Reactions and conflicting timing in RAW

[Bentastikb]

Hello _o/

I stumbled upon conflicting rules in RAW, and hope for a
clarification.

In the action economy as written, i (re)gain my reaction
at the start of the turn:

p469:
"The last step of starting your turn is always the same.
• Regain your 3 actions and 1 reaction."

(it is only assumed that this is also regaining possible additional reactions)

So in general i am able to use this reaction in the timeframe from the end of my
turn to the start of my next turn, and then refresh again, regardless of initiative or round counter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------

But now we get this rule on page 472:

"Once your first turn begins, you gain your actions and
reaction. You can use 1 reaction per round."

One round is not defined from my turn to my next turn, but
from the start of the initiative order to the end.
So if i take it by RAW, and use my reaction at the start of the round,
regain my reaction in the middle of the round, i cannot use this reaction in
the rest of the round, until every actor has acted and the round counter advances.

These rules are in conflict with each other. My assumption is that this is
just a bad choice of wording on page 472.

This has already been mentioned here, but not resolved:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43810?Reaction-order#1

[Cordell Kintner]

All rounds are calculated from the Start of your Turn. If you do something that lasts one round, it ends at the start of your next turn, regardless of when you gained the effect. This is explained in the Duration rules for Spells.

[Lucerious]

One is standardly only allowed one reaction per round and one turn per round. A character can use a reaction at any point during that round even on their own turn. Since many turns can occur in a single round based on the amount of creatures involved, the term round is used to indicate when the reaction is allowable. Characters get their reaction renewed at the beginning of their turn, but can use it any time during that round as well as the following round if the turn has not yet refreshed and the reaction has not been used.

[Bentastikb]

Lucerious wrote:

One is standardly only allowed one reaction per round and one turn per round. A character can use a reaction at any point during that round even on their own turn. Since many turns can occur in a single round based on the amount of creatures involved, the term round is used to indicate when the reaction is allowable. Characters get their reaction renewed at the beginning of their turn, but can use it any time during that round as well as the following round if the turn has not yet refreshed and the reaction has not been used.

Thats how i would rule it, but not how it is written by the definition of round.

[Bentastikb]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Think of the "start of your turn" as your Upkeep in Magic the Gathering. You get to choose how all effects that happen in your upkeep are organized. The only restriction is that the last thing you do in your upkeep is regaining actions and reactions.

All rounds are calculated from the Start of your Turn. If you do something that lasts one round, it ends at the start of your next turn, regardless of when you gained the effect. This is explained in the Duration rules for Spells.

So I'm not sure why you think there's a conflict here. A lot of things can happen at the start of your turn. Just because gaining actions is the last thing that happens in that phase doesn't mean it's still not the start of your turn.

Thats clear for spells. Here, it is written as one reaction per round,

and round defined in RAW as a combat round from highest to lowest initiative, regardless of my position, that is in conflict with "one round from my turn to my next turn".

[RexAliquid]

Quote:

One round is not defined from my turn to my next turn, but

from the start of the initiative order to the end.

Where is that defined? A round usually means from one point in initiative to that same point in initiative.

[Cordell Kintner]

I can only assume from here: Encounter Structure

[Earthfall]

Quote:

round defined in RAW as a combat round from highest to lowest initiative, regardless of my position

If that were the case it would be called a flat, not a round. Time is a circle. Once it is going, there is no need for highest or lowest initiative, only the order of who is next. Round as you want to define it is not a particularly useful concept.

[RexAliquid]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

I can only assume from here: Encounter Structure

Im glad we have RAW for dealing with contradictions then. Go with the RAI.

[Lucerious]

Bentastikb wrote:

Thats how i would rule it, but not how it is written by the definition of round.

Ah, I think I see. A round can be “defined” sorta in two ways.

1. The combat round- starts at the beginning of the highest initiative and ends at the end of the lowest initiative.
2. The individual round- starts at the beginning of an individual’s turn and ends at the end of the initiative turn right before the individual’s turn

[Bentastikb]

RexAliquid wrote:

Quote:

One round is not defined from my turn to my next turn, but

from the start of the initiative order to the end.

Where is that defined? A round usually means from one point in initiative to that same point in initiative.

p468: Step 2: Play a Round

A round begins when the participant with the highest
initiative roll result starts their turn, and it ends when the
one with the lowest initiative ends their turn.

[Bentastikb]

Lucerious wrote:

Bentastikb wrote:

Thats how i would rule it, but not how it is written by the definition of round.

Ah, I think I see. A round can be “defined” sorta in two ways.

1. The combat round- starts at the beginning of the highest initiative and ends at the end of the lowest initiative.
2. The individual round- starts at the beginning of an individual’s turn and ends at the end of the initiative turn right before the individual’s turn

Exactly, this is the conflict if going strictly for RAW, which is the case for our gm ;-)

I assume it was the original intention for the second definition for reactions, because they are in line with the regain rule and make sense, but the rules are clearly in conflict with this interpretation.

[Lucerious]

Bentastikb wrote:

Lucerious wrote:

Bentastikb wrote:

Thats how i would rule it, but not how it is written by the definition of round.

Ah, I think I see. A round can be “defined” sorta in two ways.

1. The combat round- starts at the beginning of the highest initiative and ends at the end of the lowest initiative.
2. The individual round- starts at the beginning of an individual’s turn and ends at the end of the initiative turn right before the individual’s turn

Exactly, this is the conflict if going strictly for RAW, which is the case for our gm ;-)

I assume it was the original intention for the second definition for reactions, because they are in line with the regain rule and make sense, but the rules are clearly in conflict with this interpretation.

For any effect that is directly connected to an individual character will use the second version including reactions. So if a character uses an ability that lasts for a round, that will work off the second definition. If one is just trying to calculate how many rounds of combat have occurred, they would use the first definition.

[Cordell Kintner]

There are also effects that take place at the start/end of round. Those would use the first definition.

I would also like to mention that the restriction of one reaction per round isn't even a real rule. You are not limited in how many reactions you can use, only how many you gain. Following that rule, no one with two reactions would be able to use their second one.

[Bentastikb]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

You are not limited in how many reactions you can use, only how many you gain. Following that rule, no one with two reactions would be able to use their second one.

I agree with you on that, that is sloppy choice of words, too.

[RexAliquid]

Bentastikb wrote:

Cordell Kintner wrote:

You are not limited in how many reactions you can use, only how many you gain. Following that rule, no one with two reactions would be able to use their second one.

I agree with you on that, that is sloppy choice of words, too.

It’s not sloppy so much as casual. The issue is trying to read everything in the book as strict legalese when it is not.

[Aw3som3-117]

I mean, we also have to remember specific trumps general. By default you have 1 reaction "per round", so it's not wrong to say that. Then, some abilities give you extra reactions. 80% of feats break at least one rule [made up statistic, don't quote me on it ;)]

And as for the question of when does a round start and end, the answer is simple: it starts at the relevant trigger, and it ends one round later right before the we get to the initiative that the relevant trigger occurred in again. Hence why in the definition of encounter mode under "play a round" it makes sense that it's defined as going from the top of the initiative to the bottom, because we're talking about it from the perspective of the encounter as a whole, and the encounter started with the character that rolled the highest initiative, so of course the end of that round will be right before we get back to that character's turn.

Things that happen at the start or end of a round also fall under this category, as they aren't linked to a specific character or initiative, their reference point for "start" and "end" must be referencing the encounter as a whole, which is exactly what we'd expect them to do. For reactions, though, the relevant trigger for when the "round" starts would be linked to the character's turn. This is further backed up by the fact that you gain and regain reactions at the start of your turn.