Skip to main content
added 147 characters in body
Source Link
mxyzplk
  • 175.7k
  • 31
  • 439
  • 662

No.

A reaction is defined as "a special kind of action" in the rules (PHB, p. 190), and therefore is governed by anything affecting actions. It's special-ness is not defined as to be immune to action-depriving situations.

Furthermore, it would be odd for your extreme lethargy to prevent you from intentionally taking actions, but let up in a flash when you want to take a reaction, and then return.

I understand that Jeremy Crawford rules differently, but his Twitter rulings are no longer official and this has not been addressed officially.

No.

A reaction is defined as "a special kind of action" in the rules (PHB, p. 190), and therefore is governed by anything affecting actions. It's special-ness is not defined as to be immune to action-depriving situations.

Furthermore, it would be odd for your extreme lethargy to prevent you from intentionally taking actions, but let up in a flash when you want to take a reaction, and then return.

No.

A reaction is defined as "a special kind of action" in the rules (PHB, p. 190), and therefore is governed by anything affecting actions. It's special-ness is not defined as to be immune to action-depriving situations.

Furthermore, it would be odd for your extreme lethargy to prevent you from intentionally taking actions, but let up in a flash when you want to take a reaction, and then return.

I understand that Jeremy Crawford rules differently, but his Twitter rulings are no longer official and this has not been addressed officially.

add page number with minimal changes
Source Link
SevenSidedDie
  • 244.5k
  • 44
  • 788
  • 1k

No.

A reaction is defined as "a special kind of action" in the rules (PHB, p. 190), and therefore is governed by anything affecting actions. It's special-ness is not defined as to be immune to action-depriving situations.

Furthermore, it would be odd for your extreme lethargy to prevent you from intentionally taking actions, but let up in a flash when you want to take a reaction, and then return.

No.

A reaction is defined as "a special kind of action" in the rules, and therefore is governed by anything affecting actions. It's special-ness is not defined as to be immune to action-depriving situations.

Furthermore, it would be odd for your extreme lethargy to prevent you from intentionally taking actions, but let up in a flash when you want to take a reaction, and then return.

No.

A reaction is defined as "a special kind of action" in the rules (PHB, p. 190), and therefore is governed by anything affecting actions. It's special-ness is not defined as to be immune to action-depriving situations.

Furthermore, it would be odd for your extreme lethargy to prevent you from intentionally taking actions, but let up in a flash when you want to take a reaction, and then return.

added 181 characters in body
Source Link
mxyzplk
  • 175.7k
  • 31
  • 439
  • 662

No.

A reaction is defined as "a special kind of action" in the rules, and therefore is governed by anything affecting actions. It's special-ness is not defined as to be immune to action-depriving situations.

Furthermore, it would be odd for your extreme lethargy to prevent you from intentionally taking actions, but let up in a flash when you want to take a reaction, and then return.

No.

A reaction is defined as "a special kind of action" in the rules, and therefore is governed by anything affecting actions. It's special-ness is not defined as to be immune to action-depriving situations.

No.

A reaction is defined as "a special kind of action" in the rules, and therefore is governed by anything affecting actions. It's special-ness is not defined as to be immune to action-depriving situations.

Furthermore, it would be odd for your extreme lethargy to prevent you from intentionally taking actions, but let up in a flash when you want to take a reaction, and then return.

Source Link
mxyzplk
  • 175.7k
  • 31
  • 439
  • 662
Loading