D&D 5E Reactions

[TheWriterFantastic™]

Generally, and I may be weird here, but an extra die roll is enough of a break for me. Obviously, you disagree. That's great! Just have your ghoul attacks not allow the use of Uncanny Dodge on a failed save. Problem solved. Happy gaming!

Actually, I don't -- I've been arguing a variation of this the entire time -- as attack roll > determine success > determine results is the paraphrased sequence described in Making an Attack, under the Resolve the Attack heading. I've just highlighted your inconsistent argument -- if you want to say that additional rolls indicate additional breaks, that just reinforces my argument, as damage rolls are additional rolls beyond the d20 rolled to determine success of an attack.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Order of operations has nothing to do with this. There is one operation taking place - subtraction. The operation has either been performed or it hasn't.

Yeah, the term I used may not quite fit what I used it for - but you got the same point: the result (how many hit points you have left) doesn't exist until after you've subtracted (how many hit points you had minus how much damage was taken).

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah, the term I used may not quite fit what I used it for - but you got the same point: the result (how many hit points you have left) doesn't exist until after you've subtracted (how many hit points you had minus how much damage was taken).

My point is that you're invoking "math" to explain why the timing rules need to work a certain way, and math has absolutely nothing to say on the subject. "Subtract damage dealt from your hit points" could be its own discrete event, or it could be part of a "take damage" event, or it could be part of a "take a hit and apply the results" event. Math is fine with any of those three.

The thing is, the only way you get to "Uncanny Dodge doesn't work on shocking grasp" is to say that being hit and applying the effects of the hit is a single indivisible event, but applying damage resulting from those effects is a separate event. This is a bizarre system that makes no sense. Either the hit and its effects are a unitary package, or they're not.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

"Subtract damage dealt from your hit points" could be its own discrete event, or it could be part of a "take damage" event, or it could be part of a "take a hit and apply the results" event.

It doesn't matter what event it is part of, it matters if there is an order specifically taken.

Damage has to be rolled before it can be reduce by uncanny dodge.
Damage has to be reduced by uncanny dodge before it is subtracted from hit points. (because otherwise that is regaining hit points, not reducing damage.)
Hit points are only reduced to 0 after damage is subtracted from them.

So that means Uncanny Dodge specifically has to happen before a character falls unconscious from their hit points being reduced to 0, making it a different circumstance from the question of whether shocking grasp prevents uncanny dodge or not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The hit also carries a "deals 1d8 damage" rider. Both damage and reaction denial are effects of the hit.

There are two ways you can look at shocking grasp:

1. Being hit and applying the effects of the hit are two distinct events. In this case, UD does not interrupt the trigger (being hit) but happens after it, before effects are applied. Since effects have not yet been applied, reaction denial hasn't happened and UD can be used.

2. Being hit and applying the effects of the hit are a single event. In this case, per the DMG, UD must interrupt the triggering event, since the event includes damage and UD reduces that damage. Since reaction denial is part of the same event, reaction denial is also being interrupted, and UD can be used.

What you're proposing is that (being hit and applying the non-damage effects of the hit) constitutes one event, and (applying the damage of the hit) is another event. That's a bizarre view with no basis in the rules that I can see. Either the hit is a distinct event from its effects, or it isn't; and either way you can use UD.

I actually already answered this, with a case that wasn't your 1 or 2. UD doesn't interrupt the hit, because it doesn't say it does. Therefore the hit takes place. In the case of shocking grasp, this mean that, since you were hit, you can't react. Why? Because that's what shocking grasp says it does. UD, on a normal hit, says it reduces the damage of that hit, so that's what it does. The timing doesn't matter because it's not acting on a timer -- it just does what it says it does. The only thing that needs to be determined here is which happens first, the Shocking Grasp effect on a hit, or the UD effect of halving damage on a hit. For this, the DMG provides the guidance that the reaction occurs after it's trigger, so the shocking grasp effect goes first. There's no need for any more specific timing here -- the shocking grasp effect goes first because that's the rule -- the hit goes first. As for timing on when UD precisely modifies the damage, it's just not needed. UD halves damage if you use it. In the shocking grasp case, you can't.

