Mechanics that dont make sense

[False God]

Here’s a classic one, from Beast Master Ranger:

You know, like animals in fights do.

Ranger and animal companion design in 5E is generally incompatible with 5E.

The point of having an animal companion is usually a trade-off of direct damage for greater action economy. But 5E has locked down the action economy so hard that the animal companion doesn't really give you anything. You can....move around and yell at your pet. Your pet can hold still and take it to the face while you shoot a bow.... and absolutely none of it makes sense.

[Kane0]

In what way exactly does it not make sense if it isn't a mechanical problem? Do you believe it's a narrative issue? What makes using a reaction on your own turn so functionally different, or to phrase this differently, why would it make more sense for a character not to be allowed to react to things on their own turn?

That's what I would find doesn't make sense, that for whatever reason the fact that I'm being attacked on my own turn means I can't use shield if I would otherwise be able to, that would be terribly nonsensical.

Eh, more like reacting to something that was dome in response to you performing an action, like deflecting an attack while you're making an attack or casting a spell while casting a spell. Its like, dude you're busy still doing the first thing that started this.

[Keltest]

Because they don't have any reactions to counterspell the counterspell since they used it on the Firebolt. Wizard #1 never counterspelled so he has a free reaction. To illustrate:

Turn 1: Wizard #1 casts Firebolt, Wizard #2 counterspells. Wizard #1 casts Bonus Action Blade of Disaster.
Turn 2: Wizard #2 casts whatever, Wizard #1 counterspells.

Wizard #2 has no answer here because he wasted his counterspell blindly on the firebolt and Wizard #1 didn't care about it.

My argument is that the discussion about PvE use of counterspell doesn't apply to duels, and I go on to explain why I don't see any reason to counterspell as Wizard #2 in this situation, even if I advocate for blind counterspell in general.

Edit: Oh wait, you assumed that the reaction will come back at the start of their turn, but I'm not sure about this. The text says "When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn." You haven't had a first turn yet, so the word "next" here creates a conflict. I've never seen it played that way because it essentially allows the one who lost initiative to act more times, but perhaps I'm wrong about this or at the very least, perhaps other people play it as you suggest.

Why would your first turn not also be able to be your next turn? You havent had a turn yet, so it actually is your next turn.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Eh, more like reacting to something that was dome in response to you performing an action, like deflecting an attack while you're making an attack or casting a spell while casting a spell. Its like, dude you're busy still doing the first thing that started this.

Counterpoint - Most times you're doing something on your own turn that would prompt a reaction, it's an active decision from the player to trigger that event. It's a prepared choice to trigger an opportunity attack if you have shield ready to prevent a possible hit, or to fireball yourself if you plan to mitigate the damage with absorb elements.

You are doing the first thing because you are already prepared to do the second thing.

If it isn't something done intentionally, I still don't really buy this reasoning. You can trigger a reaction to traps outside of combat that you've walked over, how is that so different from potentially triggering a trap during your movement in combat where your concentration is considered to be at its peak.

What about a different example - someone else has readied an action to trigger when you move, does it make sense that you wouldn't be able to react to that if you're able? All you're doing is moving, hands free, no actions taken and you can't react because it's your turn?

It might seem like I'm harping on this but the point I'm trying to make is that the alternative makes much less sense, it makes significantly less sense for you to be completely unable to use a reaction on your own turn just because you could maybe be doing something else in that 6 second round.

Bit of a side tangent here - those moments also feel very dynamic. It's a very cool image for a spellcaster to be weaving their arcane power and at the same time deflect an oncoming arrow, or for a physical fighter to parry or straight up ignore incoming arrow fire in the midst of their swing. The idea of a Monk spinning across the battlefield dodging through arrows and actively deflecting and returning the one that was going to most assuredly hit them while they approach for a ferocious strike with their quarterstaff is cool.

[Gtdead]

Why would your first turn not also be able to be your next turn? You havent had a turn yet, so it actually is your next turn.

Because the word "next" assumes some kind of continuity. If I give you 2 guns, one with real bullets and the other with blanks, and tell you that the next gun will kill you, would you be 100% sure what I'm talking about? (the reason I'm using guns is because there is no room for error in this scenario and you have to take it seriously).

