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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cognomen's Cassowary" data-source="post: 6875562" data-attributes="member: 6801445">I think a large part of it is people assuming the only reaction which interrupts is "an interrupt" in M:tG terms. Any  reaction which breaks the normal flow of an act interrupts (by the dictionary definition), be that act  attack, movement, or urinating and falling into a fetal position. That  is what that section of the DMG is about: whether or not a reaction  interrupts is a function of its timing, not of an explicit "interrupt"  aspect or effect of the reaction.Right. If the normal flow of the attack is this:declare  attack > roll to hit > check for attack success > roll damage  > apply damage and other effects > check for unconsciousnessThen uncanny dodge changes it to this:declare attack > roll to hit > check for attack success | interruption if attack is successful: halve incoming damage | > roll damage > apply damage and other effects > check for unconsciousnessWhat procproc is saying--and I agree--is that whether  the condition which would prevent uncanny dodge is blindness,  unconsciousness, or shocking grasp's effect, it is applied after the reaction has been triggered and taken effect.What you and others have been implying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is a flow that looks more like this:declare attack > roll to hit > check for attack success > apply other effects > roll  damage > apply damagewheredeclare attack > roll to hit > check for attack success | uncanny dodge is triggered here | > apply other effects > roll  damage | but doesn't occur until here, if it can | > apply damageThe division of the effects of an attack such that some are applied ahead of others is not supported by the rules, and the idea that a reaction can be triggered but then not occur if it is retroactively made unusable is similarly unsupported. Both are counter-intuitive complications introduced to make this particular interaction work the way it seems you think it should. Jeremy Crawford's ruling, as I see it, is a stealth erratum which changes the trigger of uncanny dodge to "when you take damage from an attack."But yes, as ProphetSword says, the game doesn't need page upon page of minor rules tweaks and clarifications. I'll play this situation, should it ever come up, however my DM says.</blockquote>

Verification