If I am reduced to zero hit points while taking an action, such as by attempting to Interact with a door to open it and provoking an noncritical Attack of Opportunity in the process, does my action still happen because I wasn't "disrupted" (the door opens), or does my action have no effect because now I can't act (the door stays closed)?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the action wasn't disrupted, then it should happen.
Though each 5 foot square of movement is treated as its own event for this case. Those can be reacted to and disrupted individually, not just the entire move action and distance traveled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barring some other feat or special ability, normally actions are only disrupted by a critical hit.
Essentially, while your action provoked, the AoO didn't resolve until your action was already resolved (unless they score a critical hit).
Barring some other feat or special ability, normally actions are only disrupted by a critical hit.
Essentially, while your action provoked, the AoO didn't resolve until your action was already resolved (unless they score a critical hit).
If the attack had to wait until my Interact finished, wouldn't that mean there would be no opportunity to disrupt even on a crit? When during a provoking action does the reaction happen? Simultaneously?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the attack had to wait until my Interact finished, wouldn't that mean there would be no opportunity to disrupt even on a crit? When during a provoking action does the reaction happen? Simultaneously?Barring some other feat or special ability, normally actions are only disrupted by a critical hit.
Essentially, while your action provoked, the AoO didn't resolve until your action was already resolved (unless they score a critical hit).
The best way I have to think about this is that you should separate out the game mechanics flow of time from the narrative flow of time.
The game mechanics happen first and are resolved. Then once everything is settled mechanically, the narrative description of events is created to match.
So mechanically if the AoO is a critical hit, the action is disrupted and doesn't get completed. If the AoO is not a critical hit, the action is not disrupted and the attack happens afterwards.
Then narratively, you can describe the AoO as happening simultaneously, or happening pre-emptively, or happening afterwards - however best fits.
|
Your action doesn't happen, because you are now unconscious and can't act. It doesn't have to be Disrupted. What you are implying is if an enemy Wizard is about to cast a spell to kill an ally, and your Fighter uses AoO, knocking the Wizard to 0, but didn't crit, the spell still goes off and kills your ally. That's not fun or fair at all.
Reactions trigger during the action and use the simultaneous action rules, not after the action completes.
Free actions with triggers and reactions work differently. You can use these whenever the trigger occurs, even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action.
The only time a reaction triggers after an action completes is if the reaction's trigger explicitly says that's when it happens, or on move actions where you don't leave your square.
Disruption stops an action from completing, but isn't the only way to do it. You can Grab or Trip someone who's Striding past to interrupt an activity like Sudden Charge. You can KO or Paralyze them so they can't complete the action anymore. You can make one of their targets invalid so the action can't resolve.
The best way to think about this is like the Stack in MTG. You put an action on the stack, and anyone with an appropriate trigger can put their action on the stack. The triggered action resolves first, then the consequences might modify the outcome of the original action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules about simultaneous actions don't actually say that at all Cordell. The rules you linked talk about how you can't take actions simultaneously, but not how an action that can potentially disrupt another action.
It does say an action that is a free action or has a trigger can occur in the middle of another action, but doesn't actually talk about resolving them.
To me, the only way that makes sense is as Breithauptclan described, at least for Attack of Opportunity. If the AoO is a critical hit it resolves prior to your action disrupting it. If it isn't, then it resolves after. Otherwise you would be giving an AoO the ability to disrupt actions when it's not a critical hit.
There might be cases of other types of reactions (besides AoO) where for them to make logical sense it has to interrupt or disrupt other actions, but I don't think AoO does.
If something had a reaction to grab a creature that was moving, then sure it makes sense that it can interrupt the movement if successful. Other options wouldn't make sense because the creature would (probably) be out of reach if you resolved the movement completely first.
I don't think we can say there is a one size fits all rule to how reactions or free actions work in response to their triggers on whether the interrupt or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with Cordell. The reactions resolve after the triggering action by default and only disrupt when they say they do.
I agree with Cordell.
