| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a reaction does not say that it disrupts the triggering action then it does not disrupt the triggering action.
From Limitations on Triggers: "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."
Reactive Strike only disrupts on a crit. It does not disrupt on a regular hit.
Killing the enemy doesn't change that. The ranged attack should not get disrupted by the Reactive Strike that did not disrupt it. Choose an order for those simultaneous events of Ranged Strike and Reactive Strike such that the Strike does not get disrupted.
Dude...
"Disrupt" is a specific mechanic, yes, but it is also possible for Reactions to cause other actions to be "interrupted," which is the umbrella for any time trigger action/activity is no longer able to be completed. Such as a Shove pushing someone off a ledge and out of range.
Interruptions still prevent the action from completing.
Getting knocked unconscious is like, the most straightforward, "yeah, that interrupted the triggering action, it does not complete" you can come up with.
The main GM check is just about timing, determining exactly when the Reaction fires.
For triggers like "creature uses [action]" that moment is right after the cost is paid for and the action has begun, but before any of the body text is executed. Nothing has actually been done yet.
Finoan is correct. As with all abilities, reactions do what they say they do and no more or less. If it doesn't say it disrupts, it does not. These are Pathfinder reactions, not MtG interrupts
Which is exactly why the text uses "interrupted or disrupted" to indicate interruption creates an equivalent result.
That way, they can lean on "disruption" being a codified [thing] in pf2, and don't need a rather redundant explanation for interruptions.
... or at least, that was probably the idea. In hindsight, "best design" praxis would have been for the natural one to be explained, interruptions, and then codify the pf2 mechanic of "disruption" by pointing to interruptions.
___________________
Lets explore the OP edge case with another example case.
A Reaction allows a creature to poof and teleport when hit by a Strike or spell.
The party Monk uses Flurry of Blows. That ability only combines for the sake of weak/res/etc, the PC still performs two Strikes in sequence. After the first hit completes, the creature poofs.
From my "timing and eligibility" PoV, (if) the creature is now out of reach for the 2nd hit, (then) the Monk's action was interrupted.
They are no longer able to attempt the 2nd hit.
There is no disruption mechanic needed for this interaction.
There is no GM gimmie where both happen "simultaneously," so the punch is hand-waived to still be permitted.
________________________
The only situation I've seen with a genuinely simultaneous event is when 2 Reactions are reacting to the same trigger.
Which of the two goes first is then up to the GM, such as two Reactive Strikes. The GM might rule the higher DEX creature swings first. Or maybe one is at further reach, so they are 2nd, etc.
Note that the GM determines which happens first, and there was still NO simultaneous event. One Strike begins, rolls, and resolves before the other then begins.
Pf2 simply is not built for simultaneous actions, ever. The GM may need to decide the order, but the system simply does not allow two creatures to be performing actions in parallel. This is why I often say that Reactions "pause" whatever they are interrupting.
One action must fully resolve before the next begins. If a creature is fully taken to 0 HP before they ___, there is no way to rule the attempted action completes. That can only happen if their action finishes before the interruption, and they still have HP required to complete that action.
________________
To repeat for emphasis. This is not a RaI or bwtn the lines disagreement.
When helping advise on this potential ambiguity, the text is only discussing determining the ORDER of events. The notion that two things could ever happen genuinely simultaneously is not within pf2's scope, ever.
(GM can always improvise for their table to maximize fun in a dramatic moment. That's a good thing, we just need to be clear that it contradicts the rules.)
My guess at where the psycho unintuitive root lies, is at the timing of "[creature] uses a [action]" triggers.
When Reacting to hit a spellcast, that *result* matches the intuitive idea that you are smacking them before the spell *finishes,* so it feels right that the spell is still lost. (which hides the unintuitive mechanical reality. That's not "when" the hit landed.)
But the idea that Reacting to a ranged attack is so fast, that it's happening before the projectile is loosed, well, that's unintuitive.
Feels "wrong" for "uses a ___" Reactions to trigger and disrupt/interrupt before the opposing creature can fire a bolt to complete their action.
And I agree with that; the natural language "feels-definition" for "uses" would imply the action is finished in most contexts.
But in pf2, "uses" happens right at the start, after action points are spent, but before anything else.
I'd love for a pf3 to uses alt words like "begins" more often, but there's certainly bigger fish to prioritize.
Though now that they are fixed, we can no longer point to the broken Imm/Wk/Res rules anymore, ha ha.
Dude...
