sjmoodyiii is on board, folks. There's no reason to go after them.
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 can see now, more or less, why you could argue that what happened in our situation would lead to me losing my oa, altough I still think I should have been allowed to roll for the attack.
If I were the DM with a similar situation, I would allow the attack, even if the enemy was stopped, turned invisible, in which case they would be attacking an invisible enemy giving them disadvantage, or even if the monster teleported or died, in which case they would simply lose their reaction swinging and missing.
Anyways, I'll talk it over with our DM and see where things go from there. Bye!
A warlock is 20 feet away from an NPC in a tense situation. The warlock readies an action to fire eldritch blast at that NPC if they walk towards the warlock. The NPC walks a tiny bit (perhaps even a single step) towards the warlock but stops quickly. That triggers the warlocks readied action. However, the NPC stopped walking before the warlock fired his eldritch blast. Perhaps another NPC even grabbed him after that step and stopped him from walking. Does this mean the warlock can no longer fire the eldritch blast?
This opportunity attack situation is the same thing. A monster moves away from 2 players, so both opportunity attacks are triggered. The trigger happens and each character chooses whether to act on that trigger. Just because the trigger stops between the trigger and action doesn't mean the action can't happen. If the first attack was something like a banishing smite that sent the monster to another dimension, then yes the second attack wouldn't happen because it simply isn't possible anymore. However, there is nothing in the original situation that makes the second opportunity attack unable to happen.
There is no impossibility for him to no longer be able to fire it (contrary to an adversary teleporting or stopping short of actually leaving the reach of an opponent with sentinel, which was the OP's case).
This is quite contradictory. You're saying that because there is no impossibility, the warlock would fire the blast. However, you then say it is impossible to attack a target that was stopped from moving in the middle of your attack. If a character leaves your reach, you can't attack them. Yet, you're saying they have to leave your reach in order for the opportunity attack to go through. Again, just because they are stopped in the middle of their movement doesn't mean the action stops halfway through. The trigger happens and then the action happens as long as it is still possible.
You say those two situations are not almost identical, except they are. In both situations: An action is triggered, something stops the triggering action between its start and the desired reaction, then the reaction takes place. They are both the same situation. The only difference is the method attack. Both attacks are done as a reation to something (specifically, movement).
This is again a case of imprecision in the declaration of the warlock (and it's not a criticism, it's just that the DMs in my group aver very careful about the phrasing of readied actions to void this as much as possible). I would have interpreted it as "if the NPC starts walking towards the warlock", unless the warlock had specified ("comes nearer than X feet).
You're saying that "The warlock readies an action to fire eldritch blast at that NPC if they walk towards the warlock" is an imprecise declaration, yet you interpret it as the only thing it can really mean: "if the NPC starts walking towards the warlock". Saying "if they walk towards me" is not an imprecise declaration. It is a binary decision: If they walk towards you, decide to fire. If they don't, don't. There isn't any room for interpretation there.
If Yes then OP happens if the player that can take OP wants to use his/her reaction
Even if the the first OP attack is sentinel and the creature gets knocked unconscious anyone else that has that OP triggered can hit it again and take death saves away if the DM is using them for that particular creature.
Trigger is a trigger, sentinel does nothing to prevent other OP attacks. Super easy.
If Yes then OP happens if the player that can take OP wants to use his/her reaction
Even if the the first OP attack is sentinel and the creature gets knocked unconscious anyone else that has that OP triggered can hit it again and take death saves away if the DM is using them for that particular creature.
Trigger is a trigger, sentinel does nothing to prevent other OP attacks. Super easy.
If Yes then OP happens if the player that can take OP wants to use his/her reaction
Even if the the first OP attack is sentinel and the creature gets knocked unconscious anyone else that has that OP triggered can hit it again and take death saves away if the DM is using them for that particular creature.
Trigger is a trigger, sentinel does nothing to prevent other OP attacks. Super easy.
The order of attacks matters. If the guy going away has 10 hp, and gets two attacks for 5 and 15 points, the result is not going to be the same, he will be unconscious in any case, but with 2 death saves missed if it's the largest attack first.
Once you have understood that, you can proceed to the next stage and take into account things like readied actions and sentinel, where order matters even more. It is not that simple.
It really is that simple. Nothing undoes a trigger. The trigger still happens.
It really is that simple. Nothing undoes a trigger. The trigger still happens.
First no, interposing (re)actions might mean that the trigger never happens, and even when it happens, the conditions might make it so that the action that it should have started is impossible to take.
