D&D 5E Question about "on hit" reactions

[kerleth]

Okay, the tempest cleric has an ability that lets you blast somebody with lighting when you are hit. Note the text actually says the words "hits you with an attack". They then get an ability later on that whenever they deal lightning damage to a creature they can push that creature back 10 feet.

My question has two parts.
1) If you deal enough lightning damage to a creature to knock them out, do you still take damage from their attack?
2) If you blast them backwards 10 feet, do you take damage from the attack?

The shield spell also is also used on a "hit", as is the defensive duelist feat. Both of these show that a "hit" doesn't actually mean "when the weapon makes contact", but rather "when the attack roll indicates you would be struck". If a wizard can throw up a shield at the last moment, there is no reason to think that the cleric can't throw out some divine lightning retribution. On the other hand, both the shield spell and the defensive duelist feat specifically point out that they can turn the attack you reacted to into a miss, while the tempest clerics ability does not.

I'm leaning towards a general ruling of "if it doesn't say it negates the attack, then it doesn't", but I'm curious how other people would treat the situation, and why. Thoughts?

 

[Crothian]

I go with if you are hit you take damage unless is specifically says otherwise.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I go with if you are hit you take damage unless is specifically says otherwise.

What he said. I visualize it happening simultaneously, so both attacks still land.

 

[GameDoc]

That's my read too.

 

[kerleth]

Wow, quick replies. That's what made sense to the player that pointed it out as well. He was looking through the phb trying to decide what class to play for our upcoming game and it was one of those "Wait a minute, does that mean?!" moments.

I like to play devil's advocate with myself however, so I looked at the feature and wondered how it would work if I allowed the "proactive" damage feature.

At maximum "brokenness" it would mean that 5 times a day he could negate a large or smaller opponent's attack by knocking it backwards. (The lightning damage ability is limited to wisdom modifer uses per day). If the opponent had remaining movement he could then use it to get back into position to finish the rest of his attack routine if he had a multiattack. The cleric's reaction for this round was already used, so he couldn't zap the enemy again.

So, for the sake of devil's advocate, does that sound too powerful?
Also, which sounds cooler?
Get hit and retributive bolts of lightning crackle along the weapon and throw your foe backwards.
OR
You whisper a swift prayer (Zues defend me!) and your enemy gets shocked and thrown backward, preventing their attack.

 

[GameDoc]

I think its cool any time a cleric invokes his deity and something very dramatic and otherwise impossible happens. It inspires awe and in a world of arcane magic and a host of different extraplanar visitors, it's one of the ways the gods remind people who's really at the top of the cosmic totem pole.

"I am a conduit of the will of Zues, king of gods and men and ruler of Olympus. Your argument is invalid!" ZAP!

That said, 5 times a day would be a lot to totally negate an enemy's attack and blast it back on its heels. Especially if you save all it up for the big bad.

The he closest compassion I can think of is a fighter/paladin/ranger with the protection fighting style. They can use a reaction to impose disadvantage on en enemy. That might be a little tamer than totally negating it.

 

[Juriel]

Given that Shield and Duelist can retroactively prevent the triggering hit from taking place, but also specifically point that out as a thing they do, the Cleric doesn't seem to get the same benefit. So it's just some damage + knockback instead to discourage it.

 

[Marshall]

Gee, its almost like theres a distinction between a "reaction" and an "interrupt" for these actions that you can take immediately.....

Is this "rulings over rules", "natural language", "working as intended", gygaxian language or just generally bad design?

 

[Juriel]

Is this "rulings over rules", "natural language", "working as intended", gygaxian language or just generally bad design?

You forgot 'giving DM the freedom to wing it'.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I agree, damage should be dealt unless specifically noted otherwise. Making An Attack instruct you to roll damage on a hit, unless rules specify otherwise;

PHB194 Making An Attack - Resolve the attack: You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.