Sure. He's got two reactions to spend, one of which can only be spent on a shield block. He spends one on a shield block and the other on ferocity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the real question is whether the triggers are different, because, remember, only one reaction per trigger (this was stated by devs, but not sure it's actually in the rules anywhere..., if you find it, let me know).
Oh, right, I rather missed the point. Anyway, the rule is on page 462 under "Limitations on Triggers"; only one free action or reaction is allowed per creature per trigger.
I was going to say that the triggers here look slightly different to me and therefore it works, but the rules also say
If two triggers are similar, but not identical, the GM determines whether you can use one action in response to each or whether they’re effectively the same thing. Usually, this decision will be based on what’s happening in the narrative.
So "slightly different" may not be enough. I'm afraid it automatically goes to the GM as a matter of RAW. Personally I would not hesitate to rule them different enough to both go off, but YMMV.
BTW, tivadar27, reactions to movement are special-cased.
Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.
Reactive shield's trigger = You are wearing a shield
The fighter's reactive shield actually triggers on "An enemy hits you with a melee Strike."
That is different from "would take damage from a physical attack", one is the success condition of the attack roll, the other is the last step in taking damage.
-------------
Same for Shield Block (from Quick Block) and Orc Ferocity.
Even with using Shield Block, you then (probably) take damage that could reduce the character to 0 hp.
I think those two triggers are different enough, but some GM's out there might think differently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To this I'd say that I definitely would consider them different triggers, as I believe shield block is determined before damage is assessed, and Orc Ferocity is obviously afterwards. I mean, I guess a GM could rule otherwise, but because there's a roll in between, I have a hard time considering them the same trigger.
I tend to think shield block is determined after damage, partially because it seems like being able to tell if you'll be sacrificing your shield is a good dynamic, but I have seen variance on this on the boards. If shield block precedes the damage roll, I like your argument that the roll divides the triggers.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW, if i were GMing i'd rule it as two different triggers-- Shield Block happens after you're hit but before you take damage, while Orc Ferocity happens after you've taken damage and been reduced to 0 hp.
but that's just, like, my opinion man... ultimately your GM has leeway to decide, per page 462.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, don't you only get one reaction per round?
The Quick Block feat gives an extra reaction per round that can only be used for shield blocking.
As a GM, I would just make Orc Ferocity a free action. Its pretty crappy to have an ability like that compete with reactions.
This isnt like Goblin Scuttle which will be used constantly.
This is double problematic on a reaction heavy build like a paladin who will be using reactions fairly often (retributive strike), a fighter shield blocking or even a rogue (opportune backstab), etc.
"Sorry Joe, this ability you invested in which you get to use maybe once every 2 or 3 sessions cant be used right now because you foolishly used your reaction to guard a teammate. Sorry your pc is unconscious and may well die."
Dunno, sounds like the thing I would not be comfortable with telling a player as a DM. I would house rule that for sure.
I am not saying the shield block should be a free action. That comes up often enough to matter and the player has a real choice as to which hit to block or whether to use another often used reaction in its stead.
I am talking about orc ferocity specifically.
To have the player choose between shield block and orc ferocity (a once a day ability that comes up hyper infrequently) seems off as the mechanics deeply conflict the narrative. What, a warrior should maybe LET AN ENEMY HIT HIM so that maybe he could come up from zero if it drops him? That makes little sense. Add in how infrequently ferocity is likely to come up (and the fact that the pc still gets wounded).. I dunno. Doesn't add up.
You do you but I play these games to have fun not to find ways to screw my players or to make them feel crapped on for their character choices.
If a half-orc at my table used his reaction and then gets smacked to zero later on that same round, I will still let him use his once a day ability to stay on his feet while taking his wound. To do otherwise would be my definition of bad DMing. Your definition is different and thats fine.
Those are simply your opinions.
Nothing else.
I admitted as much in my post.
People sharing opinions on forums..fancy that...
I am not saying the shield block should be a free action. That comes up often enough to matter and the player has a real choice as to which hit to block or whether to use another often used reaction in its stead.
I am talking about orc ferocity specifically.
To have the player choose between shield block and orc ferocity (a once a day ability that comes up hyper infrequently) seems off as the mechanics deeply conflict the narrative. What, a warrior should maybe LET AN ENEMY HIT HIM so that maybe he could come up from zero if it drops him? That makes little sense. Add in how infrequently ferocity is likely to come up (and the fact that the pc still gets wounded).. I dunno. Doesn't add up.
You do you but I play these games to have fun not to find ways to screw my players or to make them feel crapped on for their character choices.
If a half-orc at my table used his reaction and then gets smacked to zero later on that same round, I will still let him use his once a day ability to stay on his feet while taking his wound. To do otherwise would be my definition of bad DMing. Your definition is different and thats fine.
K1 is correct. Managing reactions is an important part of the game. Sure, Orc Ferocity isn't going to be used as often as some other options. But it is an extremely powerful ability when it is used. Giving it as a free action removes some of the tactics of combat.