"Disrupt" is a specific mechanic, yes, but it is also possible for Reactions to cause other actions to be "interrupted," which is the umbrella for any time trigger action/activity is no longer able to be completed. Such as a Shove pushing someone off a ledge and out of range.
Interruptions still prevent the action from completing.
Getting knocked unconscious is like, the most straightforward, "yeah, that interrupted the triggering action, it does not complete" you can come up with.
You can still choose a different order for those concurrent actions that doesn't end up disrupting actions that weren't disrupted. This isn't Magic: The Gathering where it is expected behavior and a general rule that an Instant will always happen before the effect that it is responding to.
Here, the general rule is: actions are only Disrupted when something actually has the ability to Disrupt actions, and the GM gets to choose the order of the actions when concurrent or simultaneous actions happen.
And since fair is fair, here is another similar example to what OP set out:
Enemy makes a ranged Strike against a Fighter in the party. The Fighter uses Reactive Strike. The damage from the ranged Strike from the enemy is enough to drop the Fighter to 0 HP and unconscious.
Since Strike doesn't ever Disrupt actions, then the Fighter's Reactive Strike still happens at the same time as the ranged Strike from the enemy. The Fighter will drop after both attacks are resolved.
If you want a better parallel using Magic: The Gathering, then use their combat mechanics - all creatures in combat deal damage at the same time. If a creature would be dealt enough damage to destroy it, it still deals its combat damage to its opponent creature.
[heal edge case question]
The Reaction hits "pause" right after the action points (and other resources, including spell slots) are spent, and before the spell completes.
No actions can happen simultaneously in pf2.
The Reaction fully plays out, reducing the caster to 0 HP.
They are unable to cast the spell.
The spell does not complete, but the slot is consumed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I default to FIFO unless an ability specifies different timing
It's funny because through years of playing MTG I just default to FILO unless abilities specify otherwise. The Stack is too ingrained in my brain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[heal edge case question]The Reaction hits "pause" right after the action points (and other resources, including spell slots) are spent, and before the spell completes.
Since we are posting simultaneously, I'll reply to this again to ensure that you notice.
This is still the Magic: The Gathering's Instant mechanics way of thinking.
In PF2, reactions don't always happen before their triggering action. The GM gets to determine the order that they are resolved in. That is literally what the rule says in Limitations on Triggers quoted above.
Choose a different order that doesn't disrupt actions that are not disrupted.
You can still choose a different order for those concurrent actions that doesn't end up disrupting actions that weren't disrupted.
That's true, but rather rare. The issue is that "uses a [action]" is codified, and trying to pretend it's later in time is just inconsistent/dishonest. That's the most common one, and we know it happens right after the resources are spent, but before before any action text happens.
_______________
Here, the general rule is: actions are only Disrupted when something actually has the ability to Disrupt actions,
I have no idea where that is coming from, afaik that's not in the rules anywhere.
If anything, it's closer to the opposite. The text is super clear that you loose all resources and actions when interrupted or disrupted, full stop. No "GM determines a partial-refund," text dictates that you loose all 3 action points, spell slots, etc.
Idk why you are still denying "interruptions" as a thing by your careful omission, kinda weird to pretend that's not a real mechanic.
Do you rule that a Sudden Charge gets to complete with 0 HP? When exactly does an "interruption" like 0 HP get to prevent further activity?
__________________
Enemy makes a ranged Strike against a Fighter in the party. The Fighter uses Reactive Strike. The damage from the ranged Strike from the enemy is enough to drop the Fighter to 0 HP and unconscious.
Dude. This is exactly why I'm being so hard about this one.
That is just wrong, and it could kill a PC. If that happened at a table, I would argue on behalf of that player, that's not okay. If a GM wanted to create a different house rule, I'd put my foot down and get them to write it down for consistency's sake, because that's a BIG difference.__________________
Since Strike doesn't ever Disrupt actions, then the Fighter's Reactive Strike still happens at the same time as the ranged Strike from the enemy. The Fighter will drop after both attacks are resolved.
No! How can you say that you respect that simultaneous actions don't happen in pf2 with "choose a different order"
then in the same post claim something THAT blatantly contradictory?In pf2, no two actions are allowed to happen "at the same time," period. You have to pick which one happens first, and which goes second. Meaning, one will be standing, and the other will by Dying. You are completely overwriting the rules to achieve that outcome.
(only the consequences of an effect, like an AoE spell, can happen simultaneously)
________________
Here's an example that I hope you intuit to the correct result to help grok this.
