This limitation of one action per trigger is per creature; more than one creature can use a reaction or free action in response to a given trigger. If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it’s unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative.
Player Core has added this sentence. It mostly addresses what happens if multiple creatures react to the same thing by defining what order the triggered actions resolve in. But this sentence also applies if the trigger is an action, because reactions and triggered free actions happen simultaneously with their triggers.
For example, say two fighters are making Reactive Strikes against an enemy Interacting with a lever. The Reactive Strikes and Interact are all happening at once, so the GM determines which to resolve first, though I'd imagine most GMs would resolve the Reactive Strikes first. So I guess if the enemy falls to zero HP from the Strikes, he wouldn't get to Interact even if neither Strike was a crit?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This limitation of one action per trigger is per creature; more than one creature can use a reaction or free action in response to a given trigger. If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it’s unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative.So I guess if the enemy falls to zero HP from the Strikes, he wouldn't get to Interact even if neither Strike was a crit?
That is one possible narrative.
But the players shouldn't complain when the GM instead rules that the lever gets activated first and then the enemy drops because none of the Reactive Strikes were a crit and so didn't disrupt the interact action to pull the lever.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The enemy dies, he doesn't pull the lever. The PCs sigh in relief. His body slowly slumps over, the lever snags on his gear and is pulled as the body falls to the ground.
But aren't reactions written with the idea that they specifically interrupt (and possibly disrupt) the action/activity that triggered it? Seems silly that a GM would rule otherwise.
This is more likely saying if two different reactions from two different creatures trigger, the GM decides which of the reactions takes place first, and honestly, a simple Initiative comparison would be the easiest way to decide.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Rogue looks brute of a beast standing between him and the lever. Then looks over at the rest of his team trapped behind a portcullis that the lever opens - their Barbarian ally straining and failing to raise the barrier because of the latching mechanism. The latch controlled by that blasted lever guarded by this monster.
Having already taken a couple of hits from the brute, the Rogue knows he isn't going to last much longer without help from his friends. He makes a reckless decision. Using his Mobility, he carefully darts around the creature to the lever. He has to take his eyes off the beast for just a second to figure out how to grab the handle and press the trigger on it that allows the lever to move. The monstrosity take that bit of distraction as a perfect opportunity to land yet another blow on the harried Rogue. As his sight dims, the Rogue's last conscious thoughts are that he simply must get this lever release activated. With a subtle shift of his feet, he falls onto the lever - pushing it over.
With a roar, the Barbarian rips the portcullis upwards and the rest of the team spills into the room.
Mighty Rage is an example of a free action that makes more sense when it comes after its trigger.
As Darksol said, I believe the new "If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time" bit is in reference to what the paragraph began with: multiple reactions and free actions reacting to the same trigger. Reactions and free actions with triggers still resolve before their triggering action does unless stated otherwise, as evident by the last line of the Simultaneous Actions sidebar on PC 415, "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." And the second-to-last sentence of the Reactions to Movement sidebar on PC 422, "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."
I was on the side of "even if the target is dropped the action still resolves if it wasn't specifically disrupted" the last time we had this discussion. I forget if it was during that discussion or in a thread after it, but I have changed my mind
How did you extrapolate "resolve the reaction or free action before the triggering action unless stated otherwise" from those rules? The second rule doesn't apply unless the trigger is a move action. And the first rule is called "Simultaneous Actions" and doesn't say anything about the resolution order.
I was on the side of "even if the target is dropped the action still resolves if it wasn't specifically disrupted" the last time we had this discussion. I forget if it was during that discussion or in a thread after it, but I have changed my mind
I'm very solidly on the side of 'however the ambiguity in the RAW was resolved before, it is now very clear that the GM makes a decision on a case-by-case basis.'
Examples:
If a creature uses an interact action to pull a lever and gets hit (but not crit) with Reactive Strike and doesn't drop as a result, then the lever pull happens and the Reactive Strike happens and the order isn't terribly important.
If a creature uses an interact action to pull a lever and gets crit with Reactive Strike, then the lever pull action is disrupted and doesn't happen.
If a creature uses an interact action to pull a lever, gets hit (but not crit) with Reactive Strike and falls unconscious and dying 1 as a result, then the GM decides which order the events happen between pulling the lever and falling unconscious. Reactive Strike obviously happens before falling unconscious. But where pulling the lever happens is unclear and is up to the GM to decide.
If a creature uses an interact action to pull a lever, gets hit (but not crit) with Reactive Strike and falls unconscious and dying 1 as a result, then the GM decides which order the events happen between pulling the lever and falling unconscious. Reactive Strike obviously happens before falling unconscious. But where pulling the lever happens is unclear and is up to the GM to decide.