If a GM gave me a daily Get Out of Death card as a free action, it would utterly change my game play. Right now, a low level Champion has to decide whether to use their Champion reaction or save their reaction for a Shield Block. A low level Fighter has to choose whether use an Attack of Opportunity or save that reaction for a Shield Block. With Orc Ferocity as a daily free action, that choice becomes easy. Offense until Orc Ferocity, then defense.
Orc Ferocity is meant to increase your options. A big hit might break your shield and leave you with few or no HP. That is when you choose Orc Ferocity. It is a strong ability, with the downside of other abilities in that you have to know when to have it available. Or maybe it just gives you enough peace of mind to use a 2-handed weapon, or make other higher risk choices.
I reject the idea that it isn't "fun" to manage tactical options. I reject that having to think about my play is me being 'screwed" by my GM.
I think I just disagree with the notion that this is a question of skill rather than the efficacy of the ability itself. A rarely used ability (particularly one like orc ferocity) conflicting with commonly used ones for a reaction in gamey ways that hurt the narrative is not particularly good design in a roleplaying game.
The rest of the "player skill" stuff is nonsense to me. This "try harder" stuff is generally patronizing and adversarial when it reaches a certain point. Telling a player he cant use his once a day ability because he fricken blocked with his shield or protected an ally reaches that point for me.
You disagree, thats fine. But I still feel thats bad DMing.
I think I just disagree with the notion that this is a question of skill rather than the efficacy of the ability itself. A rarely used ability (particularly one like orc ferocity) conflicting with commonly used ones for a reaction in gamey ways that hurt the narrative is not particularly good design in a roleplaying game.
The rest of the "player skill" stuff is nonsense to me. This "try harder" stuff is generally patronizing and adversarial when it reaches a certain point. Telling a player he cant use his once a day ability because he fricken blocked with his shield or protected an ally reaches that point for me.
You disagree, thats fine. But I still feel thats bad DMing.
No one has said "try harder". Managing actions and reactions is a central part of the game. It is something any GM should be explaining to the table within the first hour. If you find yourself needed to explain to a player that he can't use Orc Ferocity because he used another reaction, you have larger issues as a GM. Take a step back and go over the fundamentals. Understanding the basics will allow your players to increase their enjoyment of combat and character creation.
Surely you tell your players they can't shield block if they used their reaction for some other purpose already. Surely you tell them that they can't use other reactions if they've already used shield block? How is this different? Orc Ferocity is once per day because it is powerful.
Yes, players have regrets. I wish I would have prepared Spell A instead of Spell B. I wish I would have saved that potion. I wish I would have saved my reaction. You make choices. You play the odds as best you can. Why should Orc Ferocity be any different?
If the two reactions are similarly common (ie. Shield Block vs AoO or Retributive Strike), then sure. But a once a day ability that lets you stay up (but still take a wound) once a day is fundamentally different.
Its a do or die ability. One you use after all options are exhausted. In such a fight, the player should be using all thier options. The notion they would NOT shield block so that a different hit wont knock them unconcious maybe makes next to no narrative or tactical sense. This is doubly the case when you remember its a once a day ability they chose a race and dropped a feat for.
Its apples and oranges, man. You disagree, thats fine.
That corner case does not fly with me. Its a choice of "I block" vs "I might cheat death." Cheating death is not "reactive." Its not "reflex."
Its gamey and silly. Not tactical or narrative. It feels like a gotcha and not one that adds to the game in any way or value.
Again, different strokes for different folks but it just doesnt work for me. I see the rules as a fine guide but I am ultimately responsible for what happend at my table. Running that ability that way would detract from a session far more often than it adds anything. So, there is no way I would have it cost a reaction.
Lets just agree to disagree.
In addition to what K1 said, Shield Block is not like Retributive Strike. It is like Orc Ferocity. If you save you reaction, both OF and SB can be life savers. One or the other might be better in any given circumstance, of course.
Consider this. You have 20 HP left. You get hit for 22, and have both SB and OF available. If you choose SB, you have 3 HP left but lose your shield. If you choose OF, you save your shield, but are down to 1 HP and have a Wound. Either way, it is good you didn't use your reaction.
But wait. The GM made OF a free action. I'll leave my shield on my back. I'll use my Bastard Sword with 2 hands for the extra damage. I'll use my Retributive Strike every time I can. Why? Because I don't have to worry until someone brings my HPs down to zero. Then I use Orc Ferocity, back off, heal myself, and grab my shield. This is great. There is little trade-off for using a d12 weapon. I don't have to assess the battle to decide how to use my reaction. OF is an insurance policy that is freely available once per day.
I dont think of rpgs like card games and I dont run them as such. You do. Cool. Thats not for me.
I still dont think the "choice" is narratively justified or tactically meaningful. I still feel its a garbage choice and a poor GM practice to enforce such a rule. But, hey, you do you.
Take it easy.
Yall should both maybe stop saying the same thing over and over. Also maybe stop saying other people are garbage GMs if they disagree with you. You might find people respond better when you don't throw that in, even if you qualify it by saying "I feel you're garbage" instead of just saying they're garbage.