Is a reaction considered an action?

[Ravingdork]

Or is a reaction considered a reaction, and an action an action?

For example, if I were to Stride twice to get to an enemy and successfully Strike them, and want to follow up with Furious Grab on my next turn, what happens if they move around me provoking an Attack of Opportunity? Furious Grab has a requirement saying that my last action must be a successful Strike. If a reaction is considered an action then I can't Furious Grab after making my Attack of Opportunity. If it's not considered an action, then it gets ignored completely.

What do you think rules gurus?

[HammerJack]

A reaction is a type of action. This is the same as not being able to stack Lingering Performance and Inspire Heroics onto the same composition because a Free Action is a type of Action.

[Ravingdork]

HammerJack wrote:

A reaction is a type of action. This is the same as not being able to stack Lingering Performance and Inspire Heroics onto the same composition because a Free Action is a type of Action.

Mmm...seems you are correct.

Core Rulebook, p461 wrote:

There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions.

[breithauptclan]

Yeah, it would be nice if there was a specific name for the normal 3 actions that you get each round. But the rules just call them Actions. Which gets confused with the general name for all of the various action types, which are also called Actions.

So:

Actions:
* Actions
* Free Actions
* Reactions

Activities:
* Composed of one or more subordinate Actions

---------

And then we get into tricky territory like Metamagic feats which say 'if your next Action is to cast a spell' that are supposed to work even though the next thing you do is an Activity to cast a spell. So apparently Activities are also Actions? Maybe I should change my indenting then...

But yeah, things that reference 'your last Action' or 'your next Action' are meaning anything that you can do - including Free Actions, Reactions, and Activities.

[HumbleGamer]

I think metamagic is meant for combat purposes. Which means you can't enhance a 1or 10 min cast spell.

[Aw3som3-117]

breithauptclan wrote:

Yeah, it would be nice if there was a specific name for the normal 3 actions that you get each round. But the rules just call them Actions. Which gets confused with the general name for all of the various action types, which are also called Actions.

So:

Actions:
* Actions
* Free Actions
* Reactions

Activities:
* Composed of one or more subordinate Actions

---------

And then we get into tricky territory like Metamagic feats which say 'if your next Action is to cast a spell' that are supposed to work even though the next thing you do is an Activity to cast a spell. So apparently Activities are also Actions? Maybe I should change my indenting then...

But yeah, things that reference 'your last Action' or 'your next Action' are meaning anything that you can do - including Free Actions, Reactions, and Activities.

Agreed. At this point it would be difficult (but not impossible) to track down all of the relevant mentions, but I'd very much prefer if the catch-all term wasn't the same as any of the specific terms. And, because of how widely known the term "action" is it's probably best to keep that as the thing you get 3 of at the start of your turn. Reactions, free actions, and actions (+ activities if you want to include that), can be called something else. I mean, it kind of seemed like the whole point of the "activity" terminology was to allow for things other than "actions", but they didn't cover enough things, and so they just threw everything in the "action" bucket anyway, which isn't the best.

[Ravingdork]

HumbleGamer wrote:

I think metamagic is meant for combat purposes. Which means you can't enhance a 1or 10 min cast spell.

I don't believe this to be true.

[Ascalaphus]

I think a lot of these "your last action must be a..." abilities should be read as "your last action THIS TURN must be a..."

Take Furious Grab for example. You walk up to someone, strike them twice. Your turn ends. Enemy walks into another room, closes the door behind them.

Your turn again. Strictly speaking your last action was a successful strike. So now you want to Furious Grab them?

[HumbleGamer]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think a lot of these "your last action must be a..." abilities should be read as "your last action THIS TURN must be a..."

Take Furious Grab for example. You walk up to someone, strike them twice. Your turn ends. Enemy walks into another room, closes the door behind them.

Your turn again. Strictly speaking your last action was a successful strike. So now you want to Furious Grab them?

I agree, mostly because I would be rather absurd that paizo meant every single player to remember his last action after the turn ended.

It goes against having simplified the game.

