Reaction and simultaneous action timing

[Z3ro]

So since I can't seem to find a clear ruling on this, I wanted to get some opinions on dueling reactions. The specific situation I'm looking at is between the monk'l open hand technique and the shield spell.

Open hand says "Whenever you hit a creature...it can't take reactions until the end of your next turn." Shield says it activates with a reaction "...when you are hit by an attack..."

Now, there are two ways to rule this. The first is that the monk's ability activates on the hit immediately, stopping the sorceror from castsing shield (or taking any reaction). The second way is that the sorceror can immediately react, even before the rider effects of the attack take effect.

I'm leaning towards ruling the first; casters don't need any bigger advantages then they already have, and it seems most the logical (and intended) sequence of events. What does everyone else think?

[Fwiffo86]

It depends on where the damage lands. Shield says after hit, but before damage is rolled.

So if the monk reaction thing says the same, you will have to eyeball it. If it doesn't, I would think Shield takes precedent due to its specific timing listing.

[DrLemniscate]

I would say Shield takes precedent.

Shield should be used after Hit is rolled, but before you know if it connects.

Open Hand should be used after Hit is rolled, and after you know if it connects.

[Z3ro]

I would say Shield takes precedent.

Shield should be used after Hit is rolled, but before you know if it connects.

Open Hand should be used after Hit is rolled, and after you know if it connects.

Actually, that's the problem. Shield only works after you know it connects; you have to be "hit by an attack", not targeted by an attack, hence the simultaneous trigger.

[Glarnog]

So the Monk only truly hits if the Sheild spell does NOT negate the Monk's hit that triggered the Caster's reaction of the Sheild spell in the first place. If the Monk's hit isn't negated by the Shield spell then the caster can not use reactions until the end of the Monk's next turn. Possibly keeping the Caster from using Sheild spell again on the Monk's next turn.

[DrLemniscate]

A lot of class ability interactions seem to be discussed in terms of PvP, which is not going to come up very often.

Just always rule in favor of the player.

Monk PC vs Wizard NPC; Wizard can't Shield if they use Open Hand.

Wizard PC vs Monk NPC; Wizard can Shield and block the Open Hand.

[Vintrastorm]

A lot of class ability interactions seem to be discussed in terms of PvP, which is not going to come up very often.

Just always rule in favor of the player.

Monk PC vs Wizard NPC; Wizard can't Shield if they use Open Hand.

Wizard PC vs Monk NPC; Wizard can Shield and block the Open Hand.

Good ruling. :)

[Ferrin33]

Good ruling. :)

I think it's a terrible ruling. You actively change the specifics of how the world works every time you use these abilities instead of ruling it to be a working whole in every scenario. What about player vs player combat? You need to make another ruling for that in addition to the other two.

[MrUberGr]

Yeah, "just do it as it suits the specific moment" isn't the best option. Whenever such an issue came up in my group, they'd ask for a ruling that would be there forever. Mostly, than happened cause I tried to give them a hard time through some stuff that weren't properly defined! For example, "if he can hide in fog, then so can I" etc. Besides, I dunno if your players prefer to beat everything than have a fair fight, but mine sure didn't.

P.S. Ferrin: it actually felt like an angry kobold was behind your keybord xD

[Ferrin33]

Yeah, "just do it as it suits the specific moment" isn't the best option. Whenever such an issue came up in my group, they'd ask for a ruling that would be there forever. Mostly, than happened cause I tried to give them a hard time through some stuff that weren't properly defined! For example, "if he can hide in fog, then so can I" etc. Besides, I dunno if your players prefer to beat everything than have a fair fight, but mine sure didn't.

P.S. Ferrin: it actually felt like an angry kobold was behind your keybord xD

*speaks through amplifying horn* No, I am a dragon! *makes awkward hissing sounds*

But yeah, changing rules all the time is terrible. I can't think of anyone who would like that.

[Hytheter]

I think you need to look at it flavour-wise. Mechanically, Shield doesn't trigger until "after" the hit. But that's only to ensure that the spell is useful, so you don't waste it when you wouldn't have been hit anyway, or if you'd still be hut despite it.
What the spell actually does it create a shield that negates the attack. From a purely mechanical perspective, it happens retroactively, but logically you're just blocking the attack.

So the Monk's attack doesn't actually hit at all.

The same logic should be applied to the Defensive Duelist feat.

[Daishain]

Unless they are claiming that the shield ability can reverse time, the only way it makes sense is if it activates prior to actually being struck. Otherwise, you would get hit with full force, and a shield that ends up doing nothing about the triggering effect would pop up afterwards, much like a delayed airbag.

