For the Circle of Spores druid's Halo of Spores feature, is your reaction used regardless of whether the...












7












$begingroup$


The Circle of Spores druid's Halo of Spores feature (Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica, p. 27) states the following:




When a creature you can see moves into a space within 10 feet of you or starts its turn there, you can use your reaction to deal 1d4 necrotic damage to that creature unless it succeeds on a Constitution saving throw against your spell save DC.




(Emphasis mine)



My initial understanding was that this translates to: First your reaction is used (and thus "consumed"), then the creature would roll the Con save. Hence, if the creature succeeded, the reaction would have been wasted with no result.



However, upon second inspection I realise that it could also translate to this: You first declare you would like to use the feature, then the creature makes the save, and only if it fails is the reaction consumed to deal damage.



I'd be grateful for any help on this. Which approach is correct here? Is your reaction used regardless of whether the other creature succeeds on the saving throw?



Thanks in advance!






dnd-5e class-feature druid reactions







share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Rule books other than the player's handbook aren't always as carefully worded to avoid rule loopholes like this. It should be obvious how they meant to write it, as the answers explain.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Cordes
    2 hours ago
















7












$begingroup$


The Circle of Spores druid's Halo of Spores feature (Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica, p. 27) states the following:




When a creature you can see moves into a space within 10 feet of you or starts its turn there, you can use your reaction to deal 1d4 necrotic damage to that creature unless it succeeds on a Constitution saving throw against your spell save DC.




(Emphasis mine)



My initial understanding was that this translates to: First your reaction is used (and thus "consumed"), then the creature would roll the Con save. Hence, if the creature succeeded, the reaction would have been wasted with no result.



However, upon second inspection I realise that it could also translate to this: You first declare you would like to use the feature, then the creature makes the save, and only if it fails is the reaction consumed to deal damage.



I'd be grateful for any help on this. Which approach is correct here? Is your reaction used regardless of whether the other creature succeeds on the saving throw?



Thanks in advance!






dnd-5e class-feature druid reactions







share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Rule books other than the player's handbook aren't always as carefully worded to avoid rule loopholes like this. It should be obvious how they meant to write it, as the answers explain.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Cordes
    2 hours ago














7












7








7


1



$begingroup$


The Circle of Spores druid's Halo of Spores feature (Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica, p. 27) states the following:




When a creature you can see moves into a space within 10 feet of you or starts its turn there, you can use your reaction to deal 1d4 necrotic damage to that creature unless it succeeds on a Constitution saving throw against your spell save DC.




(Emphasis mine)



My initial understanding was that this translates to: First your reaction is used (and thus "consumed"), then the creature would roll the Con save. Hence, if the creature succeeded, the reaction would have been wasted with no result.



However, upon second inspection I realise that it could also translate to this: You first declare you would like to use the feature, then the creature makes the save, and only if it fails is the reaction consumed to deal damage.



I'd be grateful for any help on this. Which approach is correct here? Is your reaction used regardless of whether the other creature succeeds on the saving throw?



Thanks in advance!






dnd-5e class-feature druid reactions







share|improve this question











$endgroup$




The Circle of Spores druid's Halo of Spores feature (Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica, p. 27) states the following:




When a creature you can see moves into a space within 10 feet of you or starts its turn there, you can use your reaction to deal 1d4 necrotic damage to that creature unless it succeeds on a Constitution saving throw against your spell save DC.




(Emphasis mine)



My initial understanding was that this translates to: First your reaction is used (and thus "consumed"), then the creature would roll the Con save. Hence, if the creature succeeded, the reaction would have been wasted with no result.



However, upon second inspection I realise that it could also translate to this: You first declare you would like to use the feature, then the creature makes the save, and only if it fails is the reaction consumed to deal damage.



I'd be grateful for any help on this. Which approach is correct here? Is your reaction used regardless of whether the other creature succeeds on the saving throw?



Thanks in advance!






dnd-5e class-feature druid reactions




dnd-5e class-feature druid reactions






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









V2Blast

23.1k374145




23.1k374145










asked 8 hours ago









Johnny RumJohnny Rum

944




944












  • $begingroup$
    Rule books other than the player's handbook aren't always as carefully worded to avoid rule loopholes like this. It should be obvious how they meant to write it, as the answers explain.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Cordes
    2 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Rule books other than the player's handbook aren't always as carefully worded to avoid rule loopholes like this. It should be obvious how they meant to write it, as the answers explain.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Cordes
    2 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Rule books other than the player's handbook aren't always as carefully worded to avoid rule loopholes like this. It should be obvious how they meant to write it, as the answers explain.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Rule books other than the player's handbook aren't always as carefully worded to avoid rule loopholes like this. It should be obvious how they meant to write it, as the answers explain.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















14












$begingroup$

The first option - if the target makes a save, your reaction has already been used.