Additionally it just doesn't sit well with me that the one who loses initiative gets more actions per round. So as the rules are written, there is ambiguity and I'm using the version where there isn't any net gain. It could just as well say that "at the start of each of your turns, you gain your reaction back". The usage of the word "next" here makes me think that it's intentional for the reason I'm explaining.

[Keltest]

Because the word "next" assumes some kind of continuity. If I give you 2 guns, one with real bullets and the other with blanks, and tell you that the next gun won't kill you, would you be 100% sure what I'm talking about? (the reason I'm using guns is because there is no room for error in this scenario and you have to take it seriously).

Additionally it just doesn't sit well with me that the one who loses initiative gets more actions per round. So as the rules are written, there is ambiguity and I'm using the version where there isn't any net gain. It could just as well say that "at the start of each of your turns, you gain your reaction back". The usage of the word "next" here makes me think that it's intentional for the reason I'm explaining.

Ok, lets take a step back here. Lets have the same wizard interaction, except its on Round 2 of the combat. The two wizards spend round 1 convincing the fighters to let them out of their cage or something, doesnt matter. Its round 2. Do you still feel there is room for ambiguity about what happens?

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Agreed, I wouldnt make a blanket houserule that you cant reaction during your turn as it makes things worse, however things like the Battlemasters Evasive Footwork exist and I think fills that same niche better, if only there were more of those.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Because the word "next" assumes some kind of continuity. If I give you 2 guns, one with real bullets and the other with blanks, and tell you that the next gun will kill you, would you be 100% sure what I'm talking about? (the reason I'm using guns is because there is no room for error in this scenario and you have to take it seriously).

Additionally it just doesn't sit well with me that the one who loses initiative gets more actions per round. So as the rules are written, there is ambiguity and I'm using the version where there isn't any net gain. It could just as well say that "at the start of each of your turns, you gain your reaction back". The usage of the word "next" here makes me think that it's intentional for the reason I'm explaining.

I don't think there's any mechanical reason that a non-surprised character wouldn't get a reaction before and after their first turn in combat. It doesn't matter if there's an implied continuity, your next turn is always your next turn, even if you haven't had a turn yet.

Your analogy here doesn't really apply either, the example is constructed to be ambiguous in that if gives multiple choices when "your next turn in combat" is not a multiple choice thing, you only have one.

[Gtdead]

Ok, lets take a step back here. Lets have the same wizard interaction, except its on Round 2 of the combat. The two wizards spend round 1 convincing the fighters to let them out of their cage or something, doesnt matter. Its round 2. Do you still feel there is room for ambiguity about what happens?

Let me give you a full example. There are 2 actors, Actor #1 who wins initiative and Actor #2 who goes second.

Scenario 1:

Round 1 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 uses his reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 doesn't gain back his reaction because it's not the "next" turn, rather it's the first turn.

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 still can't use reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 gains his reaction back because it's the next turn, and goes that way for every subsequent turn. He can use it on his turn if he wants to.

Only 1 reaction possible per round.

Scenario 2:

Round 1 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts
A#2's turn: A#2 uses his reaction on a Silvery Barbs to boost his Hold Person.

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 can't use reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 gains back his reaction and can use Silvery Barbs again.

Again only 1 reaction possible per round.

Scenario 3:

Round 1 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts
A#2's turn: A#2 acts

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 uses reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 gains back reaction, can use on a Silvery Barbs or keep it for the next round.

Again only 1 reaction possible per round.

I don't think there's any mechanical reason that a non-surprised character wouldn't get a reaction before and after their first turn in combat. It doesn't matter if there's an implied continuity, your next turn is always your next turn, even if you haven't had a turn yet.

Your analogy here doesn't really apply either, the example is constructed to be ambiguous in that if gives multiple choices when "your next turn in combat" is not a multiple choice thing, you only have one.

The example isn't ambiguous any more than the rule is. You don't see it that way because you believe beyond doubt that your first turn is your next turn in this situation. By your definition, these 2 sentences have absolutely no difference in meaning:

"When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn."
"When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of (each of) your turn(s)."

There is absolutely no reason (or at least no reason that I can possibly find) to not use the second one in this case, even without the added words in parenthesis. So the way I read it, the word "next" has meaning and it solves the problem of giving an advantage to those who "lost" initiative.

[Keltest]

Let me give you a full example. There are 2 actors, Actor #1 who wins initiative and Actor #2 who goes second.