Actually, I don't -- I've been arguing a variation of this the entire time -- as attack roll > determine success > determine results is the paraphrased sequence described in Making an Attack, under the Resolve the Attack heading. I've just highlighted your inconsistent argument -- if you want to say that additional rolls indicate additional breaks, that just reinforces my argument, as damage rolls are additional rolls beyond the d20 rolled to determine success of an attack.

Sigh. My personal ruling on ghoul attacks, based on how I like to run my table, isn't a mark of inconsistency unless you're presupposing that my arguments must mean only what you think they should mean. You're welcome to read ghoul saves as not enough of a break (personally, I view a switch in dramatic focus from my actions as a DM to the player as somewhat significant, YMMV) and I think that's perfectly fine with the rule that UD wouldn't be able to be used on a failed save. Works for me, which is why I said you're good to go. I've chosen, for other reasons*, to not to at my table, but I'm only presenting that ruling since you asked, I'm not arguing in it's defense.

*The reason is mostly that it's simpler to allow it than to have the player have to wait until after the save to declare his reaction. It's not harder for me to say 'no reactions' to a hit from shocking grasp. End of reasoning.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My point is that you're invoking "math" to explain why the timing rules need to work a certain way, and math has absolutely nothing to say on the subject. "Subtract damage dealt from your hit points" could be its own discrete event, or it could be part of a "take damage" event, or it could be part of a "take a hit and apply the results" event. Math is fine with any of those three.

The thing is, the only way you get to "Uncanny Dodge doesn't work on shocking grasp" is to say that being hit and applying the effects of the hit is a single indivisible event, but applying damage resulting from those effects is a separate event. This is a bizarre system that makes no sense. Either the hit and its effects are a unitary package, or they're not.

It normally is a single, indivisible event. But the wording of Uncanny Dodge says that it changes a part of that indivisible event, so it does. Specific rule over general rule. When it does it isn't terribly important to find, so long as it does it. There's some ambiguity when dealing with Shocking Grasp, though, so the DMG offers that the reaction happens after the trigger. In this case, that means that Shocking Grasp gets to add 'no reactions' before Uncanny Dodge can happen to reduce the damage. That's the total extent of the necessary timing, here. Anything else is unnecessary embellishment.

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

I actually already answered this, with a case that wasn't your 1 or 2. UD doesn't interrupt the hit, because it doesn't say it does. Therefore the hit takes place. In the case of shocking grasp, this mean that, since you were hit, you can't react. Why? Because that's what shocking grasp says it does. UD, on a normal hit, says it reduces the damage of that hit, so that's what it does. The timing doesn't matter because it's not acting on a timer -- it just does what it says it does. The only thing that needs to be determined here is which happens first, the Shocking Grasp effect on a hit, or the UD effect of halving damage on a hit. For this, the DMG provides the guidance that the reaction occurs after it's trigger, so the shocking grasp effect goes first. There's no need for any more specific timing here -- the shocking grasp effect goes first because that's the rule -- the hit goes first. As for timing on when UD precisely modifies the damage, it's just not needed. UD halves damage if you use it. In the shocking grasp case, you can't.

Right - after the trigger - the trigger is specifically the hit event, not the damage and/or effects, the the overall attack event or casting a spell event. Specific spells and ability reactions use specific terminology to refer to specific events in the gameplay -- if they were intended to be interchangeable terms, why not revise it to just one term, attack, prior to publication of the game, since the game went through such an immense playtesting, with enormous depth and breadth? Surely, if these were supposed to refer to the same thing, they would have caused a great deal of contention during playtest, to require the writers and editors to revise the language of the text. However, they didn't -- because those particular terms for triggers: hit, damage, attack, and casting a spell serve as individually as triggers for the reactions -- to assume they all mean the same thing is a misreading of the rules.