An enemy spellcaster hits the party with an AoE. An ally hits 0 HP, and the Cleric wants to use a Reactive spell for them. But, that Cleric also was reduced to 0 HP.
This is a case where a simultaneous *effect* prevents the Cleric from using their Reaction. All the PCs have their HP reduced at the exact same moment in time. The Cleric is unconscious the same moment their trigger would be eligible, and they cannot use the spell.
There is no rule for the GM to say there is a time gap in the explosion that would enable that. The GM still *can* do so, but imo should be very clear that it's only for the dramatic moment, and directly contradicts the rules.
I default to FIFO unless an ability specifies different timingIt's funny because through years of playing MTG I just default to FILO unless abilities specify otherwise. The Stack is too ingrained in my brain.
Yeah, it does take a bit of a mental shift, doesn't it. Having the stack be reorderable feels wrong somehow.
Yeah, it does take a bit of a mental shift, doesn't it. Having the stack be reorderable feels wrong somehow.I default to FIFO unless an ability specifies different timingIt's funny because through years of playing MTG I just default to FILO unless abilities specify otherwise. The Stack is too ingrained in my brain.
I mean kinda? But in cases like these I let the reaction "disrupt" anyway. The archer dies, the evil spellcaster doesn't get to complete the 5th rank translocation, etc. They juse plain die.
It's more fun for my players that way. They would appreciate it going the other way for them, sure, but they would be incensed if they could only stop people with crits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here, the general rule is: actions are only Disrupted when something actually has the ability to Disrupt actions,I have no idea where that is coming from, afaik that's not in the rules anywhere.
If anything, it's closer to the opposite. The text is super clear that you loose all resources and actions when interrupted or disrupted, full stop. No GM partial-refunds allowed, you loose all 3 action points, etc.
It's in the definition of Disrupting Actions.
"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."
The rule defines what Disrupting an action means: that the costs for the action are paid, but the effects do not happen.
So since that is properly and explicitly and deliberately defined, then by omission, anything that does not say that it Disrupts actions does not and should not cause that scenario of paying the costs of the action and not getting the effect.
You don't get to narratively create a scenario where an action that does not Disrupt cause the result of disrupting an action anyway. Because the rule for triggered actions says that the GM gets to determine the order that the events occur based on the narrative - and presumably the game's rules as well.
So since that is properly and explicitly and deliberately defined, then by omission, anything that does not say that it Disrupts actions does not and should not cause that scenario of paying the costs of the action and not getting the effect.
That's not how rules and language work. I genuinely thought you were better than that, you've been a consistent voice on the forums.
Like, holy cow on fire, no. You do not "define mechanics by omission" like that. The text on "disruption" only defines and codifies that one term. It's genuinely moon-logic to claim nothing else is allowed to create a similar result as disruption.
That's like claiming nothing else is allowed to produce an action stealing effect similar to Stunned, because Stunned is a codified term. It's just "does not compute" level of argumentation.
Furthermore, that claim is even proven wrong by how the text uses "is interrupted or disrupted" in a manner that puts the two as equivalent.
________________
You *say* that you get that no 2 actions can happen simultaneously.
Yet your "both drop to 0 HP" example contradicts that entirely.
I'll challenge you on that again. When operating with time only progressing for one action at a time, aka "no simultaneous," only one of the two can be sent to 0HP.
The ranged attacker gets "paused" before their shot fires, and they are sent to 0HP.
Or, the R.Striker's Reaction happens after they are sent to 0HP, and they never get to swing.
It's not possible to "pause" while the arrow is in mid-air to allow both to take damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No! How can you say that you respect that simultaneous actions don't happen in pf2 with "choose a different order"
Don't Strawman me. I have not claimed or agreed to the claim that simultaneous actions don't happen.
The rules themselves state that actions can narratively be represented as happening at the same time.
That is also right there in the quote from Limitations on Triggers:
If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it's unclear in what order they happen...
Even the Simultaneous Actions rule states that reactions and free actions with triggers cause a scenario where actions are happening in an overlapping manner.
Yes! Simultaneous Actions are a thing. And the GM gets to determine the order that they happen in. The stack can be reordered.
You accuse me of strawmanning, then literally repeat the exact same "strawman"
I don't think you are understanding the contradiction of "ORDER of events" and "at the same time"In the NARRATIVE, things can happen at the same time, yes.
In pf2's ACTION SYSTEM, no 2 actions may happen at the same time.
This is done exactly to prevent your "they both die" scenario.