Pulling the lever doesn't happen because you receive the Dying/Unconscious before you complete the action, and those conditions specifically state you can't act.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a creature uses an interact action to pull a lever, gets hit (but not crit) with Reactive Strike and falls unconscious and dying 1 as a result, then the GM decides which order the events happen between pulling the lever and falling unconscious. Reactive Strike obviously happens before falling unconscious. But where pulling the lever happens is unclear and is up to the GM to decide.Pulling the lever doesn't happen because you receive the Dying/Unconscious before you complete the action, and those conditions specifically state you can't act.
Do you actually have a rules citation that says that a reaction resolves before the triggering action does?
Because if not, then the order is uncertain and now we do have a rules citation that says that it is up to the GM in this case.
How did you extrapolate "resolve the reaction or free action before the triggering action unless stated otherwise" from those rules? The second rule doesn't apply unless the trigger is a move action. And the first rule is called "Simultaneous Actions" and doesn't say anything about the resolution order.The reactions to move action specific rules and timing exception for stationary move actions wouldn't need to exist if all reactions occurred after the trigger they were reacting to.
Have another look at the sentence before the rule about stationary move actions triggering actions.
Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). 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.
The rule is an exception to the way move actions usually work (you can react to every square of movement), and it's needed because there are move actions like Stand where you don't leave your square at all. It's not an exception to some nebulous way that all reactions and free actions work.
If a creature is reduced to 0 HP "in the middle" of doing something they can't finish what they were doing because they're either removed from play if they're most creatures or are knocked out if they're a PC or dramatically important monster or NPC
That's no reason to assume something about all reactions and triggered free actions, though. Many reactions and free actions do not do damage, after all.
For instance, Mighty Rage is triggered by using a Rage action on your turn. The effect is to use an action with the rage trait, which is only possible if you are already raging. This free action doesn't say to resolve the free action before the Rage action. It just has to work that way, though.
If a creature uses an interact action to pull a lever, gets hit (but not crit) with Reactive Strike and falls unconscious and dying 1 as a result, then the GM decides which order the events happen between pulling the lever and falling unconscious. Reactive Strike obviously happens before falling unconscious. But where pulling the lever happens is unclear and is up to the GM to decide.Pulling the lever doesn't happen because you receive the Dying/Unconscious before you complete the action, and those conditions specifically state you can't act.Do you actually have a rules citation that says that a reaction resolves before the triggering action does?
Because if not, then the order is uncertain and now we do have a rules citation that says that it is up to the GM in this case.
It does seem weird to decide the order based on whether the Reactive Strike was a critical success. Let's break down both approaches. For the first example, we'll have the Reactive Strike happen first. For the second example, we'll have it go first on a critical success or second on a normal success.
1) The enemy tries to Interact with the lever. The fighter uses Reactive Strike, rolling an 18. The target's AC was 16, so the GM announces a success. The fighter rolls 11 damage. The enemy now has 0 Hit Points and cannot Interact with the lever as planned.
2) The enemy tries to Interact with the lever. The fighter uses Reactive Strike, rolling an 18. The target's AC was 16, so the GM announces a success. The enemy Interacts with the lever. The fighter rolls 11 damage. The enemy now has 0 Hit Points.
In the first approach, the Reactive Strike interrupts the Interact. In the second approach, the Reactive Strike seems to both interrupt and be interrupted by the Interact.
It does seem weird to decide the order based on whether the Reactive Strike was a critical success.
That's not because of the ordering preferences. That is because Reactive Strike specifically says that it disrupts the action that triggered it on a crit. And disrupting an action means that the effect of that action doesn't happen.
So that scenario is the one that is best supported by the rules. If the Fighter crits with Reactive Strike against the creature trying to pull the lever, that lever doesn't get pulled. Whether the target is at 0 HP afterwards or not.
It does seem weird to decide the order based on whether the Reactive Strike was a critical success.That's not because of the ordering preferences. That is because Reactive Strike specifically says that it disrupts the action that triggered it on a crit. And disrupting an action means that the effect of that action doesn't happen.
So that scenario is the one that is best supported by the rules. If the Fighter crits with Reactive Strike against the creature trying to pull the lever, that lever doesn't get pulled. Whether the target is at 0 HP afterwards or not.
My point is that you're pausing in the middle of the Reactive Strike to finish the thing that Reactive Strike is interrupting, meaning the reaction itself is being interrupted, even though an action can usually only be interrupted by reactions and free actions triggered by said action. Perhaps it's not an incorrect interpretation, but it seems less messy to just let the entire Reactive Strike finish and have the target suffer the consequences.
