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

[Marshall]

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

Oh, you mean 'arbitrary reduction of player agency'? Leaving the player with no idea HOW his PC works. Ultimately making the player a spectator in the DMs story...

 

[mips42]

While I understand your point, the issue should never come up during a game because it should be discussed and resolved by the DM and the player during character creation.
EG: This is what the rules say and this is how we are going to interpret them so this is how the spell/power will work in the game.

 

[Mouseferatu]

While there are indeed some parts of the rules that are unclearly worded, this isn't one of them. Some reactions cancel the inciting action; in that case, the power/ability says so. Otherwise, it doesn't. That's not exactly complicated.

 

[Marshall]

While there are indeed some parts of the rules that are unclearly worded, this isn't one of them. Some reactions cancel the inciting action; in that case, the power/ability says so. Otherwise, it doesn't. That's not exactly complicated.

<shrug> At the very least its yet another point where the devs chose obtuseness over clarity. Where its very easy for players A and B and DM C to all come up with different interpretations of how a power works that all seem obvious until they come up in play. So, no. You're probably not going to discuss this with the DM until it hits the table in play.

 

[Sunseeker]

Being a long-time MTG player, I always ran "hit" and "damage" as two steps of the same combat phase.

If your reaction is to being hit, as opposed to being damaged, then your reaction slips in between the hit and the damage. This can potentially cause your attack to kill the attacker or prevent them from dealing any damage to you.

I know some people think of "an attack" as comprising of both the attack roll and the potential damage roll thereafter as one complete movement and thus any reaction to it is queued up after the complete attack action has taken place.

The reason I don't like this is because it makes the game feel too much like those RPGs where you were completely incapable of acting when it wasn't your action. It makes the game feel jerky to me, whereas reacting to the incremental parts of action too me feels more fast-paced.

He attacks!
You attempt to dodge!
-You fail!
His attack hits!
You try to push him away!
-You fail!
He deals damage!
You leap away safely out of range of his next attack!
He attempt to move towards you for the next round!
You catch him in a trap!
He tries to dodge!
-He fails!
You catch him in a trap and he cannot move!
-Your trap deals damage!
He attempts to weasel out of it!
-He fails!
Your trap wounds his leg, lowering his future movement speed!
You quickly run away!
---or shoot him in the face or something.

To me, that just feels more engaging than:
He attacks!
-He hits!
--He deals damage!
You react!
-You push him away then jump off to safety while leaving a trap behind which wounds him and slows his movement!
He tries to follow but cannot reach you!

Sure, less steps, potentially less rolls, faster combat, potentially at least. But I feel less engaged because he goes, I go, he goes, I go. It doesn't really feel like we're acting together. It feels like we're both acting on each other, independent of the larger dance we're doing here. It's like the difference between two people having a discussion and two people simply saying things at each other without really hearing what's being said by either side.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

<shrug> At the very least its yet another point where the devs chose obtuseness over clarity. Where its very easy for players A and B and DM C to all come up with different interpretations of how a power works that all seem obvious until they come up in play. So, no. You're probably not going to discuss this with the DM until it hits the table in play.

Years ago, I was riding in a car with my friend Raj. We were stopped at an intersection, and there was a car approaching from the left. As the car enters the intersection, Raj pulls out right in front of him. Brakes screech, imprecations are shouted, and hearts leap into throats as we narrowly avoid being T-boned. I look at Raj and say "What the #?!$" He replies, "He didn't have his turn signal on, but I thought he was turning."

If something is explicitly not stated in the rules and you assume that its absence is proof of intent, it's not the rules that are being obtuse.

 

[Tzarevitch]

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?

Follow the wording as written. Hit and damage are two different things. If an event happens after the attack hits, it goes before the damage is resolved and can end up preventing it completely. That's the only way effects like the Shield spell work. The resolution is the same as it was in 4e.

1. The lightning happens before the attacker gets to damage you. If you knock him out you take no damage.
2. If you blast him back 10' you also take no damage - unless he can still hit you from 10'.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

<shrug> At the very least its yet another point where the devs chose obtuseness over clarity. Where its very easy for players A and B and DM C to all come up with different interpretations of how a power works that all seem obvious until they come up in play. So, no. You're probably not going to discuss this with the DM until it hits the table in play.

I think you're looking at unclear rules text and asking, "how do the game rules define these terms," which is what 3e and especially 4e taught us to do. A better approach might be to ask, "what makes the most sense here."

Does Shield trigger before damage is taken? Of course, that's the whole point of it. If you zap someone "when hit," can it prevent you from being hit? No, because you're basically hitting them with a static charge.

As for the technical rules, as I understand them: Reactions take place after the triggering action (thus the name) UNLESS they specifically say otherwise, like Shield does. There is no separate category for "interrupts" because it isn't needed; reactions that prevent something from happening specifically say so.

 

[kerleth]

It's interesting to see that I'm not the only one that saw two interpretations, and to have it shown by other people that both can be logically defended. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, because as I said I often find myself in this sort of situation in real life communication (sometimes extremely annoying to myself and others, but at other times it has been immensely useful, such is life I suppose). I'm not really interested in the thread turning into a debate on the general topic of 5E's rules language, so I think I'm signing off here. If you guys want to, though, derail with my blessing my children. (That's only funny if you imagine a hairy nerd with 3 days of fast growing beard in a catholic priest outfit saying it.....please someone laugh?...I'm lonely) .

Anyways, thanks for all the input. Seeing differing opinions put logically and respectfully (with just a touch of snark, I love me some snark) is what I love best about this site.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Being a long-time MTG player, I always ran "hit" and "damage" as two steps of the same combat phase.

FYI in case you don't know... damage doesn't go on the stack anymore.