Sigh. My personal ruling on ghoul attacks, based on how I like to run my table, isn't a mark of inconsistency unless you're presupposing that my arguments must mean only what you think they should mean. You're welcome to read ghoul saves as not enough of a break (personally, I view a switch in dramatic focus from my actions as a DM to the player as somewhat significant, YMMV) and I think that's perfectly fine with the rule that UD wouldn't be able to be used on a failed save. Works for me, which is why I said you're good to go. I've chosen, for other reasons*, to not to at my table, but I'm only presenting that ruling since you asked, I'm not arguing in it's defense.

*The reason is mostly that it's simpler to allow it than to have the player have to wait until after the save to declare his reaction. It's not harder for me to say 'no reactions' to a hit from shocking grasp. End of reasoning.

You're right -- your personal ruling at your table is yours to decide, and I'm not arguing that -- however, your initial inclusion of an argument for ghoul paralysis to be treated differently from Shocking Grasp's reaction negation seemed to be a response in this friendly debate about the intent of the reaction rules, not a preference at your table.

As an argument in this debate on rules, it stood on shaky ground, because the stance you presented on ghoul paralysis was inconsistent with the stance you had presented in the same post on Uncanny Dodge -- maintaining consistency with rulings is DMing 101 -- otherwise, players can feel like they're being shafted by an arbitrary DM.

And I also agree that simplicity in rulings keeps the game running smoothly, and the player's happy -- and consistent judgments are the best path to that. Keeping it clear what is murky for some, like the attack resolution sequence, can facilitate that.

I personally see the sequence as described in Resolving an Attack in the PHB as: roll to hit, determine success, determine results -- roughly 3 instantaneous successive stages.

If a DM rules at his or her table that attacks aren't broken up in such a way, but an inextricable event, the attack as a whole, then reactions must all occur immediately after the attack resolves in all situations referring to parts of an attack, including ones that carry effects mitigated by saving throws -- as it would be inconsistent to say that an effect that the DM feels isn't intended to interrupt an attack's effects doesn't do so for one situation, but outright interrupts the effect of another: it's an inconsistent ruling.

In general, I try to approach all rulings as Rules as Fun, and interpret them as written -- if the language might be perceived as unclear, I try to work with the players on a consistent ruling, but usually allow the players to keep their agency in the situation -- stripping that agency by saying no when there's no clear rule to back it up, in most cases, will slowly suck the fun from the table.

However, if you choose to be inconsistent in your rulings, and your players are okay with the particular ruling, have at it!

 

[Hriston]

A hit from a ghoul's claws does not impose reaction denial. It imposes a saving throw. You are free to use a reaction that triggers off a hit, when you are hit by a ghoul's claws.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right - after the trigger - the trigger is specifically the hit event, not the damage and/or effects, the the overall attack event or casting a spell event. Specific spells and ability reactions use specific terminology to refer to specific events in the gameplay -- if they were intended to be interchangeable terms, why not revise it to just one term, attack, prior to publication of the game, since the game went through such an immense playtesting, with enormous depth and breadth? Surely, if these were supposed to refer to the same thing, they would have caused a great deal of contention during playtest, to require the writers and editors to revise the language of the text. However, they didn't -- because those particular terms for triggers: hit, damage, attack, and casting a spell serve as individually as triggers for the reactions -- to assume they all mean the same thing is a misreading of the rules.

What is a hit event?

As for the specific terminology -- Uncanny Dodge uses 'hit' instead of 'attack' presumably so DMs don't require the rogue player to guess if he's going to be hit or not before using it.

And, for those reactions that use 'damage', that's because they only trigger on hits that cause damage. Some don't.

Regardless, the reaction occurs after the trigger unless otherwise noted. Shocking Grasp includes the wording, "On a hit, the target... can't take reactions until the start of it's next turn." This tells us what happens on a hit. Since UD can only occur after the hit, and the loss of reactions occurs with the hit, not after it, then UD would go after the restriction is in place because it goes after the hit. And, therefore, can't be used. The words tell us what happens. We just have to read them and not add words.