Which I will repeat as a challenge until you walk through your own logic and learn that the ruling makes no sense.
The stack can be reordered.
The GM may need to resolve ambiguity of what happens when. But the ordering of events cannot break the forward direction in time.
No matter when you "pause" and let the Reaction play out, it is outright impossible to get your "both go down" result. You cannot switch back and forth between the two to try to advance both for a pseudo-simultaneous result. Once you start the Reaction, you execute the full thing (unless another Reaction is triggered).
And even if you attempt that micro-alternation, you still come up to the wall where one hit has to happen first, while the other is waiting for its turn. Which renders the other one invalid.
Only one can go down, period.
I'm guessing/hoping that your table might have ruled otherwise when it really changed a campaign, as the more of a personal reason behind this bizarre argument, the less it damages your credibility overall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also like to add that the recent stunned errata makes it so that, if you somehow become stunned while performing an action, you can complete the action anyway. So it's not out of the question to suggest that "can't act" doesn't prevent you from completing an action already underway.
The first paragraph of Gaining and Losing actions has been updated to make stunned with a value play better. Previously, it could be much stronger to stun a creature on its turn than on your own.
... Gaining quickened or slowed on your turn doesn’t adjust your actions that turn. If you get stunned on your turn, first complete any action or activity you’re in the middle of. If the stunned condition has a value, lose remaining actions to reduce your stunned value rather than waiting until your next turn.
That outright confirms that Stunned was mechanically changed in its behavior, and that it did end foe turns no matter their remaining action points, lol.
Furthermore, this mechanical specifically calls out, and therefore only alters, the Stunned condition. (and Slowed)
Which means that the textual instruction of *why* that happened previously, that "can't act" text, still has the exact same effect post-errata, rofl.
Paizo could have changed the rules so that all "can't act" language didn't interrupt, and they chose not to do that.
Thank you for bringing that into the discussion, because it's actually rock-solid evidence that the "can't act" language in Unconscious 100% does cause action interruption, rofl.
As a neat side-effect, devs now have the option to use Stunned specifically when they *don't* want to cause interruptions now, and want to allow that "both go down" scenario. Previously, that would need some custom text, but now there's a Condition with that mechanic built-in.
Yeah, it does take a bit of a mental shift, doesn't it. Having the stack be reorderable feels wrong somehow.I default to FIFO unless an ability specifies different timingIt's funny because through years of playing MTG I just default to FILO unless abilities specify otherwise. The Stack is too ingrained in my brain.I mean kinda? But in cases like these I let the reaction "disrupt" anyway. The archer dies, the evil spellcaster doesn't get to complete the 5th rank translocation, etc. They juse plain die.
It's more fun for my players that way. They would appreciate it going the other way for them, sure, but they would be incensed if they could only stop people with crits.
That is something that I can get behind better.
The rule for triggered actions does (explicitly) give the GM adjudication leeway on this. You know your players better than the game devs or us forum posters do.
But for posting on the rules forum, please do acknowledge that allowing a non-Disrupt action to prevent another action from happening is because of the powers of GM adjudication to make the game more enjoyable for your particular players - not a hard-and-fast one-true-way ruling that everyone should be expected to follow.
I'm hiding this thread now. Alexithymia only delays emotional response - it doesn't prevent it entirely.
The first paragraph of Gaining and Losing actions has been updated to make stunned with a value play better. Previously, it could be much stronger to stun a creature on its turn than on your own.... Gaining quickened or slowed on your turn doesn’t adjust your actions that turn. If you get stunned on your turn, first complete any action or activity you’re in the middle of. If the stunned condition has a value, lose remaining actions to reduce your stunned value rather than waiting until your next turn.That outright confirms that Stunned was mechanically changed in its behavior, and that it did end foe turns no matter their remaining action points, lol.
Furthermore, this mechanical change is specific to, and therefore only alters, the Stunned condition. (and Slowed)
Which means that the textual instruction of *why* that happened previously, that "can't act" text, still has the exact same effect post-errata, rofl.
Thank you for bringing that into the discussion, because it's actually very good evidence that the "can't act" language in Unconscious 100% does cause action interruption, rofl.
The main thing the errata was addressing was that stunned could only eat your actions at the start of your turn. Now it can also eat your actions immediately after you finish the action in progress. It's possible that the errata is overriding "can't act"'s ability to thwart actions in progress, but it's also possible that "can't act" was never meant to do that in the first place and that this is supposed to be just the domain of disrupting abilities. In the latter case, the problematic behavior being fixed would be someone walking onto a stunning snare, getting stunned 4, finishing their Stride, then wasting their remaining two actions due to can't act. Not as terrible but still a feels bad moment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but it's also possible that "can't act" was never meant to do that in the first place and that this is supposed to be just the domain of disrupting abilities.
