| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only questionable thing that I am seeing is if the triggers are different enough to be considered mechanically different.
An enemy hits you with a melee Strike.
you would take damage from a physical attack.
Some tables will rule it that those are different enough and let you spend one reaction on the success roll of the attack to raise your shield, and another reaction on taking damage to shield block.
Other tables will rule that succeeding at the attack roll and dealing damage are both part of the same in-game action of attacking and that you can only react to that once. You could raise your shield if it wasn't raised and then shield block a second attack later that round, or you could shield block it if you already have your shield raised - but not both reactions.
So if your table has decided to run it the first way - that the triggers are mechanically different - then you are good to go. Have fun.
As for the rest of it:
Disarming Block is a free action with a trigger. You can do that action any time the trigger happens. So it doesn't cost you a reaction and Shield Block is definitely a different trigger than the attack that triggered Shield Block.
And Dazzling Block is not even a free action. It is simply an upgrade that happens any time you use Shield Block while in Arcane Cascade.
Wouldn't the getting hit happen first allowing reactive shield to trigger?
Then if the attack is still a hit causing physical damage shield block is triggered allowing some damage soak by the shield
Could these two things really be considered the same trigger?
The reason I think it cannot be the same trigger is because reactive shield needs to see someone roll a hit first and kinda "rewinds" the hit making it a miss and that all happens before damage dice are rolled which is the trigger for shield block.
Could these two things really be considered the same trigger?
The reason I think it cannot be the same trigger is because reactive shield needs to see someone roll a hit first and kinda "rewinds" the hit making it a miss and that all happens before damage dice are rolled which is the trigger for shield block.
It isn't required that Reactive Shield turns the hit into a miss like it is for Guardian's Deflection. So you could use Reactive Shield and not rewind anything.
And yes, it is certainly possible to interpret the timing and triggers the way you are describing.
But it is also possible to interpret 'hit with an attack' and 'dealt damage by an attack' as being slightly different wording of the same event and therefore only being allowed to be reacted to once.
Showing and explaining why your interpretation is valid does not mean that other interpretations are not valid. If you want to prove that your interpretation is unambiguously the only way to run the game, then you have to disprove all other possible rulings.
I think of it a bit differently.
Is it on me to show the other interpretations as being not valid when an argument for it hasn't been presented?
Wouldn't be on someone advocating for the other interpretation to show it is valid first?
Otherwise i am just chasing arguments that haven't been made.
Edit: Point taken on the rewind not always happening.
Is it on me to show the other interpretations as being not valid when an argument for it hasn't been presented?
Wouldn't be on someone advocating for the other interpretation to show it is valid first?
Fair enough.
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.
If 'making a successful attack' is considered the event, then "An enemy hits you with a melee Strike" and "you would take damage from a physical attack" are similar descriptions of the same event.
Obviously if Reactive Shield raises your AC to the point where the attack misses, then you don't need to spend the reaction to use the Shield Block action. But that isn't really the question here.
Is it on me to show the other interpretations as being not valid when an argument for it hasn't been presented?
Wouldn't be on someone advocating for the other interpretation to show it is valid first?Fair enough.
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.If 'making a successful attack' is considered the event, then "An enemy hits you with a melee Strike" and "you would take damage from a physical attack" are similar descriptions of the same event.
Obviously if Reactive Shield raises your AC to the point where the attack misses, then you don't need to spend the reaction to use the Shield Block action. But that isn't really the question here.
Lol. Thank you. point appreciated.
That quote seems to give license to do things either way.
I guess I would just go with how the two attacks and damage are separated in the rules.
An attack is a type of check described on page 402. So the trigger of a successful attack would come up when following the steps of that type of check.
Damage is described on page 406 and is a distinct in that it is not considered a check and has its own steps to resolve.
So I wouldn't think they are similar at all even though they are generally sequential and in real life probably rolled at the same time
This one is a much more sophisticated spam bot. It knows how to use synonyms.