I was reading Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes when I stumbled on an interesting turn of phrase (it's repeated often in the book and in others, but this was where I first realized it).

The Demonic Boons section lists the following trait for followers of Graz'zt (p. 30):

Joy from Pain. Whenever this creature suffers a critical hit, it can make one melee weapon attack as a reaction.

[Emphasis mine]

Meanwhile, in Xanathar's Guide to Everything (p. 46), the Mastermind rogue's Misdirection subclass feature says:

When you are targeted by an attack while a creature within 5 feet of you is granting you cover against that attack, you can use your reaction to have the attack target that creature instead of you.

[Emphasis mine]

Is there any mechanical difference between these two phrases? If something is done "as a reaction", does it not "use your reaction"? Or are they just interchangable phrases?


Grammar is the only difference

Mechanically these two phrases are identical. Doing something "as a reaction" "use[s] your reaction". They only exist in two forms to make the sentence structure and grammar correct for the various abilities that use them.

Third Person vs. Second Person

[...] it can make one melee weapon attack as a reaction.

is a third person description of the action. Whereas,

[...] you can use your reaction [...]

is a second person perspective. Potentially, this the reason for the variations in phrasing. There are contradicting examples however, so this probably isn't the case.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I like this answer and I think it's correct, since I just now noticed a similar pattern with "use your action" and "as an action," and allowing "as an action" to not burn the creature's action would be absurdly broken. However, I will note that other abilities in Xanathar's use second person and still use "as a reaction", such as the Scout Rogue's Skirmisher Ability on page 47 ("you may move up to half your speed when an enemy ends its turn within 5 feet of you..."), so I'm not sure that's the reason. It was a good theory, though. \$\endgroup\$ – SeraphsWrath Nov 28 '18 at 4:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SeraphsWrath ah well. The first part was my main answer. I was just having a guess based on the examples given. I would need to go a analyse a bunch more examples to come up with a better reasoning. \$\endgroup\$ – linksassin Nov 28 '18 at 5:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.