NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 8389001" data-attributes="member: 3400">One thing about reactions is they have their own accounting pool in the action economy that otherwise doesn't seem to interact with the regular action economy. You get one and only one, you can take it during your own turn if something triggers it, and it refreshes at the start of your own turn. And you're right, even if used as an interrupt of another character, that character gets to resume their turn as normal (assuming, of course, that the reaction didn't somehow prevent that). Presumably, the same would apply if the caster interrupted their own turn with a reaction (most likely in response to an opponent's reaction).Moreover, there's the rule that if a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so - with no reference to the immediately preceding rule about the casting of Bonus Action spells. You could pretty easily interpret that as being either in accord with the Bonus Action spells rule since it didn't explicitly identify it as an exception, or as an exception itself because it didn't refer to the Bonus Action rule as a caveat potentially limiting the trigger conditions (ie not only having an available reaction, but also having spell-casting capacity for your own round).And then there's the comparison of outcomes. There's a number of ways that a reaction spell can be triggered by an opponent right before the caster's action - allowing them to get off 3 spells in rapid succession legally. Is it really a big deal to let one of those spells be cast as a reaction during the caster's turn?So yeah, I understand the Sage Advice ruling, but I can sure see the alternative argument as well.</blockquote>

Verification