The wording and the delay are only the way they are so that the player has a chance to choose whether or not to spend one of their quite precious spell slots on it.

Similarly, it doesn't make much sense for an open palm attack to have effect prior to actually connecting with a valid target.

So, no, shield ability takes precedence.

Of course, that doesn't help if the open palm attack overcomes the +5 to AC and hits anyways.

[mabriss lethe]

It's all somewhat a moot point, though: Open Hand Technique only triggers on Flurry of Blows. Flurry of Blows can only be activated after a normal attack action. There's a decent chance that the first attack triggered Shield before the monk even begins the flurry. Admittedly, that won't happen all the time.

When it does happen, as DM, I'd rule in favor of the Monk.

-From a mechanical standpoint: The attack comes first. there'd be nothing to react to if the attack doesn't hit. The instant that roll succeeds, the monk adds the rider effect. That effect denies the reaction that the spellcaster needs to activate Shield.

-From a balance standpoint: Shield is a really good spell for its level, possibly a bit too good. There should exist at least one or two ways to circumvent it. Open Hand is a very good candidate for what is essentially a (very limited) martial counterspell.

[Dark Tira]

I say it goes to whoever wants it more! Opposed Charisma (Insight) checks!

[koscum]

...+5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack...
From the wording of the spell, it seems to trigger as soon as the attack is resolved as a hit, but before the effect of the attack (damage + reaction prevention in this case) kicks into effect. It also forces it to be recalculated again as that +5 bonus to AC might just be enough to negate it (flavour: fists hit Shield instead of punching through it). If the recalculated attack still hits, then it would trigger Open Hand Technique effect and prevent further reactions, but leave Shield intact (kind of a waste since the target already used its reaction). If original attack roll isn't enough to score a hit with the modified AC, the attack has no effect.
Also, as mabriss lethe pointed out, initial attack would likely trigger Shield before Flurry attacks.

[pikeamus]

I think you need to look at it flavour-wise... snip

...So the Monk's attack doesn't actually hit at all.

The same logic should be applied to the Defensive Duelist feat.




snip

...So, no, shield ability takes precedence...

I'm with these guys.

[HugeC]

Shield seems to assume attack rolls will be made in secret, so the DM has to be like, "Looks like he's going to hit you..." and then the wizard can say, "I cast Shield!" Evil DM's will then smile and say, "Too bad, he got a natural 20, your spell is worthless!" A bit too metagamey for me, but it is what it is.

They shoulda made it a cantrip, had it add +2 to your AC like an actual shield, and required you to use it when you're targeted by an attacker you can see, before the attack roll is even made. They probably wouldn't have been able to include the immune to Magic Missile part in that case, I suppose.

Edit: Hey, I think I just invented a nice homebrew EK cantrip!

[Kornaki]

I say it goes to whoever wants it more! Opposed Charisma (Insight) checks!

This is.... actually a pretty cool idea.

[Person_Man]

When such ambiguities arise in my games, I almost always rule in whichever way is most favorable to the player, and just not tell them about any Feats or other abilities the NPC or monster might have.

My general opinion is that the players' abilities should always function as intended unless there is a crystal clear reason why it shouldn't work that they can readily perceive. Fireball is not going to work against the Fire Elemental, and any player can guess that by making a Lore check or being genre savvy before they waste a spell slot or an action on it. But if a player uses Open Hand or Shield or whatever, it should not be thwarted by something completely unknowable to them in most cases.

There are some exceptions to this, of course. Enemy spellcasters might have Counter Spell, for example. But in that case, the DM can announce "The dark Lich casts counter spell, thwarting your attempt to Disintegrate him!" And not "Sorry, your class ability/spell doesn't quite work, and you're not sure why."

[Kurald Galain]

Shield takes place before the attack.

Sure, the character declares it "in reaction" after he knows the attack was going to hit, but that's only from a rules perspective. From the perspective of the game world, the shield spell appears before the attack connects, and prevents it. And therefore it should block this monk ability.

[Theodoxus]

Shield takes place before the attack.

Sure, the character declares it "in reaction" after he knows the attack was going to hit, but that's only from a rules perspective. From the perspective of the game world, the shield spell appears before the attack connects, and prevents it. And therefore it should block this monk ability.

Yes, with the caveat, that if the monk still succeeds in hitting (ie beat the +5 modified AC), the spell didn't actually go off and the spell slot isn't wasted.