Two thing:
First, yeah. If interposing reactions means that the trigger never happened, then that means that it never happened for either reaction, meaning neither can be taken, meaning that the trigger still happens, meaning that either can happen. Your fallacy of logic creates a paradox. Meaning that your interpretation must be incorrect.
Just because the target becomes invalid does not mean that the trigger never happened. Don’t conflate the target getting invalidate with the trigger getting invalidated. That conflux is what is leading to the paradox mentioned above.
First, yeah. If interposing reactions means that the trigger never happened, then that means that it never happened for either reaction, meaning neither can be taken, meaning that the trigger still happens, meaning that either can happen. Your fallacy of logic creates a paradox. Meaning that your interpretation must be incorrect.
Only because you still want things to happen simultaneously. My argument is that nothing is simultaneous. So there is no paradox because even though they could have happened at the same time, they do not, they are sequenced. So the first one happens, and that could mean that the second one indeed never starts. There is no flip flop, just a simple ordering of things that prevents confusion, like the example of the guy being unconscious, but maybe with 2 death saves missed or 0 death saves missed, a true Schrödinger cat paradox created by wanting things to be not only simultaneous but also resolved in parallel.
I have suggested a way to order things, you can have whatever order you want, as long as you order things, in any case the DM arbitrates, which was the OP's original question.
Just because the target becomes invalid does not mean that the trigger never happened. Don’t conflate the target getting invalidate with the trigger getting invalidated. That conflux is what is leading to the paradox mentioned above.
These are two independent items, the only thing I'm stating is that paradox only appear because you want to resolve in parallel actions that happen "at the same game time". What Xanathar tells you is not to do this, order the resolution, so you will not have any paradox whatsoever. It's not a question of "a trigger happened or not", and "does it get invalidated or not".
No. This is a common misunderstanding based in no small part on the turn structure of D&D. In truth, everything is all happening at the same time, they only get resolved individually. It’s not that “a turn is 6 seconds,” it’s that “a round is 6 seconds” and everybody’s turn is all happening all at the same time all the time. We just resolve them sequentially based on who started acting a fraction of a second faster in order down to the slowest.
So the enemy starts to move, the three characters start to attack so close to each other as to be practically simultaneous, and then resolve them in order fastest to slowest. They happen simultaneously, they are only resolved sequentially.
No. This is a common misunderstanding based in no small part on the turn structure of D&D. In truth, everything is all happening at the same time, they only get resolved individually. It’s not that “a turn is 6 seconds,” it’s that “a round is 6 seconds” and everybody’s turn is all happening all at the same time all the time. We just resolve them sequentially based on who started acting a fraction of a second faster in order down to the slowest.
So the enemy starts to move, the three characters start to attack so close to each other as to be practically simultaneous, and then resolve them in order fastest to slowest. They happen simultaneously, they are only resolved sequentially.
Did I say anything different ? Actually it's my argument from the start that nothing is ever to be resolved simultaneously in parallel, everything is resolved sequentially, so even event/effects that appear to be simultaneous in terms of game time are resolved one after the other.
What Xanathar precises is that, in that case, whoever controls the creature that has created these events/effects chooses the order of resolution. And of course the resolution of that event/effect creates a new situation, in which whatever happens next is resolved according to that situation, not with a memory of "what could have happened before"...
But in order for something to slot into the order of resolution, that means the action was already initiated. It still happens, the order of resolution doesn’t preclude an action that was already started from concluding. All of those actions are still happening simultaneously. This isn’t a JRPG where everyone stands around suffering from one-at-a-time-itis. They are all still swinging simultaneously. The order of operations is more like VATS mode in Fallout 3.
To save myself time going through and editing/deleting.redacting posts - all of you cool it.
Either play nice or the thread gets locked. If you cannot have a discussion regarding rules without breaking rules, then individuals will find themselves without the ability to post.
For example, the DM controlling a monster that gets out of the reach of two PCs is perfectly entitled to say:
The monster moves away from you both.
Player A, do you want to use your reaction to make and AoO when it leaves your reach ?
If the answer is yes, resolve the AoO
Player B, do you want to use your reaction to make and AoO when it leaves your reach ?
If the answer is yes, resolve the AoO
P.S.: I thought that, at this stage, although we both have our opinions, the discussion is still fairly cordial and progressing, if it's not the case from your perspective, please let me know.
Ah. We DM very differently:
DM: “The monster moves away from you both.”
Players: “[We] declare Opportunity Attacks.”
