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: 6880228" data-attributes="member: 16814">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.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.Sure, if you want, but the rules don't say that because they don't have to.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."Nothing inconsistent here.  You disagree, I get that, but there's zero need to denigrate others for using a different logic or decision point.</blockquote>

Verification