Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8433079" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Yeah reactions and actions like attacking are kinda odd in how they interact. Since you have basically cast the spell, and are just holding it in until the trigger occurs, it feels like it should be able to have really hyper-specific triggers like, &quot;when I can see that they are about to attack me&quot; which would be the same thing as &quot;when they declare an attack&quot;, but it's simpler to just say &quot;reactions don't interrupt unless they explicitly say they do&quot; and move on. I'm not sure that I agree that anything that is instantaneous works the same way, though. They can't actually be instantaneous, or they couldn't be interrupted by anything, but they are treated as such for the purposes of action economy and order of resolution. I think it's at least a case of rules that don't logically work, and need DM resolution in order to function.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8433079, member: 6704184"] Yeah reactions and actions like attacking are kinda odd in how they interact. Since you have basically cast the spell, and are just holding it in until the trigger occurs, it feels like it should be able to have really hyper-specific triggers like, "when I can see that they are about to attack me" which would be the same thing as "when they declare an attack", but it's simpler to just say "reactions don't interrupt unless they explicitly say they do" and move on. I'm not sure that I agree that anything that is instantaneous works the same way, though. They can't actually be instantaneous, or they couldn't be interrupted by [I]anything[/I], but they are treated as such for the purposes of action economy and order of resolution. I think it's at least a case of rules that don't logically work, and need DM resolution in order to function. [/QUOTE]

Verification