It does seem weird to decide the order based on whether the Reactive Strike was a critical success.That's not because of the ordering preferences. That is because Reactive Strike specifically says that it disrupts the action that triggered it on a crit. And disrupting an action means that the effect of that action doesn't happen.
So that scenario is the one that is best supported by the rules. If the Fighter crits with Reactive Strike against the creature trying to pull the lever, that lever doesn't get pulled. Whether the target is at 0 HP afterwards or not.
If a creature can't act, it can't perform any activities. Unconscious creatures (such as by hitting 0 HP and are considered Dying/Dead) cannot act, and therefore this argument of disrupting means nothing because it has no interaction. Especially when the example gives no mention of a critical hit, just a creature falling to 0 HP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a creature can't act, it can't perform any activities. Unconscious creatures (such as by hitting 0 HP and are considered Dying/Dead) cannot act, and therefore this argument of disrupting means nothing because it has no interaction. Especially when the example gives no mention of a critical hit, just a creature falling to 0 HP.It does seem weird to decide the order based on whether the Reactive Strike was a critical success.That's not because of the ordering preferences. That is because Reactive Strike specifically says that it disrupts the action that triggered it on a crit. And disrupting an action means that the effect of that action doesn't happen.
So that scenario is the one that is best supported by the rules. If the Fighter crits with Reactive Strike against the creature trying to pull the lever, that lever doesn't get pulled. Whether the target is at 0 HP afterwards or not.
Again, do you actually have a rules citation that says that a reaction resolves before the triggering action.
Confidently claiming that this is the way that the rules must work isn't sufficient. No matter how many times you do it.
If a creature can't act, it can't perform any activities. Unconscious creatures (such as by hitting 0 HP and are considered Dying/Dead) cannot act, and therefore this argument of disrupting means nothing because it has no interaction. Especially when the example gives no mention of a critical hit, just a creature falling to 0 HP.It does seem weird to decide the order based on whether the Reactive Strike was a critical success.That's not because of the ordering preferences. That is because Reactive Strike specifically says that it disrupts the action that triggered it on a crit. And disrupting an action means that the effect of that action doesn't happen.
So that scenario is the one that is best supported by the rules. If the Fighter crits with Reactive Strike against the creature trying to pull the lever, that lever doesn't get pulled. Whether the target is at 0 HP afterwards or not.
I believe Finoan is saying that the GM can use the attack roll result to decide whether the Reactive Strike happens before or after the Interact. By this argument, a crit means the attack happens first and disrupts the Interact, and on a regular hit, the Interact happens first and then the attack KOs the creature (if enough damage is dealt).
I find this argument to be flawed, though, because the attack roll and determining the degree of success are all part of the Reactive Strike itself. If the GM is doing all that before resolving the Interact, then the GM has presumably already decided to resolve the Reactive Strike before the Interact. (Decided to resolve the entire Reactive Strike, attack roll and all, after the Interact would just be silly.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that you're pausing in the middle of the Reactive Strike to finish the thing that Reactive Strike is interrupting, meaning the reaction itself is being interrupted, even though an action can usually only be interrupted by reactions and free actions triggered by said action. Perhaps it's not an incorrect interpretation, but it seems less messy to just let the entire Reactive Strike finish and have the target suffer the consequences.
In an alternative narrative, since Reactive Strike didn't crit and didn't disrupt the action, then the pulling of the lever finishes first before the Reactive Strike resolves. The Fighter is 'reacting' to the pulling of the lever and the swing and damage happens after the lever is already pulled.
If a creature can't act, it can't perform any activities. Unconscious creatures (such as by hitting 0 HP and are considered Dying/Dead) cannot act, and therefore this argument of disrupting means nothing because it has no interaction. Especially when the example gives no mention of a critical hit, just a creature falling to 0 HP.It does seem weird to decide the order based on whether the Reactive Strike was a critical success.That's not because of the ordering preferences. That is because Reactive Strike specifically says that it disrupts the action that triggered it on a crit. And disrupting an action means that the effect of that action doesn't happen.
So that scenario is the one that is best supported by the rules. If the Fighter crits with Reactive Strike against the creature trying to pull the lever, that lever doesn't get pulled. Whether the target is at 0 HP afterwards or not.
Again, do you actually have a rules citation that says that a reaction resolves before the triggering action.
Confidently claiming that this is the way that the rules must work isn't sufficient. No matter how many times you do it.