This way, it's fair for everyone involved.

[Kornaki]

Yes, with the caveat, that if the monk still succeeds in hitting (ie beat the +5 modified AC), the spell didn't actually go off and the spell slot isn't wasted.

This way, it's fair for everyone involved.

I don't understand, do you think that letting the spellcaster get hit after casting shield is so unfair to the spellcaster that they should be allowed to take it back?

[Ferrin33]

Yes, with the caveat, that if the monk still succeeds in hitting (ie beat the +5 modified AC), the spell didn't actually go off and the spell slot isn't wasted.

This way, it's fair for everyone involved.

No, it just goes through the shield. You'd still keep the AC for until the start of your next turn so you didn't waste it if more attacks are incoming.

[Theodoxus]

No, it just goes through the shield. You'd still keep the AC for until the start of your next turn so you didn't waste it if more attacks are incoming.

No, the monk ability specifically states that it doesn't allow you to do reactions. Hence, if the monk hits you, despite the potential for a higher AC, you don't get that reaction, you don't waste the slot and you can't react to anything else until the monk goes again.

[Ferrin33]

No, the monk ability specifically states that it doesn't allow you to do reactions. Hence, if the monk hits you, despite the potential for a higher AC, you don't get that reaction, you don't waste the slot and you can't react to anything else until the monk goes again.

"No, it goes through the shield." was aimed at his: "Yes, with the caveat, that if the monk still succeeds in hitting (ie beat the +5 modified AC), the spell didn't actually go off and the spell slot isn't wasted." Implying the spell didn't go off if the AC bonus wasn't high enough.

Since we don't have a priority system about this in the RAW we have to go by RAI.

In which case I think it would be silly to limit shield being cast after you get punched in the face rather than the moment before it lands. This is not RAW but RAI, and it impacts how Flurry of Blows interact with Shield in a simplified way; the flurry of blows needs to go through the new shielded AC for it to have any effect. By RAW we have a priority issue and it messes up so many things; for rogues too. "Hit!" Ok, he adds sneak attack. "I activate shield!" Who get to respond first, sneak attack or shield? RAI I would have to say shield needs to take precedence.

[Shadow]

Reactions are immediate responses to a situation.
In the case of shield, using it as a response can negate a hit altogether. So if the shield spell succeeds in raising your AC enough to not get hit, the monk's open hand technique doesn't apply as it never struck home.
If it sill hits even with the AC bump, then the caster can't use reactions again until after the monk's next turn.

[HugeC]

Yes, with the caveat, that if the monk still succeeds in hitting (ie beat the +5 modified AC), the spell didn't actually go off and the spell slot isn't wasted.

This way, it's fair for everyone involved.

I think you mean awesome for the wizard who just cast Schroedinger's Shield, and crappy for the monk, who gets the worst of both worlds.

[Ferrin33]

Reactions are immediate responses to a situation.
In the case of shield, using it as a response can negate a hit altogether. So if the shield spell succeeds in raising your AC enough to not get hit, the monk's open hand technique doesn't apply as it never struck home.
If it sill hits even with the AC bump, then the caster can't use reactions again until after the monk's next turn.

The problem is with the trigger of shield; "1 reaction, which you can take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell"

[Shadow]

The problem is with the trigger of shield; "1 reaction, which you can take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell"

And if the shield spell succeeds at its intended function, that hit becomes a miss.
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

[Ferrin33]

And if the shield spell succeeds at its intended function, that hit becomes a miss.
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Oh RAI it's not hard to understand at all, but purely going by the RAW there's ambiguity over what has priority. I had the following to say about it earlier in case you missed it;


Since we don't have a priority system about this in the RAW we have to go by RAI.

In which case I think it would be silly to limit shield being cast after you get punched in the face rather than the moment before it lands. This is not RAW but RAI, and it impacts how Flurry of Blows interact with Shield in a simplified way; the flurry of blows needs to go through the new shielded AC for it to have any effect. By RAW we have a priority issue and it messes up so many things; for rogues too. "Hit!" Ok, he adds sneak attack. "I activate shield!" Who get to respond first, sneak attack or shield? RAI I would have to say shield needs to take precedence.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

My interpretation of shield is that it only works after you've taken damage. It seems extremely powerful otherwise, although it does only last one round.

[Shadow]

There's no ambiguity. A reaction is an interrupt.


If the reaction interrupts another creature’s turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.

Meaning reactions are interrupts.

[Ferrin33]

There's no ambiguity. A reaction is an interrupt.



Meaning reactions are interrupts.