Scenario 1:

Round 1 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 uses his reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 doesn't gain back his reaction because it's not the "next" turn, rather it's the first turn.

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 still can't use reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 gains his reaction back because it's the next turn, and goes that way for every subsequent turn. He can use it on his turn if he wants to.

Only 1 reaction possible per round.

Scenario 2:

Round 1 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts
A#2's turn: A#2 uses his reaction on a Silvery Barbs to boost his Hold Person.

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 can't use reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 gains back his reaction and can use Silvery Barbs again.

Again only 1 reaction possible per round.

Scenario 3:

Round 1 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts
A#2's turn: A#2 acts

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts, A#2 uses reaction
A#2's turn: A#2 gains back reaction, can use on a Silvery Barbs or keep it for the next round.

Again only 1 reaction possible per round.

Round 1 Begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts
A#2's turn: A#2 acts

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 casts a spell, which A#2 counterspells. A#1 lets this happen.
A#2's turn: A#2 casts a spell, which A#1 counterspells. A#2 then counter-counterspells, as he has gotten his reaction back due to it now being his turn.

Do you agree that this is a valid scenario? If so, then why does it become invalid if the counterspelling happens on round 1 but not round 2 or beyond?

Also, you seem to have forgotten somehow that in your Scenario 3, there are 2 reactions possible in the second round. If he uses his reaction, then gets it back and uses it on an SB, then he has used 2 reactions in a round.

[Gtdead]

Round 1 Begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 acts
A#2's turn: A#2 acts

Round 2 begins:
A#1's turn: A#1 casts a spell, which A#2 counterspells. A#1 lets this happen.
A#2's turn: A#2 casts a spell, which A#1 counterspells. A#2 then counter-counterspells, as he has gotten his reaction back due to it now being his turn.

Do you agree that this is a valid scenario? If so, then why does it become invalid if the counterspelling happens on round 1 but not round 2 or beyond?

Yes, this scenario is perfectly fine. It matters that it only happens on round 2 because on round 1 it allows the possibility for 3 reactions/2rounds

Also, you seem to have forgotten somehow that in your Scenario 3, there are 2 reactions possible in the second round. If he uses his reaction, then gets it back and uses it on an SB, then he has used 2 reactions in a round.

This also isn't a problem because it still allows a total of 2 reactions/2 rounds. You can't get more than that. This is normal due to the way the rule works. If instead everyone was getting their reactions back at the start of a new round, it wouldn't be possible for example. But it's constructed in a manner that makes it more likely for the reaction to be used on the subsequent rounds rather than the round you gain it back, assuming that you rolled low enough.

[Keltest]

Yes, this scenario is perfectly fine. It matters that it only happens on round 2 because on round 1 it allows the possibility for 3 reactions/2rounds



This also isn't a problem because it still allows a total of 2 reactions/2 rounds. You can't get more than that. This is normal the way the rule works. If instead everyone was getting their reactions back at the start of a new round, it wouldn't be possible.

Sure, some people can squeeze an extra reaction out in the first round. The advantage of going first in the first round is that nobody can do anything to you before your turn that would require your reaction to negate. I still dont see the thing that says this is actually disallowed rather than just being a little odd. The first round has no special significance in the rules for actions or reactions that im aware of. There are a couple of class features that want you to have higher initiative to work at all (looking at you, assassin rogue), but thats specific trumping general.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The example isn't ambiguous any more than the rule is. You don't see it that way because you believe beyond doubt that your first turn is your next turn in this situation. By your definition, these 2 sentences have absolutely no difference in meaning:

"When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn."
"When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of (each of) your turn(s)."

Since there is absolutely no reason to not use the second one in this case, even without the added words in parenthesis, so the way I read it, the word "next" has meaning here and it solves the problem of giving an advantage to those who "lost" initiative.

Sure there's a difference, we know there is because only a surprised creature is restricted from using their reaction before and during their first turn of combat.

This isn't at all complicated. If you're not surprised, there is no restriction on your reaction, if there is no restriction on your reaction you can use it, if you use it then you can't do so again until the start of your next turn and your "next turn" is your first turn, where your reaction comes back.

In your interpretation a character is being punished similarly to if they were surprised for no reason, characters can end up having an entire round of combat without a reaction even if they were fully alert at the start. Under your interpretation, if a non surprised character reacts to the first enemy in initiative they lose the opportunity to react to that enemies next turn, why?