I agree that the sentence by itself is ambiguous. However, from my experience, any feature in 5e that forces a save and requires some kind of action consumes the action regardless of the result of the save. Therefore, I believe the same thing is intended here.



Notably, there are some features that you can choose to use after you know if you succeed, but afaik they all depend on you hitting with an attack.



Regardless, think of the Halo of Spores in-universe: you're using your reaction to blast the opponent with your spores, therefore your reaction is used regardless of the save. You don't ask your opponent "Hey, would you like to get blasted with spores? Yes? Well, here you go!", using your reaction only if he agrees/fails to defy you ;)






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Good answer. Suggestion: "...but afaik they all depend on you hitting with an attack" and the text usually explains that they are exceptional in that way. So, since it doesn't say your reaction isn't wasted if they succeed on the save, there's no reason to suspect it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Bloodcinder
    7 hours ago



















3












$begingroup$

The reaction is used.



According to the simplest reading of the text, you use your reaction to cause the effect. The foe then takes damage unless it saves. This is consistent with the other rules. In general, there is no ability that grants a reaction that is returned to you if a condition subsequent is not met. In the absence of specific wording to the contrary, we must assume this follows the general rules.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "122"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141602%2ffor-the-circle-of-spores-druids-halo-of-spores-feature-is-your-reaction-used-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    14












    $begingroup$

    The first option - if the target makes a save, your reaction has already been used.



    I agree that the sentence by itself is ambiguous. However, from my experience, any feature in 5e that forces a save and requires some kind of action consumes the action regardless of the result of the save. Therefore, I believe the same thing is intended here.



    Notably, there are some features that you can choose to use after you know if you succeed, but afaik they all depend on you hitting with an attack.



    Regardless, think of the Halo of Spores in-universe: you're using your reaction to blast the opponent with your spores, therefore your reaction is used regardless of the save. You don't ask your opponent "Hey, would you like to get blasted with spores? Yes? Well, here you go!", using your reaction only if he agrees/fails to defy you ;)






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Good answer. Suggestion: "...but afaik they all depend on you hitting with an attack" and the text usually explains that they are exceptional in that way. So, since it doesn't say your reaction isn't wasted if they succeed on the save, there's no reason to suspect it is.
      $endgroup$
      – Bloodcinder
      7 hours ago
















    14












    $begingroup$

    The first option - if the target makes a save, your reaction has already been used.



    I agree that the sentence by itself is ambiguous. However, from my experience, any feature in 5e that forces a save and requires some kind of action consumes the action regardless of the result of the save. Therefore, I believe the same thing is intended here.



    Notably, there are some features that you can choose to use after you know if you succeed, but afaik they all depend on you hitting with an attack.



    Regardless, think of the Halo of Spores in-universe: you're using your reaction to blast the opponent with your spores, therefore your reaction is used regardless of the save. You don't ask your opponent "Hey, would you like to get blasted with spores? Yes? Well, here you go!", using your reaction only if he agrees/fails to defy you ;)






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Good answer. Suggestion: "...but afaik they all depend on you hitting with an attack" and the text usually explains that they are exceptional in that way. So, since it doesn't say your reaction isn't wasted if they succeed on the save, there's no reason to suspect it is.
      $endgroup$
      – Bloodcinder
      7 hours ago














    14












    14








    14





    $begingroup$

    The first option - if the target makes a save, your reaction has already been used.



    I agree that the sentence by itself is ambiguous. However, from my experience, any feature in 5e that forces a save and requires some kind of action consumes the action regardless of the result of the save. Therefore, I believe the same thing is intended here.



    Notably, there are some features that you can choose to use after you know if you succeed, but afaik they all depend on you hitting with an attack.



    Regardless, think of the Halo of Spores in-universe: you're using your reaction to blast the opponent with your spores, therefore your reaction is used regardless of the save. You don't ask your opponent "Hey, would you like to get blasted with spores? Yes? Well, here you go!", using your reaction only if he agrees/fails to defy you ;)






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    The first option - if the target makes a save, your reaction has already been used.



    I agree that the sentence by itself is ambiguous. However, from my experience, any feature in 5e that forces a save and requires some kind of action consumes the action regardless of the result of the save. Therefore, I believe the same thing is intended here.



    Notably, there are some features that you can choose to use after you know if you succeed, but afaik they all depend on you hitting with an attack.



