Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7231658" data-attributes="member: 6778044">So I suppose I'm "one of the three guys" but I think you're wrong about the cleave thing...sort of. I'll clarify below.I do object to your characterization of people being desperate conspirators and refusing to listen to reason. I spelled out my reasoning specifically so you and others could clarify where I'm wrong for me. And my "agenda" is to understand the rules better. If you are correct, then I'd like to understand why. My reasoning being flawed is very different from deliberately attempting to cause dissent. I'm probably just not as smart as you. Regardless, I just didn't get it. It wasn't connecting for me.Based on a more recent post from @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=284" target="_blank">Caliban</a> (thanks!), I have a better understanding of where my confusion was.It clarified where my reasoning was flawed: Because I thought that you and others were saying that "if you cast a spell as a bonus action, then you couldn't cast a spell as a reaction at all. Whether the reaction occurred on your turn or another person's turn."I now understand that's not the case.So yes, RAW would indicate that if you cast a spell as a bonus action, you can't cast a spell as a reaction if the reaction happens on your turn. But if the reaction happens on somebody else's turn, then you can cast a spell as a reaction. Is that correct? While in theory you could cast a cantrip as a reaction, the wording of the rule prevents that:You can only cast a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.You can't cast a spell as a reaction (cantrip or otherwise) unless it has a casting time of 1 reaction.Furthermore, no cantrips have a casting time of 1 reaction.Not trying to be difficult, I really want to understand.It took me a moment, and had to look a few things up, but I don't think there's any rule (or text) in the game that states "part of" a turn. I had stated that a reaction isn't part of your turn, and why, but now that I look at it, that the game doesn't think that way.The game uses the term "on your turn." This is actually important and clarifies things quite a bit (for me anyway, because when you interrupt somebody else's turn, your reaction isn't "part of their turn" but it's also not "part of your turn" since it didn't occur during your turn).What it says is "on your turn."This is what I gathered from the Sage Advice answer on Sneak Attack (which is also why I think your cleave example is wrong):Can a rogue use Sneak Attack more than once per round? "Yes, but no more than once per turn. In combat, a round comprises the turns of the combatants (see the Player’s Handbook, p. 189). Many features in the game, such as Extra Attack, specify that they work only on your turn. The Sneak Attack description specifes that you can use the feature once per turn, but it’s not limited to your turn. The feature also doesn’t limit the number of times you can use it in a round.This rule is relevant because you sometimes get a chance to use Sneak Attack on someone else’s turn. The most common way for this to happen is when a foe provokes an opportunity attack from you. If the requirements for Sneak Attack are met, your opportunity attack can benefit from that feature. Similarly, a fighter could use Commander’s Strike to grant you an attack on the ghter’s turn, and if the attack qualites, it can use Sneak Attack. Both of those options rely on your reaction, so you could do only one of them in a round.Because of getting only one reaction per round, you’re unlikely to use Sneak Attack more than twice in a round: once with your action and once with your reaction."So for the cleave example, if nobody else's turn started before you turned the corner, then the cleave works. But that's a vague and very situational example, quite similar to the vague, sometimes almost non-answers given by Jeremy.So here's a different example:The barbarian stands in a doorway and Readies their action to attack the first creature that comes in reach. Then on the goblin's turn, the goblins close to attack. The barbarian's reaction is triggered and can attack, but cannot use the cleave ability of their feat because the description of that ability starts with "On your turn...."That is, they are specifically excluding the cleave ability from a reaction - probably to eliminate it's use in an opportunity attack, but it has the same effect here.So oddly, the cleave feature of GWF is the exact opposite of "you can't cast a spell as a reaction on your turn if you've already cast a spell as a bonus action." You can only use the cleave ability of GWF on your reaction if your reaction occurs on your turn.You can only cast a spell on your reaction after casting a spell with a bonus action if the reaction occurs on somebody else's turn.Did I finally get it?If so, how about this one?Would a 20th level fighter be able to use the Extra Attack feature for three attacks during their reaction if their reaction occurs on their turn?In other words, could a fighter take 3 attacks for their action, then 3 more attacks with a second action using action surge, and 3 more attacks with their reaction, as long as the reaction occurred on their turn?I'm not sure you can actually take the Attack action on a reaction, so I'm guessing no. But it ties into the example they used for Sneak Attack.</blockquote>

Verification