With the combo of the dev note of [we're nerfing Stunned's impact], plus the
If you get stunned on your turn, first complete any action or activity you’re in the middle of.
I don't think that position is tenable any more. (and it never really was even before that, tbh)
That textual instruction to complete the action or activity when being Stunned during your turn is a mechanical change via errata. Meaning, that was not the behavior before.
Activity rules is where the "If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted [loose AP, resources, etc]" language that equates the two terms comes from.
The "can't act" conditions super blatantly did interrupt activities like Sudden Charge, and I don't know of a single table that would let the activity play out when sent Unconscious during SC's Strides, lol.
We have to remember that rulings cannot be selective, if one Activity is allowed to complete despite being KOed, all of them will be.
Which puts the "complete the activity despite can't act" as obviously nonsense, and I'd wager 99.9% of GMs do rule "interruption" when KOed for the "obvious" case like Sudden Charge.
To then rule that the shooter + R.Striker case only has one creature fall to 0HP is simply being consistent with the Sudden Charge example.
Yes, there can be ambiguity as to *when* the Reaction pauses the trigger and executes, but it's completely against the rules to allow an Unconscious creature to continue their actions, lol.
I mean, is that Unconscious ranged shooter taking the proper penalties for also being being Prone and Blind, lol? This isn't the Mother series where damage takes time to kick in via a spinning HP counter.
Either the shooter gets hit first, or they get hit second.
__________________
Bringing it back around to the OP, if the Reaction text executes before the shot, then it can prevent the shot via "interruptions" like the "can't act" Conditions, including Unconscious.
Except Stunned, that Condition now specifically does not interrupt.
[doom lever example]
Exactly. In pf2's action system, nothing can happen simultaneously. The Reaction pauses events to execute its text, while the opposing creature is waiting for the Reaction to complete before it can resume.
And this is why it's important that the exact "when" of "[creature] uses [action]" triggers be consistent.
As mentioned before, it's well established that "[creature] uses [action]" triggers pause right after the action points are spent, and before any of the text is performed.
In this example, the rules unambiguously dictate the Fighter succeeds at preventing the lever-pull, and saves the world.
If GMs ever want to meddle with those rules for the sake of dramatic moments, they need to be SUPER careful in how they present this to the players, because they are overruling something that is otherwise black and white. It's in the "please don't try this" realm of homebrew, tbh. If you've got the chops, you can codify some sort of "action inertia," but however you write that rule, you are opening a very deep can of worms to allow simultaneous actions to operate in parallel.
You do NOT want a situation where previously inconsistent rulings now cause a "do or die" moment like that doom lever to become an argument.
Didn't read the whole thread, but unless the ability specifies it functions by disrupting or interrupting I don't allow it do so ever.
I also use the (I think) Starfinder approach that purely defensive actions can occur before a trigger, and offensive actions typically happen after unless they make it clear that they should do otherwise.
As mentioned before, it's well established that "[creature] uses [action]" triggers pause right after the action points are spent, and before any of the text is performed.
Well established where?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Trip's argument is that the Reaction isn't Disrupting or stopping the action, the reaction produces a result that imparts the Unconscious condition (lack of HP) which as it applies to the person making the activity, prevents them from completing their activity.
While I agree that to disrupt simply because you struck would require a critical in that circumstance (which could disrupt without needing to explicitly downing the target) it isn't unreasonable to have the creature was downed, fail to complete its activity, because they ceased to qualify for the activity.
As a GM I have to say I'd feel completely comfortable letting a range strike potentially complete if it felt right however. I think most reactions represent an opening... and not all of them complete before the thing they react. [feel free to say that isn't what the rules say, I'm just stating my thoughts]
I'd say most cases if it were a multi-action activity, I imagine I'd allow the source creature going down to terminate the action. Something like spellcasting, thus I'd likely rules would stop it. If it was someone with a ranged weapon like a bow already drawn and prepped to attack a foe, I'd probably have the shooter go down after the arrow is released.