[Gtdead]

Sure, some people can squeeze an extra reaction out in the first round. The advantage of going first in the first round is that nobody can do anything to you before your turn that would require your reaction to negate. I still dont see the thing that says this is actually disallowed rather than just being a little odd. The first round has no special significance in the rules for actions or reactions that im aware of. There are a couple of class features that want you to have higher initiative to work at all (looking at you, assassin rogue), but thats specific trumping general.

The only thing that (at least in my reading) disallows this is the word "next". There isn't any other rule here, and this actually is the root of the problem. I don't think that being able to react two times in the first round is ok and since there is the word "next" there, I think it's the designer's attempt to provide a solution to this "conundrum". It's not the most significant thing in the world, it's just something that I can't read any other way. I wouldn't care too much if it worked otherwise in another table.

Sure there's a difference, we know there is because only a surprised creature is restricted from using their reaction before and during their first turn of combat.

This isn't at all complicated. If you're not surprised, there is no restriction on your reaction, if there is no restriction on your reaction you can use it, if you use it then you can't do so again until the start of your next turn and your "next turn" is your first turn, where your reaction comes back.

In your interpretation a character is being punished similarly to if they were surprised for no reason, characters can end up having an entire round of combat without a reaction even if they were fully alert at the start. Under your interpretation, if a non surprised character reacts to the first enemy in initiative they lose the opportunity to react to that enemies next turn, why?

Why do you bring the surprise rules in this. I never said that you can't react. You still can react during the first round. You just don't gain it back until the start of your second turn (which I consider the first "next turn").

[RSP]

Why do you bring the surprise rules in this. I never said that you can't react. You still can react during the first round. You just don't gain it back until the start of your second turn (which I consider the first "next turn").

So if you cast Shield before your first Turn, it lasts until the start of your second Turn?

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be a bit philosophical, the first round of any given person's experience starts within 6 seconds of their birth. We don't normally track all of those rounds, but they're happening in the game-level simulation. Any reading of the rules that gives particular weight (without explicit guidance to that effect) to one round over another is suspect IMO. Generally, like the law, the game does not hide elephants in mouseholes. Finding major effects hidden in abstruse wording differences, while a favored pastime of these forums, is not actually something that the rules or expectations of the game support.

[sithlordnergal]

Why do you bring the surprise rules in this. I never said that you can't react. You still can react during the first round. You just don't gain it back until the start of your second turn (which I consider the first "next turn").

RSP makes a good point. Shield and Absorb Elements both say "Until the start of your next turn..." for their durations. By your ruling, they would last until the start of the second round

[Gtdead]

So if you cast Shield before your first Turn, it lasts until the start of your second Turn?

Yep.

To be a bit philosophical, the first round of any given person's experience starts within 6 seconds of their birth. We don't normally track all of those rounds, but they're happening in the game-level simulation. Any reading of the rules that gives particular weight (without explicit guidance to that effect) to one round over another is suspect IMO. Generally, like the law, the game does not hide elephants in mouseholes. Finding major effects hidden in abstruse wording differences, while a favored pastime of these forums, is not actually something that the rules or expectations of the game support.

Even on a philosophical level, rounds and turns are different. It doesn't matter if a character is able to gain 50 turns in a round, they still happen in 6 seconds. Turns are only possible once initiative is rolled. You can calculate rounds as you would calculate time. For example, it's not 100 years since the world creation, it's 525600000 rounds. You can't do the same for turns because they don't measure time. They are a byproduct of initiative so every time you roll initiative, you gain a new set of turns.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Why do you bring the surprise rules in this. I never said that you can't react. You still can react during the first round. You just don't gain it back until the start of your second turn (which I consider the first "next turn").

I bring up the surprise rules because you're inventing a restriction that is meant to mirror their function. You think they shouldn't get several reactions in such a small span of time because they were "slower" in initiative, despite the fact that their being "slower" is mechanically represented by them being unable to take a full turn before those who rolled higher. It also demonstrates well what an actual written and explicit restriction on reactions would look like.

Yep.


############# (ten character limitation)

I think this highlights a major fault in your reasoning. You're saying a spell that lasts until the beginning of your "next" turn has now lasted through the full duration of one of your turns into a second turn and you don't see the issue here?

