IMO "It does not "untrigger" the OA, it simply does not trigger the OA in the first place" Is word semantics and I agree it does not trigger the OA in the first place if that's what you would rather say (I would too, as I don't think untrigger is a word)
However, "they happen at the same time. It's literally that simple."<-- is not a true statement IF you use Xanathar's rules. You even clarified earlier in that same post "Those attacks happen simultaneously, or nearly simultaneously." Which is 100% true... But sometimes D&D is stupid and it is a turn based game and very rarely do things actually happen 100% at the same time. Even in combat... everyone is combating(?) in the same 6 second round. untechnically it is all occurring at the same time... but it's not because rules say it happens on a turn.
I've said it before, but the irony is a bit much. You do realize that you are arguing that a rule (that is optional) that states that if two things happen at the same time you can choose between them to determine which happens first means that the other thing NEVER (forgive the caps, no bold face available) happened. Which would of course mean that the rule was never invoked.
I will not accept any example you put forth trying to explain it away. I want a direct quote of RAW with a link to a sourcebook. You go find that and I’ll concede the point.
And I will not accept this either, please provide a quote from RAW that a trigger cannot be made invalid. You go find that and I’ll concede the point. :p
Let's make it very simple for you: B says: if A casts a spell, I attack him with my sword. A casts teleport. Does the trigger occur ? Yes, because A is casting a spell. but the action only happens after the trigger finishes. So the attack never happens because A is not even there anymore. How do you deal with this ?
That doesn’t undo the trigger. Just because the target is no longer valid does not mean the trigger was invalidated.
I tell you what. You go find me any one single instance in any book that specifically mentions anything to do with “un-triggering” anything and I’ll agree with you. I will accept different verbiage such as “cancel a trigger” or “undo a trigger” or “nullify” or whatever. I’ll wait here.
You'll be waiting indefinitely because we all know that no such thing exists.
Lyxen's arguments are the definition of Brandolini's Law. Don't bother engaging.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I tell you what. You go find me any one single instance in any book that specifically mentions anything to do with “un-triggering” anything and I’ll agree with you. I will accept different verbiage such as “cancel a trigger” or “undo a trigger” or “nullify” or whatever. I’ll wait here.
You'll be waiting indefinitely because we all know that no such thing exists.
Lyxen's arguments are the definition of Brandolini's Law. Don't bother engaging.
I know that, I wasn’t really waiting. I went outside and cleaned up my yard after yesterday’s hurricane.
Hey all, I just want to remind people that while rules discussion can get intense, it's important that we all remember to respect each other and be civil. There's no need for hostile language, ad hominem remarks or general bristlyness. Let's all be excellent to each other.
I will not accept any example you put forth trying to explain it away. I want a direct quote of RAW with a link to a sourcebook. You go find that and I’ll concede the point.
And I will not accept this either, please provide a quote from RAW that a trigger cannot be made invalid. You go find that and I’ll concede the point. :p
Let's make it very simple for you: B says: if A casts a spell, I attack him with my sword. A casts teleport. Does the trigger occur ? Yes, because A is casting a spell. but the action only happens after the trigger finishes. So the attack never happens because A is not even there anymore. How do you deal with this ?
Personally, I'd have B swing at the spot A used to be. Same thing with the readied teleport in reaction to being targeted. If it was triggered, it goes off whether it is successful or not. Especially because these readied actions seem intended to specifically cause the swing in the first place - otherwise you'd just use the spell as Jhff pointed out.
But these scenarios are not the same thing as OP's. They are reactions triggered by another character's actions, where both the phrasing of the triggering action and the reaction taken were specifically chosen to trigger and then avoid the triggering attack. This is muddying the waters with the Ready rules which are vague enough about what a trigger can be that you can argue lots of absurd things.
In OP's setup, it is the player itself making the triggering action(s) and the trigger is specifically stated in the OA rules.
In one scenario, the player very carefully details their withdrawal in order to draw OAs at different times. Thus he chooses to trigger the Sentinel first and triumphantly avoids the second OA if he is hit. Don't think many people play like that for multiple reasons, but sure that's RAW.
In the other scenario as laid out by sposta, you trigger both OAs at the same time. You can choose the order of the effects of those OAs thanks to Xanathar, but the trigger has already happened for each creature.