If it were the lever situation... it might matter more what was best for the story. If it was pulling the lever down, I could argue they let themselves fall on it to take it down. However, since the guardian was able to position themselves in front of it and protect it, I'd imagine it possible to complete a lethal swing before they got enough a hold on the lever to activate it. If I weren't going to rule that way, unless the creature had an ace in its hand that was unknown, I'd have warned the guardian about the fact that I wouldn't allow them to interrupt the activation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was a bit on the fence about this, so I went digging through the books to see if that made things any clearer for me.
If an activity gets
interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 415), you
lose all the actions you committed to it.
When you actually go look at that section on page 415, there's a formal definition of disrupting, but not of interrupting. However, throughout the book there's frequent mentions of activities being interrupted. A lot of that is about exploration activities that get interrupted by combat etc.
And in the quote above, we have the "or". Interrupting isn't just an alternative word for disrupting. You can sabotage an action through two paths, only one of which is precisely defined, the other left as just plain English.
---
So what does "interrupting" mean? I think sending someone to 0HP mid-action is a plausible candidate. Tripping them while they're doing a Sudden Charge also sounds plausible to me.
But as a counterpoint, I think I've seen quite a couple of feats and abilities that go along the lines of:
* Reaction
* Trigger: someone attacks you
* Effect: you Step away, and gain a +2 circumstance bonus against the triggering attack
The way I read that is, you're moving away, but even if you step completely out of reach, you don't prevent the attack completely. But being on the way out does improve your defenses.
Trouble is, I can't seem to find the examples. I'm so sure I've seen a couple of them, both as monster abilities but also as class/ancestry options. Just can't find them.
But those would be counterexamples showing that you don't constantly check "is this still a valid target" but instead check validity when announcing the action.
The best I could find is Dodging Roll. You might think that rolling out of range of an effect that's in the process of doing damage to you could count as interrupting it, but apparently not completely.
---
Narratively, I can really see both as possibilities.
Interrupt: you kill the cultist before he can pull the lever.
Alternative: you kill the cultist, but because you didn't do it flawlessly (no crit) the cultist sinks down to the ground and pulls the lever down with him.
Alright, my "can't act maybe doesn't disrupt" argument is admittedly flimsy. After all, immobilizing someone mid-Stride should probably stop the Stride.
This probably does come down to the Simultaneous Actions rule. Generally, a Reactive Strike kinda has to be resolved before the trigger if that trigger is a manipulate action, because the GM needs to know if the attack roll is high enough to disrupt the triggering action. But if the trigger is just a ranged attack, no such disruption is happening, so the GM just chooses the order based on the narrative.
This core rule being GM-fiat kinda bothers me, though. It's one thing when the GM has some guidance to rely on, but it really is unclear which should go first in what can easily be a life-or-death scenario against a PL+3 monstrosity.
I just checked my Player Core PDF's Glossary & Index. While it does point to the rules for disrupting...
disrupting actions 415
disrupting spells 300
There's no mention of "interrupt".
Alright, my "can't act maybe doesn't disrupt" argument is admittedly flimsy. After all, immobilizing someone mid-Stride should probably stop the Stride.
I mean if it didn’t you’d crit a guy with a rooting rune and they’d run 30ft before it did anything, which is pretty dumb.
Alright, my "can't act maybe doesn't disrupt" argument is admittedly flimsy. After all, immobilizing someone mid-Stride should probably stop the Stride.
I mean, move actions specifically have their own language for handling reactions, you get a trigger every time the moving party exits a square (per p.421 of player core), so the questions of timing for other types of actions aren't really relevant, the timing is explicitly defined for movement.
This probably does come down to the Simultaneous Actions rule.
It doesn't. The simultaneous action rule says you can't use an action in the middle of another action. You can't open a door in the middle of a stride. It has nothing to do with reactions (it even seems written explicitly to not cover reactions).
It doesn't. The simultaneous action rule says you can't use an action in the middle of another action. You can't open a door in the middle of a stride. It has nothing to do with reactions (it even seems written explicitly to not cover reactions).
The actual chunk of "Simultaneous Actions" text, like many sidebars, is one of those clarifying/redundant bits that's supposed to not add new rules exactly, but help players by spelling out ~rules that do exist, but only via the interactions of other rules that are flatly stated.
In this case, by restating that only one action be executed at a time, that helps us understand that the trigger action has to "wait" until the reaction executes, then it gets to resume after the "interrupting" reaction completes. (if it's still valid to perform)
And when there is genuine ambiguity, such as 2 Reactive Strikes to the same trigger, the GM chooses the ORDER of the actions that makes the most sense. Still never allows both to happen at the same time.
You execute only one block of action text at a time. And that rule "creates" a lot of other rules/behaviors, like the "Reaction pause" time stop.
___________________
For an example, you start executing the text of a Skirmish Strike, but a Reaction triggers after the initial Strike. There are no simultaneous actions, so you stop reading Skirmish Strike exactly where it is. Then, you read and execute the entire Reaction. Once that text ends, you resume the Skirmish Strike.
This is the "required" order of operations for how actions work in pf2.
While it can seem natural to allow the trigger and reaction to both happen simultaneously for narrative reasons like ranged attacks, that's never been "allowed" by the rules.
More importantly as to why it's a bad idea, allowing 'some' trigger actions to still fire because it 'seems reasonable' is opening a HUGE can of worms that I don't think GMs want to, lol.
It's completely vibes.
___________________
The best way to reduce the amount of arguments/vibes involved is to determine a consistent timing of the trigger interruption. And yeah, there are plenty of Reactions all over the system with the exact "[trigger creature] uses a [action name]" for us to learn that moment is after the costs are spent, but before any text is executed.
Others can look super similar at a glance, but have different timings.
"[trigger creature] hits [another creature]"
is instead timed directly after a Strike's attack resolves, be that at the end of a standalone Strike, or in the middle of an activity.
But as a counterpoint, I think I've seen quite a couple of feats and abilities that go along the lines of:
[...]
The annoying x-factor here is that there are a lot of custom Reactions with a lot of very "powerful" text with inconsistent effects. And some Reactions even retroactively changes past events.
This is why I'm trying to laser focus on the general flowchart of action execution, and NOT trying to bring up the many weird Reactions and their head-scratching text.
Those Reactions become a lot less of a headache when you try to remember that everything else is "paused" while you execute the Reaction text, change some stuff, then allow the normal action text to "resume."
You only do exactly what the Reaction dictates, which can seem arbitrary (because it is).
Sometimes, moving inside a Reaction means outright avoidance, but most of the time, "moving out of the way" does not grant that, etc.
In this case, by restating that only one action be executed at a time, that helps us understand that the trigger action has to "wait" until the reaction executes, then it gets to resume after the "interrupting" reaction completes. (if it's still valid to perform)
Not really though, because the simultaneous actions rule
A) refers to your own actions, not anyone else's
B) omits reactions from its stated restriction.
It's just genuinely not relevant to the discussion at all.
It would be helpful if you could cite a rule that serves as a core basis for your interpretation, it'd clean up the confusion pretty instantly. You keep saying it's black and white and clearly stated so it should be easy to dispel anyone's confusion by pointing to the rule, right?
Oh, sorry. I keep forgetting that the rule I'm talking about isn't actually titled Simultaneous Actions.
In the In-Depth Action Rules sidebar, there's this section.
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. For example, the Sudden Charge activity states you must Stride twice and then Strike, so you couldn't use an Interact action to open a door in the middle of the movement, nor could you perform part of the move, make your attack, and then finish the move.
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 one I'm actually talking about is when simultaneous actions are discussed later in "Actions with Triggers".
The triggers listed in the stat blocks of reactions and some free actions limit when you can use those actions. You can use only one action in response to a given trigger. For example, if you had a reaction and a free action that both had a trigger of “your turn begins,” you could use either of them at the start of your turn—but not both. If two triggers are similar, but not identical, the GM determines whether you can use one action in response to each or whether they're effectively the same thing. Usually, this decision will be based on what's happening in the narrative.
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 when does Reactive Strike happen? When the trigger is met, which in this case is a ranged attack. This means the Reactive Strike and ranged attack are both occuring at the same time. The question we are asking is "Which happens first?" to which the game replies with an unhelpful shrug.
|
The bolded text mentioned right above applies when several actions have the same trigger. And it applies only to these triggered actions. Not to the triggering action, if any.
I thought I read someting about triggered actions happening by default after the triggering action, except for spells when they happened earlier, but I cannot find it. Maybe it was actually a PF1 rule.
Didn't read the whole thread, but unless the ability specifies it functions by disrupting or interrupting I don't allow it do so ever.Please look at the Heal example here and the Doomsday Lever example here and explain how you would rule in those two scenarios, please.
In the heal example, (summarizing to make sure I've understood the scenario):
Creature A is casting Heal on themself.Creature B attacks them, I'm assuming using Attack of Opportunity (because Heal has the manipulate trait which triggers reaction).
The AoO is not a critical hit so it does not disrupt the action.
