The rules clearly state that you can only take one reaction to a given trigger, but what if multiple characters attempt to react to the same trigger?
For example, a swashbukler and champion are flanking a foe. The foe attacks the swashbuckler and hits. The swashbuckler declares he is using Nimble Dodge to turn it into a miss while the champion opts to use Retributive Strike at the same time.
Unfortunately, if Nimble Dodge turns the attack into a miss, than the champion no longer qualifies to make a Retributive Strike, so the order of operations matters.
How do you determine who goes first and how abilities like this intereact?
Note: This a actually came up in our game tonight.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well the premise of the question is flawed: Nimble Dodge can't be declared after the attack result to cancel the attack.
Trigger A creature targets you with an attack and you can see the attacker.
Benefit You deftly dodge out of the way, gaining a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against the triggering attack.
The trigger is "targets you with an attack". That's way before you actually hear what number the creature got; that would be something you do with a feat like Reactive Shield:
Trigger An enemy hits you with a melee Strike.
BenefitYou can snap your shield into place just as you would take a blow, avoiding the hit at the last second. You immediately use the Raise a Shield action and gain your shield’s bonus to AC. The circumstance bonus from the shield applies to your AC when you’re determining the outcome of the triggering attack.
Notice the different triggers, and the different benefit language. Reactive shield can actually un-hit a hit. Yes, Nimble Dodge is a bit disappointing.
But even Reactive Shield doesn't work for your example, because it happens in the "did you even hit" step, not in dealing damage. And the champion's reaction has this trigger:
Trigger An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you.
So by the time the champion reaction becomes an option, the time to use Reactive Shield has passed.
(But interestingly, the trigger for the champion reaction doesn't require the damage to have been caused by an attack; you could also respond to an enemy casting an area of effect spell or breath weapon for example.)
The rules clearly state that you can only take one reaction to a given trigger, but what if multiple characters attempt to react to the same trigger?
For example, a swashbukler and champion are flanking a foe. The foe attacks the swashbuckler and hits. The swashbuckler declares he is using Nimble Dodge to turn it into a miss while the champion opts to use Retributive Strike at the same time.
Unfortunately, if Nimble Dodge turns the attack into a miss, than the champion no longer qualifies to make a Retributive Strike, so the order of operations matters.
How do you determine who goes first and how abilities like this intereact?
(Ascalaphus explained the issue with Nimble Dodge, I'll just answer the question) I would personally apply both reactions. So, if one ability negates the damage and another one would reduce it, I'll apply both of them: damage is negated and the Champion Reaction goes off with its other effects.
I don't think there will be many situations where the end result would be illogical. It's just 2 characters trying to react to the same thing and both abilities being applied.
Well the premise of the question is flawed: Nimble Dodge can't be declared after the attack result to cancel the attack.
Though you are correct about Nimble Dodge's technical mechanics, I don't think the basic idea is flawed at all. No GM I've ever met (or played with online) has run it the way your describe. In fact, I'd wager most GM's don't say "You're being attacked. Do you have a reaction? No?" *roll* "20 to hit." *roll* "10 damage."
They say something more along the lines of "The cultist swipes at you with his dagger, getting 20 to hit and dealing 10 damage."
This is especially true on VTT platforms, where it literally is just single a press of a button to roll both attack and damage.
If a player has a reaction and speaks up about it, most GMs are pretty lenient about the specific timing clauses of the rules. No one wants to hear "The cultist swipes at you with his dagger, getting 20 to hit and dealing 10 damage" and then be denied their reaction that they were never given a chance to use in the first place. That would just be rude of the GM! (And he would soon be without players.)
Neither does anyone want to hear "Do you use your reaction?" after every. single. enemy. attack. It bogs the game down and kills immersion.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a player in my games has a reaction that triggers on a declared attack I always ask if they're using it before telling them my roll (All my rolls are secret). It's a simple adjustment that any GM should have the capacity to make.
Neither does anyone want to hear "Do you use your reaction?" after every. single. enemy. attack. It bogs the game down and kills immersion.