There's yet another layer here that sposta pointed out, that the creatures taking the OA have to decide whether they want to do so. This clashes a bit with the rule in Xanathar's, and I'd allow the triggering creature to demand that each eligible attacker declare whether they are taking an OA or not when the trigger occurs, because that's the moment they have to decide. They can't just wait and see if the target is still alive after the others attack. Many of us have probably played this way (I certainly have), but it doesn't seem RAW after this deep dive into simultaneous actions. It's important to be consistent, and it seems the most correct way to be consistent is to rule that every single time something is triggered, it has to go off regardless of what happens between the trigger and the triggered reaction.
I will not accept any example you put forth trying to explain it away. I want a direct quote of RAW with a link to a sourcebook. You go find that and I’ll concede the point.
And I will not accept this either, please provide a quote from RAW that a trigger cannot be made invalid. You go find that and I’ll concede the point. :p
Let's make it very simple for you: B says: if A casts a spell, I attack him with my sword. A casts teleport. Does the trigger occur ? Yes, because A is casting a spell. but the action only happens after the trigger finishes. So the attack never happens because A is not even there anymore. How do you deal with this ?
That doesn’t undo the trigger. Just because the target is no longer valid does not mean the trigger was invalidated.
What happens to the trigger then ? Again, simple question...
Nothing. The trigger still occurred, only the target was invalidated.
I will not accept any example you put forth trying to explain it away. I want a direct quote of RAW with a link to a sourcebook. You go find that and I’ll concede the point.
And I will not accept this either, please provide a quote from RAW that a trigger cannot be made invalid. You go find that and I’ll concede the point. :p
Let's make it very simple for you: B says: if A casts a spell, I attack him with my sword. A casts teleport. Does the trigger occur ? Yes, because A is casting a spell. but the action only happens after the trigger finishes. So the attack never happens because A is not even there anymore. How do you deal with this ?
That doesn’t undo the trigger. Just because the target is no longer valid does not mean the trigger was invalidated.
What happens to the trigger then ? Again, simple question...
The character chooses to act on it or not. Just like they do if the character is still there.
In the other scenario as laid out by sposta, you trigger both OAs at the same time. You can choose the order of the effects of those OAs thanks to Xanathar, but the trigger has already happened for each creature.
That does not make any sense when reading the reaction rule. Triggers cannot be simultaneous thanks to Xanathar, and if a trigger completes, then the action follows it right after. As a consequence the two AoO are completely sequential, there is no case in which the triggers is "hanging" waiting for another unrelated element to happen.
First, a single move acts as a trigger for both AoOs. A single thing is not multiple things. Second, you seem to have swapped cause and effect. Certainly, calling a trigger an effect is not what most people would do. I think this might come back to a difference that you seem to have with the authors of the system on the use of the word "effect".
Let's try this: the most common application of Xanathar's rule is when multiple things happen on the start or end of your turn.
Now your turn does not start twice in this case and it doesn't end twice. Those are singular moments that can trigger multiple effects. You are just choosing which effect you receive of the things that are already triggered, you are not choosing the order of the triggering events (because there was only one). The only way this can happen is if a triggered event can "hang" while another one is resolved.
First, a single move acts as a trigger for both AoOs. A single thing is not multiple things
It's not the move that provokes the AoO, it's leaving the reach. And in that case, it's leaving 2 different reaches. Multiple effects.
Second, you seem to have swapped cause and effect. Certainly, calling a trigger an effect is not what most people would do. I think this might come back to a difference that you seem to have with the authors of the system on the use of the word "effect".
Huh, no, actually, I was proven correct on the fact that the authors consistently use the word "effect" for a spell, and that being the whole description of the spell. Nothing to do with this.
And in this case, you are clearly mistaken, the cause of the attack is not the move in itself, it's the fact that a creature is moving out of your reach.
This argument, along with the one refuting iconarising in #111, is clearly not written to make sense out of a rule that can be understood with common sense. Again, we're still talking about the situation the OP describes where one movement of whatever amount of the creature's speed is required causes two opportunity attacks. Labeling "leaving a reach" as an effect is still in no way common sense, no matter how you state it is. "Leaving a reach" is also not described in the rules as an effect. You could argue it is a cause, but nothing more. Ironically in the thread that you refer to, you insisted on a single definition of effect that is not this one and that was so narrow as to exclude anything that a natural language reader would call an effect -- and were not proven correct in that thread as I recall. Now you choose to take a definition of effect that is so broad as to not be limited to the natural language meaning, without any text support that it must be so in either case. That style of argument is not my favorite.