Reactions happen as soon as the trigger is met. If you fall Unconscious because of a reaction, you can't end your action and your hand stays on the doorknob.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the attack had to wait until my Interact finished, wouldn't that mean there would be no opportunity to disrupt even on a crit? When during a provoking action does the reaction happen? Simultaneously?Barring some other feat or special ability, normally actions are only disrupted by a critical hit.
Essentially, while your action provoked, the AoO didn't resolve until your action was already resolved (unless they score a critical hit).
The way I imagine it is the creature starts swinging for the AoO and if it's a crit they manage to do it so quickly it interrupts you, but if it's a regular hit they manage to hit you but only after you've completed your action. Remember, even when you provoke it's not as though you completely drop your defenses. Taking actions that provoke don't give you a penalty to AC or say you stand still and take a hit. You're still being defensive and attempting to evade, or use your armor or shield to block the hit.
Sometimes the enemy is just so good that they're going to sneak the attack through your defenses before you can finish.
|
|
The only time an action fully completes before a reaction happens is with Move actions that trigger reactions.
If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.
It makes no sense to have an action resolve before an attack, then reverse time and undo the first action because the followup was a crit.
The reason a crit disrupts is because it's that strong of a blow. You can take a hit and keep doing what you were doing, but if it's a crit it's almost impossible to maintain that concentration. It has nothing to do with the speed of the attack.
|
Gotta say, I'm kinda shocked to see so many posters arguing you get to finish your action before dropping unconscious: Technically speaking, the AoO wouldn't interrupt you, but your lack of Hit Points certainly would...
If I charge the boss but a minion drops me with an AoO as I rush past, do I still get to run all the way across the room and attack before falling unconscious?
If I charge a foe with reach but his AoO drops me, do I get to attack? If I do and my attack drops him, do we both fall unconscious?
Put me in the 'Reactions go off before the trigger completes. If you are somehow incapacitated before your action completes, you do not complete your action.' camp, as it is the only thing that makes sense (to me, at least).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta say, I'm kinda shocked to see so many posters arguing you get to finish your action before dropping unconscious: Technically speaking, the AoO wouldn't interrupt you, but your lack of Hit Points certainly would...
If I charge the boss but a minion drops me with an AoO as I rush past, do I still get to run all the way across the room and attack before falling unconscious?
If I charge a foe with reach but his AoO drops me, do I get to attack? If I do and my attack drops him, do we both fall unconscious?
Put me in the 'Reactions go off before the trigger completes. If you are somehow incapacitated before your action completes, you do not complete your action.' camp, as it is the only thing that makes sense (to me, at least).
Taja, I think the issue is that there isn't (IMO) enough clarity to say that reactions should always trigger and resolve before an the triggering action. I think some reactions have to, to function but others do not. I believe AoO is one such reaction, wherein I believe it only resolves before the triggering action if it's a critical hit.
Nothing in the rules presented so far, leads me to conclude otherwise.
And in fact, the rules that Cordell quoted about move actions that don't actually have you move from your square explicitly have the reaction resolve after the trigger is complete.
Unfortunately we don't have explicit statements regarding actions with the manipulate trait.
Baring something more explicit, I will always default to reactions resolving after the trigger unless it would make the ability unusable or if it otherwise wouldn't make sense. And this is arguably better for players, since they're more likely to have to deal with the consequences than NPCs who only exist for one combat.
And to be honest, I extrapolate this from the Starfinder rules which state:
A reaction is a special action you can take even if it’s not your turn, but only after a defined and concrete trigger. You can’t use a reaction before the first time you act in a combat. You can take only one reaction each round; you regain your reaction at the start of your turn.
Unless their descriptions state otherwise, purely defensive reactions interrupt the triggering action: resolve the reaction first, then continue resolving the triggering action. Otherwise, resolve the reaction immediately after the triggering action.
You gain access to most reactions through feats, items, and class features, but an attack of opportunity is a reaction that is universally available to all characters.
