initiative order not yet rolled separate from the surprise mechanic:" no, I would not allow that. That is what surprise is for: introducing a separate mechanism opens a huge can of worms.

The closest I can think of would be something like a complex trap you have previously observed and prepared for but cannot avoid. Surprise doesn't really apply there - the timing of the trap won't change. I'd be inclined to give you advantage on initiative to start, and advantage on checks or saves in the first round based on your prior preparation. Thereafter, you would be in initiative order and could ready actions in initiative normally.

In general:

• If you are preparing to get the jump on someone & starting combat (or another initiate controlled activity), that's what surprise is for.
• If both sides are trying to get the jump on each other, then neither side is surprised and your relative quickness to execute whatever you have prepared is determined by the initial initiative roll is for.
• If you are operating in a skill situation, that is abstracted as either helping them or a team check.
  
  • Moreover, if you are in initiative order, this is probably the help action and not the ready action
• If you are somehow preparing for a save, that falls under the DM's explicit job of handing out situational bonuses/penalties or advantage/disadvantage on the save.
  
  • Moreover, if you are in initiative order, this is probably the help action and not the ready action

Something that happened in a game:

Fighter: 'I ready an action to catch the wizard when he fails his climb check.'
DM: 'You can't ready actions outside of combat. Roll, wizard.'
Wizard: <roll> <fail>
DM: 'You fall and take <roll> 45 points of damage.'
Wizard: 'Zero and dying.'
Cleric (to fighter): 'Next time we'll just start a fight with the bard so you can catch him.'

If the Fighter is good enough that they can provide some reliable assistance to the wizard, then the Fighter was helping the Wizard - who should have been making their check with advantage.
ex: Scouting and marking foot and handholds, planting anchors

If the Fighter has prepared to deal specifically with the Wizard failing the check separate from assistance in making the check, the situation is a tad murkier - but it sounds to me like an Athletics or Acrobatics check to replicate the function of a climbing kit, limiting the distance of the fall.

There is no reason these should not be available outside combat, absent some special situation. You're trying to resolve a DM ignoring an element of the skill rules by moving to the initiative rules - where the exact same skill rules (help is an option in combat) would still apply.

The DM made a bad call: I've made a few myself. If you think it was unfamiliarity with the rules, either talk to them or try to introduce the helping on a skill check action in another context. If you think it was intentional, either talk with them or find another DM.

---

EDIT: To be clear about consequences, trying to introduce preparation out-of-initiative in a way that actively trumps the initiative order is a bad idea: the first step to rocket-tag is establishing reliable pathways to first move. From there you only need some option that benefits from a first move advantage. Allowing the ready action (with its specific implications for initiative order) to occur outside of initiative timekeeping effectively provides a path to that by bridging non-initiative and initiative timekeeping.

To wit, you'll find that 5e provides several notable options for avoiding being surprised, but does not provide trivial paths to getting surprise as players. Flat bonuses to initiative are fairly rare, and somewhat expensive.
The ability "always goes first" is very powerful: you shouldn't implicitly give it out lightly by having the ready action bridge the initiative timekeeping and non-initiative timekeeping models.

Instead, consider whether there is already a mechanism that deals with the problem you're grappling with in the non-initiative space.
There probably is.

[Unoriginal]

Acting later is the cost, but you have nothing before your acting if you choose to act after a trigger that happens before anything else.

Acting later is the *purpose*. The cost is your turn's Action.

If you chose to not act despite the trigger being there, or if there was no trigger, you payed for nothing, but the cost is for potentially acting later.

[MaxWilson]

What is the cost of just always having a readied action? Why would not every character say "I will ready an attack to shoot if I see a hostile creature."

Why don't police walk around with their guns out all the time? When they stop a driver for a traffic violation, why don't they point the gun at the driver's head BEFORE initiating conversation? It would reduce the number of police who get shot by criminals after asking for identification. Why don't they do this? It's obviously the optimal policy for maximizing police survival rates.

[Mellack]

I know you are being sarcastic, but a dungeon delve is much more like a SWAT raid. They do point their guns at everyone.

[strangebloke]

Why don't police walk around with their guns out all the time? When they stop a driver for a traffic violation, why don't they point the gun at the driver's head BEFORE initiating conversation? It would reduce the number of police who get shot by criminals after asking for identification. Why don't they do this? It's obviously the optimal policy for maximizing police survival rates.

I mean, you can ready an action to draw and fire a gun as well. Nothing about the ready action implies you actually have to have the weapon out.