[EggKookoo]

They are a byproduct of initiative so every time you roll initiative, you gain a new set of turns.

Thing is, a round is just the time between two of your turns, or more precisely the time from the start of one of your turns to the start of the next. The person that goes first in initiative order is really just setting the pace for the "combat rounds," but rounds don't really exist independently of turns. Round length is squishy (6 seconds is the alleged average), which is why init order can change from combat to combat.

[Gtdead]

I bring up the surprise rules because you're inventing a restriction that is meant to mirror their function. You think they shouldn't get several reactions in such a small span of time because they were "slower" in initiative, despite the fact that their being "slower" is mechanically represented by them being unable to take a full turn before those who rolled higher. It also demonstrates well what an actual written and explicit restriction on reactions would look like.

I think this highlights a major fault in your reasoning. You're saying a spell that lasts until the beginning of your "next" turn has now lasted through the full duration of one of your turns into a second turn and you don't see the issue here?

The shield thing is a problem of power and balance of a specific spell, the problem that I'm bringing forth is one of action economy. If I gave you a reaction spell that instantly kills a target of your choice when he is about to act, would you prefer my reading or yours?

A more practical example is the counterspell example that I was arguing for quite a while. If you duel a Cleric for example, he can never cast even if he wins initiative, because he casts, you counterspell, you cast, and then you counterspell again when he casts. How is that better than shield lasting a couple more rounds?

Thing is, a round is just the time between two of your turns, or more precisely the time from the start of one of your turns to the start of the next. The person that goes first in initiative order is really just setting the pace for the "combat rounds," but rounds don't really exist independently of turns. Round length is squishy (6 seconds is the alleged average), which is why init order can change from combat to combat.

The problem here are abilities like Thief Rogue's Thief's Reflexes and Samurai Fighter's Strength Before Death. If you imagine a round as 6 seconds independent of turns then there is nothing breaking the continuity. If you imagine then as something that repeats every 6 seconds once a turn has passed, they break continuity.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The shield thing is a problem of power and balance of a specific spell, the problem that I'm bringing forth is one of action economy. If I gave you a reaction spell that instantly kills a target of your choice when he is about to act, would you prefer my reading or yours?

Irrelevant, I don't care about the balance of any particular reaction, I care about what makes sense and having effects that end "at the start of your next turn" extend through any of your turns does not. It's not consistent with my understanding of what "next turn" (or "next" anything for that matter) means when read and I'm positive it's not consistent with any design intentions of that either.

A more practical example is the counterspell example that I was arguing for quite a while. If you duel a Cleric for example, he can never cast even if he wins initiative, because he casts, you counterspell, you cast, and then you counterspell again when he casts. How is that better than shield lasting a couple more rounds?

I don't see anything mechanically wrong with this example though I'll talk more on it below. If you (the one who is currently able to "lead" in counterspells) are spending high enough slots to guarantee your success, you're eventually going to run out. The cleric will eventually cast something. It's not a "significant" advantage because there's no guarantee of success unless you burn your highest possible slots and even then you might still fail to counter a spell.

The example, of course, looks bad in this specific example devoid of context and actions taken other than "I cast a spell within counterspell range" but how about I adjusted the example just a bit to demonstrate the advantage the Cleric has.

The Cleric wins initiative and walks to a distance of 61ft from their target. They can now successfully cast a spell, almost any spell they want so long as it has a range greater or equal to 61ft and the enemy caster can't react to it because the Cleric has the advantage of winning initiative.

[Khrysaes]

Man, this thread got so derailed.

[sithlordnergal]

Edit: Oh wait, you assumed that the reaction will come back at the start of their turn, but I'm not sure about this. The text says "When you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn." You haven't had a first turn yet, so the word "next" here creates a conflict. I've never seen it played that way because it essentially allows the one who lost initiative to act more times, but perhaps I'm wrong about this or at the very least, perhaps other people play it as you suggest.

So I can finally break into this a bit more now that I'm at a computer.

First, there really isn't any conflict here. You say that using the word "next" implies that it doesn't count towards the first round because there wasn't a round before that. But that's not what the word "next" even means. If your ruling is caused by the word "next" then it fails on a definition level because the definition of the word "next" is "(of a time or season) coming immediately after the time of writing or speaking.", "coming immediately after the present one in order, rank, or space.", "on the first or soonest occasion after the present; immediately afterwards.", or "following in the specified order.".