If a reaction never triggers before an action, then the Move Action clarifications wouldn't need to exist (because the default is that it happens after an action takes place, meaning it is redundant to state this), and there would be no reason to allow disrupting actions with a critical hit if the intent is that the reaction cannot or does not resolve before an action completes. This "result determines which takes precedence" thing is at-best equally baseless within the rules because the rules do not make such a distinction, and only care for actions happening simultaneously, the results of said actions aren't factored in for determining it, and since some reactions do not have results like this and simply do stuff, you can't reasonably use it as a universal solution compared to "it always happens right before the trigger."
If a reaction never triggers before an action, then the Move Action clarifications wouldn't need to exist
*sigh*
Where in this conversation have I said that a reaction never resolves before its triggering action?
What part of:
If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it’s unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative.
is unclear?
If a reaction never triggers before an action, then the Move Action clarifications wouldn't need to exist*sigh*
Where in this conversation have I said that a reaction never resolves before its triggering action?
What part of:
If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it’s unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative.is unclear?
I'll address both of these points.
The stationary move action rule makes an exception to the rule that you can react to a move action whenever the target leaves a space within reach, not an exception to all reactions in the game.
While the new rule about the GM resolving order is clear, it's not setting a precedent for chopping the reaction into two pieces and sandwiching the triggering action between them. It's just saying the GM decides whether the reaction or triggering action happens first.
While the new rule about the GM resolving order is clear, it's not setting a precedent for chopping the reaction into two pieces and sandwiching the triggering action between them. It's just saying the GM decides whether the reaction or triggering action happens first.
I'm not chopping the reaction into two pieces.
If the GM is free to decide whether the reaction happens before or after the triggering action, then the GM can decide that Reactive Strike happens after pulling the lever. Reactive Strike doesn't have anything like the stationary Move action rule to clearly specify the order.
Then if the Reactive Strike action results in a crit, the 'disrupts the triggering action' rule takes effect.
I'm not chopping the reaction into two pieces.
If the GM is free to decide whether the reaction happens before or after the triggering action, then the GM can decide that Reactive Strike happens after pulling the lever. Reactive Strike doesn't have anything like the stationary Move action rule to clearly specify the order.
Then if the Reactive Strike action results in a crit, the 'disrupts the triggering action' rule takes effect.
Interesting idea, though I was under the impression that if an action has already taken effect, it's too late to disrupt it. Are you saying the triggering action can actually be retroactively disrupted?
If a reaction never triggers before an action, then the Move Action clarifications wouldn't need to exist*sigh*
Where in this conversation have I said that a reaction never resolves before its triggering action?
What part of:
If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it’s unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative.is unclear?
How about the factor that reactions aren't meant to be flexible in terms of order based on their results, and we have a Specific Trumps General entry in another rules section creating an inconsistency between this rule and the previous rule.
Even the "new printing trumps old printing" argument doesn't work because these are both in the same book and it's not a revision of a previous rule.
Are you saying the triggering action can actually be retroactively disrupted?
The Disrupting Actions rules examples wouldn't read like doing a retcon...
The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. For instance, a Leap disrupted midway wouldn’t transport you back to the start of your jump, and a disrupted item hand off might cause the item to fall to the ground instead of staying in the hand of the creature who was trying to give it away.
if it wasn't doing a retcon.
Interesting idea, though I was under the impression that if an action has already taken effect, it's too late to disrupt it. Are you saying the triggering action can actually be retroactively disrupted?I'm not chopping the reaction into two pieces.
If the GM is free to decide whether the reaction happens before or after the triggering action, then the GM can decide that Reactive Strike happens after pulling the lever. Reactive Strike doesn't have anything like the stationary Move action rule to clearly specify the order.
Then if the Reactive Strike action results in a crit, the 'disrupts the triggering action' rule takes effect.
You can't retroactively disrupt an action that has already taken place, because by that point the action is already done, meaning it can't be undone.
Are you saying the triggering action can actually be retroactively disrupted?The Disrupting Actions rules examples wouldn't read like doing a retcon...
The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. For instance, a Leap disrupted midway wouldn’t transport you back to the start of your jump, and a disrupted item hand off might cause the item to fall to the ground instead of staying in the hand of the creature who was trying to give it away.if it wasn't doing a retcon.
But this Reactive Strike argument is literally proposing a hypothetical retcon based on the result of the reaction, so saying it doesn't is hypocritical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But this Reactive Strike argument is literally proposing a hypothetical retcon based on the result of the reaction, so saying it doesn't is hypocritical.Are you saying the triggering action can actually be retroactively disrupted?The Disrupting Actions rules examples wouldn't read like doing a retcon...