Basically defensive reactions need to complete before the trigger to function. Offensive reactions do not. Only offensive triggers that explicitly state their intention is to interrupt or if it only makes sense if it interrupts are ones that can do so, IMO.
If I charge the boss but a minion drops me with an AoO as I rush past, do I still get to run all the way across the room and attack before falling unconscious?
If I charge a foe with reach but his AoO drops me, do I get to attack? If I do and my attack drops him, do we both fall unconscious?
No, because both of those are reacting to movement where you react to each 5 foot square of movement.
How about instead if you use Sudden Charge to cross the room and make an attack and the enemy has a reaction ability that causes damage but doesn't ever disrupt. If that damage from the reaction is enough to drop your character, does the attack that triggered the damage not happen?
|
|
Attack of opportunity has three triggers:
1. A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action
2. A creature within your reach makes a ranged attack
3. A creature within your reach leaves a square during a move action it’s using.
The imperative words are "uses" and "makes", not "used" and "made". They are the present tense, as in they are actively using the ability right now. Since that's when the trigger occurs, the reaction takes place in the middle of the triggering action.
The exception that proves this rule is the rule I quoted about move actions where you don't leave your square. If the above wasn't true, there would be no need to clarify that those actions have their triggers occur at the end of the action.
the majority of reactions occur in the middle of some other action. "A creature targets you with an attack", "You or an ally within 60 feet rolls a saving throw", "An enemy damages your ally", all these are happening during an action, not after the action has already fully resolved.
The imperative words are "uses" and "makes", not "used" and "made". They are the present tense, as in they are actively using the ability right now. Since that's when the trigger occurs, the reaction takes place in the middle of the triggering action.
The exception that proves this rule is the rule I quoted about move actions where you don't leave your square. If the above wasn't true, there would be no need to clarify that those actions have their triggers occur at the end of the action.
Using verb tense as proof seems really strange since even the opposing side of the argument states that the narrative description of the ability can happen before, after, or simultaneously with the triggering event.
And just because something triggers during an action doesn't necessarily mean that it resolves first.
In cases of activities I can certainly see the scenario of partial interruption. If an enemy attacks someone with a two-part attack like Flurry of Blows or Double Slice and the Liberator Champion ally uses their reaction to move the character after the first hit, then they wouldn't be in range of the second hit.
But for an atomic action like an interact action to open a door, I am not seeing how it could be considered anything other than disrupting the action to have the reaction happen before its triggering action.
Act - then react. That is standard English.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The exception that proves this rule is the rule I quoted about move actions where you don't leave your square. If the above wasn't true, there would be no need to clarify that those actions have their triggers occur at the end of the action.
And what this exception does is makes it so that even if the triggering move action is disrupted by the AoO crit, then it isn't actually disrupted because the event has already happened.
Every other type of move action or any other action gets disrupted by a crit AoO.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are confusing 'Disrupting' an action with an action being disrupted by the actor falling unconscious. I agree with Cordell - regardless of whether or not the AoO is a crit, the hit point loss happens immediately on the attack being resolved. If the hit point loss knocks the target out, then they are no longer able to do anything. Although this might look mechanically similar to the action being Disrupted, it isn't. It just isn't able to complete any more.
Similarly, if an AoO somehow caused the target to be immobilised on a hit...are people seriously saying they would allow the target to complete their move after triggering on a non-crit? Really?
|
|
Similarly, if an AoO somehow caused the target to be immobilised on a hit...are people seriously saying they would allow the target to complete their move after triggering on a non-crit? Really?
Yea no one wants to address the valid examples I gave above:
What you are implying is if an enemy Wizard is about to cast a spell to kill an ally, and your Fighter uses AoO, knocking the Wizard to 0, but didn't crit, the spell still goes off and kills your ally... You can Grab or Trip someone who's Striding past to interrupt an activity like Sudden Charge. You can KO or Paralyze them so they can't complete the action anymore. You can make one of their targets invalid so the action can't resolve.
