|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, as the spell has the Manipulate trait.
If the Reactive Strike is a critical hit, the spell is disrupted.
If the Reactive Strike does not disrupt the spell or kill the Druid, then the spell goes off before the original strike is landed & the Druid has the spell-provided cover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reactions are absolutely a type of action. There is nothing preventing them from triggering other reactions.
Please note that Baarogue's take is hotly contested, and will cause a lot of problems. Sir Belmont has it right, the damage can also stop in-progress spells from completing their cast (it's really the "can't act" inside Unconscious).
This is not the R.Strike specific "disruption" mechanic, but is the generic and unbound "interruption" idea mentioned in a few places.
________________
Specifically, I'll claim Baarogue is wrong about when "uses an action" is.
Pf2 really does consider "uses an action" to be the game mechanic moment just after spending the action points, and before any part of the action's text has been implemented as in-world events. This is why the dev used that terminology, "using an action" is a game thing, it's not an in-world observable act!
This means that the Reactive Strike does land its hit before the spell is cast due to simple timing, which is also before the regular Strike that triggered the spell hits.
This stack of Reactions can look ridiculous at times, but you really do need "uses an action" to happen before any text is executed to avoid time-space nonsense like grabbing someone who is now 100ft away.
Or for corpses to cast spells, pull levers, etc.
And once you realize that activities like Sudden Charge are actions, this is becomes a no-duh answer.
The alternative literally means that someone who should be stopped and Dying after the first 5ft of a Sudden Charge is allowed to finish the whole double Stride and Strike before the R.Strike hits.
Yeah, I've got to flatly state that Baarogue's claim is non-viable.
Allowing the action text of "uses an action" to complete before the Reaction really doesn't work in practice.
_________
If a Reactive Strike doesn't crit, but would interrupt the spell for another reason, that spell still fails, no "disrupt" needed.
That is why an R.Strike can prevent a spell cast without critting; a 0HP caster cannot finish the spell, it has been "interrupted."
It would be complete nonsense to claim the R.Strike hits at two different times depending on if it crit (to trigger "disrupt) or if it reg hit.
This is why Baarogue claims retro-causality, but that also does not work, because that would mean the spell can prevent the R.Strike.
If the R.Strike always hits after the spell is cast, then teleporting the caster or attacker away would both trigger, and prevent, the R.Strike. It breaks the concept of the linear flow of time.
Baarogue is the one needlessly creating a time paradox.
Which is why it's such a silly claim once you actually stop to unpack it.
When pf2 does retro-causality in some Reaction text, it doesn't break the game like that. The devs do it for the sake of things like Shield Block going last while still adjusting damage taken, even after that step is normally complete.
3. Orc Veteran uses Reactive Strike. If the Reactive Strike is a crit, it disrupts the Interposing Earth. It doesn't do this because of any stack timing. It does it because IT SAYS IT DOES. That's the Specific Overrides General connection here. The spell has been cast, but because Reactive Strike SAYS it can disrupt on a crit, it can do so. Since you want the example to assume this wasn't a crit, we'll continue
You have the Reactive Strike happen after the spell cast, and require retro-causality, which is not true. That timing is flat out wrong.
Reactive Strike is a Reaction that is capable of both interrupting and disrupting. Interruptions are entirely due to timing, not retro-causal "because the text instructed it" effects. And in this case, R-Strike's disruptions are not retro-causal.
R-Strike even goes the extra mile to avoid timing desync via its "exits a square..." trigger to respect the Reactions to Movement rule.
Reactive Strike, and all "uses a [manipulate] action" triggers, happen just after the action has begun, but before it finishes. This timing matches with "creature casts a spell" triggers.
__________
Like it or not, your claim of "uses an action" triggering after the action completes would allow Sudden Charge to complete first.
You are simply contradicting your own rules by saying Sudden Charge is an exception that does not finish. The Reactions to Movement rules DELAY Reactions, they cannot make them happen sooner.
But, we can avoid those rules entirely to make the example nonsense less complicated.
A bow Strike is a manipulate action due to Reload 0. Your ruling would allow the bow attack to complete first, then the reg-hit Reactive Strike would land after.
An example in that linked thread, what happens when both the R.Strike and the bow attack would drop the opposing creature to 0 HP, puts that contradiction on full display.
It is not possible to have both creatures drop to 0 HP. One of them has to go first, and the "can't act" of Unconscious prevents the other actor from making their attack.