[MaxWilson]

I know you are being sarcastic, but a dungeon delve is much more like a SWAT raid. They do point their guns at everyone.

In the context of a SWAT-like raid on a dungeon that's over in minutes, then fine, they can behave like a SWAT team. (Note that there are still potential social costs, for both adventurers and real-life SWAT teams, for treating everyone and everything like a potential hostile.) I thought I was responding to the question of why they don't do it all the time. Maybe I misunderstood how you meant the word "always."

I mean, you can ready an action to draw and fire a gun as well. Nothing about the ready action implies you actually have to have the weapon out.

Strictly speaking, you get to ready an action--not an object interaction plus an action. But as DM I'd ignore that, same as I ignore the way you're not intended to be able to ready a movement and an action like "I will charge the first hobgoblin that shows its face and hit it with my axe." I see no valid reason why you shouldn't be able to ready that action.

But if you're talking about strict RAW, no, that's not allowed, and it's also beside the point: you're adopting a hostile posture toward everything you meet, and other creatures you interact with won't be completely ignorant of that fact.

[Lombra]

But thats exactly what everyone is doing though isnt it?

You archer in the party will always have a readied arrow. Your barbarian a readied charge. And so forth. I dont know about you but I presume my PCs arent just wandering down the dungeon twiddling their thumbs. They're advancing with weapons drawn, covering doorways, leapfrogging from door to door, ready with a a sword, spell or bow to kill the horrible monster that lurks around the next corner.

And my monsters? They all also take the ready action 'to attack the PCs as soon as they notice them, using their most dangerous attack, spell or special ability as the case may be from monster to monster'.

Every single monster in the world.

Hey look, my monsters all start every combat with readied actions. Sadly the players all also have readied actions though... hmmmm now what to do? Pity there isnt some kind of rule in relation to sequencing attacks when everyone is aware of each other and ready for combat, and wishing hostile acts on each other... such as by making an opposed Dexterity ability check to see who gets to do that hostile act first...

Everyone is either ready for combat (and it boils down to reaction speed and luck as to which attack gets resolved first) or they are not ready for combat and they get surprised (unless very Alert due to special training, and amazing reflexes).

Its just silly ignoring the rules for combat in the PHB (awareness, positioning, initiative, then you take turns) and ignoring the rules for the Ready action in particular (you can only take the Ready action on your turn, and you dont have turns until the DM has determined initiative for all combatants, determined surprise and positioning).

Attacks 'outside of initiative order' and 'ready actions outside of combat' are something that would lead me to bail on a game. Its as annoying as DMs who dont understand the rest/ encounter meta of 5E.

I don't disagree with you in your examples, but no, my character isn't a paranoid soldier affected by ptsd always looking for danger in any given situation, not in a tavern while hanging out with ither PCs or NPCs, not while shopping, and not while interacting in social encounters. And not all monsters are waiting for someone to approach.

What you say makes perfect sense in your contexts, it's just that some contexts are not combat related. I mean by your reading I couldn't cast spells before rolling initiative either, because I have to cast them on my turn, which doesn't exist prior to combat starting.

[strangebloke]

But if you're talking about strict RAW, no, that's not allowed, and it's also beside the point: you're adopting a hostile posture toward everything you meet, and other creatures you interact with won't be completely ignorant of that fact.

Are you adopting a hostile posture? That's completely just your ruling man. This is the weirdest part of this whole business to object to. It's DND! the 'social costs' of waving weapons around is negligible compared with a free surprise round or a double surprise round. Any situation where there's potential hostiles on the other side of the door, I'll take that trade. Most environments that my characters navigate, they're justified to have weapons out and at the ready.

The thing that I don't get here, though, is why. Like, I'm firmly in the camp that RAW is unclear here. Neither 'Initiative' nor 'Ready' references out of combat situations. But narratively, the 'readied round' serves the same purpose served by initiative and surprise. Adding the 'readied round' only has the impact of making surprise and ranged builds even more powerful.

You are right about not being able to draw as part of a readied action. (free item interaction is only on your turn)

[Xetheral]

The thing that I don't get here, though, is why. Like, I'm firmly in the camp that RAW is unclear here. Neither 'Initiative' nor 'Ready' references out of combat situations. But narratively, the 'readied round' serves the same purpose served by initiative and surprise. Adding the 'readied round' only has the impact of making surprise and ranged builds even more powerful.

