Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6867617" data-attributes="member: 16814">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification