Heroic reactions: houserule ponderings

[msfnc]

In last night's session, I had a player ask to do something that's awesome, but against the rules. The party's cleric (-1 dex mod, very low hp) was in the line of a Lightning Bolt spell. The fighter (adjacent to the cleric, but not in the spell's line) asked if he could use his reaction to push the cleric out of the way. Explicitly, he asked to use his reaction to give the cleric advantage on the save. I ruled that he could use his reaction to shove the cleric 5ft (out of the spell's path), but that would require him to take the cleric's place in the damage zone, and he would make his own save at disadvantage. Additionally, this would cost him his action (but not his movement) on his upcoming turn. I love the idea of a heroic PC putting themselves in harm's way to protect a comrade. Any opinions on this ruling? Too lenient? Too strict? Really dumb idea?

[JNAProductions]

In last night's session, I had a player ask to do something that's awesome, but against the rules. The party's cleric (-1 dex mod, very low hp) was in the line of a Lightning Bolt spell. The fighter (adjacent to the cleric, but not in the spell's line) asked if he could use his reaction to push the cleric out of the way. Explicitly, he asked to use his reaction to give the cleric advantage on the save. I ruled that he could use his reaction to shove the cleric 5ft (out of the spell's path), but that would require him to take the cleric's place in the damage zone, and he would make his own save at disadvantage. Additionally, this would cost him his action (but not his movement) on his upcoming turn. I love the idea of a heroic PC putting themselves in harm's way to protect a comrade. Any opinions on this ruling? Too lenient? Too strict? Really dumb idea?

Feels fine to me. If this comes up a lot, I'd make an actual houserule so players can work with it, but as a one-off, I see no issues.

It lets the Cleric live to fight another day, lets the Fighter feel awesome, has an appropriate cost... Provided the players had fun, I'd say you made a great call.

[Hilary]

I think the basic ruling is fine. I don't like the idea of borrowing actions from future turns.

If you want it more punishing than simply giving the sacrificial dodger disadvantage on their save, give them no save.

[Mith]

If you want to avoid explicitly borrowing from future turns, what about moving the cleric out of the line of fire, but falling prone? So they have disadvantage on save + they have limited movement actions. The step up from this would be no save. However since Lightening Bolt is save for half, I think disadvantage on a save is good, with a no save option being if you want to grant a success to the character being shoved out of the way.

[JonBeowulf]

I very much like this and commend your player for thinking of it and you for coming up with an elegant way to allow it. I'm probably going to add it to my house rules but only bring it out if a player asks to do it. I don't want to give them heroic ideas... they should do that on their own.

I'm going with the "you take his place and get no save" variant. I'm not sold on losing the next action, though. And I might make the saved character make some sort of check to avoid being knocked prone.