Regarding the "why": permitting Readying outside of combat helps when the party wants to take their first-round actions in a specific sequence. If the caster who is going to cast Fireball can ready an action to do so before the door is opened, that ensures that the caster goes first, and that the characters waiting to rush in and attack don't have to skip their first turns waiting for the caster's initiative to come up.

The downside, as you point out, is that guaranteeing the ability of characters to go first by readying is extremely powerful. But avoiding the incongruity of not being able to sequence actions on the first turn (incongruous both because in real life deliberate sequencing of actions is commonplace, and because D&D lets characters sequence after the first round) might be worth it at some tables.

[strangebloke]

Regarding the "why": permitting Readying outside of combat helps when the party wants to take their first-round actions in a specific sequence. If the caster who is going to cast Fireball can ready an action to do so before the door is opened, that ensures that the caster goes first, and that the characters waiting to rush in and attack don't have to skip their first turns waiting for the caster's initiative to come up.

The downside, as you point out, is that guaranteeing the ability of characters to go first by readying is extremely powerful. But avoiding the incongruity of not being able to sequence actions on the first turn (incongruous both because in real life deliberate sequencing of actions is commonplace, and because D&D lets characters sequence after the first round) might be worth it at some tables.

I agree with you that acting in a coordinated sequence could be desirable, however....

If you want this, you're much better off simply implementing side initiative or one of any number of initiative variants.

[sophontteks]

Regarding the "why": permitting Readying outside of combat helps when the party wants to take their first-round actions in a specific sequence. If the caster who is going to cast Fireball can ready an action to do so before the door is opened, that ensures that the caster goes first, and that the characters waiting to rush in and attack don't have to skip their first turns waiting for the caster's initiative to come up.

The downside, as you point out, is that guaranteeing the ability of characters to go first by readying is extremely powerful. But avoiding the incongruity of not being able to sequence actions on the first turn (incongruous both because in real life deliberate sequencing of actions is commonplace, and because D&D lets characters sequence after the first round) might be worth it at some tables.

I'm confused by this. There is no waiting for your turn outside of combat. Everything is happening in real time and simultaneously. The interesting thing about real time is that the fireball in itself is not instant either. In real time it is a massive explosion of fire and smoke and dust. I don't see where it is giving one side any advantage besides an unexpected angle of attack and potentially catching the enemy wholly unprepared.

If the enemy is ready for a fight they will have ample time to react to this explosion, just as much as the people trying to ready an action.

Turn-based combat is far from perfect, but its simple and easy to follow. Trying to game mechanics designed for turn-based combat in the real-time sequences is very 'gamey'. That fireball doesn't instantly make the wall dissappear so everyone can instantly fire their arrows at enemies before they can react. Everyone in the scenario would have a totally fair chance to move based on initiative after the fireball barring some other variable.

[Xetheral]

I'm confused by this. There is no waiting for your turn outside of combat. Everything is happening in real time and simultaneously. The interesting thing about real time is that the fireball in itself is not instant either. In real time it is a massive explosion of fire and smoke and dust. I don't see where it is giving one side any advantage besides an unexpected angle of attack and potentially catching the enemy wholly unprepared.

If the enemy is ready for a fight they will have ample time to react to this explosion, just as much as the people trying to ready an action.

Turn-based combat is far from perfect, but its simple and easy to follow. Trying to game mechanics designed for turn-based combat in the real-time sequences is very 'gamey'. That fireball doesn't instantly make the wall dissappear so everyone can instantly fire their arrows at enemies before they can react. Everyone in the scenario would have a totally fair chance to move based on initiative after the fireball barring some other variable.

I was referring to readying actions with the expectation that combat is about to begin, and that those Readied actions will take place in the first round of combat.

[Tanarii]

Readying an action is supposed to give you aj advantage for thinking ahead of stuff. Often you need to think ahead of stuff before it happens, so it's unreasonable to require readying only when something is already happening.

Acting later is the cost, but you have nothing before your acting if you choose to act after a trigger that happens before anything else.

You've got that kind of back to front. The purpose of a Ready action is delay part of your action until later when it would be better used than right now. There are two costs: you do not act immediately, and you must specify a trigger.

Using a Ready action outside of combat twists that purpose. Instead you're trying to act before your turn in combat, which is an even bigger advantage, and justifying it with a lesser cost: just the trigger.

That said, if we were instead to go with your "acting later is the cost" then there's even less justification for allowing Ready to take action before their action. Now you're comparing benefit for a cost to bigger benefit with no cost. Your argument defeats itself.