The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. For instance, a Leap disrupted midway wouldn’t transport you back to the start of your jump, and a disrupted item hand off might cause the item to fall to the ground instead of staying in the hand of the creature who was trying to give it away.if it wasn't doing a retcon.
Passing an item to an ally is also an Interact action. And if Reactive Strike crits and disrupts the item, the GM may decide that the Interact handoff action had already started and the item drops instead of having the Reactive Strike happen before the handoff occurs.
And since you still haven't cited any actual rules text - just made logic arguments - and you have devolved into name-calling...
I think I am done here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting idea, though I was under the impression that if an action has already taken effect, it's too late to disrupt it. Are you saying the triggering action can actually be retroactively disrupted?I'm not chopping the reaction into two pieces.
If the GM is free to decide whether the reaction happens before or after the triggering action, then the GM can decide that Reactive Strike happens after pulling the lever. Reactive Strike doesn't have anything like the stationary Move action rule to clearly specify the order.
Then if the Reactive Strike action results in a crit, the 'disrupts the triggering action' rule takes effect.
Actually now that I think of it, having the Reactive Strike occur last presents other problems, even if it's allowed to retroactively disrupt on a crit. Suppose the trigger is not an Interact but rather a manipulate spell? If we resolve the spell first, that's potentially a lot of changes that need to be tracked for multiple creatures. And if the reacting creature isn't reduced to zero HP, you'll just have to undo all the changes if the spell is retroactively disrupted. Resolving the Reactive Strike first would be much less of a hassle and IMO makes more narrative sense.
The Fighter is 'reacting' to the pulling of the lever and the swing and damage happens after the lever is already pulled.
But if the Fighter crits it causes the lever to get retroactively unpulled?
That seems like kind of a weird way to run things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Fighter is 'reacting' to the pulling of the lever and the swing and damage happens after the lever is already pulled.But if the Fighter crits it causes the lever to get retroactively unpulled?
That seems like kind of a weird way to run things.
Are you seriously going to tell me with a straight face that you have never stated that you succeed at a skill check before you roll (like "I jump over the pit."), then roll a 2 on the d20 and have to retcon what actually happens in the game?
It is a minor thing, of course. People shrug this off without even really thinking about it.
But the point is that the dice rolling for the mechanics happens before the narrative results are fully decided on.
Pulling the lever and Reactive Strike happen at the same time. The order is sometimes determined by the result of the Strike roll (most notably on a crit). Sometimes it is not and has to be determined by the GM.
Why is that a weird way to run things?
Actually now that I think of it, having the Reactive Strike occur last presents other problems, even if it's allowed to retroactively disrupt on a crit. Suppose the trigger is not an Interact but rather a manipulate spell? If we resolve the spell first, that's potentially a lot of changes that need to be tracked for multiple creatures. And if the reacting creature isn't reduced to zero HP, you'll just have to undo all the changes if the spell is retroactively disrupted. Resolving the Reactive Strike first would be much less of a hassle and IMO makes more narrative sense.Interesting idea, though I was under the impression that if an action has already taken effect, it's too late to disrupt it. Are you saying the triggering action can actually be retroactively disrupted?I'm not chopping the reaction into two pieces.
If the GM is free to decide whether the reaction happens before or after the triggering action, then the GM can decide that Reactive Strike happens after pulling the lever. Reactive Strike doesn't have anything like the stationary Move action rule to clearly specify the order.
Then if the Reactive Strike action results in a crit, the 'disrupts the triggering action' rule takes effect.
There is also a difference between 'rolling' and 'resolving'.
I would absolutely roll the attack for Reactive Strike before going through and updating the results of a spell that may potentially get interrupted. If the roll crits, that saves us all a lot of work trying to determine what happens with the spell since the spell doesn't happen.
That doesn't mean that the Reactive Strike resolves first all the time. The spell effect may happen before the Strike effect does.
The order is sometimes determined by the result of the Strike roll (most notably on a crit).
Do you have a rules citation for this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The order is sometimes determined by the result of the Strike roll (most notably on a crit).Do you have a rules citation for this?
For what in particular?
Reactive Strike disrupts actions if you roll a crit. So yeah, at that point it kinda needs to resolve first. When you roll a crit.
I'm not sure how I am supposed to quote a rules citation for Reactive Strike not specifying if it resolves before or after the triggering action when it doesn't crit. Quoting text that doesn't exist is a bit difficult. But its non-existence would be my citation for saying that Reactive Strike does not specify whether it resolves before or after. Feel free to post a rules citation that contradicts my claim that such a rule does not exist.
