Forums: Rules Discussion: Characters with more than one reaction in a round/turn? (2024)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion

Rules Discussion

Search Thread

Exton Land Jun 7, 2021, 12:10 am

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Numerous class feats give you more than one reaction that is limited in some way (see Combat Reflexes). Yet there is explicit language on pg 472 of the Crb that says "Once your first turn begins, you gain your actions and reaction. You can use 1 reaction per round. You can use a reaction on anyone’s turn (including your own), but only when its trigger occurs. If you don’t use your reaction, you lose it at the start of your next turn, though you typically then gain a reaction at the start of that turn."

Does combat reflexes lack enabling language to actually use the reaction you gain? What's even the point of that throw away sentence? How could I spend more actions than I have?

And while we're on the topic, it seems that attacks of opportunity are triggered when you leave a threatened square using a move action. Yet language on pg 474 limits this to 1 reaction per move action explicitly overriding the plain text of the AoO trigger. With this guidance how are we to treat a two action activity that moves thru two threatened squares? If you had them could you take two AoOs or other reactions during that movement? Just one if they could have moved thru only provoking once if they had just used Stride? How does this make sense if a creature has to end its movement from a first Stride and then strides again? Should they strategically end a Stride outside of the threatened range and then Stride again to only provoke once?

Ubertron_X Jun 7, 2021, 12:53 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ad 1) The game has covered most of this by the Game Conventions side bar on page 444. In effect this means that specific rules and feats like Combat Reflexes are allowed to conflict, break or overrule general rules.

Ad 2) If a Barbarian ought to use Sudden Charge to run circles around a Fighter having Combat Reflexes, the Fighter is entitled to one Attack of Opportunity per subordinate move action, as Sudden Charge calls you to Stride twice.

Momar Jun 7, 2021, 05:53 am

Ubertron_X wrote:

Ad 1) The game has covered most of this by the Game Conventions side bar on page 444. In effect this means that specific rules and feats like Combat Reflexes are allowed to conflict, break or overrule general rules.

Ad 2) If a Barbarian ought to use Sudden Charge to run circles around a Fighter having Combat Reflexes, the Fighter is entitled to one Attack of Opportunity per subordinate move action, as Sudden Charge calls you to Stride twice.

Are reactions limited per action? I can only find the limitation based on trigger, with the additional GM discretion caveat if two triggers are considered similar.

In particular with AoO and combat reflexes I'm wondering because AoO lists taking a move action or leaving a square during a move action as two different triggers, so a target taking a stride action should trigger, then leaving the square next to the fighter should trigger. Similarly for running around a fighter with one move action they leave a square using a move action multiple times. I think there's a strong argument that these should fall under the "effectively the same thing... based on what is happening in the narrative" clause under limitations on triggers, but a rule that a given action can only trigger once would make things far clearer to me.

Ubertron_X Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 am

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Momar wrote:

Are reactions limited per action? I can only find the limitation based on trigger, with the additional GM discretion caveat if two triggers are considered similar.

In particular with AoO and combat reflexes I'm wondering because AoO lists taking a move action or leaving a square during a move action as two different triggers, so a target taking a stride action should trigger, then leaving the square next to the fighter should trigger. Similarly for running around a fighter with one move action they leave a square using a move action multiple times. I think there's a strong argument that these should fall under the "effectively the same thing... based on what is happening in the narrative" clause under limitations on triggers, but a rule that a given action can only trigger once would make things far clearer to me.

It's both for movement.

Reactions that are triggered by move actions are can both be used through the course of the distance traveled and are limited to once per action as per the following clause: move actions that trigger reactions

So you can use your AoO anytime your target leaves a square and the trigger is satisfield, but only once for each move action (Stride).

P.S.: Taking a move action that isn't an actual Stride is afaik more related to actions that do not have you leaving the square, e.g. standing up from prone or hovering in place.

Aw3som3-117 Jun 7, 2021, 06:49 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ubertron_X wrote:

It's both for movement.

Reactions that are triggered by move actions are can both be used thought the course of the distance traveled and are limited to once per action as per the following clause: Move Actions that trigger reactions

So you can use your AoO anytime your target leaves a square and the trigger is satisfied, but once once for each move action (Stride).

Thanks for the link. I had no idea it worked that way. I love AoN, but sometimes it can make little things like this be missed when looking up specific rules. In the book it's only a couple pages from talking about reactions, but if you just searched for reactions on google and clicked the first link this won't show up at all.