    Regardless, think of the Halo of Spores in-universe: you're using your reaction to blast the opponent with your spores, therefore your reaction is used regardless of the save. You don't ask your opponent "Hey, would you like to get blasted with spores? Yes? Well, here you go!", using your reaction only if he agrees/fails to defy you ;)







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 7 hours ago

























    answered 8 hours ago









    PixelMasterPixelMaster

    10.2k237103




    10.2k237103








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Good answer. Suggestion: "...but afaik they all depend on you hitting with an attack" and the text usually explains that they are exceptional in that way. So, since it doesn't say your reaction isn't wasted if they succeed on the save, there's no reason to suspect it is.
      $endgroup$
      – Bloodcinder
      7 hours ago














    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Good answer. Suggestion: "...but afaik they all depend on you hitting with an attack" and the text usually explains that they are exceptional in that way. So, since it doesn't say your reaction isn't wasted if they succeed on the save, there's no reason to suspect it is.
      $endgroup$
      – Bloodcinder
      7 hours ago








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Good answer. Suggestion: "...but afaik they all depend on you hitting with an attack" and the text usually explains that they are exceptional in that way. So, since it doesn't say your reaction isn't wasted if they succeed on the save, there's no reason to suspect it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Bloodcinder
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Good answer. Suggestion: "...but afaik they all depend on you hitting with an attack" and the text usually explains that they are exceptional in that way. So, since it doesn't say your reaction isn't wasted if they succeed on the save, there's no reason to suspect it is.
    $endgroup$
    – Bloodcinder
    7 hours ago













    3












    $begingroup$

    The reaction is used.



    According to the simplest reading of the text, you use your reaction to cause the effect. The foe then takes damage unless it saves. This is consistent with the other rules. In general, there is no ability that grants a reaction that is returned to you if a condition subsequent is not met. In the absence of specific wording to the contrary, we must assume this follows the general rules.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      3












      $begingroup$

      The reaction is used.



      According to the simplest reading of the text, you use your reaction to cause the effect. The foe then takes damage unless it saves. This is consistent with the other rules. In general, there is no ability that grants a reaction that is returned to you if a condition subsequent is not met. In the absence of specific wording to the contrary, we must assume this follows the general rules.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        The reaction is used.



        According to the simplest reading of the text, you use your reaction to cause the effect. The foe then takes damage unless it saves. This is consistent with the other rules. In general, there is no ability that grants a reaction that is returned to you if a condition subsequent is not met. In the absence of specific wording to the contrary, we must assume this follows the general rules.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The reaction is used.



        According to the simplest reading of the text, you use your reaction to cause the effect. The foe then takes damage unless it saves. This is consistent with the other rules. In general, there is no ability that grants a reaction that is returned to you if a condition subsequent is not met. In the absence of specific wording to the contrary, we must assume this follows the general rules.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 8 hours ago









        keithcurtiskeithcurtis

        22.9k459135




        22.9k459135






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141602%2ffor-the-circle-of-spores-druids-halo-of-spores-feature-is-your-reaction-used-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

            Image
            5 This question already has an answer here: How do you calculate the likelihood of drawing certain cards in your opening hand? 3 answers There is a funny modern deck where you play Treasure Hunt, but you really need to have it on the starting hand. How many mulligans should I take, if my deck contains 60 cards and contains 4 copies of Treasure Hunt? magic-the-gathering probability share | improve this question asked Nov 23 '18 at 12:12 dan dan 152 4
            Read more

            Alcedinidae

            Image
            Alcedinidae Martin-pêcheur à dos bleu ( Alcedo azurea ) Classification (COI) Règne Animalia Embranchement Chordata Sous-embr. Vertebrata Classe Aves Ordre Coraciiformes Famille Alcedinidae Rafinesque, 1815 Les Alcédinidés ou Alcedinidae forment une famille d'oiseaux plus connus sous les noms de martins-pêcheurs et martins-chasseurs. Sommaire 1 Description 2 Répartition et habitat 3 Systématique 3.1 Liste alphabétique des genres 3.2 Liste des espèces 4 Chez les Anciens : l'alcyon 4.1 Étymologie (Littré) 4.2 Oiseau « fabuleux » ? 5 Notes 6 Articles connexes 7 Liens externes 7.1 Bibliographie Description | Ce sont des oiseaux compacts de taille petite à moyenne (10 à 46 cm), au bec droit et long, en forme de poignard. Leurs pattes sont courtes, et ils portent un plumage aux couleurs vives. Répartition et habitat | Cosmopolites, ils fréquentent surtout
            Read more

            Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]

            Image
            9 $begingroup$ This question already has an answer here: What happens if we put together a proton and an antineutron? 2 answers Is it theoretically possible to make a "deuterium" atom containing a proton and an antineutron in its nucleus? Would the strong nuclear force cause attraction between a proton and an antineutron? Would such a nucleus be stable, or would the proton somehow annihilate the antineutron when close enough? nuclear-physics antimatter share | cite | improve this question asked yesterday
            Read more