I will not accept any example you put forth trying to explain it away. I want a direct quote of RAW with a link to a sourcebook. You go find that and I’ll concede the point.
And I will not accept this either, please provide a quote from RAW that a trigger cannot be made invalid. You go find that and I’ll concede the point. :p
Let's make it very simple for you: B says: if A casts a spell, I attack him with my sword. A casts teleport. Does the trigger occur ? Yes, because A is casting a spell. but the action only happens after the trigger finishes. So the attack never happens because A is not even there anymore. How do you deal with this ?
That doesn’t undo the trigger. Just because the target is no longer valid does not mean the trigger was invalidated.
What happens to the trigger then ? Again, simple question...
Nothing. The trigger still occurred, only the target was invalidated.
I will not accept any example you put forth trying to explain it away. I want a direct quote of RAW with a link to a sourcebook. You go find that and I’ll concede the point.
And I will not accept this either, please provide a quote from RAW that a trigger cannot be made invalid. You go find that and I’ll concede the point. :p
Let's make it very simple for you: B says: if A casts a spell, I attack him with my sword. A casts teleport. Does the trigger occur ? Yes, because A is casting a spell. but the action only happens after the trigger finishes. So the attack never happens because A is not even there anymore. How do you deal with this ?
That doesn’t undo the trigger. Just because the target is no longer valid does not mean the trigger was invalidated.
What happens to the trigger then ? Again, simple question...
Nothing. The trigger still occurred, only the target was invalidated.
A cause can have an effect which cancels a trigger.<-- IMO is the same as A cause can have an effect which un-triggers... a trigger.
There in lies the rub. It doesn’t cancel the trigger. The trigger still occurs. It may invalidate the target, but not the inciting trigger.
They still haven't refuted the fact that they are using a rule that forces you to choose between two things to say that one never existed. And the threads keeps going page after page with no real additions. Time to leave the thread.
I had an actual conversation with sigred yesterday who changed my mind on my opinion of what an OA is, and how it is triggered. They didn't say things condescendingly or accusatory like you (IamSposta), chicken, or Jhfffan have been doing during this "conversation". You can still be waiting on your soapbox for that specific mention of "untrigger". We have agreed on things during this conversation... but you say things like "any response" that brings NOTHING to the conversation and ignore the fact that I am agreeing with you! I said this was my interpretation... We are saying the same thing with different words. I'm aware this was a rub and have said so multiple times that this thread has turned into a word semantics crapshow.
To the point of this thread:
My view is still unchanged on... it's DM discretion and I could understand both rulings. (as it should always be)
I was actually talking to Lyxen, so you can save your preaching for someone else. They and I regularly engage in spirited rules debates without devolving into name calling and personal attacks. You might try that sometime.
I had an actual conversation with sigred yesterday who changed my mind on my opinion of what an OA is, and how it is triggered. They didn't say things condescendingly or accusatory like you (IamSposta), chicken, or Jhfffan have been doing during this "conversation". You can still be waiting on your soapbox for that specific mention of "untrigger". We have agreed on things during this conversation... but you say things like "any response" that brings NOTHING to the conversation and ignore the fact that I am agreeing with you! I said this was my interpretation... We are saying the same thing with different words. I'm aware this was a rub and have said so multiple times that this thread has turned into a word semantics crapshow.
To the point of this thread:
My view is still unchanged on... it's DM discretion and I could understand both rulings. (as it should always be)
To be clear, I'm not saying that the "nothing new" comment referred to the entire conversation. I'm saying that we could have stopped a page or two ago and the substance wouldn't have lost much if anything, particularly in response to the OP. If others have picked up more from it, that's great for them. I was simply stating that it's time for me to leave the thread so that I don't have to see 20 some odd posts rehashing the same points in slightly different ways (usually semantics as you said).
I'll certainly agree with you that it's DM discretion, that's rule zero. I think that was covered well in the first few pages by multiple people. That's part of the reason that I don't feel that anything (of much substance) has been added. Since we're at an impasse, what's the point of continuing to talk past each other?
Agreed. When there is no agreement on the base assumptions, there’s no point arguing about the higher level conclusions. This thread is just word salad and whack-a-mole at this point for bad arguments coming out of nowhere, there’s no happy ending in store for any of us.
