Today I'm interested in the wording of haste. We understand the do's and don'ts while haste is active. However, when it drops is where confusion lies on one particular wording of the spell.
Haste:
Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the target's speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.
When Haste Drops:
When the spell ends, the target can't move or take actions until after its next turn, as a wave of lethargy sweeps over it.
I would consider a bonus action to be a sub type of actions. Keep in mind that Bonus actions are fairly common - most characters get some kind of bonus action, including Thieves Dash, and spells like Spiritual Weapon and Misty Step.
You also can't interact with objects or the environment since that's done as part of your movement or action. Reactions and non-action activities like speaking are the only useful things you can do.
Well - Haste has a very similar wording to the Incapacitated condition - however - Incapacitated says it stops movement, actions and reactions whereas Haste only says movement and actions. So I would allow reactions.
REACTIONS Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The opportunity attack, described later in this chapter, is the most common type of reaction. When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start ofyour next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.
Reactions are a type of action, but they are not governed by things that impact "actions". As Emmber noted, Haste does not say it restricts reactions where other things do.
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed--sometimes called your walking speed--is noted on your character sheet.
The most common actions you can take are described in the Actions in Combat section. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action.
You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn. If you can't decide what to do on your turn, consider taking the Dodge or Ready action, as described in "Actions in Combat."
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
Other Activity on Your Turn
Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.
You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the DM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.
Reactions
Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The opportunity attack, described later in this section, is the most common type of reaction.
When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.
The only things that get restricted by a condition preventing the use of actions are actions & bonus actions. If a spell/feature/condition restricts the use of reactions, it will say so explicitly.
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.
Gives me flashbacks to 4e when the word "attack" had like 4 different meanings depending on context. I agree that if "you cannot take actions" included anything described as an action, the part quoted in red would not need to be there. And even if it was just a clarification, it would have included reactions along with bonus actions if that were the case.
Depending on which section you give primacy (Bobby's quoted Reactions section and the Bonus Action section, which both suggest that they are an "additional action" or "special action"; vs. Sigred's quoted portion of further down in the Bonus Action section, which suggests that depriving you of your "actions" effect "bonus actions" as something distinct-from-but-related-to actions), you get a different answer.
How do you reconcile those? You don't. One or the other is correct, not both, but both are RAW. 5E uses "action" in inconsistent ways which cannot be entirely reconciled without DM rulings.
Gives me flashbacks to 4e when the word "attack" had like 4 different meanings depending on context. I agree that if "you cannot take actions" included anything described as an action, the part quoted in red would not need to be there. And even if it was just a clarification, it would have included reactions along with bonus actions if that were the case.
Yeah, it's really dumb, and the way that JC explains it does not actually address anything about the specific mechanics in question. "Actions and reactions different" is a non-answer when the question is "are reactions a type of action, and are they affected by conditions impacting your ability to take actions?"
Yes, reactions are a type of action, as are bonus actions, because that is how they are described in the PHB.
No, reactions are not affected by a condition that restricts your ability to take actions, because the PHB does not say as such, where it explicitly does say as such for bonus actions. The only things which restrict your ability to take reactions are those things which explicitly say as such (like Incapacitated).
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 functionally, agree with you, that Action, Bonus Action, and Reaction are all types of actions. But I think even the quoted Reactions section and the Bonus Action section don't exactly say that, its equally possible to read them as saying that they're all "actions" but are able to be taken at "special" or "additional" times on your turn or other's turns. I forget if it was Coder or someone else in another thread a couple months back that pointed that out to me, that action-economy-actions being distinct from "action" as a general category including all three is a houserule that isn't explicitly RAW as much as it is just an (arguably) useful way we all talk about this on the forums. And even if you do accept that there's two different meanings of "action", its also unclear which one Haste is referring to, and whether it's necessarily the same type that Incapacitated is referring to.
