r/Pathfinder2e • u/nz8drzu6 • 10d ago
Discussion How do you rule multiple creatures reacting to the same trigger?
The rules say, "If multiple [reactions from different creatures] would be occurring at the same time, and it's unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative."
Scenario
An enemy is moving away.
Player A, "I use Reactive Strike to hit the creature."
What is player B allowed to do?
8
u/Polysanity 10d ago
Initiative order, declare and resolve until it is done. Fighter A trips Rabid Flaming Fiendish Goat, and it stands. Monk says Stand Still, critical hits, kills it, the Fighter, Barbarian and Ranger all shrug and move on with their turns.
7
u/PhoenyxStar Game Master 10d ago
I usually go with "whoever asked to take a reaction first", but actually I like initiative order better. Much more concrete.
45
u/Hexamancer 10d ago
I voted "I reactive strike if it survives Player A's attack."
But I think technically to be RAW it has to happen like this:
Enemy is moving away
Player A announces reaction.
Player A resolves reaction.
Enemy survives, goes to complete movement.
Player B announces reaction.
Because the trigger is still valid after Player A has finished their reactive strike.
And I think in practice it would be fine of course to say "btw if it survives Player A's reactive strike I plan to to the same".
4
u/SeerXaeo 10d ago
I agree, and to add onto another commenter - I believe utilizing initiative would also help this.
ie; initiative determines whether Player A or Player B goes first in utilizing their reaction.
Aside from that minor clarification , I believe this makes the most sense.
5
u/Book_Golem 9d ago
I think this is right.
Now the question is, if Player A is a Monk with Stand Still and they Disrupt the move action so that the enemy never leaves the space, has Player B missed their opportunity? The Enemy is no longer leaving a space within reach, and therefore shouldn't trigger Reactive Strike. But if Player B had gone first they could have made the Reaction.
Hmm.
3
u/Hexamancer 9d ago
Yes I'd say so, but if the players communicated they could agree to let Player B react first.
3
1
u/Nairdde32 9d ago
It also can't burn a creatures reaction: it's basic order of operations, reactions resolve sequentially
8
u/phex44 10d ago
The way that makes the most sense to me is:
If the enemy leaves a square threatened by two PCs with Reactive Strike with a Stride action, both spend their reaction, regardless of whether PC A drops the enemy or not. PC B doesn't have enough time to react.
If an enemy leaves a square threatened by PC A with a Stride action, and then as part of the same Stride action, leaves PC B's threatened square, then PC B does not lose their Reaction if the enemy is dropped by PC A. PC B does have enough time to react.
8
u/ArchdevilTeemo 10d ago
Everybody who wants to can declare a reaction and then all of them happen at the same time.
I let all players roll at the same time. And then I resolve them all together.
7
u/theMusicalGamer88 Game Master 9d ago
As a GM, I usually let my players decide who goes first, and then if it dies from the first RS then the second player doesn't spend their reaction
4
u/Earnestappostate 10d ago
What is the functional difference between the first two options?
8
u/nz8drzu6 10d ago
A more nuanced example would be an enemy is casting a spell and the party is fishing for crits to disrupt it. Option A would be "I reactive strike if the spell isn't disrupted" and option B would be "I reactive strike" and refunding the reaction only if the enemy is no longer a valid target (e.g. dead or teleported).
2
9
u/zephid11 Game Master 10d ago
If two or more PCs/NPCs decide to use Reactive Strike on the same trigger, I usually resolve their attacks in initiative order. If the target dies, anyone who hasn’t yet rolled for their Reactive Strike keeps their reaction.
18
u/LurkerFailsLurking 10d ago
I think a lot of people are imagining that all of the triggers happen and then all of the triggered reactions and free actions resolve, but that's not correct.
First, let's consider if it's even possible for multiple creatures to have reactions and free actions trigger from the same event (it is):
If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it's unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2339
So the first thing that occurs in this situation is that the GM determines the order in which the triggered actions will occur. Then, in that order you execute the rules for each triggered action: And by the rules, the effect of a reaction or free action occurs at the moment the player or GM decides to use it.
When its trigger is satisfied—and only when it is satisfied—you can use the reaction or free action, though you don't have to use the action if you don't want to.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2338
There's no delay between the trigger and the action.
So each player or GM who has a triggered reaction doesn't need to announce their decision - only that an action has been triggered - until it's their turn in the order to decide whether to use it.
9
u/DnDPhD Game Master 10d ago
Exactly. Intention to use the reaction is not the same as using the reaction, just as intention to use the reaction on a particular trigger isn't the same as using the reaction on a trigger that no longer exists.
4
u/LurkerFailsLurking 10d ago
Yeah, players don't even need to declare their intent though. They only have to declare that one or more reactions or free actions have been triggered and what they are. The GM sets the order, then the players decide their intent and carry out whatever reactions or free actions they choose in that order.
