Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Noctem" data-source="post: 6774965" data-attributes="member: 6801315">I know you like to take things to extremes when speaking about what I said, but that doesn't serve the discussion at all Seebs.  Especially when you're simply making strawmen to argue against.  Counterspell, just like Shield specifically calls out that it can interrupt an action and invalidate it's own trigger.  Shield an attack vs Counterspell is the casting of a spell.  I still haven't seen anything more other than the examples which give no context or direction as to how to resolve the triggers in practice.  I see examples of perceivable events, which fall within DM fiat to allow in the first place.  So I'm not convinced at all.  Again you making strawmen to argue against doesn't make you right.EDIT:  And looking at the 2 examples you listed, both involve movement and don't specify ongoing actions.  A goblin moving next to someone and in response to that event a character moves away.  The example allows for both interpretations, there's nothing stating the goblin was going to continue moving.  Simply that he moved next to someone.   The trap door is the same, pulling a lever when someone steps on a trap.  No mention of moving beyond the trap door or an ongoing action, simply moving onto it.  That allows again for BOTH interpretations to be true.  So basically, even the examples can be shown to support both interpretations if you don't add biased context.  What we need for example is a rules quote that says reactions can interrupt ongoing actions, like going off mid movement or between attacks.  Or a dev tweet which supports either side.  AFAIK there is no rules quote available to support the interruption of actions with reactions beyond specific reactions that specifically state that they do.  IE:  Shield, Counterspell, Opportunity Attacks.  I would also say that I find it odd that these reactions need to specifically call out that they can interrupt actions the way they do while you're assuming all reactions can, even without rules text to support that claim.  But let's stick to the first points since it'll answer this one too.</blockquote>

Verification