All of those are effectively saying the same thing, "next" is the moment that something happens immediately after something else happened. So if you use your Reaction before you've had your first turn, your next turn would be that first turn.


Second, you say you have issue that a person going second in initiative has more actions then someone who goes first. While this is technically true, this is mitigated by the fact that the person going first is, well, going first. There's actually a name for this, I think its called First-Move Advantage or First-Mover Advantage. Either way, it shows up in every single game that relies on turns, from board games, to DnD, to card games, and everything in between. The basic gist is that the advantages of going first tend to be great enough that game creators have to balance it out by making it worthwhile to go second. Same applies here in DnD.

Sure, the person going 2nd will get one extra reaction by allowing their Reaction to recharge at the start of the first turn. This is balanced by the fact that someone going first can simply deny that person a chance to act at all. Consider the Monk, if they go first they can open with Flurry of Blows and a Stunning Strike on each attack. There's a good chance the Monk's target will fail their con save, now they get to skip their first turn. Same with the Wizard and spells like Hold Person, Force Cage, Dominate Person, ect. Going first naturally balances out the fact that everyone else gets one extra reaction.


Third and final point, it greatly increases the power of spells like Shield and Absorb Elements. Sure its only on the first turn, but having +5 to AC, or being able to gain resistance to an elemental damage type for 2 turns is pretty strong. Also, depending on how you handle Surprise Rounds and Ambushes, it could make certain abilities insane. I know a lot of tables where you get one strike from a successful ambush before you roll initiative. Hand that to a Monk with Stunning Strike and your ruling. They'd effectively stun a creature for 2 turns.


All in all, you're free to use your ruling...but I feel like its a poorly thought out ruling with questionable reason behind it.


EDIT: As the the OP's original thoughts...its a very weird rule, and I've yet to find a single DM that uses it. Because most players and DMs just blurt out what they're going to cast when they're going to cast it. Even my own DM tried to make use of it, but dropped the rule shortly after using it because he kept accidentally blurting out the spell.

[Hytheter]

Come on guys, the answer is obvious. The final turn you took in your previous combat is the last turn, and the one you're yet to take in the current combat is your next turn. ;)

Not blue because this makes no less sense than what Gtdead is trying to assert here.

[Gtdead]

Irrelevant, I don't care about the balance of any particular reaction, I care about what makes sense and having effects that end "at the start of your next turn" extend through any of your turns does not. It's not consistent with my understanding of what "next turn" (or "next" anything for that matter) means when read and I'm positive it's not consistent with any design intentions of that either.

I can understand this, because it's similar to how I view my reading too. I saw something that allows me to use my reaction twice, I wondered if that was right, then I saw the word "next" and I considered what it meant. I consider turns a byproduct of initiative as I explained earlier, and since the definition of the word "next" requires something that comes before, I reasoned that it has to mean the second turn. You may disagree with it, but it doesn't break functionality in any shape or form. It just affects the balance of some abilities.

Frankly, after all this discussion, I think it would be better overall for everyone to regain reactions at the start of every round and make shield and other effects with a reaction casting time to last for that particular round.

I don't see anything mechanically wrong with this example though I'll talk more on it below. If you (the one who is currently able to "lead" in counterspells) are spending high enough slots to guarantee your success, you're eventually going to run out. The cleric will eventually cast something. It's not a "significant" advantage because there's no guarantee of success unless you burn your highest possible slots and even then you might still fail to counter a spell.

In this game, even if you always operate at a mathematical disadvantage, it's not a 100% guarantee that you will lose due to RNG. Failure can be minimized through build engineering, I don't like talking about it because it requires assumptions. It's not about just 1 duel. It's about the average result of a large number of duels. Sometimes the counterspell will fail, others will succeed. If this makes the Wizard win 75% of the time instead of 50% (assuming that the classes are balanced in the first place), then it's an obviously advantageous tactic.

The example, of course, looks bad in this specific example devoid of context and actions taken other than "I cast a spell within counterspell range" but how about I adjusted the example just a bit to demonstrate the advantage the Cleric has.

I agree the example is forced. It's similar to the example I was given which spawned this discussion which is why I used it.

So I can finally break into this a bit more now that I'm at a computer.

First, there really isn't any conflict here. You say that using the word "next" implies that it doesn't count towards the first round because there wasn't a round before that. But that's not what the word "next" even means. If your ruling is caused by the word "next" then it fails on a definition level because the definition of the word "next" is "(of a time or season) coming immediately after the time of writing or speaking.", "coming immediately after the present one in order, rank, or space.", "on the first or soonest occasion after the present; immediately afterwards.", or "following in the specified order.".

All of those are effectively saying the same thing, "next" is the moment that something happens immediately after something else happened. So if you use your Reaction before you've had your first turn, your next turn would be that first turn.

Sorry for ignoring the rest of your post but I don't have something to add there except that my reasoning was a byproduct of maintaining the advantage of rolling high initiative. We agree on most points. However on the definition point I flat out disagree.

You probably confused rounds and turns here since the rule applies to turns, but it's probably a typo so I will assume that you meant turn.

Turn is a thing in a list, it's not a measurement of time (like round is), which is why we have (non-magical) abilities that mess with turn counts. So the definition that applies is: "coming immediately after the present one in order, rank, or space."

By this definition, we need a present turn to have a next one. At the moment of casting a reaction, which isn't a turn, we don't have a present or even a previous turn. Turns are determined at the start of the combat when rolling initiative. They can't exist without it and only make sense while in scenarios where the turn order needs to be respected. For example in a social scenario without combat we only need to respect the 6 second rule per action, we don't need to roll initiative and only act in this particular order.

If I ask you to read the next thing in a list that I just gave you, are you expected to understand what I'm saying or ask for clarification? If I give you two pieces of candy and tell you that the next is strawberry flavored, are you expected to understand which candy I'm talking about? So no, I don't think my argument fails definition wise.

If reaction was a turn, then you'd be right, but it isn't.

[Willowhelm]

Gtdead’s definition of “next” and all the discussion is frankly bizarre. There is confusion when people talk about “next Tuesday” vs “this Thursday”. There is no confusion when people say “next time I see you” or “10% off on your next visit” (when you’ve never been to the store before or you’re currently there) or “the next arrow I shoot will probably miss” or any number of other examples. These rules do not have that ambiguity.

Your next turn can be your first turn. Simple.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Frankly, after all this discussion, I think it would be better overall for everyone to regain reactions at the start of every round and make shield and other effects with a reaction casting time to last for that particular round.

I don't think so, the current system is simple if you just take things as face value and ignore the extremely small potential advantage to rolling a lower initiative in just the first turn of combat.

I'm sorry, I just can't understand how you could think that "next turn" somehow skips a turn because you haven't taken one in this combat. It's very obvious that it's referencing the next turn you take in relation to whatever effect is active until then, if that effect happens before you've had a turn then the first turn you take is your next turn. Simple.

[Tanarii]

There is confusion when people talk about “next Tuesday” vs “this Thursday”.

Edit: Derp, read this as saying Tuesday twice

[Gtdead]

I don't think so, the current system is simple if you just take things as face value and ignore the extremely small potential advantage to rolling a lower initiative in just the first turn of combat.

I'm sorry, I just can't understand how you could think that "next turn" somehow skips a turn because you haven't taken one in this combat. It's very obvious that it's referencing the next turn you take in relation to whatever effect is active until then, if that effect happens before you've had a turn then the first turn you take is your next turn. Simple.

It's because I view turns as a thing as defined under "your turn" segment, not a time indicator. So I don't think it's right to relate a reaction with a turn in a sequence.

Gtdead’s definition of “next” and all the discussion is frankly bizarre. There is confusion when people talk about “next Tuesday” vs “this Thursday”. There is no confusion when people say “next time I see you” or “10% off on your next visit” (when you’ve never been to the store before or you’re currently there) or “the next arrow I shoot will probably miss” or any number of other examples. These rules do not have that ambiguity.

Your next turn can be your first turn. Simple.

Ehm, if it's on your next visit, can you get the 10% off in your first ever visit to the store? This is exactly the situation that I'm describing. I don't know about the stores you have near you, but in order for me to have a 10% off my next visit, I either need to have a coupon, or a punched card or something, to prove that this is indeed my "next" visit. (unless of course someone gives me one). So unless I break the rule somehow, my first can't be my next.