Edit: I guess the point is, regardless of how you view the purpose of the Ready action, trying to act before your first turn should be pretty clearly cheese. It is an attempt to gain something for nothing.

[Kuu Lightwing]

No it does no such thing.

Turns exist only when I (the DM) switch to combat sequencing and round based/ turn based structure. They exist when I say they exist, and only then to structure simultaneous action between two (or more) opposing forces.

When the players actions (or the actions of the monsters) indicate to me that a hostile act is about to be inflicted on another creature and there is a chance people can react to that, I call for an opposed Dexterity ability check to determine reaction speeds of those involved.

At the same time, I determine surprise, awareness and so forth.

Then, in turn based order counting down from the fastest (on account of his Dexterity check) to the slowest all aware combatants (non surprised ones) get a chance to act and react to that stimuli.

You wrote two whole paragraphs and failed to even touch any of the issues I presented to you. No turns - no actions, bonus actions and reactions. If your basis for not allowing to Ready is that it requires turns, then you also should forbid all the other Actions described in Actions in Combat section.

A turn is an abstraction that has no meaning in game. The characters in the game dont take turns in isolation. Turns only matter in the context of sequencing contested action where reaction speed has been determined in contest with a secondary hostile party.

If you havent rolled initiative yet you dont have turns. Your turn is set based on how well you made an ability check in oppopsition to someone else. I mean, a player cant sit there and announce to the DM that his PC is going to 'roll initiative' while alone in his room. He can make an attack, or cast a spell, or use a skill or whatever he wants (and if doing so against someone else, who is aware of him and not surprised, this simply triggers initiative) but he cant ready an action, because everyone aware of a hostile creature is always readying actions (dodge his punch, run away stab him in the face, etc).

Look its RAW, and confirmed by the devs as RAI. I see no reason to break from either that isnt already covered by the rules, and as I pointed out earlier, would bail from a game where the DM had monsters shooting me 'outside of initiative because they have readied actions'.

Play it how you want though if it makes you happy.

So, you are going to ignore the situations where sequencing is important when there aren't two hostile parties involved? And, once again you dodge the question, is when exactly sequencing starts to be important. What if characters know that there are orcs behind the door? What if they know their exact position? When exactly do you determine that it's time to roll initiative?

And no, I don't say that players just going to roll initiative. How I see this, they describe this plan, and then DM calls for initiative, because he sees that it would be required for this to pull off, rather than saying "oh, no, you aren't in combat, so you can't do that, maybe if Angie punches Maki first then I'd consider that!"

Additional thoughts: situation I described has players in a tactical advantage, because they have the control exactly when they are going to be able to affect the enemy, because in this example orcs don't interact with the door for whatever reason. Why are you going to deny the players this tactical advantage?

because everyone aware of a hostile creature is always readying actions (dodge his punch, run away stab him in the face, etc).

That's not how either Ready or Dodge actions work.

[JoeJ]

Why are you going to deny the players this tactical advantage?

Because they will scream "unfair" the first time a PC dies because a monster used that same tactical advantage against them. And they'll be right.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Because they will scream "unfair" the first time a PC dies because a monster used that same tactical advantage against them. And they'll be right.

Depends on the kind of game I suppose. If the idea is to reward just slamming the doors down without a second thought, then I suppose that works.

[Lombra]

You've got that kind of back to front. The purpose of a Ready action is delay part of your action until later when it would be better used than right now. There are two costs: you do not act immediately, and you must specify a trigger.

Using a Ready action outside of combat twists that purpose. Instead you're trying to act before your turn in combat, which is an even bigger advantage, and justifying it with a lesser cost: just the trigger.

That said, if we were instead to go with your "acting later is the cost" then there's even less justification for allowing Ready to take action before their action. Now you're comparing benefit for a cost to bigger benefit with no cost. Your argument defeats itself.

Edit: I guess the point is, regardless of how you view the purpose of the Ready action, trying to act before your first turn should be pretty clearly cheese. It is an attempt to gain something for nothing.

Something for nothing? You guess/deduce something and if you are right you are rewarded, nothing cheesy here.

[Cybren]

Outside of combat, you don't take the Ready Action, you just prepare for something and do it when applicable since you don't need to define stuff as an Action to fit them into their Initiative slot. If you decide not to wait, you just do something else. And you can run, cast spells and chop wood, but you don't think about that as Actions because you don't need to fit them into the 6 sec sequence.