DM: *Establishes order of resolution, resolves all attacks sequentially, and then moves monster.*
Then it doesn’t matter who “attacks first.” They both attack at the same time, I just resolve them in order. It’s like in a movie when everything slips into slow-mo so you can see everything happening simultaneously, but can still also see the exact instants when things happen. I have neither the time nor inclination to ask each player one at a time what they are doing. They speak up, I resolve. Asking them each individually is a massive timesuck.
Just because thing get resolved sequentially doesn’t mean that the DM has to specifically call on players to declare their actions sequentially. They can still all declare them simultaneously which means all actions have “begun” before we hit slow motion. You treat it like a JRPG where everyone stands a round waiting for the others to finish their actions before starting their own. I do everything in my power to make D&D never seem like that. If three PCs all attack the same monster on their turn I specifically describe their attacks all hitting within a fraction of a second of each other. Combat is the slowest assdragginest part of the whole game. I do everything I can to turn it into a Hollywood style action packed adrenaline ride. I stand while DMing so I can act things out to amp up the scene.
It has nothing to do with all that, even if you think that everything is happening simultaneously (which is not the case), everything is processed sequentially by the server. The right example is that of an MMORPG, where the character database locks down the character when something happens to him. Even if two messages, one of damage and the other of healing, reach the server at exactly the same instant, they will be queued in whatever order the server is using and will be resolved sequentially even though it appears simultaneous (or even if seen in different orders by the protagonists due for example to a different ping).
I specifically do not treat it that way, and IMHO treating it that way is why you are all alone in your interpretation of this and everyone else here is disagreeing with you. Nothing gets locked until resolved. Nowhere does it say that is the case, that is all in your own personal interpretation and 100% not RAW. Not to say that there’s anything wrong with your interpretation, it is just not the commonly held one, nor is it what the rules actually imply. It’s more like a restaurant kitchen during the diner rush. The tickets are constantly pouring in, they just go out in order.
I have to ask, do your players all wait to be called on like students? Because mine sure don’t. And I’m glad for that. If they did it would be the most boring game of D&D ever and I would stop DMing.
You do realize that in your last post you claimed that both “lots of things are happening at the same time” and “nothing happens at the same time.” (Paraphrased)
You do realize that in your last post you claimed that both “lots of things are happening at the same time” and “nothing happens at the same time.” (Paraphrased) So which is it?
Funny, I was thinking the same about the wordings in your own postings. :p
What I meant (probably like you) is that although all the activities are happening more or less in parallel for all the protagonists of a fight, none of the resolutions of said activities are resolved as if they were happening exactly at the same time, they are all sequenced, exactly like in a MMORPG.
Not so, they are resolved as if slow motion were pressed where everything is still all happening Generally at the same time, but we are able to see individual hits as they land and resolve them in an approximation if “real time.” It never pauses like an MMORPG. Never.
Making this way too complicated. Trigger is a trigger, both get the Op attack, period. If the DM states otherwise, he is not correct and the players can then just order themselves in a way to make it right. If one goes first for his reaction and kill the target, the other player can then choose to not use his Op, but can if he likes. If you say that sentinel stops him so the other doesn't get an Op then the trigger wouldn't have gone off for the sentinel in the first place and you get this paradox that you are citing because it's not logical. Trigger is a trigger, for everyone, simple.
Making this way too complicated. Trigger is a trigger, both get the Op attack, period. If the DM states otherwise, he is not correct and the players can then just order themselves in a way to make it right. If one goes first for his reaction and kill the target, the other player can then choose to not use his Op, but can if he likes. If you say that sentinel stops him so the other doesn't get an Op then the trigger wouldn't have gone off for the sentinel in the first place and you get this paradox that you are citing because it's not logical. Trigger is a trigger, for everyone, simple.
What is important, in all my posts, is to show that things can be thought off differently than what groups usually apply....
[sic]
This is why I propose this simpler solution than everyone jumping in, most of the things are just in the hands of whoever's turn it is, it's quick, it's easy to put in place, and it removes nothing from the tactical perspective of the game.
How come is it that everyone else (including me) is saying that you’re the one making it more complicated? Has it occurred to you that instead of you enlightening all of us to your better way of doing things that maybe, just maybe, you could learn from us? I doubt it.
PS- I do exclusively Theater of the Mind, so I don’t have the issues you have.
Making this way too complicated. Trigger is a trigger, both get the Op attack, period. If the DM states otherwise, he is not correct and the players can then just order themselves in a way to make it right. If one goes first for his reaction and kill the target, the other player can then choose to not use his Op, but can if he likes.