@ravingdork: I think apart from some exceptions, anything meant to be used as an action kicks in when it comes to combat and the 3 actions/round ( which could be obviously being also used outside the combat).

[Ravingdork]

Are people so distracted these days , their memories so poor, that they can't recall what their characters did on their last turn? Can't say I really believe that and calling it "absurd" is more than a bit disingenuous. (And if it is true, seems like you've got a much bigger problem on your hands than Furious Grab. How are such players even managing to play such a complex game at all?)

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think a lot of these "your last action must be a..." abilities should be read as "your last action THIS TURN must be a..."

Take Furious Grab for example. You walk up to someone, strike them twice. Your turn ends. Enemy walks into another room, closes the door behind them.

Your turn again. Strictly speaking your last action was a successful strike. So now you want to Furious Grab them?

Respectfully, I disagree that this should be the case.

It limits the game way too much. As for the corner cases (such as an enemy moving away) that's what GMs are for. It's easy enough for them to say "Um, no. That's clearly not in the spirit of the rules."

[thenobledrake]

Ravingdork wrote:

Are people so distracted these days , their memories so poor, that they can't recall what their characters did on their last turn?

You're expecting the wrong reason for not remembering, and being very judgemental about it.

It's that there is, usually at least, no reason to remember. It's mostly an inconsequential detail, and maybe there've been 20 or 30 other things that happened since then that you're paying attention to because that's what makes the game entertaining and now it's your turn again and you know you did this that and the other thing on your last turn, but the order is uncertain until/unless you spend a little extra time thinking through it.

Ravingdork wrote:

As for the corner cases (such as an enemy moving away) that's what GMs are for. It's easy enough for them to say "Um, no. That's clearly not in the spirit of the rules."

As a GM, I want my rulings to be consistent.

This means if there is a "corner case" like whether or not a creature can use it's Grab ability as the first action of this turn depending not just on what it did last on it's last turn, but also what the character it wanted to target did on their turn, I feel a need to make my ruling in a way that feels like the situation is consistent... which leads to me insisting that "your last action" things must be done within the same turn because quantum grabbing (and other similar things) where the creature has or has not grabbed you as a result of hitting with their attack as their last action on their turn, but we won't know until after you decide whether to walk out of the grab you are in (narrative) so that you can't actually have been grabbed (mechanical).

Especially because play feel is also important to me, and a player absolutely would not like the way it feels to have an enemy they are fighting getting to grab their character automatically at the start of the turn because they hit with their last action last turn - especially if the player didn't know there was such an action at the creature's disposal so they had no knowledge that they could move to avoid the grab and nasty consequences that usually follow up on an ability like that.

[Ravingdork]

thenobledrake wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Are people so distracted these days , their memories so poor, that they can't recall what their characters did on their last turn?

You're expecting the wrong reason for not remembering, and being very judgemental about it.

I was not being judgmental. I was pointing out the absurdity of HumbleGamer's statement. It is possible that I misread their intent.

thenobledrake wrote:

It's that there is, usually at least, no reason to remember. It's mostly an inconsequential detail...

That's true for anyone who does not possess trigger abilities such as this, or for anyone who isn't intending to use abilities like Furious Grab. But for a player who wants to use Furious Grab on their next turn? You can bet they're paying better attention.

thenobledrake wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

As for the corner cases (such as an enemy moving away) that's what GMs are for. It's easy enough for them to say "Um, no. That's clearly not in the spirit of the rules."

As a GM, I want my rulings to be consistent.

...I feel a need to make my ruling in a way that feels like the situation is consistent... which leads to me insisting that "your last action" things must be done within the same turn...

I'm not seeing how having that level of control over your players in your games is going to make things better for anyone, but you do you.

I just think doing so would be (1) a house rule not in keeping with either the rules or the intent of the rules and (2) unnecessarily stifling for many players.

You make it sound much more complicated than it is. A GM could easily be consistent with their rulings that "you can't grab targets out of your reach"--and such a ruling would be in keeping with both RAW and RAI as presented. There's nothing quantum about it unless both the PCs AND the GM are willing to stretch the rules beyond credulity.