Depending on which section you give primacy (Bobby's quoted Reactions section and the Bonus Action section, which both suggest that they are an "additional action" or "special action"; vs. Sigred's quoted portion of further down in the Bonus Action section, which suggests that depriving you of your "actions" effect "bonus actions" as something distinct-from-but-related-to actions), you get a different answer.
How do you reconcile those? You don't. One or the other is correct, not both, but both are RAW. 5E uses "action" in inconsistent ways which cannot be entirely reconciled without DM rulings.
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.
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action.
vs.
anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
The first quote is what Bobby focused on, the second is what you focused on, but both are from the same section. The first tells us that a bonus action is an action. The second tells us that a bonus action is not an action. Those two sentences are irreconcilable, unless we start adding in unwritten RAI rulings that "action" has two different meanings in these two sentences.
The first quote is what Bobby focused on, the second is what you focused on, but both are from the same section. The first tells us that a bonus action is an action. The second tells us that a bonus action is not an action. Those two sentences are irreconcilable, unless we start adding in unwritten RAI rulings that "action" has two different meanings in these two sentences.
I don't see why you would think it says that. I see that just as added clarification, it would need to be a lot more specific to do what you claim it does.
If bonus actions were actions, then there'd be no "also" in that sentence, or that "also" would be operating only to reinforce that bonus actions are actions. Either way, "reactions" can't be excluded. I guess it's not so much that there's a RAW contradiction... more that, if we take as given that Haste doesn't stop reactions, then there must be a contradiction?
"If you're allergic to gurm, you're also allergic to splurm" can mean one of pretty much two and only two things:
List of distinct nouns: gurm and splurm are two different things: gurm is not splurm, despite their shared allergic reaction. Any third distinct noun ("kurm") that wasn't in that sentence, isn't really implied to be part of it. We're just talking about gurm and splurm, not necessarily also kurm.
Clarification of a sub-type: splurm is a type of gurm, and you're being reminded of that, just in case you forgot or were unclear. No implication at all that other gurm sub-types which may exist are excluded.
Okay, that's fine on its own, either interpretation is acceptable. But if we contextualize that with two other statements, "there's a type of gurm called splurm" and "there's a type of gurm called kurm", then interpretation #1 is now contradictory with those outside statements, and we're left with only interpretation #2. If we have a reason to think that #1 was what was in fact intended, we've got a contradiction on our hands, we should have never been told that "splurm is a type of gurm" at all, and it casts real doubt as to whether "kurm is a type of gurm" can be trusted too.
If you're reading "anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action" as a clarification that bonus actions are indeed actions, then that sentence should ALSO be read to apply to other things we know to be actions even though they aren't clarified in that sentence... in other words, "anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a reaction" would be true. "Anything that kills birds, kills seagulls" shouldn't be read to mean that it doesn't kill eagles, because eagles are a subtype of bird.
If you're reading "anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action" as a list of distinct nouns, "actions" and "bonus actions" are two different things, and "reactions" a third, then we are now in direct contradiction to the language that tells us that bonus actions and reactions are actions, and they can't be reconciled.
If bonus actions were actions, then there'd be no "also" in that sentence, or that "also" would be operating only to reinforce that bonus actions are actions. Either way, "reactions" can't be excluded. I guess it's not so much that there's a RAW contradiction... more that, if we take as given that Haste doesn't stop reactions, then there must be a contradiction?
"If you're allergic to gurm, you're also allergic to splurm" can mean one of pretty much two and only two things:
List of distinct nouns: gurm and splurm are two different things: gurm is not splurm, despite their shared allergic reaction. Any third distinct noun ("kurm") that wasn't in that sentence, isn't really implied to be part of it. We're just talking about gurm and splurm, not necessarily also kurm.
Clarification of a sub-type: splurm is a type of gurm, and you're being reminded of that, just in case you forgot or were unclear. No implication at all that other gurm sub-types which may exist are excluded.