When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger<-- your words (which is a rule) if anyone tries to attack me while I run away I'm going to turn invisible <-- my words
"right after the trigger"... I did not say "when I get hit" I said, tries...
“Tries to hit you” = “Makes an Attack”
The hitting would by default have to be part of that, and therefore would have to happen before the invisibility.
could phrase this slightly better to get rid of the confusion (looks like they are going to attack me... if I see someone lift their hands in a spell pattern, if someone raises a weapon as I move, if anything happens when I start to move, etc. ... I turn invisible, plane shift, misty step, etc.)
word semantics aside... this would un-trigger a trigger
In that case, the invisibility would occurs before the movement that triggers the Opportunity Attacks, so before they could even be declared in which case that trigger never happened at all.
It still does not un-trigger a trigger. It prevents the trigger from occurring in the first place. Not the same thing at all.
@IamSposta. You do realize that this example(in bold above) is just a different version of one that you shot down(more or less, since you agreed with those who opposed his statement) that another poster(jdahveed) stated as: A lot of people play Sentinel incorrectly, anyway. If your range is 5', a creature moves away from you, and you land a Sentinel AoO, that creature is now 10' (one full square) away from the attacker.
In his case and yours, the action started was allowed to continue instead of being stopped/interrupted by a Reaction ability.
I agree that the trigger for the AoO still happened. The swing started while the enemy was still visible. The attack was interrupted when the target turned invisible. What's already happened has happened. Now just tack Disadvantage on to the AoO already under way and continue to resolve.
@Lyxen, you are driving me nuts with the Simultaneous Effects rule. It is named as such because that is what is happening. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. The effects are happening simultaneously. The resolutions of the effects are ordered. Why? Because you can only describe one thing at a time.
I've said it before, but the irony is a bit much. You do realize that you are arguing that a rule (that is optional) that states that if two things happen at the same time you can choose between them to determine which happens first means that the other thing NEVER (forgive the caps, no bold face available) happened. Which would of course mean that the rule was never invoked.
That doesn’t undo the trigger. Just because the target is no longer valid does not mean the trigger was invalidated.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You'll be waiting indefinitely because we all know that no such thing exists.
Lyxen's arguments are the definition of Brandolini's Law. Don't bother engaging.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I know that, I wasn’t really waiting. I went outside and cleaned up my yard after yesterday’s hurricane.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hey all, I just want to remind people that while rules discussion can get intense, it's important that we all remember to respect each other and be civil. There's no need for hostile language, ad hominem remarks or general bristlyness. Let's all be excellent to each other.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Personally, I'd have B swing at the spot A used to be. Same thing with the readied teleport in reaction to being targeted. If it was triggered, it goes off whether it is successful or not. Especially because these readied actions seem intended to specifically cause the swing in the first place - otherwise you'd just use the spell as Jhff pointed out.
But these scenarios are not the same thing as OP's. They are reactions triggered by another character's actions, where both the phrasing of the triggering action and the reaction taken were specifically chosen to trigger and then avoid the triggering attack. This is muddying the waters with the Ready rules which are vague enough about what a trigger can be that you can argue lots of absurd things.
In OP's setup, it is the player itself making the triggering action(s) and the trigger is specifically stated in the OA rules.
In one scenario, the player very carefully details their withdrawal in order to draw OAs at different times. Thus he chooses to trigger the Sentinel first and triumphantly avoids the second OA if he is hit. Don't think many people play like that for multiple reasons, but sure that's RAW.
In the other scenario as laid out by sposta, you trigger both OAs at the same time. You can choose the order of the effects of those OAs thanks to Xanathar, but the trigger has already happened for each creature.
There's yet another layer here that sposta pointed out, that the creatures taking the OA have to decide whether they want to do so. This clashes a bit with the rule in Xanathar's, and I'd allow the triggering creature to demand that each eligible attacker declare whether they are taking an OA or not when the trigger occurs, because that's the moment they have to decide. They can't just wait and see if the target is still alive after the others attack. Many of us have probably played this way (I certainly have), but it doesn't seem RAW after this deep dive into simultaneous actions. It's important to be consistent, and it seems the most correct way to be consistent is to rule that every single time something is triggered, it has to go off regardless of what happens between the trigger and the triggered reaction.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Nothing. The trigger still occurred, only the target was invalidated.