And the first post in this thread contains the rules citation for stating that if the order is not specified, then the GM decides which resolves first.
Quoting text that doesn't exist is a bit difficult.
Then why assert so confidently that that's how the game is meant to work? Especially when you claim to be championing the importance of explicit rules text...
The notion that certain outcomes change the order of operations (or that actions are meant to be changed retroactively) doesn't show up anywhere in the rules, but large parts of your assertion rely on assuming that those things are explicit parts of the system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that everyone else is capable of reading the rest of that paragraph that I wrote that had one sentence quoted out of it. The rest of the paragraph that gives the full context of what I am actually claiming.
The rule writers went out of their way to state clearly that the order of action resolution is too complicated to encode into formal rules. That is why they added that sentence quoted in the first posting here. There are nothing but edge cases in this. So the rule writers explicitly leave it up to the GMs to make a decision on.
Saying that, "no, it must always be that reactions happen before the triggering action," or "no, it must always be that reactions happen after the triggering action and can only disrupt actions that have already happened if they say that they disrupt," are both statements that are not supported by RAW.
The explicit rules text is now that the GM decides - unless the specific action's rules give a specific order (such as a crit on Reactive Strike and the 'disrupting actions' rules, or the 'Move actions that don't change your position' rules).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reactive Strike disrupts actions if you roll a crit. So yeah, at that point it kinda needs to resolve first. When you roll a crit.
I'm not sure how I am supposed to quote a rules citation for Reactive Strike not specifying if it resolves before or after the triggering action when it doesn't crit. Quoting text that doesn't exist is a bit difficult. But its non-existence would be my citation for saying that Reactive Strike does not specify whether it resolves before or after. Feel free to post a rules citation that contradicts my claim that such a rule does not exist.
And the first post in this thread contains the rules citation for stating that if the order is not specified, then the GM decides which resolves first.
Uh, no, the trigger determines the order from which the reaction takes place, and not the resolution of the reaction: When the creature declares it is performing an Interact action, the trigger for Reactive Strike is met (a creature is performing an action with the Manipulate trait), and the Reactive Strike is executed in its entirety before the Interact action resolves. The argument of "Reactive Strike takes place afterward" makes no sense because then the action is complete and the Reactive Strike no longer has a trigger to work from, ergo you would never be able to apply Reactive Strike if the argument is that, sometimes, it applies afterward.
And you said it yourself: There is no hard rule that states that Reactive Strike's resolution varies based on its result(s), not even the potential disruption that you put so much emphasis on for determining when it takes place (which, again, would be in direct conflict of its trigger if we treated it as such), so this supposition of "Well, Reactive Strike only occurs first if it disrupts" likewise has no basis.
I honestly believe this whole thread strawmanned the meaning of that paragraph, because this is likely talking more about if two Reactions on the same Action take place (such as if two Reactive Strikes triggered on the same Interact), and not about whether Reactions can or cannot circumvent Actions (which, when they are specifically designed to do so, goes against that design principle to argue that they sometimes can't).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, no, the trigger determines the order from which the reaction takes place, and not the resolution of the reaction
Citation?
When the creature declares it is performing an Interact action, the trigger for Reactive Strike is met (a creature is performing an action with the Manipulate trait), and the Reactive Strike is executed in its entirety before the Interact action resolves.
Citation? Especially regarding that the interrupted Interact action doesn't need to finish (but has started) but the Reactive Strike must be executed in its entirety before the Interact action resolves.
The argument of "Reactive Strike takes place afterward" makes no sense because then the action is complete and the Reactive Strike no longer has a trigger to work from, ergo you would never be able to apply Reactive Strike if the argument is that, sometimes, it applies afterward.
At best your alternative is that both the Interact action and the Reactive Strike action are happening at the same time.
The Interact action has to start before Reactive Strike can be triggered (or else it's trigger also hasn't been met), and your ruling is that Reactive Strike can't start after the Interact action finishes.
Uh, no, the trigger determines the order from which the reaction takes place, and not the resolution of the reactionCitation?
When the creature declares it is performing an Interact action, the trigger for Reactive Strike is met (a creature is performing an action with the Manipulate trait), and the Reactive Strike is executed in its entirety before the Interact action resolves.Citation? Especially regarding that the interrupted Interact action doesn't need to finish (but has started) but the Reactive Strike must be executed in its entirety before the Interact action resolves.
The argument of "Reactive Strike takes place afterward" makes no sense because then the action is complete and the Reactive Strike no longer has a trigger to work from, ergo you would never be able to apply Reactive Strike if the argument is that, sometimes, it applies afterward.At best your alternative is that both the Interact action and the Reactive Strike action are happening at the same time.