But a reaction can only be done after a certain triggering event happens, in this case being hit. That's the problem and why silly things like TheDeadlyShoe's ruling and others are RAW but as I agree with you hard to twist to RAI.

[Hytheter]

My interpretation of shield is that it only works after you've taken damage.
That defeats the point of the spell entirely!

[squashmaster]

Open hand says "Whenever you hit a creature...it can't take reactions until the end of your next turn." Shield says it activates with a reaction "...when you are hit by an attack..."

I don't have PHB on me to clarify but just from this wording I'd say shield does not activate.

[1of3]

Yeah, "just do it as it suits the specific moment" isn't the best option. Whenever such an issue came up in my group, they'd ask for a ruling that would be there forever.

Thank you. I always assumed that the GM making rulings is kind of stupid. No, I know why. You are then expected to make rulings everytime. I rather stick with: "Well, what do you think should happen?"


My personal take would be: Offense always wins, because we want things to happen.

[Ferrin33]

Thank you. I always assumed that the GM making rulings is kind of stupid. No, I know why. You are then expected to make rulings everytime. I rather stick with: "Well, what do you think should happen?"


My personal take would be: Offense always wins, because we want things to happen.

So, how will shield work with your "offense always wins" ruling, or other defensive spells or abilities?

[1of3]

So, how will shield work with your "offense always wins" ruling, or other defensive spells or abilities?

The question was: Does Open Hand prevent Shield from going off?

Offense wins. Shield does not work.

[Ferrin33]

The question was: Does Open Hand prevent Shield from going off?

Offense wins. Shield does not work.

And how does it work with attacks that aren't Open Hand? Regular attacks from the Fighter or Barbarian for example. Please try to understand why this is a problematic interpretation of RAW.

[HugeC]

And how does it work with attacks that aren't Open Hand? Regular attacks from the Fighter or Barbarian for example. Please try to understand why this is a problematic interpretation of RAW.

It's a pretty straightforward rule. If the attacker uses an ability that prevents you from taking reactions (Open Hand, Shocking Grasp, etc.), then Shield won't work (as in you can't even cast it). If the attack in question doesn't prevent you from taking reactions, Shield works as normal.

I'm not saying that's the rule I'd go with, but it's a clear way to resolve the impasse.

[Ferrin33]

It's a pretty straightforward rule. If the attacker uses an ability that prevents you from taking reactions (Open Hand, Shocking Grasp, etc.), then Shield won't work (as in you can't even cast it). If the attack in question doesn't prevent you from taking reactions, Shield works as normal.

I'm not saying that's the rule I'd go with, but it's a clear way to resolve the impasse.

Now think for a moment what the purpose of Shield is, and how the monk would stop you from using reactions.

[1of3]

What does it matter? There are rules in conflict. I offered an abstract way to solve conflicting rules based on the intent of playing a game. Other rules in this manner might be: Players always win, because PCs are the stars.

You are no looking what those rules represent. That is a possible way to address the same problem, but the method is completely different.

[Ferrin33]

What does it matter? There are rules in conflict. I offered an abstract way to solve conflicting rules based on the intent of playing a game. Other rules in this manner might be: Players always win, because PCs are the stars.

You are no looking what those rules represent. That is a possible way to address the same problem, but the method is completely different.

So for someone to be able to use Shield he needs to be hit in the face first? Or does Open Hand Technique work without hitting the person who'd like to cast shield in the face?

Pick one.

[Fwiffo86]

Solve the issue using the order of requirements.

Shield activates after hit is scored, but before damage effects.

Stun does not have an interrupt type activation option, therefore must be paired with the damage (or as a consequence of it).

If shield turns the hit into a miss.... no damage, no stun
If shield is not sufficient to turn a hit into a miss, damage happens, and stun takes effect.
Resolve stun normally.

This is not a hard concept.

[1of3]

So for someone to be able to use Shield he needs to be hit in the face first? Or does Open Hand Technique work without hitting the person who'd like to cast shield in the face?

Pick one.

Or maybe it confuses the opponent.

That is irrelevant though, if you are only looking at the rules. That apparently doesn't suit you.

We therefore have nothing to discuss, as our positions are laid out and clear. They are mutually exclusive, but nothing we say will change that. Therefore I will not engage in this discussion any longer.

[Ferrin33]

Or maybe it confuses the opponent.

That is irrelevant though, if you are only looking at the rules. That apparently doesn't suit you.