Okay, that's fine on its own, either interpretation is acceptable. But if we contextualize that with two other statements, "there's a type of gurm called splurm" and "there's a type of gurm called kurm", then interpretation #1 is now contradictory with those outside statements, and we're left with only interpretation #2. If we have a reason to think that #1 was what was in fact intended, we've got a contradiction on our hands, we should have never been told that "splurm is a type of gurm" at all, and it casts real doubt as to whether "kurm is a type of gurm" can be trusted too.
If you're reading "anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action" as a clarification that bonus actions are indeed actions, then that sentence should ALSO be read to apply to other things we know to be actions even though they aren't clarified in that sentence... in other words, "anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a reaction" would be true. "Anything that kills birds, kills seagulls" shouldn't be read to mean that it doesn't kill eagles, because eagles are a subtype of bird.
If you're reading "anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action" as a list of distinct nouns, "actions" and "bonus actions" are two different things, and "reactions" a third, then we are now in direct contradiction to the language that tells us that bonus actions and reactions are actions, and they can't be reconciled.
There is no direct contradiction, for you are overcomplicating the logic in your mind.
Things depriving you of your ability to take actions (A) do not also deprive you of the ability to take reactions (A**)
It's really that simple of a logic exercise. WotC did no favors to anyone by using the term "action" to refer to both a conceptual umbrella term, and an actual specific subcategory of that same umbrella term. It would've been far more clear if they would've referred to the specific subcategory of actions as "standard actions". It's much easier to reconcile what affects what when you understand that game rule interactions only refer to the specific subcategories, and never to the umbrella terminology.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello All,
As always, thanks for the feedback.
Today I'm interested in the wording of haste. We understand the do's and don'ts while haste is active. However, when it drops is where confusion lies on one particular wording of the spell.
Haste:
Choose a willing creature that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the target's speed is doubled, it gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage on Dexterity saving throws, and it gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.
When Haste Drops:
When the spell ends, the target can't move or take actions until after its next turn, as a wave of lethargy sweeps over it.
Question
RAW reads as "can't move or take actions" until after its next turn. Does this literally mean no movement (obvious point) and no actions (meaning just actions?). I've verified that you can use reactions: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/59079/on-the-turn-after-haste-ends-can-you-use-a-reaction
But in this case, when it refers to 'take actions', does it mean actions AND bonus actions?
Thanks!
Mike
I would consider a bonus action to be a sub type of actions. Keep in mind that Bonus actions are fairly common - most characters get some kind of bonus action, including Thieves Dash, and spells like Spiritual Weapon and Misty Step.
From the entry on bonus actions in the PHB: anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
So, yeah. Haste ending means you can’t take an action or bonus action.
You also can't interact with objects or the environment since that's done as part of your movement or action. Reactions and non-action activities like speaking are the only useful things you can do.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
What about reactions?
Well - Haste has a very similar wording to the Incapacitated condition - however - Incapacitated says it stops movement, actions and reactions whereas Haste only says movement and actions. So I would allow reactions.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
REACTIONS
Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The opportunity attack, described later in this chapter, is the most common type of reaction.
When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start ofyour next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.
seems like reactions are another type of action.
Reactions are a type of action, but they are not governed by things that impact "actions". As Emmber noted, Haste does not say it restricts reactions where other things do.
Directly to the point, the PHB does confirm that reactions are not restricted:
The only things that get restricted by a condition preventing the use of actions are actions & bonus actions. If a spell/feature/condition restricts the use of reactions, it will say so explicitly.
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.
Gives me flashbacks to 4e when the word "attack" had like 4 different meanings depending on context. I agree that if "you cannot take actions" included anything described as an action, the part quoted in red would not need to be there. And even if it was just a clarification, it would have included reactions along with bonus actions if that were the case.
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
Depending on which section you give primacy (Bobby's quoted Reactions section and the Bonus Action section, which both suggest that they are an "additional action" or "special action"; vs. Sigred's quoted portion of further down in the Bonus Action section, which suggests that depriving you of your "actions" effect "bonus actions" as something distinct-from-but-related-to actions), you get a different answer.