Most people say they always dodge the first attack from a target that goes at them. Very simple. Also you don't have to ask on every attack, just give them a chance to interject prior to revealing the roll. Also once they use it they can't re-use it, so you wouldn't ask at all then.
Know your players, adjust to make the game fun an fair. A GM shouldn't water down the game for a group they aren't familiar with because they aren't willing to make some tweaks.
Interesting. I generally make enemy rolls out in the open (they appear in the chat). The player in our party who has Nimble Dodge rarely uses it what's more. I think he's opted to use it twice in two games when he was hit.
Seems I might want to have a talk with him about the ability, and perhaps reconsider a few things... XD
So how about this:
A fighter and a monk with Stand Still are fighting a troll. The troll moves away from both, triggering the fighter's Attack of Opportunity and the monk's Stand Still reactions.
Which of the two gets to react first?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both have the same trigger so.. it's up to them, really.
|
|
Both trigger, and it doesn't matter which order they're in. If the monk disrupts the action, it was still used, and it still triggers the Fighter's reaction.
All reactions that can happen happen simultaneously, that way someone else's reaction won't stop another's from triggering just because it's "first".
|
As others said - if there is a clear order - like in nimble dodge - then the paladin might never be able to act.
If it is simultaneously all act.
A better example for that would be 2 paladins and a an ally. The ally gets damaged (for a small amount - say 1 HP). This triggers both paladin reactions.
The reaction of the first paladin would negate all damage - so that would lead us into a paradox as they act both at the same time but they can't act as the other one acting will prevent the trigger ...
The more important question is not just the order of simultaneous (player) reactions but the announcement of usage and other effects.
GM: The Troll tries to move away from you both.
Monk: I use my Stand Still reaction.
Fighter: I use my Attack of Opportunity reaction.
1) After some discussion they decide that the Monk goes first but he already slays the Troll. Has the Fighter spend his reaction or not?
2) After some discussion they decide that the Fighter goes first and he rolls a crit and knocks the monster prone. Does the Monk already get the flat-footed benefit for his reaction which was not there when he announced use of the ability?
My answer to both would be 'yes' but I am open for discussion.
The more important question is not just the order of simultaneous (player) reactions but the announcement of usage and other effects.
GM: The Troll tries to move away from you both.
Monk: I use my Stand Still reaction.
Fighter: I use my Attack of Opportunity reaction.1) After some discussion they decide that the Monk goes first but he already slays the Troll. Has the Fighter spend his reaction or not?
2) After some discussion they decide that the Fighter goes first and he rolls a crit and knocks the monster prone. Does the Monk already get the flat-footed benefit for his reaction which was not there when he announced use of the ability?
My answer to both would be 'yes' but I am open for discussion.
1) It's not exactly clear by the rules but both reactions should happen simultaneously, as it gives both characters a chance to act.
2) No. I once faced a monster with a reaction on critical hits making it disappear entirely. If you give the Monk the FF bonus, it means that such a monster would entirely evade the Monk's attack. It's more fair to consider that both attacks trigger simultaneously and not one after the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe actions can occur simultaneously in PF2 (or "don't need to" might be a better way of phrasing that).
I think the players decide who goes first, much like with Initiative.
(And in the same vein, I'd likely have an NPC go first w/ dueling Reactions.)
Yet both would trigger, so that if the Monk disrupts the move action, the movement stops, but the Fighter could still get their AoO since that initial trigger still existed. I could see exceptions to this though because there are so many combinations available. Doesn't seem too hard to adjudicate, albeit it might be difficult to give players a rigorous answer, or methodology behind answering.
|
|
For the Troll example, if the monk stops it from moving, it still used a move action. Just because an action was disrupted doesn't mean it wasn't used. This example doesn't work how you are implying it works.
For the two champions example, if they both want to use their reaction when a single ally is damaged that's fine. The resistance to damage doesn't stack, only the higher one takes effect, so it's not very practical. Even Glimpse of Redemption stacks, since it says the target is "Unharmed by damage". The creature is still causing the damage, your ally just isn't harmed by it just like if they had infinite Resistance to the damage.