Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ccooke" data-source="post: 6239411" data-attributes="member: 6695890">I can see your reading, but (obviously! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /> ) I don't agree with it.For me, the issue comes in three parts - Clarity, Gamist and Narrative, if you will.On the side of clarity, if the rules mean you can't take other reactions they should say so. As currently written, they do not.On the side of gamism, the Reaction mechanic is compositional; many possible triggers from many different sources, but only one action you can take. The cost of readying an action is clear: You forego your action on your own turn to create a new trigger for a reaction that *may not* come up. Whether it comes up or not, you have given up your action on your turn. If you choose to use a different reaction, your action to ready an action was wasted.Unfortunately the rules as written are unclear enough to support both our viewpoints and probably several more <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />The reason I end up thinking the way I do is the narrative, though:Let's say you're a melee/spellcaster who has the Shield spell prepared today. You're setting up an ambush by a door and ready an action: "When someone comes through the door, I'll attack them". During the next turn, an archer pops out of a window above you, spots you and shoots off an arrow. Are you able to take your Reaction to cast the Shield spell or not?If you are able to take the reaction, then you do so. The arrow misses, but you are unable to use your readied action to attack when someone comes through the door.If you are not able... then you are so focussed on your readied action that you are unable to defend yourself. Surely, then, attacks against you should have advantage? That seems an unreasonable level of focus to me. Note that there are many other common talents that use a reaction: the Defender fighting style allows you to use your reaction to impose disadvantage on an attack, for instance. Would an intelligent, tactical fighter be so focussed on a readied action that they are unable to use their shield the way they have been trained to? To me, it only makes sense if you can use any reaction that has a valid trigger.</blockquote>

Verification