During a PFS game last evening, an interesting situation came up.
PC A (a cleric) was fending off a Skeletal Champion, while PC B (a monk) was fighting two Skeletal Guards. Both PCs were engaged in melee with their opponents. One of the Skeletal Guards rolled a natural 20 in an attack against PC B. PC A declared they were casting the Protector's Sacrifice focus spell as a reaction in order to absorb some of that damage.
The GM, looking at the spell, noted that it had somatic components, giving it the manipulate trait thus meaning that it could provoke the Attack of Opportunity reaction from the Skeletal Champion. However, then the question came up about whether a reaction can trigger another reaction, and whether that reaction could in turn trigger any other reactions...so the GM decided to let that one go (since the PCs were rolling rather poorly during that encounter anyway).
Doing a search through the forums, I haven't seen a question like this yet (or my search fu is weak). Does anybody happen to know the answer on this one?
Thanks in advance!
I will answer the question with a question: why wouldn't triggers that happen because of a reaction be valid triggers for a reaction?
The crux of the issue that came up in discussion (that prompted the GM to decide to move the game along) was the language of Attack of Opportunity:
Trigger A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.
(emphasis mine)
Someone suggested the possibility that using "a reaction" might not be considered the same as using "an action" much in the way that in 1st edition Pathfinder, spells cast as a Swift or Immediate action did not provoke attacks of opportunity, but spells with a casting time of a Standard action or longer did.
Thank you for the page reference.
The bedside manner, you can keep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tone is often difficult to convey appropriately online, I would say that thenobledrake's response doesn't contain anything obviously inflammatory, and simple points out that the suggested idea that lead to the question simple had no basis within the rules.