There in lies the rub. It doesn’t cancel the trigger. The trigger still occurs. It may invalidate the target, but not the inciting trigger.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I hate PJs, too binding.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The character chooses to act on it or not. Just like they do if the character is still there.
First, a single move acts as a trigger for both AoOs. A single thing is not multiple things. Second, you seem to have swapped cause and effect. Certainly, calling a trigger an effect is not what most people would do. I think this might come back to a difference that you seem to have with the authors of the system on the use of the word "effect".
Let's try this: the most common application of Xanathar's rule is when multiple things happen on the start or end of your turn.
Now your turn does not start twice in this case and it doesn't end twice. Those are singular moments that can trigger multiple effects. You are just choosing which effect you receive of the things that are already triggered, you are not choosing the order of the triggering events (because there was only one). The only way this can happen is if a triggered event can "hang" while another one is resolved.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
This argument, along with the one refuting iconarising in #111, is clearly not written to make sense out of a rule that can be understood with common sense. Again, we're still talking about the situation the OP describes where one movement of whatever amount of the creature's speed is required causes two opportunity attacks. Labeling "leaving a reach" as an effect is still in no way common sense, no matter how you state it is. "Leaving a reach" is also not described in the rules as an effect. You could argue it is a cause, but nothing more. Ironically in the thread that you refer to, you insisted on a single definition of effect that is not this one and that was so narrow as to exclude anything that a natural language reader would call an effect -- and were not proven correct in that thread as I recall. Now you choose to take a definition of effect that is so broad as to not be limited to the natural language meaning, without any text support that it must be so in either case. That style of argument is not my favorite.
Any response?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They still haven't refuted the fact that they are using a rule that forces you to choose between two things to say that one never existed. And the threads keeps going page after page with no real additions. Time to leave the thread.
I had an actual conversation with sigred yesterday who changed my mind on my opinion of what an OA is, and how it is triggered. They didn't say things condescendingly or accusatory like you (IamSposta), chicken, or Jhfffan have been doing during this "conversation". You can still be waiting on your soapbox for that specific mention of "untrigger". We have agreed on things during this conversation... but you say things like "any response" that brings NOTHING to the conversation and ignore the fact that I am agreeing with you! I said this was my interpretation... We are saying the same thing with different words. I'm aware this was a rub and have said so multiple times that this thread has turned into a word semantics crapshow.
To the point of this thread:
My view is still unchanged on... it's DM discretion and I could understand both rulings. (as it should always be)
I was actually talking to Lyxen, so you can save your preaching for someone else. They and I regularly engage in spirited rules debates without devolving into name calling and personal attacks. You might try that sometime.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
To be clear, I'm not saying that the "nothing new" comment referred to the entire conversation. I'm saying that we could have stopped a page or two ago and the substance wouldn't have lost much if anything, particularly in response to the OP. If others have picked up more from it, that's great for them. I was simply stating that it's time for me to leave the thread so that I don't have to see 20 some odd posts rehashing the same points in slightly different ways (usually semantics as you said).
I'll certainly agree with you that it's DM discretion, that's rule zero. I think that was covered well in the first few pages by multiple people. That's part of the reason that I don't feel that anything (of much substance) has been added. Since we're at an impasse, what's the point of continuing to talk past each other?
Agreed. When there is no agreement on the base assumptions, there’s no point arguing about the higher level conclusions. This thread is just word salad and whack-a-mole at this point for bad arguments coming out of nowhere, there’s no happy ending in store for any of us.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Hey, I was avoiding this thread, you got me sucked into it! 😜
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
@IamSposta. You do realize that this example(in bold above) is just a different version of one that you shot down(more or less, since you agreed with those who opposed his statement) that another poster(jdahveed) stated as: A lot of people play Sentinel incorrectly, anyway. If your range is 5', a creature moves away from you, and you land a Sentinel AoO, that creature is now 10' (one full square) away from the attacker.
In his case and yours, the action started was allowed to continue instead of being stopped/interrupted by a Reaction ability.
I agree that the trigger for the AoO still happened. The swing started while the enemy was still visible. The attack was interrupted when the target turned invisible. What's already happened has happened. Now just tack Disadvantage on to the AoO already under way and continue to resolve.
@Lyxen, you are driving me nuts with the Simultaneous Effects rule. It is named as such because that is what is happening. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. The effects are happening simultaneously. The resolutions of the effects are ordered. Why? Because you can only describe one thing at a time.