As usual, they hone in on things they think they can disprove and ignore valid arguments that make theirs look bad.
|
|
How about instead if you use Sudden Charge to cross the room and make an attack and the enemy has a reaction ability that causes damage but doesn't ever disrupt. If that damage from the reaction is enough to drop your character, does the attack that triggered the damage not happen?
Yes, that is exactly how I would treat this situation. It makes far more sense than having the damage wait around for the charger to complete his activity, and then fall over unconscious.
Yes, that is exactly how I would treat this situation. It makes far more sense than having the damage wait around for the charger to complete his activity, and then fall over unconscious.
How about instead if you use Sudden Charge to cross the room and make an attack and the enemy has a reaction ability that causes damage but doesn't ever disrupt. If that damage from the reaction is enough to drop your character, does the attack that triggered the damage not happen?
PC: ◆◆Sudden Charge (Stride, Stride, Strike) for 22 damage.
Enemy: ↺ Wing Thrash for 13 damage.PC: Oh, that is enough damage to drop me.
GM: Hmm... Well the trigger is that you deal damage. But if that drops you and you don't make the attack, then you don't deal any damage.
So... Exactly how do you describe that then?
Unfortunately I don't think there is an explicit general rule for when and in what order reaction abilities are resolved.
We can try to extrapolate a general rule from the various special cases and reminders in various abilities and actions, but there are always inconsistencies.
Currently it takes GM adjudication and a good sense of what is reasonable and appropriate for the action and reaction involved. Because the correct answer is going to be different for different scenarios.
Trying to find an absolute ruling results in threads like this one. This isn't the first time that this topic has come up. In fact, I remember one that was similar only a few days ago.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that is exactly how I would treat this situation. It makes far more sense than having the damage wait around for the charger to complete his activity, and then fall over unconscious.
How about instead if you use Sudden Charge to cross the room and make an attack and the enemy has a reaction ability that causes damage but doesn't ever disrupt. If that damage from the reaction is enough to drop your character, does the attack that triggered the damage not happen?PC: ◆◆Sudden Charge (Stride, Stride, Strike) for 22 damage.
Enemy: ↺ Wing Thrash for 13 damage.PC: Oh, that is enough damage to drop me.
GM: Hmm... Well the trigger is that you deal damage. But if that drops you and you don't make the attack, then you don't deal any damage.
So... Exactly how do you describe that then?
The trigger for that is the damage. You have already moved and made a successful attack on the target and dealt damage, the activity is already complete at that point.
What you are implying is if an enemy Wizard is about to cast a spell to kill an ally, and your Fighter uses AoO, knocking the Wizard to 0, but didn't crit, the spell still goes off and kills your ally. That's not fun or fair at all.
I mean, yeah, it would suck for the Fighter, but if the Wizard was the PC here and just barely killed the enemy by the skin of his teeth, I could see the whole table giving the player a standing ovation.
Alternatively, if the GM ruled that the spell was wasted due to falling to zero hit points, I could see a Wizard PC calling this unfair and unfun. But if the PC were the Fighter, it could be a "Hell yeah" moment.
This is why it isn't obvious to me what the correct answer is and why I had to ask. Both of these sound equally plausible and fun. I'd just like to be sure of which approach the rules support since I'm a rules lawyer.
|
|
If the wizard is the PC, they knew what the risks were before casting the spell. They chose to take the gamble and lost, which sucks but it's how the game is played. Why should there be no actual risk in taking a calculated risk like that?
Knowing that the spell will complete in all cases other than a critical hit is boring. Knowing that enough damage will KO you, and deciding you will leave that up to fate, and attempt the spell anyway to save the party is the kind of this this game is all about.
I think I'm with Cordell on this one.
I think we'll see GM variance here, as I am firmly in the camp of doesn't disrupt unless it says so. They didn't spell out that reactions interrupt the actions they are reacting to as they did in first edition.
So in the fighter vs mage case the mage finishes the spell and the fighter and him both go down. double KO.
Well, the mage and the ally who was targeted by the spell. The mage wasn't targeting the fighter.