How do you reconcile those? You don't. One or the other is correct, not both, but both are RAW. 5E uses "action" in inconsistent ways which cannot be entirely reconciled without DM rulings.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yeah, it's really dumb, and the way that JC explains it does not actually address anything about the specific mechanics in question. "Actions and reactions different" is a non-answer when the question is "are reactions a type of action, and are they affected by conditions impacting your ability to take actions?"
Yes, reactions are a type of action, as are bonus actions, because that is how they are described in the PHB.
No, reactions are not affected by a condition that restricts your ability to take actions, because the PHB does not say as such, where it explicitly does say as such for bonus actions. The only things which restrict your ability to take reactions are those things which explicitly say as such (like Incapacitated).
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 functionally, agree with you, that Action, Bonus Action, and Reaction are all types of actions. But I think even the quoted Reactions section and the Bonus Action section don't exactly say that, its equally possible to read them as saying that they're all "actions" but are able to be taken at "special" or "additional" times on your turn or other's turns. I forget if it was Coder or someone else in another thread a couple months back that pointed that out to me, that action-economy-actions being distinct from "action" as a general category including all three is a houserule that isn't explicitly RAW as much as it is just an (arguably) useful way we all talk about this on the forums. And even if you do accept that there's two different meanings of "action", its also unclear which one Haste is referring to, and whether it's necessarily the same type that Incapacitated is referring to.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Uh... we literally quoted the same page... I just quoted the entirety of it from Chapter 9: Combat, The Order of Combat instead of one snippet.
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.
Okay, let me be a little more explicit:
vs.
The first quote is what Bobby focused on, the second is what you focused on, but both are from the same section. The first tells us that a bonus action is an action. The second tells us that a bonus action is not an action. Those two sentences are irreconcilable, unless we start adding in unwritten RAI rulings that "action" has two different meanings in these two sentences.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't see why you would think it says that. I see that just as added clarification, it would need to be a lot more specific to do what you claim it does.
If bonus actions were actions, then there'd be no "also" in that sentence, or that "also" would be operating only to reinforce that bonus actions are actions. Either way, "reactions" can't be excluded. I guess it's not so much that there's a RAW contradiction... more that, if we take as given that Haste doesn't stop reactions, then there must be a contradiction?
"If you're allergic to gurm, you're also allergic to splurm" can mean one of pretty much two and only two things:
Okay, that's fine on its own, either interpretation is acceptable. But if we contextualize that with two other statements, "there's a type of gurm called splurm" and "there's a type of gurm called kurm", then interpretation #1 is now contradictory with those outside statements, and we're left with only interpretation #2. If we have a reason to think that #1 was what was in fact intended, we've got a contradiction on our hands, we should have never been told that "splurm is a type of gurm" at all, and it casts real doubt as to whether "kurm is a type of gurm" can be trusted too.
If you're reading "anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action" as a clarification that bonus actions are indeed actions, then that sentence should ALSO be read to apply to other things we know to be actions even though they aren't clarified in that sentence... in other words, "anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a reaction" would be true. "Anything that kills birds, kills seagulls" shouldn't be read to mean that it doesn't kill eagles, because eagles are a subtype of bird.
If you're reading "anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action" as a list of distinct nouns, "actions" and "bonus actions" are two different things, and "reactions" a third, then we are now in direct contradiction to the language that tells us that bonus actions and reactions are actions, and they can't be reconciled.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There is no direct contradiction, for you are overcomplicating the logic in your mind.
It's really that simple of a logic exercise. WotC did no favors to anyone by using the term "action" to refer to both a conceptual umbrella term, and an actual specific subcategory of that same umbrella term. It would've been far more clear if they would've referred to the specific subcategory of actions as "standard actions". It's much easier to reconcile what affects what when you understand that game rule interactions only refer to the specific subcategories, and never to the umbrella terminology.
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.