And right there you have the paradox that your are imputing on my interpretation. They both get an AoO, and they even get to choose the order, but in the end only ends up attacking ? Where is the logic here ? Not to mention that this is contrary to the RAW: When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishe
It's not a paradox, your interpretation is making one where there isn't.
Is there a Trigger for an Op?
Yes: Everyone in melee gets the Op if they choose or have a reaction available
Making this way too complicated. Trigger is a trigger, both get the Op attack, period. If the DM states otherwise, he is not correct and the players can then just order themselves in a way to make it right. If one goes first for his reaction and kill the target, the other player can then choose to not use his Op, but can if he likes.
And right there you have the paradox that your are imputing on my interpretation. They both get an AoO, and they even get to choose the order, but in the end only ends up attacking ? Where is the logic here ? Not to mention that this is contrary to the RAW: When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishe
It's not a paradox, your interpretation is making one where there isn't.
Is there a Trigger for an Op?
Yes: Everyone in melee gets the Op if they choose or have a reaction available
No: Nobody gets the Op
See, no paradox, it's simple.
This has been going on for 8 pages. I’m tagging out. Good luck, you’re gonna need it.
sjmoodyiii is on board, folks. There's no reason to go after them.
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.
Thanks for the replies!
I can see now, more or less, why you could argue that what happened in our situation would lead to me losing my oa, altough I still think I should have been allowed to roll for the attack.
If I were the DM with a similar situation, I would allow the attack, even if the enemy was stopped, turned invisible, in which case they would be attacking an invisible enemy giving them disadvantage, or even if the monster teleported or died, in which case they would simply lose their reaction swinging and missing.
Anyways, I'll talk it over with our DM and see where things go from there. Bye!
Here's an almost identical example for you guys:
A warlock is 20 feet away from an NPC in a tense situation. The warlock readies an action to fire eldritch blast at that NPC if they walk towards the warlock. The NPC walks a tiny bit (perhaps even a single step) towards the warlock but stops quickly. That triggers the warlocks readied action. However, the NPC stopped walking before the warlock fired his eldritch blast. Perhaps another NPC even grabbed him after that step and stopped him from walking. Does this mean the warlock can no longer fire the eldritch blast?
This opportunity attack situation is the same thing. A monster moves away from 2 players, so both opportunity attacks are triggered. The trigger happens and each character chooses whether to act on that trigger. Just because the trigger stops between the trigger and action doesn't mean the action can't happen.
If the first attack was something like a banishing smite that sent the monster to another dimension, then yes the second attack wouldn't happen because it simply isn't possible anymore. However, there is nothing in the original situation that makes the second opportunity attack unable to happen.
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond
This is quite contradictory. You're saying that because there is no impossibility, the warlock would fire the blast. However, you then say it is impossible to attack a target that was stopped from moving in the middle of your attack.
If a character leaves your reach, you can't attack them. Yet, you're saying they have to leave your reach in order for the opportunity attack to go through. Again, just because they are stopped in the middle of their movement doesn't mean the action stops halfway through. The trigger happens and then the action happens as long as it is still possible.
You say those two situations are not almost identical, except they are. In both situations: An action is triggered, something stops the triggering action between its start and the desired reaction, then the reaction takes place. They are both the same situation. The only difference is the method attack. Both attacks are done as a reation to something (specifically, movement).
You're saying that "The warlock readies an action to fire eldritch blast at that NPC if they walk towards the warlock" is an imprecise declaration, yet you interpret it as the only thing it can really mean: "if the NPC starts walking towards the warlock".
Saying "if they walk towards me" is not an imprecise declaration. It is a binary decision: If they walk towards you, decide to fire. If they don't, don't. There isn't any room for interpretation there.
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond
It's really simple.
Guy does X
Does X trigger OP
If Yes then OP happens if the player that can take OP wants to use his/her reaction
Even if the the first OP attack is sentinel and the creature gets knocked unconscious anyone else that has that OP triggered can hit it again and take death saves away if the DM is using them for that particular creature.
Trigger is a trigger, sentinel does nothing to prevent other OP attacks. Super easy.
This^^^
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It really is that simple. Nothing undoes a trigger. The trigger still happens.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Two thing:
First, yeah. If interposing reactions means that the trigger never happened, then that means that it never happened for either reaction, meaning neither can be taken, meaning that the trigger still happens, meaning that either can happen. Your fallacy of logic creates a paradox. Meaning that your interpretation must be incorrect.