You're right -- your personal ruling at your table is yours to decide, and I'm not arguing that -- however, your initial inclusion of an argument for ghoul paralysis to be treated differently from Shocking Grasp's reaction negation seemed to be a response in this friendly debate about the intent of the reaction rules, not a preference at your table.

As an argument in this debate on rules, it stood on shaky ground, because the stance you presented on ghoul paralysis was inconsistent with the stance you had presented in the same post on Uncanny Dodge -- maintaining consistency with rulings is DMing 101 -- otherwise, players can feel like they're being shafted by an arbitrary DM.

Wait, your argument is that letting a player us Uncanny Dodge against a ghoul is shafting them? Don't follow that. If you mean 'inconsistent and arbitrary rulings make players feel like you're shafting them,' then, yes, trivially. However, there's little inconsistent or arbitrary about my ruling. I have good reason, and am erring on the side of player fun and simplicity. Nothing about that causes my players to feel shafted. Yours may differ, I guess.

And I also agree that simplicity in rulings keeps the game running smoothly, and the player's happy -- and consistent judgments are the best path to that. Keeping it clear what is murky for some, like the attack resolution sequence, can facilitate that.

I personally see the sequence as described in Resolving an Attack in the PHB as: roll to hit, determine success, determine results -- roughly 3 instantaneous successive stages.

Sure, if you want, but the rules don't say that because they don't have to.

If a DM rules at his or her table that attacks aren't broken up in such a way, but an inextricable event, the attack as a whole, then reactions must all occur immediately after the attack resolves in all situations referring to parts of an attack, including ones that carry effects mitigated by saving throws -- as it would be inconsistent to say that an effect that the DM feels isn't intended to interrupt an attack's effects doesn't do so for one situation, but outright interrupts the effect of another: it's an inconsistent ruling.

I disagree. Hriston has a good point, above, that the save is what's inflicted by the hit, not the paralysis, which is a result of a failed save. I went with dramatic focus - the save moves it off of the DM to the player, which is a nice and clear change. YMMV, but there's nothing inconsistent about those decisions -- they work in all cases. You just don't agree with them, which is fine, but you should stick with "I don't agree" rather than throwing out "you're inconsistent."

In general, I try to approach all rulings as Rules as Fun, and interpret them as written -- if the language might be perceived as unclear, I try to work with the players on a consistent ruling, but usually allow the players to keep their agency in the situation -- stripping that agency by saying no when there's no clear rule to back it up, in most cases, will slowly suck the fun from the table.

However, if you choose to be inconsistent in your rulings, and your players are okay with the particular ruling, have at it!

Nothing inconsistent here. You disagree, I get that, but there's zero need to denigrate others for using a different logic or decision point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For those saying that there's a sequence to attacks that puts a break between a hit and effects, can you answer me this:

I declare a readied action to strike an enemy if they hit me. An enemy obliges. When does my attack go -- after they hit but before the effects of that hit, I would assume, as the hit is my declared trigger and there's space there according to the construct. So, if I react and hit the enemy, and then kill it with my readied action, do I prevent their damage or other effects of their hit?

My reading of the rules as having no sub-sequence would handle this very well -- the enemy goes, hits, and does damage before the readied action occurs because there is no break and the readied action has no wording that it interrupts or interacts with any part of the enemy hit, so it goes after and doesn't modify the enemy hit in any way. If I'm still standing, I hit back. Neat, tidy, and doesn't require weird things like being hit but killing the enemy before I take his damage and/or further restrictions on triggers for readied actions to avoid the invented sub-sequence steps.

EDIT: for the sake of consistency, I would allow the readied action to occur after the damage was applied, but before you saved against a ghoul's paralyzing touch. Just, you know, in case you were wondering.