If the bow attack goes first, the R-Strike cannot even be triggered.
We all know that's not when R-Strike happens, and that R-Strike does in fact happen first in the sequence, before the bow attack.
Alright, maybe we can take it down a notch.
Given that Interposing Earth is meant to block strikes among other things, it would strongly consider houseruling that the gestures are simple enough not to provoke reactions, like how a Step is a short enough movement to bypass. It feels appropriate to me and would neatly evade this case of reacting to a reaction. Maybe if you want you could limit this grace to not triggering reactions only for the triggering creature.
I suppose you could also swap the components so that it's verbal (ie concentrate instead of manipulate) but this spell is very much an 'earthbender move', so I like it being a gesture. Plus, its one of few spells a barbarian-druid can use while raging, which was significant for one of my players last year.
But yeah, houserules aside, I'm pretty sure RAW the spell would trigger a reactive strike from the creature already trying to strike you, as awkward as that feels. From a purely narrative perspective I like the idea Baarogue mentions re: thinking of the spell triggering when the orc "targets" you (narratively lifting her blade/axe/etc) and then when you cast the spell the gestures leave you open for just a second for a cheeky fast strike, followed up by the original strike coming back from another angle. It just satisfies the narrative image better, regardless what the most technically correct reading of the rules could be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pf2 really does consider "uses an action" to be the game mechanic moment just after spending the action points, and before any part of the action's text has been implemented as in-world events.
Can you provide a citation for this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In that case, can you clarify how the "stack" is resolved?
Not really. This isn't MtG - there isn't a 'stack'.
Instead when we are dealing with reactions or free actions with triggers, we enter a scenario where we have multiple actions happening at the same time.
And the rules do cover that scenario.
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.
But what they do is explicitly give the job of determining the order of resolution to the GM to decide.
Anyone claiming that you should use a FILO order like MtG or, that you should use a FIFO order, or even those giving specific scenarios and arguing that a specific order should be used in that scenario are trying to take agency away from the GM. Agency that is explicitly and deliberately given to the GM in the rules. Agency that the GM is supposed to use to adjudicate the order of resolving actions happening along side of reactions and free actions with triggers on a case-by-case basis.
The only other guidance that I would give in a scenario where we are dealing with reactions and simultaneous events is that "Disrupts" is a game concept that is rare and valuable. Things should only disrupt actions if they say that they do. If an ability does not say that it disrupts another action, then if a character starts an action, the GM should choose an order of resolution of actions such that the action that the character started, finishes with full effect.
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.But what they do is explicitly give the job of determining the order of resolution to the GM to decide.
Anyone claiming that you should use a FILO order like MtG or, that you should use a FIFO order, or even those giving specific scenarios and arguing that a specific order should be used in that scenario are trying to take agency away from the GM.
Dude, you are omitting the first half of that paragraph. In context, the rules directly contradict your claim. For 99.5% of cases, there is no GM fiat in the execution order.
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.
In context, it's talking about multiple creatures Reacting/etc via the exact same trigger.
The GM needs to adjudicate "when" things happen, technically true to say. But this text does NOT instruct the GM to re arrange things based on story vibes.The rules of pf2 allow for 2 Reactions to both trigger from the same thing, causing a genuinely simultaneous race condition that the GM then *must* arbitrate.
If there are 2 R-Strikers in reach of a bow attacker, one of those R-Strikes *has* to be executed before the other, entirely based on the GM improving a justification, like a higher DEX, faster weapon type, etc.
In context, that is what the rule is explaining.
Yes, all activities are actions. If a "uses an action" trigger only executes after the action completes, that timing has to be consistent. You cannot claim the timing is X, but sometimes it's Z instead.
It is an admission of fiction to need to invent extra rules that "uses an action" would work differently in certain contexts, like activities. Which includes spellcasting, btw. According to you, all spells complete first, then the Reaction happens. Yikes.
_____________
To keep it as simple as possible, lets push all the activity complications to the side. I'll restate the challenge of the mutual KO bow attack vs R-Strike example.
It's not viable to rule the timing of "uses an action" as happening after the action is complete. We know that the moment "can't act" is applied, that actor is stopped at that exact moment, unless it was done via Stunned. In that case, the action/activity is allowed to complete.