The Interact action has to start before Reactive Strike can be triggered (or else it's trigger also hasn't been met), and your ruling is that Reactive Strike can't start after the Interact action finishes.
Not everything requires citations, merely common sense and chronology. Reactions require triggers to be able to utilize them, and often interrupt the normal turn flow as a result. If the triggers don't take place, they don't activate. Pretty simple stuff. Causality suggests that, in order for them to activate, the trigger must take place, and as a result change certain outcomes of certain activities. Otherwise, we will have stupid GMs argue that Reactions can't take place in clearly obvious points in a given turn (largely determined by their trigger), not unlike what you are proposing. And if the Reactive Strike occurs after the action is done (i.e. the Interact is completed and the lever is pulled), then the trigger for the Reactive Strike has passed, and you are unable to take it, so your argument of "if the Reactive Strike doesn't critically hit, then the Interact action still takes place," especially when it doesn't have to critically hit to potentially ruin the action.
Again, a citation isn't needed because the rules already cover this through the basic rules of the game. Let's say I want to move into position, strike, then move away. By the rules, I have to spend 1 action to Stride into position, then 1 action to Strike, then 1 action to Stride again. But according to you, I can just spend 1 action to Stride half my speed in range of the foe, then 1 action to Strike, then spend the other half of my first action to finish my Stride, leaving me a 3rd action (which I could have used to Strike twice before even finishing my first action, or do something else). The rules do not permit this.
I mean, my argument is more that Reactive Strike is triggering as the action has been declared, but right before any application of said action takes place because the result of said Reactive Strike can determine whether the action even takes place or not (either via disruption or being unable to act from other means), because again, the reaction can affect the outcome of the action, and its ability to Disrupt the action isn't the sole factor in this. Let me put it into perspective:
If a creature has 3 actions, and spends 1 action to Interact to pull a lever in range of a Fighter, it triggers a Reactive Strike. If the attack critically hits, it disrupts the Interaction action, meaning the creature can spend its second action to attempt to pull the lever again, no reaction available to be taken. Now, if the attack was a mere hit, but the creature is reduced to 0 HP as a result of the attack, the creature still loses the action, and also ceases to be unable to act as a result of the Reactive Strike because the Reactive Strike made them Unconscious, and so not only would it lose its ability to complete its initial action (again, it hasn't completed yet because its turn flow was interrupted by the Reactive Strike), but it would also lose the rest of its turn since it is unable to act.
This is my interpretation. Until the rules come out and actually address stuff like this specifically, I will not change it because IMO, the new rules text doesn't even address this whatsoever; it's not specific enough, and feels like it's out of context given the above example.
@SuperParkourio, I haven't forgotten about your Mighty Rage question. It's covered by the Simultaneous Actions sidebar I mentioned above. First sentence: "You can use only one single action, activity, or free action that doesn't have a trigger at a time. You must complete one before beginning another." The Mighty Rage free action is triggered by using the Rage action on your turn. It has the potential to alter the Rage action's action cost, so it must be used DURING the Rage action itself. But Simultaneous Actions states that you have to complete one action...
The reason the Rage action has to be before the Mighty Rage it triggers isn't because of that Simultaneous Actions rule. In fact, that rule makes an exception for free actions with triggers, which Mighty Rage is. The reason the Mighty Rage must be resolved after the Rage action (or at least after you start raging) is because its subordinate action with the rage trait requires that you are already raging, so Mighty Rage must be resolved at least after you start raging in the triggering action so that it can actually be used.
The stationary move action bit isn't an exception to the leaving your square during movement part, because you don't leave your square.
The whole point of the exception is that the stationary move actions are exceptional. If the exception wasn't in there, Stand and in-place Fly would never provoke Reactive Strike at all as there is no leaving your square to react to.
You are correct that not all reactions do damage so it's not always going to be a game-changing situation to play them meticulously in order, but it's important to understand how they work and play the game consistently
Were it so easy. I would have rather had a more concrete rule to follow than seen the rule of reaction timing decided by the GM and the narrative, but this is what the rules are telling us. Sometimes, the reaction works better if it happens first. Sometimes, the reaction works better if it happens second. The GM must use their best judgement, though I imagine the answer for a given reaction (or free action) will hardly ever change; a GM who rules that Reactive Strike happens first once will likely always rule it that way thereafter.
The stationary move action bit isn't an exception to the leaving your square during movement part, because you don't leave your square.The whole point of the exception is that the stationary move actions are exceptional. If the exception wasn't in there, Stand and in-place Fly would never provoke Reactive Strike at all as there is no leaving your square to react to.