Just because the target becomes invalid does not mean that the trigger never happened. Don’t conflate the target getting invalidate with the trigger getting invalidated. That conflux is what is leading to the paradox mentioned above.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
No. This is a common misunderstanding based in no small part on the turn structure of D&D. In truth, everything is all happening at the same time, they only get resolved individually. It’s not that “a turn is 6 seconds,” it’s that “a round is 6 seconds” and everybody’s turn is all happening all at the same time all the time. We just resolve them sequentially based on who started acting a fraction of a second faster in order down to the slowest.
So the enemy starts to move, the three characters start to attack so close to each other as to be practically simultaneous, and then resolve them in order fastest to slowest. They happen simultaneously, they are only resolved sequentially.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
But in order for something to slot into the order of resolution, that means the action was already initiated. It still happens, the order of resolution doesn’t preclude an action that was already started from concluding. All of those actions are still happening simultaneously. This isn’t a JRPG where everyone stands around suffering from one-at-a-time-itis. They are all still swinging simultaneously. The order of operations is more like VATS mode in Fallout 3.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
To save myself time going through and editing/deleting.redacting posts - all of you cool it.
Either play nice or the thread gets locked. If you cannot have a discussion regarding rules without breaking rules, then individuals will find themselves without the ability to post.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
Ah. We DM very differently:
Then it doesn’t matter who “attacks first.” They both attack at the same time, I just resolve them in order. It’s like in a movie when everything slips into slow-mo so you can see everything happening simultaneously, but can still also see the exact instants when things happen. I have neither the time nor inclination to ask each player one at a time what they are doing. They speak up, I resolve. Asking them each individually is a massive timesuck.
Just because thing get resolved sequentially doesn’t mean that the DM has to specifically call on players to declare their actions sequentially. They can still all declare them simultaneously which means all actions have “begun” before we hit slow motion. You treat it like a JRPG where everyone stands a round waiting for the others to finish their actions before starting their own. I do everything in my power to make D&D never seem like that. If three PCs all attack the same monster on their turn I specifically describe their attacks all hitting within a fraction of a second of each other. Combat is the slowest assdragginest part of the whole game. I do everything I can to turn it into a Hollywood style action packed adrenaline ride. I stand while DMing so I can act things out to amp up the scene.
I specifically do not treat it that way, and IMHO treating it that way is why you are all alone in your interpretation of this and everyone else here is disagreeing with you. Nothing gets locked until resolved. Nowhere does it say that is the case, that is all in your own personal interpretation and 100% not RAW. Not to say that there’s anything wrong with your interpretation, it is just not the commonly held one, nor is it what the rules actually imply. It’s more like a restaurant kitchen during the diner rush. The tickets are constantly pouring in, they just go out in order.
I have to ask, do your players all wait to be called on like students? Because mine sure don’t. And I’m glad for that. If they did it would be the most boring game of D&D ever and I would stop DMing.
PS- So far so good. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You do realize that in your last post you claimed that both “lots of things are happening at the same time” and “nothing happens at the same time.” (Paraphrased)
So which is it?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Not so, they are resolved as if slow motion were pressed where everything is still all happening Generally at the same time, but we are able to see individual hits as they land and resolve them in an approximation if “real time.” It never pauses like an MMORPG. Never.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Making this way too complicated. Trigger is a trigger, both get the Op attack, period. If the DM states otherwise, he is not correct and the players can then just order themselves in a way to make it right. If one goes first for his reaction and kill the target, the other player can then choose to not use his Op, but can if he likes. If you say that sentinel stops him so the other doesn't get an Op then the trigger wouldn't have gone off for the sentinel in the first place and you get this paradox that you are citing because it's not logical. Trigger is a trigger, for everyone, simple.
This^^^
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Dude, D&D is a game, not a sumulation.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
How come is it that everyone else (including me) is saying that you’re the one making it more complicated? Has it occurred to you that instead of you enlightening all of us to your better way of doing things that maybe, just maybe, you could learn from us? I doubt it.
PS- I do exclusively Theater of the Mind, so I don’t have the issues you have.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's not a paradox, your interpretation is making one where there isn't.
Is there a Trigger for an Op?
Yes: Everyone in melee gets the Op if they choose or have a reaction available
No: Nobody gets the Op
See, no paradox, it's simple.
This has been going on for 8 pages. I’m tagging out. Good luck, you’re gonna need it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting