D&D 5E Reactions

[steeldragons]

I've mentioned this a few times and no one has answered (or I missed it)

What about a hit that paralyzes the target...say, from a ghoul? Paralysis prevents reactions. So you can't react to the hit so you can't use UD or Hellish Rebuke etc because (following your logic) the hit happened and they dont negate the hit. The effects of the hit prevent reactions so therefore you can't react to a ghoul's attack if you fail your save.

Right. Makes them all the more scary/dangerous...as they should be. Where's the problem? At least with ghouls there's a chance [save]. Shocking Grasp just happens.

Also...what about the case where shield DOES NOT negate the hit from shocking grasp?

Shield doesn't negate the hit from SG...because it is a reaction. You can't/never got to cast the Shield because SG negates your ability to take a reaction.

How does your logic apply then?

You don't cast shield...because shield is a reaction...and you don't have a reaction when hit by SG...or a ghoul [if you fail your save]. I really don't understand what you're not following.

Shield could never have been cast at all?

Correct. If your reaction is removed/cancelled/taken off the table for that round, then you never had a chance to cast Shield "in time."

This isn't really a hypothetical. If you know that you won't be able to use reactions and a hill giant is about to smack you then you want to cast shield even if it won't negate the hit...

If you are shocking grasped/electrocuted or paralyzed by a ghoul...what you "want" to do is completely irrelevant. Again, I don't understand what you're not getting here...if you have no reaction, in these specific, really rather limited, circumstances in the big picture of the game as a whole, then you can't take a reaction.

It doesn't matter what other monsters are around. It doesn't matter what you "want" your character to do...you are prohibited from taking a reaction...so you can't cast Shield to negate the hit. You can't Uncanny Dodge out of the way. You can't Hellish Rebuke against anything.

You CAN NOT take a reaction [for whatever the duration/circumstances of your incapacity is]. So anything that says it uses a reaction is off the table.

Use an Action. Use a Bonus Action! In the case of ghoul paralysis, obviously, these are also off the table. But not Shocking Grasp!

Where is the disconnect here?

I will say and do think, if nothing else, this thread has proven once and for all that WotC REALLY screwed the pooch entitling this sometimes-first/sometimes-after/only-when-a-trigger-happens-moment-in-combat as a "Reaction."

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've mentioned this a few times and no one has answered (or I missed it)

What about a hit that paralyzes the target...say, from a ghoul? Paralysis prevents reactions. So you can't react to the hit so you can't use UD or Hellish Rebuke etc because (following your logic) the hit happened and they dont negate the hit. The effects of the hit prevent reactions so therefore you can't react to a ghoul's attack if you fail your save.

This is a good question. It should work the same way. There's room to carve out condition application in a way similar to damage -- that they're only fully resolved at the end of the process -- and that's a fine way to run things. Or just ignore Crawford altogether. Rulings, not rules.

Also...what about the case where shield DOES NOT negate the hit from shocking grasp? How does your logic apply then? Shield could never have been cast at all?
This isn't really a hypothetical. If you know that you won't be able to use reactions and a hill giant is about to smack you then you want to cast shield even if it won't negate the hit...

Well, since I said you can't react with shield, there's never a situation where it's cast and doesn't prevent the hit. This paradoxical result was one of my starting issues.

Personally, I feel that shocking grasp's ability to negate reactions is a core part of it's usefulness. It's also very specific -- that mechanic only works for shocking grasp, and only when shocking grasp hits. Given that this is a rare occurrence to begin with -- it just won't happen very often -- I'm very much in favor of giving shocking grasp an edge over the generally useful shield spell and uncanny dodge. That it can easily make sense narratively and mechanically is the seal on the deal for me. Can I see the other ways you can rule this, narratively or mechanically? Sure, and that's why I'm taking pains to point out rulings not rules, here. For instance, I'd let reactions like shield or uncanny dodge work against an attack that inflicts the paralyzed condition, or the unconscious condition based solely on my decision that applications of conditions are more like damage than the rider effect of shocking grasp. In other words, shocking grasp is special -- it's the specific to the general whereas conditions are the general to UC or Shield's specific. Ruling, not a rule.

 

[Uller]

Where is the disconnect here?

There is none. I was merely asking questions regarding where you his logic lead. I don't agree with it. If you simply apply reactions to a hit before damage and effects are applied everything runs smoothly and no one feels like they've been out rules lawyered.

DM: the ghoul rolls a 17. Hit.
Player: I cast shield.
DM: Save vs paralysis first.
Player: what? Why?
DM: well...casting shield can't negate the hit since your AC is only 11 so if you are paralyzed you can't react and therefore can't cast shield.
Player: I decline to testify on advice from my lawyer that I have a right to not incriminate myself...

I will say and do think, if nothing else, this thread has proven once and for all that WotC REALLY screwed the pooch entitling this sometimes-first/sometimes-after/only-when-a-trigger-happens-moment-in-combat as a "Reaction."

Maybe. I haven't had a problem simply applying effects of the trigger before the effects of the triggering event. At least not yet. D&D is a conversation...not an argument. In the scenario above I'd just let the pc cast shield and still take the hit and move on from there. Far more interesting (to me) for the ghoul to still
get past the shield and still paralyze him then have a shielded paralyzed PC than to argue about the fine print of the rules.

 

[Uller]

In other words, shocking grasp is special -- it's the specific to the general whereas conditions are the general to UC or Shield's specific. Ruling, not a rule.

And this is where I disagree. Shocking Grasp's wording is pretty standard. On a hit, damage plus effect. It is no more specific than any other spell or attack. If it was worded such that it specifically talked about supressing reactions to the hit then I'd agree. But it doesn't so I'd be inclined to just proceed normally...which at my table would go like this:

DM: The wizard's hands light up with electrical energy and he reaches for you...he hits..
Player: That sounds bad. I use uncanny dodge.
DM: Okay...you attempt to spin away but he still makes contact but not as much. He was reaching for your chest but only got your shoulder. You take half of...11 damage...so 5 lightning damge and you can't use reactions until your turn...which doesn't matter since you just used your reaction...Now the fire giant throws a boulder...CRIT!
Player: awww sh....

As for SG vs Shield...SG is a cantrip. When the specifics of a cantrip collide with a higher level spell, I would be inclined to give the higher level spell precedence.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And this is where I disagree. Shocking Grasp's wording is pretty standard. On a hit, damage plus effect. It is no more specific than any other spell or attack. If it was worded such that it specifically talked about supressing reactions to the hit then I'd agree. But it doesn't so I'd be inclined to just proceed normally...which at my table would go like this:

That's an... odd definition of specific, especially in the context of the rules. A specific rule trumps a general rule, not that wording in the rule must call out specificity. Shocking Grasp has a specific rule -- it cancels reactions out. The reaction of shield and uncanny dodge is more general -- they work on attacks. In this case, the shocking grasp rider is more specific.

DM: The wizard's hands light up with electrical energy and he reaches for you...he hits..
Player: That sounds bad. I use uncanny dodge.
DM: Okay...you attempt to spin away but he still makes contact but not as much. He was reaching for your chest but only got your shoulder. You take half of...11 damage...so 5 lightning damge and you can't use reactions until your turn...which doesn't matter since you just used your reaction...Now the fire giant throws a boulder...CRIT!
Player: awww sh....

And that's great, but there are other ways to narrate that that don't establish that UC can be used.

As for SG vs Shield...SG is a cantrip. When the specifics of a cantrip collide with a higher level spell, I would be inclined to give the higher level spell precedence.

Perfectly valid.

 

[jaelis]

And that's great, but there are other ways to narrate that that don't establish that UC can be used.

Do you have a good example?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Do you have a good example?

DM: The Evil Sorcerer reaches out with a hand full of crackling electricity and (rolls) lands a blow on Jac the Nimble.
Bob (the Player of Jac): I use Uncanny Dodge to halve that damage!
DM: Jac begins to twist out of the way, but the electricity arcs from the Evil Sorcerer's hand and addles Jac's wits, it will take a moment for Jac to regain his full senses. No reactions until the beginning of your next turn, Bob, and that includes no UC this turn. Take 7 lightning damage.
Bob: Gah! Curse you Evil Sorcerer!

 

[jaelis]

DM: The Evil Sorcerer reaches out with a hand full of crackling electricity and (rolls) lands a blow on Jac the Nimble.
Bob (the Player of Jac): I use Uncanny Dodge to halve that damage!
DM: Jac begins to twist out of the way, but the electricity arcs from the Evil Sorcerer's hand and addles Jac's wits, it will take a moment for Jac to regain his full senses. No reactions until the beginning of your next turn, Bob, and that includes no UC this turn. Take 7 lightning damage.
Bob: Gah! Curse you Evil Sorcerer!

Later on...

DM: The evil rogue just landed a dastardly blow on Jac. Aleric, it's your turn, what do you want to do?
Joe: (the Player of Aleric the cleric): I cast Inflict Wounds on the rogue. I roll a 19 to hit, and 22 damage. That should be enough to kill him right?
DM: Well, it would be but the rogue uses Uncanny Dodge and twists out of the way, which reduces your damage by half.
Bob: Hey, how come this guy can dodge necromantic death magic but I couldn't dodge electricity?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Later on...

DM: The evil rogue just landed a dastardly blow on Jac. Aleric, it's your turn, what do you want to do?
Joe: (the Player of Aleric the cleric): I cast Inflict Wounds on the rogue. I roll a 19 to hit, and 22 damage. That should be enough to kill him right?
DM: Well, it would be but the rogue uses Uncanny Dodge and twists out of the way, which reduces your damage by half.
Bob: Hey, how come this guy can dodge necromantic death magic but I couldn't dodge electricity?

I'm sorry, is there an argument here? I only see a whiny player.

 

[Arial Black]

Of course it doesn't. No one's claimed otherwise. In fact, for your assertion to take place, you'd have the narration of the mechanical results occur immediately after any partial resolution, which isn't how I've ever seen it done. I suppose you can posit that someone out there starts narration in the middle of a mechanical resolution, and so would have this problem, but it's not a problem for anyone I've seen post here.


No, if the attack is successful, the mechanic says that a hit has occurred. You may not narrate that hit until you finish the other parts of the mechanical resolution, such as reactions to the hit that may modify it like shield, but the hit occurs. If it does not yet occur, you cannot react to it mechanically. You're confusing the narration of the in-game events with the mechanical resolution -- they're not the same thing. The narration serves the mechanical outcome, the mechanics are not beholden to the narration.

So, as you note, in the case of shield, a hit must occur. "Must" because you cannot react otherwise. The you choose to react, if able. And, if that reaction is shield, and it successfully negates the hit, then the narration follows that the hit didn't occur, because that's the result in the game fiction. Mechanically, though, the hit did occur but was negated by the shield reaction. That's the beauty of the mechanics/narration divide -- the mechanics don't need to make narrative sense during resolution, only their final outcome needs to provide narrative sense. The shield outcome provides narrative sense, but the resolution process does not. This is true for any shield spell usage -- it doesn't make narrative sense to narrate the resolution process, it only makes sense to narrate the outcome of the resolution process. We don't need a nice story that walks alongside the mechanics, just mechanics that provide as outcome a nice story.

So, with shield and shocking grasp (or any other reaction to a hit and shocking grasp), the mechanical effects are that the hit occurs. On a hit, shocking grasp negates reactions and does some damage. 5e doesn't have an order of operations that separates these effects -- the effects of a hit don't have a wait delay for an reaction before applying their effects. So the effects of the shocking grasp, including the prohibition on reactions, are in place before a reaction can be declared.


Yes, so is damage. Sense we don't need the resolution process to make narrative sense, this is fine. You can have the full damage dealt, but then have Uncanny Dodge modify that damage before it's applied, because only the outcome needs to make narrative sense. Uncanny Dodge makes perfect narrative sense when use to narrate the end result of the resolution process -- you take half of the damage. But if you're hit with Shocking Grasp, that full damage and the prohibition against reactions are in place before the reaction can be declared -- they're fully attendant to the hit. So you can't react to a successful Shocking Grasp spell because the hit removes your ability to react. It would also remove your ability to cast the Shield spell as a reaction. Both make full narrative sense in their results.

Being unconscious/dead through damage reducing your hit points to zero would also remove your ability to take reactions...but we know it doesn't! Therefore your assertion cannot be true in the game.