Can you link to the 1e rule you mentioned?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Similarly, if an AoO somehow caused the target to be immobilised on a hit...are people seriously saying they would allow the target to complete their move after triggering on a non-crit? Really?Yea no one wants to address the valid examples I gave above:
What you are implying is if an enemy Wizard is about to cast a spell to kill an ally, and your Fighter uses AoO, knocking the Wizard to 0, but didn't crit, the spell still goes off and kills your ally... You can Grab or Trip someone who's Striding past to interrupt an activity like Sudden Charge. You can KO or Paralyze them so they can't complete the action anymore. You can make one of their targets invalid so the action can't resolve.As usual, they hone in on things they think they can disprove and ignore valid arguments that make theirs look bad.
I don't think of your examples are valid because the question is what resolves first.
If the reaction resolves first I would agree that being knocked unconscious could prevent the action from occurring.
But unlike you, I think the default is reactions resolve after the trigger unless it wouldn't make sense or make an ability non-functional.
Noticed this in Shield Block
Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack.
The use of the word "would" tells me that this is to let the player know that they need not wait until after the damage is taken to... well... reduce the damage taken. So with the Giant Bat example, where the trigger is "An adjacent enemy damages the giant bat," I believe a Giant Bat reduced to 0 hit points would be unable to Wing Thrash.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But unlike you, I think the default is reactions resolve after the trigger unless it wouldn't make sense or make an ability non-functional.
Any particular reason? We have rules that say that triggers can occur during actions, and rules that list specific circumstances in which AoOs happen after a triggering action resolves.
There's admittedly no explicit statement to that effect, but all the surrounding rules seem to indicate that the notion of triggers interrupting actions is the norm, otherwise we wouldn't need those clarifying statements and we wouldn't need exceptions.
The fact that you even have to include a clause for unstated exceptions I feel lends weight against the argument, since that's adding another layer of unnecessary complexity where sometimes you can't apply your own rule when it wouldn't make sense to.
Probably because of Starfinder and I think that it makes the game better if by default offensive type reactions resolve after triggers, and the lack of explicit clarity leaves it for the table to decide.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) The existence of the concept of Disrupting in reactions. "When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s effects don’t occur." Which implies that if an action is not disrupted, then it does occur.
2) Shenanigans that people come up with. The most notorious being, "I Ready a Stride action triggered by an enemy Strike action. So even though neither Stride or Ready say that they Disrupt an action, my reaction resolves first and I am out of range of the attack. So the enemy spends their action but gets no effect from it - which is totally different than disrupting the action."
-----
There is some merit to the argument that if a reaction drops a character, that it will also disrupt the action that they were doing - but dropping to 0 HP doesn't actually say that it Disrupts actions that are currently being performed.
And I would prefer the resolution of having both the action and the reaction happening in that case. It better simulates the narrative of simultaneous actions.
What you are implying is if an enemy Wizard is about to cast a spell to kill an ally, and your Fighter uses AoO, knocking the Wizard to 0, but didn't crit, the spell still goes off and kills your ally. That's not fun or fair at all.
Tell that to the wizard! XD
Noticed this in Shield Block
Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack.The use of the word "would" tells me that this is to let the player know that they need not wait until after the damage is taken to... well... reduce the damage taken. So with the Giant Bat example, where the trigger is "An adjacent enemy damages the giant bat," I believe a Giant Bat reduced to 0 hit points would be unable to Wing Thrash.
Perhaps not, but you do need to wait until the damage is known.
Depends on when you get KOed. If it is from a different enemy or from reach while you are running, no. If it is in reaction to you swinging at the end, why wouldn't that make sense?
There are tons of reactions that would be pointless if they happened after the trigger (Shield Block). And there is a rule that goes to great length to explain that in one specific situation reactions go after the action.
The only argument I read to apply reactions after the resolution of the current action is the existence of the disruption rule that could imply that it's the only way to disrupt an action with a reaction.
Triggering the reaction after the action would break many reactions and make a complex ruling absolutely useless. Triggering the reaction as soon as they are triggered just removes a potential implication. I fully agree that RAW leaves some room for interpretation but RAI is quite clear.