Forums: Rules Discussion: Characters with more than one reaction in a round/turn? (9) Thod Jun 7, 2021, 09:55 am

@Exton The idea is that someone running past will only get 1 AoO even if that means he leaves 3 different squares while running past (or getting into flanking position) - or 5 with a reach weapon.

So how do you get 2 AoO?

a) 2 different monsters/NPCs

b) 2 different action that trigger - example stand up from prone (AoO 1) and then move away (AoO 2)

Another example:
c) spellcaster - casts once 2 action spell (AoO 1) and casts shield (AoO 2)

So yes - the monk with 80 feet movement can ran 2 circles around you with just a single AoO. But if he moves around (action 1) strikes you (action 2) and moves around you again (action 3) then he would get AoO a second time.

Exton Land Jun 7, 2021, 03:35 pm

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Thod wrote:

@Exton The idea is that someone running past will only get 1 AoO even if that means he leaves 3 different squares while running past (or getting into flanking position) - or 5 with a reach weapon.

So how do you get 2 AoO?

You can get a second reaction from various class feats. Fighters get one that allows them to AoO twice in a round. But there's this weird sentence saying you can only ever Use one reaction per round, and none of the feats which grant extra reactions specify that they allow you to ignore this rule. It is patently silly to gain a reaction you cannot use, but pg 444 that everyone is relying on to say that specific trumps the general. But that same inset says "If a rule doesn’t specify otherwise, default to the general rules presented in this chapter." Functionally people are arguing that the gaining of the reaction means you can use it within its limitations. I truly wonder if they meant turn.

As for the silliness of the movement limitation on reactions, for me it breaks the verisimilitude. Pg 474's limitation of a single AoO per move action doesn't end up really working very well, being a little parenthetical tucked in without a hint of its existence anywhere else in the rules on reactions.

What is different about a creature moving up to me, getting whacked and continuing to move in threatened squares on a single action, vs someone moves up to me gets whacked, ran out of movement on that action, then moves again and now I can whack him again? The only thing in the rules which makes the one reaction per action taken make sense is that there is a thing in the triggers section on reactions that states that two triggers which are very similar cannot be used twice up to the GM. The movement rules are basically saying this is that overlapping trigger that won't trigger two reactions. It's obvious the rules were trying to keep the old PF1 you only provoke once from striding, but then mangled it since there are multiple move actions that are possible in a round. The trigger limitations for AoOs are pretty explicit and easy to understand, then there's a carve out specifically against Combat Reflexes, nothing else in the rules (for players) would allow for two AoOs against movement. Maybe it's for high level monsters to not just nuke you for getting close each round.

Gortle Jun 7, 2021, 04:15 pm

Exton Land wrote:

You can get a second reaction from various class feats. Fighters get one that allows them to AoO twice in a round. But there's this weird sentence saying you can only ever Use one reaction per round, and none of the feats which grant extra reactions specify that they allow you to ignore this rule. It is patently silly to gain a reaction you cannot use, but pg 444 that everyone is relying on to say that specific trumps the general. But that same inset says "If a rule doesn’t specify otherwise, default to the general rules presented in this chapter." Functionally people are arguing that the gaining of the reaction means you can use it within its limitations. I truly wonder if they meant turn.

Look I think this is just the use of natural language. The general rule is you only get one reaction per round, so you can only use one. You are right it creates a needless contradiction. Specific versus general does help us get over it a bit. But some problems remain.

Yes it should be errated.

Aw3som3-117 Jun 7, 2021, 05:16 pm

I don't see the issue here. It's an additional clarification / reminder.

If the rules said "Once your first turn begins, you gain your actions and reaction. You can use 3 actions per round. You can use an action only on your turn. If you don’t use your actions, you lose them at the end of your turn." Would haste not do anything, because it gives you an additional action, but it doesn't say you can use more than 3 actions in a turn? Of course not. It's implied.

Gortle Jun 7, 2021, 06:56 pm

On p472 it says You can use 1 reaction per round.

The best and most natural way to fix this problem, it to delete this sentence. It is not required.

Aw3som3-117 Jun 7, 2021, 07:54 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, but why is that necessary? I agree it doesn't need to be there, but it also doesn't change anything, and isn't worth an errata. It's an accurate statement. You get your reaction at the start of your turn and can use 1 per round, because that's how many you get, and a round is how long it lasts. If you get more, then that changes. Otherwise what does getting another reaction even mean?

