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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheWriterFantastic™" data-source="post: 6879993" data-attributes="member: 88534">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.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!</blockquote>

Verification