Get KOed mid bow attack? It's lost and never finished. Get stunned in the middle of a spell cast? You get to finish the activity, and only after that does "can't act" take effect.
Pf2 really does consider "uses an action" to be the game mechanic moment just after spending the action points, and before any part of the action's text has been implemented as in-world events.Can you provide a citation for this?
It would have been convenient for Paizo to have explicitly stated "when" "uses an action" triggers, but afaik they never did, and assumed that clarification was not needed.
We only get direct statements about what happens when spellcasting and activities are interrupted or disrupted; all resources are lost and the intended effect fails.
Maddeningly, that omits when and how that interruption happens. We know that interruptions can happen to break in-progress actions, but are not given instructions on the particulars.
Which leaves us to figure the timing of "uses an action" as whatever fits/functions with all the text that uses it. The correct answer is any answer that doesn't break anything. (but not just for a single example case, it needs to work with all of them)
And the only timing I've found that doesn't break anything is the same timing that matches that of spellcasting, when none of the body text effects have yet happened, but the resources have been spent. Imo, it does not take that much pf2 experience to come to that conclusion, tbh. Because, the only other option is after the action's done, and that causes all kinds of issues.
One ~solid rule thread to reach that idea is that spellcasting often gets Reacted to via triggers of "uses a manipulate action," and spellcasting specifically is not called out.
If those triggers only happen after the manipulate action completes, that means that all forms of teleportation magics fully dodge a whole lot of Reactions, because that actor is gone before they happen.
________________
The best text to point to now is perhaps the Stunned errata, as it hard-confirms that previously, Stunned's "can't act" did genuinely prevent all further action the moment it was applied.
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.
”Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions. The rules for how this works appear on page 415. All these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn. 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.”
Stunned now has a special exemption, but all other sources of "can't act" do hard stop actors in the middle of whatever they are doing. There's no allowance to finish their turn, activity, nor even their present action. The moment the condition is applied, the effect's restrictions apply. This is an example of the "interruption" alternative mentioned alongside "disruption."
This is why the arugmentors have shifted their claim a bit, and no longer claim a KOed creature can finish their action. Now, the claim is limited to the timing of the Reaction happening later than it's supposed to.
But, that argument turns many otherwise normal Reactions into paradox producing headaches. Like the mutual KO R-Strike example.
It also creates nonsense where entire activity-actions play out before the Reaction can happen. Including spellcasting, which is a can of worms I think they would very much regret opening.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is... Sudden Charge really that relevant to this scenario? Perhaps litigating reaction timing to the finest degree can be its own thread. I think this one has been answered as clearly as possible for the circumstance
It might not be important to you, but Trip lied about me in his first post to the thread and that's important to me. When I confronted him, with proof, instead of admitting his mistake he doubled down and made more false claims about my stance. Sudden Charge was the activity he chose to attack me, so that's why I'm challenging him with that to explain himself. Since he has instead chosen to dodge the question I'll just leave it to the mods
If you claim that Reactions go after the triggering action when the trigger text is "uses an action," that is a specific timing that needs to hold true for ALL of those triggers, activities included.
Sudden Charge is a (very) bad example of that specific detail because the larger activity-action would not trigger R-Strike, the Stride inside would.
(major oof on my part to forget that. Those posts were written assuming S-Charge itself was a [move] action. It is not.)
It is incorrect for me to say that under your ruling R-Strike would be delayed until the entire Sudden Charge completes. It could instead be delayed until the specific manipulate or ranged attack completes. Plus,
S-Charge is an even worse example due to R-Strike not just having a "uses a move action" trigger, but also includes the "exits a square..." trigger, when the specific disagreement is on the "uses an action" trigger timing.
While I stand by the "when timing" claim/rule I have pulled out of your post, the Sudden Charge "example nonsense" I constructed as rhetorical device was a bad example when I first used it, and it still is now.
______________
I will again ask you to refrain from crying "strawman fallacy" long enough to actually provide us with your real take, as you offered a step by step once, and have refused to clarify any specific rules you used to get between the steps in any follow up.
That is why I tried to limit what I claimed about your statements as much as possible.
Re-reading my slightly-younger self, thankfully I didn't mess that attempt up.
I've only stated, and will continue to without clarification from you, that you claim that "uses an action" timing is after the action, with a later connected sub-claim that R-Strike therefore requires a "retroactive" effect.
I strongly disagree with any claim of strawman, there's not enough material there to finish building a post.