Gortle Jun 7, 2021, 08:08 pm

Aw3som3-117 wrote:

Okay, but why is that necessary? I agree it doesn't need to be there, but it also doesn't change anything, and isn't worth an errata. It's an accurate statement. You get your reaction at the start of your turn and can use 1 per round, because that's how many you get, and a round is how long it lasts. If you get more, then that changes. Otherwise what does getting another reaction even mean?

Beacuse it is a stand alone statement without the "and" you have put in.

So people will try to apply it more generally when they get more than one reaction.

Aw3som3-117 Jun 7, 2021, 08:18 pm

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I guess. But quite frankly if every sentence applies absolutely and can't be overridden by feats that specifically alter how the standard rules work then I guarantee you there's a lot of feats out there that'll just start doing nothing all of a sudden.

Gortle Jun 7, 2021, 09:40 pm

Go back up and read what EXton Land said in his last post.

Aw3som3-117 Jun 7, 2021, 09:47 pm

Gortle wrote:

Go back up and read what EXton Land said in his last post.

I already did

Forums: Rules Discussion: Characters with more than one reaction in a round/turn? (20) Ascalaphus Jun 7, 2021, 11:05 pm

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this is where you need to keep your "abilities generally work like they seem to" lenses on. Normally you only get one reaction so you can only use one. This is also the situation at level 1-7 and for most classes for their entire career, so it's also introducing the normal rules situation.

If something gave you an extra reaction to use, generally only at level 8 or higher, then you can use it too. Because otherwise the ability wouldn't work at all. That's clearly absurd, therefore the interpretation that you can only use one reaction can't be correctly interpreting what the writer meant.

Gortle Jun 7, 2021, 11:41 pm

Totally agree. However the rule exists so it should be cleaned up in errata.

Ubertron_X Jun 8, 2021, 12:35 am

Gortle wrote:

On p472 it says You can use 1 reaction per round.

The best and most natural way to fix this problem, it to delete this sentence. It is not required.

Why do you think it is not required?

Because I think this is a low level power limit for classes that out of the box can use multiple reactions per round starting at level 1.

For example without restriction both Fighter and Champion could use Shield Block in addition to AoO or Champion's Reaction. An extreme case would be to ready an action, raise your shield and potentially use 3 reactions at level 1.

The whole point is to only be able to use 1 reaction each round until you acquire an ability that lets you use 2 (or more). So instead of deleting the sentence should be modified to take that idea into account.

Gortle Jun 8, 2021, 12:40 am

Because you only gain a reaction (singular) per round. Read the paragraph in the CRB p472. See how it goes over a lot of what is said on reactions in p461?

A reaction is a type of action that you only get one of on your turn. It doesn't matter how many ways you have of spending it. You only get one per turn. Until you get a power that allows you to gain another like Combat Reflexes.

Why do you need a limit on the number you can spend when you only get one?
You don't. Its a clear overlap in the rules, caused by the writers trying to be being friendly and natural langauge. It's a clear error. It's just not needed.

Ubertron_X Jun 8, 2021, 12:59 am

Gortle wrote:

Because you only gain a reaction (singular) per round. Read the paragraph in the CRB p472. See how it goes over a lot of what is said on reactions in p461?

A reaction is a type of action that you only get one of on your turn. It doesn't matter how many ways you have of spending it. You only get one per turn. Until you get a power that allows you to gain another like Combat Reflexes.

Why do you need a limit on the number you can spend when you only get one?
You don't. Its a clear overlap in the rules, caused by the writers trying to be being friendly and natural langauge. It's a clear error. It's just not needed.

Because you could theoretically still spend two in any given round* even if you only get one back?

You could spend one before your turn (e.g. a readied action from your last turn whose trigger is only met in the current round, Shield Block or AoO), or at the start of your turn (there even is a separate paragraph about that), and one after you regained your reaction.

* round as in: highest initiative to lowest initiative

Gortle Jun 8, 2021, 02:37 am

What you are saying is misleading. Is it before your turn or in your turn? Rounds are a bit strange. The round from initiative is different from the round from your turn used in durations. I hope you are talking about them in the relative to turn not absolute to initiative context. Because actions are clearly a turn based thing. OK,you are not.