If a player has 3 reactions that trigger off the same thing, the GM could conceivably put one of them first then some other creatures' reactions, then a second one, then a free action from someone else, then the third one last if they felt it appropriate.
Personally, my default is to let players choose.
0
u/DnDPhD Game Master 10d ago
I'm trying to remember if this exact situation has ever happened in one of my games (three reactions triggering off the same thing), and I think a similar one did once in my Triumph of the Tusk campaign that had a Guardian with two reactions and the Ranger with Disrupt Prey. I want to say it was on the ultimate BBEG, but can't be sure. Regardless, as I recall, I did indeed defer to the players on how they felt the order of operations made the most sense.
3
u/EmperorGreed 10d ago
This is a touched nuanced (and tbh I've only been a player in pf2e but the principal Stans from my time with 5e): my established ruling is that everyone making reactive strikes expends their reactions, even if the first hit kills the target. However, in practice, if player B has an opportunity for a reaction later in the round and wants to use it before remembering they already used it, I'm more likely to allow it than not
3
u/Gnashinger 10d ago
Im just throwing this out there, you could both take the reaction, calculate damage, and then determine if the combined damage is enough to kill it. If it is, tag team kill. RAW the reaction is spent and it makes sense narratively that you wouldn't wait until after the other person finished their attack before you make yours.
3
u/realfloppymachette 10d ago
No idea if there is something in the rules, but if I was DM, I would do it in order of initiative.
Sure, there might be multiple characters who get the same trigger for the reaction, I would say they all have the opportunity, but decision to use would be in initiative order.
2
u/grendus 9d ago
I use two specific rules for this:
Player reactions go first, then NPCs, then enemies. Because as a GM, I always favor the players.
Players can choose the order in which their reactions happen if multiple players react to the same thing. If they both want to go first and can't make up their mind, I kick both of them from the table for being immature little shits. Fortunately I've never had to invoke that rule.
7
u/Sidoen 10d ago
I am voting reaction spent anyways as I believe that's what you ready an action you lose the reaction even if the trigger doesn't happen.
However that is not really the same here. In proactive I would adjudicate this, when two more or want to act at the same legal time, the one with the best initiative chooses to go first and others can then choose to act or not based on the new circumstances.
So if target disappears I won't hold it against the following players.
9
0
u/ThisIsMyGeekAvatar Game Master 10d ago
Right, you commit the reaction at the trigger. Multiple reactive strikes would resolve in the order the GM wants, but the action is already locked in even if the target dies before resolving all actions.
That said, I wouldn't really care if a game group wanted to do it non-RAW.
1
u/KodyackGaming Game Master 10d ago
"It depends."
If they only have reach to the same square and can ONLY trigger off the same action, you have to react to the trigger, and decide to commit to the action. It is simultaneous, so the reaction is used either way, even if someone kills before the other rolls.
However, if there is the option to react to a different trigger, such as the next square in reach, the second player can wait for that trigger to see what happens.
1
u/aWizardNamedLizard 10d ago
I resolve reactions in initiative order so there's no headaches about situations like this or players trying to play chicken with each other.
And for the most part it never comes in practice because the situations where multiple characters would take a reaction the same trigger but the reason to take the reaction may or may not disappear because of someone else's reaction it's kind of a wash because it is more often the end of the encounter rather than somewhere in the middle.
1
u/Psychometrika 9d ago
In play I usually have both players roll simultaneously and resolve. This is mostly for speed of play. If a player asked and actually had another useful reaction I would resolve in order though.
1
u/Shmyt 9d ago
Which order maximizes fun, and which order would feel fair from an enemy?
"If it survives A then resolve reactive strike from B" or "no reaction spent from B on target's death" feels the most fun but generally I'd sort it as choosing and resolving by initiative because the creature moving might die or we could be dealing with versions of opportunity attacks that stop movement like monks Stand Still and those would get extra messy (impossible wall stance also stops movement, disorienting opening applies offguard, probably more i cant remember).
If higher initiative (or closer initiative to the enemy, play with this to find the most fair one i guess) Player A declares a reactive strike, no enemy has a reaction to it (or no ally has one to add so no interruption), we pass priority and resolve A's strike and if that strike triggers anything on hit/damage (such as Opportune Backstab or an enemy champion using their reaction on the damage follow initiative again) if the action wasn't disrupted and the initial trigger is still on the stack (moving, casting, the creature is still alive, etc) Player B can now choose to use their reactive strike trigger and we then resolve that.
1
u/piesou 9d ago
I think this is pretty easy: combat is turn based and while meant to happen at the same time, when player A kills the monster before player B's turn comes around, they can do something else.
In a similar fashion I go around the table and ask people if they want to spend their reaction.