It would provoke reactive strike because the trigger has both "leaves a square during a move action it's using" as well as "a creature within your reach uses a manipulate or a move action", both fly and stand are move actions
The stationary move action bit isn't an exception to the leaving your square during movement part, because you don't leave your square.The whole point of the exception is that the stationary move actions are exceptional. If the exception wasn't in there, Stand and in-place Fly would never provoke Reactive Strike at all as there is no leaving your square to react to.
To be fair, I've always ran Fly in this way; it's otherwise way more debilitating to Fly (because it forces you to be effectively Slowed 1, which stacks with Slowed/Stunned 1, and you will always provoke during your turn) than it is to just be on the ground fighting, and honestly, if that's how Paizo wants to run it, Fly might as well just be an Exploration activity at that point.
And to be clear, I run it to where Fly only provokes if they move squares/elevation; if they just hover in place, it doesn't feel like it's enough of an opening for a reaction like Reactive Strike to take place, because otherwise we can make the argument of creatures standing in place should trigger too, because they are constantly Standing (noted as a Move action to do), which means it triggers.
I'm not going to debate that Fly doesn't provoke, because by RAW it does. All I'm saying is that it feels nonsensical for it to do so when there is no more fundamental movement involved than if a creature was just standing on the ground in place. I don't think the flapping of wings (if any) should be enough to warrant a Reactive Strike, even if RAW it does.
Mighty Rage is resolved before Rage is resolved because it has the potential to alter Rage's action cost. Its subordinate action, the rage action that depends on Rage being active, doesn't begin until Rage is finished because of the Simultaneous Actions rule. Mighty Rage is a free action with a trigger, which Simultaneous Actions gives an exception for, but its subordinate action is not. But fear not. All the timing is just right. 1. You activate Rage during your turn 2. Rage triggers Mighty Rage and you resolve it, which potentially alters Rage's action cost to allow a 2-action rage activity 3. Rage resolves because you can't begin another action, activity, or free action without a trigger 4. You use the subordinate rage action or activity Mighty Rage gave you. All according to the Simultaneous Actions rule
Hold up. You're saying that the free action triggered by the Rage does not have to wait for Rage to finish, but that free action's subordinate action does? If we applied that logic to Reactive Strike, then your subordinate Strike would have to wait until after the enemy's manipulate action, because you can't begin another single action, activity, or free action until... Wait...
With the Mighty Rage, your subordinate rage action has to wait until after you're finished with your Rage action. So does Reactive Strike not have that problem because it wasn't you who was doing the manipulate action in the first place?
Hmm... No, that still doesn't sound right. Imagine an adult black dragon tried to Fly out of a fighter's reach, which provokes a Reactive Strike from the fighter, the subordinate Strike of which provokes a Tail Lash from the dragon. The dragon hasn't finished the Fly action, so would it not be allowed to do the subordinate Strike of Tail Lash? No, that's just ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would provoke reactive strike because the trigger has both "leaves a square during a move action it's using" as well as "a creature within your reach uses a manipulate or a move action", both fly and stand are move actions
Let's look at the Reactions to Movement rules again, but pretending that the crucial sentence about stationary move actions is missing.
Some reactions and free actions are triggered by a creature using an action with the move trait. The most notable example is Reactive Strike (reproduced below). Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature).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.Some actions, such as Step, specifically state they don’t trigger reactions or free actions based on movement.
The explanation is that if you use a move action, you can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled, every time you exit a square within a creature's reach. Suppose you're just Standing back up from prone. You're not traveling any distance or leaving any square at all. Without that sentence about stationary actions, one could conclude that the reacting creature would simply be out of luck. Even of one did not reach that conclusion, having the sentence still helps for clarity's sake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Move actions provoke whether you leave your square or not. That's why Reactive Strike has two bits about move actions in its 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." What that sidebar is meant to explain is that if you leave your square during a move action, you provoke for each square of movement you make while you're making it. If you're disrupted, you stop movement in the square you were leaving, not back in your first square or in your intended destination square. If you don't leave your square, the move action still provokes, except the trigger is at the end of the action instead of in its middle so Stand can't be disrupted to cause you to remain prone
Alright, but it still makes no sense to conclude that the stationary move action rule is making some statement about all reactions. Look at the preceding sentence.
Each time you exit a square within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). 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.
What sounds more likely? That the "instead" means "instead of each time you exit a square within a creature's reach," or that the "instead" means "instead of at the start of that action or ability as is normal for reactions and free actions triggered by actions?"