[HumbleGamer]

Ravingdork wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Are people so distracted these days , their memories so poor, that they can't recall what their characters did on their last turn?

You're expecting the wrong reason for not remembering, and being very judgemental about it.

I was not being judgmental. I was pointing out the absurdity of HumbleGamer's statement.

I wouldn't call it "absurd", and reading the last of your post you are definitely being "subjective" for what concerns any of the game aspects.

For example

Quote:

But for a player who wants to use Furious Grab on their next turn? You can bet they're paying better attention.

I deduce that you think that some classes or builds are not fit for specific players, if they are not able to provide the right amount of attention.

I share thenobledrake's feelings when he says "I want my rulings to be consistent", for either myself and the other players.

Knowing that the rules we have is everything we have, and seeing the lacking of communicating here on the official board ( and also the very slim Errata we got in 2 year, most of them not about rule but balance ) we have to stick with them and "trying to understand" what they meant, in more than a single situation.

Your example to me is no different from an old topic I saw on this boards, about the champion reaction which was meant ( for some users ) to prevent damage overtime in the following rounds.

Back then my thoughts were
"Pretty silly to even consider that they meant you to keep track of this in the next rounds"

Still, some people considered that their intent was to keep track of the DR and overtime damage instead of just applying the DR on the direct hit ( The only difference is that this one was then addressed and no. The DR only occurs on the direct damage, so no track of the DR on that specific dot for the next rounds ).

This just to say that regardless the outcome, it's normal to have different opinions if rules are not clear. But trying to being objective is something we all can afford. That's why I think it's more realistic they meant "last action" regarding your turn, until it ends.

[thenobledrake]

Ravingdork wrote:

I was not being judgmental.

Then you used the incorrect verbiage for desired tone of your message.

"...so distracted..." "...memory so poor..." "...you've got a much bigger problem on your hands..." and "How are such players even managing to play such a complex game at all?" are all phrases dripping with judgement.

Ravingdork wrote:

unnecessarily stifling for many players.

Have a glabrezu that hit a player character with their last action on the prior turn use their actions on this turn to Grab, then Captive Rake twice, or another similarly devastating course of actions which are clearly designed with the intention that either it's the end of their turn when it happens (once) and then you have opportunity to escape/mitigate or it's telegraphed across turns that this one is set-up and the next one will be terrible... and I guarantee they will not feel "stifled" that they don't get to use Furious Grab across turns because the bad guys also don't get to do similar (but actually worse because of how the rules deliberately favor the short-term actors). They will feel like the GM cares about the way the game feels, and has fully considered how to make a consistent - and enjoyable - ruling that handles all possible situations in a predictable fashion.

Ravingdork wrote:

There's nothing quantum about it unless both the PCs AND the GM are willing to stretch the rules beyond credulity.

The quantum situation is clear:

A Glabrezu hits with a Pincer strike. That Strike has "plus Grab" so it is, as far as the narrative is concerned, representing that the pincer has grabbed onto the target because it is not 2 separate events - the pincer did not close on the target dealing damage from the strike, open, then close again to enact the grab, it just closed once and the target was hurt and grabbed. That means that until the next action is determined the target is grabbed, but also is not grabbed because the next action isn't guaranteed to be Grab.

If that quantum state only exists within the Glabrezu's turn, it's not at all an issue. However, if the determination of whether the target of the Pincer Strike is grabbed or not is delayed until the Glabrezu's next turn and dependent upon what the target does with their own turn before that the grabbed-but-not-grabbed quantum state persists long enough to create issues. One example of the issues created is even still within your example of a consistent ruling; the target of the Pincer Strike moves, but not out of the reach of the Glabrezu. If the target where grabbed by the Pincer strike they would not be able to move, but yet they have moved and are grabbed, and as far as the narrative goes where actually grabbed the entire time, including when they were moving.

And if this is what you meant by "stretch the rules beyond credulity" you are actually proving my own point because you're calling the natural and immediate consequences of being able to use your last action on your prior turn to fulfill "your last action was" requirements "beyond credulity."