The way I run things (and I don't give a f%~# what RAW says) is that the Heal spell happens, the character gains 40 hp, going to 50 hp total.
Then they take the attack, and lose 30 hp, resulting in 20 HP total after both the heal and AoO are resolved. In this case (as all cases I run) purely defensive actions resolve first unless other actions explicitly say the interrupt or disrupt.
Side note here, I understand how one could arrive at the 40 hp scenario if you ruled it as AoO doesn't disrupt spell, so spell goes off after taking AoO thus going from 0 hp to 40hp, but that only happens because of the "weirdness" that happens at minimum hp in PF2 whereby you don't go below 0, you simply sit at 0.
The lever scenario is actually basically the same scenario, except replace the action to heal with the action to pull the lever.
The cultist pulls the lever, the fighter goes to AoO. But the lever pull happens first and "everything is obliterated" and if it somehow meaningful* the AoO resolves I guess and the cultist dies.
*By meaningful I mean if the cultist and fighter still somehow exist.
Now to clarify, I am classifying the lever pulling action as a not offensive action, despite the fact that it ends the universe. Because the action doesn't directly cause harm to anyone. You could have a lever that does nothing (not connected to anything) and the outcome shouldn't change IMO based on what its connected to.
BUT! As a GM, don't create possibilities like "universe ends if this single action is taken".
It's also worth noting that the fighter could have in slightly different circumstances readied an action for when the cultist got close or used a range attack to hit the cultist and down them.
This scenario highlights, that taken to an extreme with an unreasonable starting scenario, it's possible to achieve results that are dissatisfying for everyone.
And for whatever it's worth I'm taking this sentence from Starfinder 1e:
"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."
And applying it to whole other game systems because I generally prefer how this works.
And I'm aware later in the same section of rules it talks about how Attacks of Opportunity generally interrupt and resolve before their triggers but I don't keep that sense AoO in SF1 was something everyone could do, and is different from AoO in PF2 which explicitly has conditions for disrupting actions.
Basically, short of something explicitly saying it interrupts/disrupts or only makes sense to function by interrupting (like a defensive ability) then it doesn't do that.
So I guess to answer your original question in for this thread:
In this scenario of a ranged attack receiving a reactive strike/AoO, they've already made their attack and its resolved before the reaction (reactive strike) takes place. Unless that reactive strike was a critical hit, in which case it would disrupt the ranged attack and prevent it from happening.
Reactive Strike only disrupts manipulate actions, and even then only on a crit. How did you reach the conclusion that a hit wouldn't disrupt a ranged attack but a crit would?
The detail the Heal and lever question are there to suss out is that of atomic timing. Conceptually, as in, the nature of time being a linear series of events.
______________
In the lever scenario, it's not possible for the Fighter to hit the Cultist if they pull the lever.
You say the Fighter gets to hit them, but you also say the Fighter has been atomized by the lever pull.
That just makes no sense. The scenario is constructed to demonstrate a narrative-harmonious reason why atomic time needs to be respected.
Edit: Hold on. I think you actually lock-in that the lever pull goes first, and Fighter only swings if he's still alive?
That's even more blatantly contradictory. You seem to say that the AoO hits before the triggering action completes in the Heal scenario.
So why does the cultist only get hit after the lever pull?
I'm genuinely confused as to what your internal logic is behind these choices.
__________________
You even found the clever wrinkle in the Heal example, where the final HP after the spell changes based on when the -HP and +HP happen. Yet you bulldoze right through it, rofl.
Do you understand that your own table rulings are not RaW? You make a statement that seems to half-acknowledge that, idk.
If instead of prompting for your ruling on those scenarios, would first asking:
"What do you think the RaW outcome is for _________ :"
How would you respond?
Reactive Strike only disrupts manipulate actions, and even then only on a crit. How did you reach the conclusion that a hit wouldn't disrupt a ranged attack but a crit would?
Many ranged attacks are [manipulate], either via Reload 0, bomb Activation, etc, and would be affected by that disruption.
It's also worth noting that the fighter could have in slightly different circumstances readied an action for when the cultist got close or used a range attack to hit the cultist and down them.Speaking of readied actions, your interpretation does mean if the Fighter says "I ready an attack that triggers if the Cultist tries to pull the lever" then that readied attack gets resolved after the lever is pulled.
Yes it would, which is why you ready for when they move into position.
Edit: I would as a GM warn them that if they want to intercept the enemy, they should ready for when the enemy moves into position, not when they pull the lever.