D&D 5E Reckless Attack / Mirror Image

[KarinsDad]

I would certainly rule your Mirror Images are acting equally as Recklessly as you are! The RA & MI text
both say "targets you". I think the RA text & intent here is clear enough that I would be pretty annoyed with a player who raised this in-game.

Who said that I was raising this "in-game"? I know exactly how my DM is going to rule this ahead of time.

 

[S'mon]

Who said that I was raising this "in-game"? I know exactly how my DM is going to rule this ahead of time.

Just saying. I wouldn't try this line of argument on a GM at the table. As idle chitchat online, no harm I guess.

 

[Arial Black]

You always get an Action before it ends. I often see PCs Rage out of combat just to get Advantage on an Athletics check to break a door, bend bars etc. Of course it then ends. So what?

The game mechanics have each actor taking turns, but the mechanics are simulating constant, simultaneous action.

You don't frantically do stuff, stand still for six seconds while everyone else does their stuff, then they stand still while you do your stuff.

Similarly, on your turn you have an action and a possible bonus action, and you can take them in any order (although some bonus actions may have timing restrictions vis a vis the action, like TWF).

So imagine you want to do these things in sequence, as quickly as you can: cast a spell, begin raging, and attack. A perfectly sound sequence. You can cast spells when not raging but lose the ability to cast while you are raging, and you want to attack as soon as you can after raging so that your Rage doesn't end early.

In the narrative you are: casting->Raging->attacking, in sequence, as quickly as you can, without interruption.

In the structure of the combat rounds you are still doing those same things in the same order as quickly as you can.

It could be done in two ways: round 1, action to cast. Round 2, bonus action to Rage, action to attack.

OR it could be: round 1, action to cast, bonus action to Rage. Round 2, action to attack.

These are the same actions in the same order without any interruption. It is absurd to interpret the wording of Rage such that it ends early in one example but not the other, because they are the exact same sequence of events!

Sure, they could tighten up the wording, but if you interpret that wording to mean that in the second example the Rage ends the very moment it begins then you are choosing to interpret it in an absurd way when you could just as easily interpret it in the intended way: the Rage ends early if the Rage has been going on too long without you attacking or taking damage. It doesn't end the moment it begins because of the meta game of creatures taking turns.

 

[S'mon]

It could be done in two ways: round 1, action to cast. Round 2, bonus action to Rage, action to attack.

OR it could be: round 1, action to cast, bonus action to Rage. Round 2, action to attack.

These are the same actions in the same order without any interruption. It is absurd to interpret the wording of Rage such that it ends early in one example but not the other, because they are the exact same sequence of events!

This is utterly bizarre. In the second case you just gave yourself an extra round of half damage from enemies. Barbs taking full damage on round 1 when they lose init is a major limitation of Rage. BTW everything is not simultaneous even IRL, the action cycle or OODA loop is a real thing - in real life it takes people 3-5 seconds to go through the observe orient decide act sequence, not so far off D&D's 6 second sequence. In your first case, which is the RAW, the character is initially focusing on casting not attacking, that's why he can't sustain a Rage.

 

[Arial Black]

This is utterly bizarre. In the second case you just gave yourself an extra round of half damage from enemies. Barbs taking full damage on round 1 when they lose init is a major limitation of Rage. BTW everything is not simultaneous even IRL, the action cycle or OODA loop is a real thing - in real life it takes people 3-5 seconds to go through the observe orient decide act sequence, not so far off D&D's 6 second sequence. In your first case, which is the RAW, the character is initially focusing on casting not attacking, that's why he can't sustain a Rage.

In both cases the sequence of events and the timing of them in the narrative (do each, in order, as quickly as you can) is unchanged. Whatever the 'observe, orient, decide, act' time may be, it is identical in each case.

Rage lasts 10 rounds. You get 10 rounds worth of damage resistance no matter which part of your turn was used to activate Rage.

Just like any use of Rage, you know that you've got to make an attack on your next turn (If you haven't taken any damage) or your Rage ends early. Again, working as it should.

The only absurdity would be to say that the Rage switches off a nano-second after you switch it on!

In context, when it says, "Your rage lasts for 1 minute. It ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven’t attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then", it is talking about the Rage ending early in the context of actually being in that Rage.

If you take it out of context and rule that it ends as soon as it starts, then not only are you deliberately choosing to interpret it out of that context but also choosing to make it absurd, just because you can read it in an absurd way. There is a perfectly sensible interpretation right there!

In law, if a law can be interpreted in two ways and one way would be absurd, the law must be interpreted in the way that makes sense.

What makes sense is that the Rage ends if it's been going on for a round and you neither attack nor take damage. What you did/didn't do before you even started to Rage is neither here nor there!