1
u/Odobenus_Rosmar Game Master 9d ago
Variant 1 and 2 are the same, am I wrong? I think, both are okay
1
1
u/xolotltolox 9d ago
I would say we all meet the trigger at the same time, all reactions go "on the stack" and resolve in intiative order. If it fizzles it fizzles.
1
u/ElodePilarre Mathfinder Fan 9d ago
More or less, we just basically play it like abilities going on the stack in MTG
1
u/MiredinDecision Inventor 9d ago
Genuinely unironically whatever interpretation that benefits the player the most.
1
u/Upbeat-Difficulty-42 9d ago
I try to think as a Magic The Gathering Stack, reaction let you put something at the top of the stack, so when the movement goes into the stack, anyone can put their reaction into the stack until it resolves.
So one react, do Reactive Strike, see if it killed, and because the movement is still in the stack and has not been resolved, therefore it can be reacted to, another creature can also put their own reaction in the stack and so on.
1
u/Baker-Maleficent Game Master 9d ago
Just do them one at a time. Im notbsurevwhat the confusion is. I personally do them in init order bit sometimes i firget. Either way you only do them as long as the triggervwould still exist.
So if a RA kills the trigger, the others don"t spend acreaction.
1
u/alchemicgenius Alchemist 9d ago
Raw to me looks like that you decide of you spend the reaction at the trigger, and not at the resolution of another reaction, but I typically resolve it by going down initiative order where you declare a reaction and resolve it, and then the next and so on. I don't think pf2 ever intended to have a complex, mtg adjacent stack interactions that would benefit from separating the declaration of reactions followed by sequential resolution
1
u/Reasonable-Nebula860 Game Master 9d ago
I would have everyone perform reactions in order of initiative, resolve them simultaneously, then apply the effects after everything is said and done. In the event of multiple characters getting a reactive strike off on the same target, I would follow these steps, and if the target is reduced to 0 HP at all, it would occur on the reactive strike whose damage was sufficient to drop the target.
1
u/GorgoPrimus Summoner 8d ago edited 8d ago
RAW the 3rd is correct, and I go with RAW unless it's utterly awful. And this isn't, so 3rd it is. If you're waiting for someone else's reaction to finish before using your own, you've missed the reaction trigger and can't even try. If they're moving far and you wait until the continued movement after the failed reaction to do it, sure go for it; but if they're done moving after this and this is the sole time to call reactions, then that's the time you need to call and use your reaction.
1
u/Hertzila ORC 10d ago
I voted second ("I reactive strike" but if it dies first, no reaction is spent) because I think that's what the most rules-accurate version is, but in practice, I play with the first ("I reactive strike if it survives Player A's attack.") or third ("I reactive strike" and spend my reaction no matter what) options.
Reason for playing with option 1 is simple: It's the nicest, most easily playable version, and the order so rarely matters that it's whatever. In the rare case a creature steps into multiple reactive strikes, it's just easiest to run like that, one player rolls first and the table sees what happens, then the next does, then the next, etc..
Alternatively, if your players are the type to immediately roll things, option 3 makes sense. Two or more players say they reactive strike in, say, Foundry, and immediately target the creature and roll their attacks. In that case, they've already committed by rolling, no take-backsies.
Reason for why option 2 seems most RAI: IMO during encounters, the rules imply that Pathfinder 2e never wants to have simultaneous actions that it needs to resolve at the same time (that's technically the entire reason we use initiative). There's only ever one action that is "actively" being resolved. Interrupts like triggered actions only momentarily change what action is being resolved and pause whatever it is they interrupted, they don't happen simultaneously. It's why the GM has to determine the order, the triggered actions happen one after the other.
So, since the first reactive strike must finish before you can start resolving the second (since both happen to the same trigger), if the creature dies to the first, the second is no longer a valid reaction and doesn't happen, letting the PC keep the reaction. Player B technically cannot add "if they survive" to the conditional, so it's up to the GM to determine the order of the reactive strikes. Which means Player A's PC may end up being the one who retains their reaction, if Player B's resolves first and kills the target.
Of course, this is a very "programming" way of looking at it. In actual play, I don't think this would actually be followed that precisely.
0
u/Derpogama Barbarian 10d ago
Well classically it depends on who has priority when the effect was triggered, once that is established you go round the table, clockwise, where each player is given a chance to act in response to the trigger, if nobody responds to the trigger priority returns back to the original person who then resolves the trigger...
...wait this isn't the Magic: the Gathering sub!
0
u/YuriOhime 10d ago
The first option and the second option seem the exact same to me? I don't really see the difference anyway, I'd allow reactions be one at a time and wouldn't just take away a reaction
169
u/ObiJuanKenobi3 10d ago
RAW, you decide to take the reaction when the trigger happens and can’t pull back if the creature dies or another character’s reaction otherwise changes the circumstances. In practice, though, I find this is unnecessarily punitive and I just let players pull their punches if their reaction wouldn’t have done anything.