[Nicolas Paradise]

I can't see any way that furious grab could be used on the next turn as regardless if the target of your stike has higher or lower init than you they will get a turn before your next turn in which presumably they can use three actions where they aren't distracted by your last strike and than suddenly they get distracted again by a strike that happened many actions ago?

This is more a case that it seems furious grab and any other feats like it should have the press trait even if the feat is bypassing a roll.

[Jared Walter 356]

Ravingdork wrote:

your games is going to make things better for anyone, but you do you.

I just think doing so would be (1) a house rule not in keeping with either the rules or the intent of the rules and (2) unnecessarily stifling for many players.

The RAI is already established: activities cannot be done across multiple turns even though time is supposedly continuous. The intent imo is clear: what happened on your last turn isn't meant to be tracked.

[Ravingdork]

I agree that my initial choice of wording was poor. I apologize for being overbearing. Nevertheless, I stand by my interpretation of the rules.

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

The RAI is already established: activities cannot be done across multiple turns even though time is supposedly continuous. The intent imo is clear: what happened on your last turn isn't meant to be tracked.

I mean, that would make sense if it indeed was one single activity, rather than the two distinct and separate actions that it currently is in this case.

[Squiggit]

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

The RAI is already established: activities cannot be done across multiple turns even though time is supposedly continuous. The intent imo is clear: what happened on your last turn isn't meant to be tracked.

Yeah, but in fairness to the other point this isn't a singular activity.

We also have things like Overwhelming Energy specifically using three-action spells as examples. Yeah, it's not explicit but it's not hard to forgive someone for looking at that text and inferring the opposite regarding what the clear intent is.

[Thod]

@Ravingdork The issue is - you can't take a single rule and ignore everything else.

Furious Grab wrote:

CRB. P.92

Requirements Your last action was a successful Strike, and either you have a hand free or your Strike used a grapple weapon.

Would I rule that it can be done as the first action on the next turn when the last action was a successful strike. Maybe - and I'm open for discussion with a player.

But keep in mind - this is a 12th level Barbarian Feat

Grab wrote:

Bestiary P.343

Requirements The monster's last action was a success with a Strike that lists Grab in its damage entry, or it has a creature grabbed using this action.

Many, many monsters - including low level ones - do have the 'plus grab' ability. By the time I reached the 12th level for my players I have likely ruled 50 times in favour of the players and never allowed my monsters to use grab as first action next round.

AND - I never heard complaints.

So if I get into the discussion now my ruling is: looking at my 50 odd rulings before - never allowing it, I won't change my mind now.

As a GM it is important to be consistent. And I know you are a GM yourself. So ask yourself: did you allow your monsters to grab as first action next turn or not.

That answer should inform you how to answer the furious grab question. Anything else will mean different rules for players and monsters and should be avoided.

[Ravingdork]

Thod wrote:

So ask yourself: Did you allow your monsters to grab as first action next turn or not.

That answer should inform you how to answer the furious grab question.

Yes, yes I have. Good advice that.

[TwilightKnight]

breithauptclan wrote:

Yeah, it would be nice if there was a specific name for the normal 3 actions that you get each round. But the rules just call them Actions. Which gets confused with the general name for all of the various action types, which are also called Actions.

Agreed. PF2E essentially breaks the cardinal rule that you cannot use the name of the thing in its own definition, but since the word has so many connotations and usages, it is a convenience that makes sense at some level.

[PawnJJ]

Now I'm just envisioning a scenario where a BBEG immortal witch petrifies a barbarian. Five thousand years pass and the immortal witch has had a change of heart and is trying to mend the evils he has caused.

Goes back to the barbarian floating in space now, Unpetrifies him and the barbarian going "Quick while he is still distracted from my last attack! Furious Grab!"

Automatic success

[Ravingdork]

PawnJJ wrote:

Now I'm just envisioning a scenario where a BBEG immortal witch petrifies a barbarian. Five thousand years pass and the immortal witch has had a change of heart and is trying to mend the evils he has caused.

Goes back to the barbarian floating in space now, Unpetrifies him and the barbarian going "Quick while he is still distracted from my last attack! Furious Grab!"

Automatic success

X'D