We therefore have nothing to discuss, as our positions are laid out and clear. They are mutually exclusive, but nothing we say will change that. Therefore I will not engage in this discussion any longer.

Oh no, I asked you to pick one of those two scenarios which are only an issue with your chosen solution because I'm curious what your excuse for either one of them is.

[Z3ro]

Solve the issue using the order of requirements.

Shield activates after hit is scored, but before damage effects.

Stun does not have an interrupt type activation option, therefore must be paired with the damage (or as a consequence of it).

If shield turns the hit into a miss.... no damage, no stun
If shield is not sufficient to turn a hit into a miss, damage happens, and stun takes effect.
Resolve stun normally.

This is not a hard concept.

The problem is open hand specifies on a hit, not on inflicting damage. Which I guess leads to another question; if you hit, but don't inflict damage (via, say, heavy armor master), does that still fulfill the requirements of "hit"?

[squashmaster]

The problem is open hand specifies on a hit, not on inflicting damage. Which I guess leads to another question; if you hit, but don't inflict damage (via, say, heavy armor master), does that still fulfill the requirements of "hit"?

If your d20 attack roll beats AC, isn't that a hit? Or am I missing something?

[pwykersotz]

When such ambiguities arise in my games, I almost always rule in whichever way is most favorable to the player, and just not tell them about any Feats or other abilities the NPC or monster might have.

My general opinion is that the players' abilities should always function as intended unless there is a crystal clear reason why it shouldn't work that they can readily perceive. Fireball is not going to work against the Fire Elemental, and any player can guess that by making a Lore check or being genre savvy before they waste a spell slot or an action on it. But if a player uses Open Hand or Shield or whatever, it should not be thwarted by something completely unknowable to them in most cases.

There are some exceptions to this, of course. Enemy spellcasters might have Counter Spell, for example. But in that case, the DM can announce "The dark Lich casts counter spell, thwarting your attempt to Disintegrate him!" And not "Sorry, your class ability/spell doesn't quite work, and you're not sure why."

Agreed. Much trial and error has also guided me to this opinion. Even when it would be reasonable that the players don't know what's going on exactly, I find it to be utterly game-stopping to try to be ambiguous about it.

[Theodoxus]

If your d20 attack roll beats AC, isn't that a hit? Or am I missing something?

Potentially. It's a hit, unless a reaction to the attack causes it to miss (to whit, Shield). OAs and reactions in general, even in 3rd ed are inelegant representations that warp spacetime for that specific moment in an encounter.

At least, so far, 5th ed has mitigated this somewhat (although the whole Counterspelling a counterspell to counterspell a spell argument sheds the kind of light that makes my head hurt).

The one thing I agree with, is there's definitely two schools of thought, and without direct confirmation from WotC on which is correct, it will forever be up to GMs to determine order of precedence.

1) Defensive abilities go first: Monk Flurry of Blows (spending a Ki point), opting to use Open Hand technique on a wizard to negate their reaction (why this is preferable to possibly knocking them down, I don't know - maybe you're afraid they'll make the Dexterity save). The Wizard opts to use his reaction to throw up a Shield, potentially negating the hit. Monk rolls to hit against the new AC (remember, in this version, Defensive abilities go first) - if he hits, the Shield poofs, the Wizard is unable to use a reaction again until the Monk goes on the next round, and the Wizard has an unShield-modified AC. (Corollary - the Wizard's Shield doesn't poof, he just can't use any other reaction - aka Defensive abilities go first and always 'win'.)

2) Offensive abilities go first: Monk Flurry of Blows (spending a Ki point), opting to use Open Hand technique on a wizard to negate their reaction (why this is preferable to possibly knocking them down, I don't know - maybe you're afraid they'll make the Dexterity save). The Wizard opts to use his reaction to throw up a Shield, potentially negating further hits. Monk rolls to hit against the unShield-modified AC (remember, in this version, Offensive abilities go first) - if he hits, the Shield is never cast, the Wizard is unable to use a reaction again until the Monk goes on the next round, and the Wizard has an unShield-modified AC. If the monk misses, the Shield still doesn't go off, as the triggering attack didn't hit.

Oddly enough, depending on how you look at it - the Wizard comes out ahead in both cases (and without the Schroedinger's Shield I theorized previously). Defensively, the Wizard at worst, loses the shield (argument for the slot not withstanding) - and possibly not even the shield. Offensively, the slot is never used, as either the monk negates reactions, or doesn't hit.

[squashmaster]

I'd say offensive goes first. Or...initiative?

And yeah I'd say no spell slot is used for shield not going up in this kind of case.