You seem to have missed the entire point. Good work.

Why do you care about initiative order when you are haggling or schmoozing at regal galla? Just say what you want the character to do, and then use the rules that fit best to adjudicate it.

I don't care about initiative order when you are haggling. That's my whole point. There IS no initiative order, but there MAY be situations where someone is waiting for something to happen. I'm saying it's ridiculous that within combat you can always choose to act before some event if it hasn't happened yet, whereas out of combat, if you take the stance that "ready actions are only for combat", you can't. "The rules that best fit to adjudicate" change substantially whether or not someone is trying to kill you. That's bad.

[Hecuba]

Something for nothing? You guess/deduce something and if you are right you are rewarded, nothing cheesy here.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of how cheesy that wold be (I've had a couple characters players players who are real characters and seem to expect to be able to use something like this to get a super-duper second surprise), but if you are going to reward a character in that situation the reward should be structured around the surprise mechanic. That's what its for.

What you are discussing seems to me to be, approximately, giving a character something like the alert feat because the player can meta-game well.

I don't care about initiative order when you are haggling. That's my whole point. There IS no initiative order, but there MAY be situations where someone is waiting for something to happen. I'm saying it's ridiculous that within combat you can always choose to act before some event if it hasn't happened yet, whereas out of combat, if you take the stance that "ready actions are only for combat", you can't. "The rules that best fit to adjudicate" change substantially whether or not someone is trying to kill you. That's bad.

Initiative is not combat-only: that's why "other fast-paced situations" are noted. If the exact order of events and interactions are important, that's what initiative is for.
If you're in the more abstracted narrative time-frame instead, then its deliberately abstract and narrative. That's is a feature, not a bug: trying to bypass it blurs a the specifically designed pathway for moving between narrative and tactical time (initiative).

That shouldn't mean you can't prepare for things mechanically - it just means you adjudicate the preparation in a way that is less dependent on the exact order of turns. If you're waiting for the exact right time to interject when your teammate is haggling, or waiting to time an attempt to be sneaky for the exact time your party member provides a distraction, or what have you then the mechanic result should be advantage from the help mechanic. If you've noticed the thugs eyeing you and spoiling for a fight, the mechanical benefit of preparation for the fight should be a change in how surprise is adjudicated.

As best I can tell, the complaints in the thread amount to:

• My DM never enters initiative except for combat
  
  • Well, that sucks. It's called out for use in other fast paced situations where order of events matters. Consider talking to them about the subject.
• My DM won't let me prepare for events outside of initiative in any way with mechanical consequence because the ready action is tied to initiative.
  
  • Well, that sucks. If the situation is at all cooperative, consider reminding them of the mechanics for helping on checks and group checks. Otherwise, consider talking to them about their willingness to hand out advantage/disadvantage.
• My DM won't let me prepare for combat that is clearly about to start.
  
  • Well, that sucks. Consider discussing with them what their threshold for adjudicating surprise is.
• My DM won't let me use the ready action to influence the exact order of events outside initiative.
  
  • Well, yeah. The adjudicating the exact order of events is what initiative is for: if you're not in initiative, that's a signal that you're working in a narrative frame where such matters are abstracted.
    If you're chafing under this consider whether you're currently taking advantage of other ways to benefit from preparation outside of initiative and/or talk to your DM about more liberal use of initiative outside combat.

[Pelle]

I don't care about initiative order when you are haggling. That's my whole point. There IS no initiative order, but there MAY be situations where someone is waiting for something to happen. I'm saying it's ridiculous that within combat you can always choose to act before some event if it hasn't happened yet, whereas out of combat, if you take the stance that "ready actions are only for combat", you can't. "The rules that best fit to adjudicate" change substantially whether or not someone is trying to kill you. That's bad.

You don't need Ready Action outside of combat, the character just say what they want to do, and it is resolved as it happens. The stance isn't that you can't prepare things out of combat, it is that you don't take a Ready Action because you don't bother dividing actions into 6 sec discrete Actions outside of Initiative. So you can still prepare to do things, and do them fine.

Not sure what situations you are thinking about. Let's say you are haggling, and you prepare to offer a specific bid when the seller present a certain good. Ok, then you just get to do that when it comes up. You don't need to take a Ready Action, just say what your character wants to do and it happens. If there is some opposition, where the relative reaction speed matters, you roll a Dex(Init) (or maybe Cha(Init) ) check to decide who gets to do the prepared action first, and resolve it from there...