Read the rules on Ready an Action. You spend normal actions to prepare, but you pay the reaction when you use it.
Read the start of turn

Yes technically you can use a reaction that you already prepared at the start of your turn. Then gain a reaction, then use it on your turn

But the one reaction you get is able to be used right up until your next start of the turn phase. You are not double dipping, you still only get one per turn. You are drawing the line in a silly place, rather than where the actions resets, to make it look like you are getting two. Most GMs would not interpret that as a violation of the one per turn rule, nor a violation of the one per round rule

You only get one per turn and you lose it if you don't use it.

Technically a one per initiative round is slightly different to; you gain one on you turn and you lose it if you haven't spent it when your actions reset on the next turn. But really most people use duration rounds and wouldn't have noticed it anyway.

If you actually think the one reaction per round rule is relevant then its a confusing and bad rule that should still be removed via errata.

Ubertron_X Jun 8, 2021, 03:54 am

I have read the start of the turn rules and made a quick survey on AoN, which raised a whole bunch of additional questions, especially about reactions with a trigger of "your turn begins" and their usage within the current rules framework, i.e. (re-) gaining of actions only late during the start of your turn vs the "only 1 reaction per round" limit etc. etc.

However I agree that the current definitions of combat round, duration round and turn should be looked at and clarified as well as any related mechanics (which also includes the reaction mechanic and any desired limits) as I feel that the current use is inconsistent throughout the book in a way level is used since ages for both character level and spell level.

Aw3som3-117 Jun 8, 2021, 05:43 am

Ah, yes, now we got to something actually worth an errata that doesn't have to actively be read in a ridiculous way to get a different interpretation.

I totally agree that they should make it clearer that a "round" is relative to the time that the affect happens unless it specifically says that something happens "at the end of the round" or "at the beginning of the round", since those are introducing new timeframes from which to view the "round" from. This appears to be consistent with how they use the word, but I'm unable to find this clarification anywhere. The only thing close to that that I can find actively spelled out in the rules is when the duration of effects that happen on your turn are concerned, such as durations of spells and such.

Aw3som3-117 Jun 8, 2021, 05:47 am

Personally I think this distinction is already pretty clear, but I've seen it come up a few times and will admit that a cursory look at the rules could breed confusion in this regard, which is enough, imo, for another look at the wording to be warranted.

Gortle Jun 8, 2021, 05:55 am

The real problem is that they repeat the rules a couple of times in everyday language and often not with precision. So you have to read it all to get it all. But there are some contradictions.

The fact that you are granted one reaction at the start of your turn and you loose it if you don't spend it before the same spot at the start of your next turn is enough of a restriction so that the game need to have characters only use one reaction per round (relative to that character) is met.

The one reaction per round rule on p472 can be deleted safely.

Round should be explicitly defined or made clear it is relative to a characters turns.

Forums: Rules Discussion: Characters with more than one reaction in a round/turn? (31) Ascalaphus Jun 8, 2021, 02:07 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's a one reaction per round rule, it's a reminder that since you only have one, you won't be doing more than one. At least until you get higher level and get awesome abilities.

Yeah, the way rounds are described as "absolute" high to low sequences is not a good choice since both durations expiring and actions refreshing at the start of turns are really more about "relative" rounds. Even the words "round" and "turn" refer to something circular, curved that we go round and round taking turns on, not a straight line that we move down along.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Characters with more than one reaction in a round / turn? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

Recent threads in Rules Discussion

Draconic barrage question

Last post:1 hour, 50 minutes agoby Castilliano

Are nonlethal spell attacks actually prohibited?

Last post:9 minutes agoby SuperBidi

Incapacitation trait rules: a solution in search of a problem?

Last post:8 minutes agoby Bluemagetim

Immunities question

Last post:4 hours, 44 minutes agoby delabarre

Rules for Summoned minions

Last post:Yesterday, 09:02 pmby Captain Morgan

Can a Wandering Chef create bombs?

Last post:25 minutes agoby lemeres

Does casting Containment end grapple on a target?

Last post:Yesterday, 06:19 pmby Dryades

Forums: Rules Discussion: Characters with more than one reaction in a round/turn? (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Van Hayes

Last Updated:

Views: 5615

Rating: 4.6 / 5 (66 voted)

Reviews: 81% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Van Hayes

Birthday: 1994-06-07

Address: 2004 Kling Rapid, New Destiny, MT 64658-2367

Phone: +512425013758

Job: National Farming Director

Hobby: Reading, Polo, Genealogy, amateur radio, Scouting, Stand-up comedy, Cryptography

Introduction: My name is Van Hayes, I am a thankful, friendly, smiling, calm, powerful, fine, enthusiastic person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.