There are tons of reactions that would be pointless if they happened after the trigger (Shield Block).
Shield Block specifically says that it happens after the attack. Before the character doing the blocking takes damage, but the attack has to happen, be successful, and deal damage first.
There are tons of reactions that would be pointless if they happened after the trigger (Shield Block).Shield Block specifically says that it happens after the attack. Before the character doing the blocking takes damage, but the attack has to happen, be successful, and deal damage first.
The attack has to happen, be successful and not deal damage otherwise Shield Block is pointless.
And what about Nimble Dodge?Your ruling breaks the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that this:
Unfortunately I don't think there is an explicit general rule for when and in what order reaction abilities are resolved.
We can try to extrapolate a general rule from the various special cases and reminders in various abilities and actions, but there are always inconsistencies.
Currently it takes GM adjudication and a good sense of what is reasonable and appropriate for the action and reaction involved. Because the correct answer is going to be different for different scenarios.
Trying to find an absolute ruling results in threads like this one. This isn't the first time that this topic has come up. In fact, I remember one that was similar only a few days ago.
is what I use for my official ruling on reactions and disrupting, I don't think that it is breaking the game at all.
I'm just arguing against the idea that there is a clear, unambiguous, and consistently correct way of ruling on it.
If only we could get devs to address questions like these and provide better guidelines on reactions.
It's really odd to me that people are essentially arguing "If I get knocked out I still finish my Sudden Charge".
I don't think anyone is arguing that. We're arguing that the default state (that has exceptions) is that reactions resolve after the trigger. If you're not hit until after your action is complete, then of course you finish it. Some reactions absolutely must resolve before the triggering action to function, but I don't think that is the default for all reactions.
I agree that if a reaction resolves first, it could make the triggering action unable to finish. And one such way that might occur is a reaction that deals damage and resources before the trigger could reduce someone to an unconscious state.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are tons of reactions that would be pointless if they happened after the trigger (Shield Block).Shield Block specifically says that it happens after the attack. Before the character doing the blocking takes damage, but the attack has to happen, be successful, and deal damage first.The attack has to happen, be successful and not deal damage otherwise Shield Block is pointless.
And what about Nimble Dodge?Your ruling breaks the game.
What about Nimble Dodge? Just read the trigger in the feat description:
"Trigger: A creature targets you with an attack and you can see the attacker."
The poor , maligned Rogue must declare the use of his reaction even before the to-hit roll happens. If that misses, or the -2 adjustment fails to change the result, the Rogue's reaction is still used up.
Considering that this:
Unfortunately I don't think there is an explicit general rule for when and in what order reaction abilities are resolved.
We can try to extrapolate a general rule from the various special cases and reminders in various abilities and actions, but there are always inconsistencies.
Currently it takes GM adjudication and a good sense of what is reasonable and appropriate for the action and reaction involved. Because the correct answer is going to be different for different scenarios.
Trying to find an absolute ruling results in threads like this one. This isn't the first time that this topic has come up. In fact, I remember one that was similar only a few days ago.
is what I use for my official ruling on reactions and disrupting, I don't think that it is breaking the game at all.
I'm just arguing against the idea that there is a clear, unambiguous, and consistently correct way of ruling on it.
Do you have a single example where applying the reaction immediately breaks anything? Because I doubt you'll find any such thing.
Do you have a single example where applying the reaction immediately breaks anything? Because I doubt you'll find any such thing.
Is the pseudo-disrupt of Ready action to Stride triggered by Strike not sufficient?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have a single example where applying the reaction immediately breaks anything? Because I doubt you'll find any such thing.Is the pseudo-disrupt of Ready action to Stride triggered by Strike not sufficient?
No. First, it doesn't cause an issue by itself, it's just that you find its effect to be too strong. Also, with the Ready Action you can find the most convoluted situation that will create an issue.
I mean an actual reaction, as I did with your ruling. Something that is supposed to be handled properly by the game but isn't with this ruling.