I would say you use it before they roll, based on the part that reads “causing light to flare before the attacker before it hits or misses.”
Since it say before it hits or misses, I read it it mean you don’t know if it will hit or miss before you use the power. So when the DM says a creature is attacking you, you would have to activate the power before the DM rolls the attack.
...based on the part that reads “causing light to flare before the attacker before it hits or misses.
Precisely this. It's a great ability if you're about to be swatted by an enemy that you'd rather not get hit by. Your DM (or you as the DM) can rule it differently if you choose, but as written:
Creature Initiates Attack Within 30 Feet> Declares Light Cleric as the target> Choice to use Reaction to use Warding Flare> Attack Roll
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
< Fighter Doc on the DumpStat Podcast!Click the Image to give us a listen.
It's similar in wording to the War Doman's Channel Divinity: Guided Strike.
Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to strike with supernatural accuracy. When you make an attack roll, you can use your Channel Divinity to gain a +10 bonus to the roll. You make this choice after you see the roll, but before the DM says whether the attack hits or misses.
I'd say it can be used after the attack roll, but before the result is compared against the AC of the target. That said, it can't negate a Critical Hit if used in this way. A 20 will always hit.
Warding Flare is before the roll. You can't impose disadvantage (or advantage) on a roll after it is already made. You can only add bonuses/penalties or force rerolls.
This depends entirely how your group is doing things. For this ability to work as it is (presumably) supposed to work, you need either a lenient dm or a dm that gives ample time between declaring an attack and rolling for it.
What I'd like to know is how many times can you use it in one turn? If faced with an enemy who can multi-attack and is going after you, can you use Warding Flare multiple times in one turn? Or can you only use it once? And if you can only use it once, does its effect affect every attack taken against you from that target?
What I'd like to know is how many times can you use it in one turn?
It uses your reaction. So once.
If faced with an enemy who can multi-attack and is going after you, can you use Warding Flare multiple times in one turn?
No, because it uses your reaction.
Or can you only use it once?
Yes, unless you have multiple reactions, and you should not have multiple reactions.
And if you can only use it once, does its effect affect every attack taken against you from that target?
Ah, I see the problem. I've never taken that close a look at the domain power before. The English is broken, and there's no errata. Ok, so when this happens, only your DM can fix it. I'll provide the RAW, and then my personal interpretation of the intent, but since there's no errata, you'll need to ask your DM if they agree with me.
RAW (emphasis mine):
When you are attacked by a creature within 30 feet of you that you can see, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll, causing light to flare before the attacker before it hits or misses.
That's word salad so bad it might as well say "...causing light to flare up the down spigot down the upward path", so here's my interpretation:
When you are attacked by a creature within 30 feet of you that you can see, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll.
As you can see, I chopped the gibberish off the end, rejecting it as having no rules weight. If it does have rules weight, because it fundamentally does not obey any rules of English grammar, it might say anything your DM decides it says, so ask them.
It bends the rules, but it doesn't break them. It's a subordinate clause. "Causing" is used in place of "because" because the alternative would be longer and ink and paper cost money. The meaning isn't lost.
If you're going to try and lord grammar rules over anyone, then you should know how utter B.S. that is. Those rules were created purely to feel superior over the uneducated masses. And they're routinely defenestrated whenever it's deemed convenient to do so.
What I'd like to know is how many times can you use it in one turn? If faced with an enemy who can multi-attack and is going after you, can you use Warding Flare multiple times in one turn? Or can you only use it once? And if you can only use it once, does its effect affect every attack taken against you from that target?
This happened in my game last night, and my search for a relevant erratum led me here. I'll give the setup, my ruling in the moment, and my subsequent thoughts.
Three level 4 PCs (light domain cleric, circle of the land plains druid, transmuter wizard) are moving through a wooded highlands terrain shortly after sunrise when they encounter eight bandits and a bandit captain. The druid is in the lead scouting, and her stealth roll is below the closest bandit's passive perception while his stealth roll is above her passive perception.
The bandit uses a prearranged imitation birdcall to alert his comrades and the druid wildshapes as the cleric and wizard move to close the distance. Bandits engage the terrifying shapechanger with light crossbows, PCs respond with ranged spells in the case of the cleric and wizard and melee attacks in the case of the wildshaped druid, whereupon the bandit captain jumps out of hiding and rushes the cleric.
The cleric's player states that the character is using warding flare; I state that it only imposes disadvantage on the first of the attack rolls granted by the bandit captain's multiattack action (reasoning from the specific and consistent use of the singular tense in the relevant PHB text); player objects and reasons that when one is temporarily blinded by a flare of light, the effect lasts for a few seconds as the glare fades, and therefore his attacker would have disadvantage on all attacks made in those few seconds, not only the first one; I give him the benefit of the doubt, reverse my initial ruling and run the rest of the combat accordingly.
The druid, being subject to 6-8 light crossbow attacks per round, takes a lot of damage and spends later rounds of the combat making death saving throws and soaking in healing spells, the bandit captain makes a big splash with his multiattack, but ultimately lands few hits on the cleric and never really feels like a significant threat.
In retrospect, I tend to think that my first reaction was the correct one. As a full combat round is six seconds long, and it is assumed combatants are constantly in motion during that time, sequential attack rolls (e.g. multiattack) are not made from the same position or in the same way even when made with the same weapon. Therefore, I tend to think that a character triggering warding flare by using their reaction in response to perceiving an attack imposes disadvantage on that one attack roll, not the entirety of the attacker's action. But I could see myself coming to a different conclusion in different circumstances (e.g. a light sensitive attacker, or multiple simultaneous attack rolls such as in Scorching Ray).
That said, I don't regret the ruling I made. It is worth noting that this ruling did not break the encounter. Had I stood by my original ruling, the cleric would have certainly taken more hits but, owing to his relatively high AC and access to healing spells, I'm confident he would have survived a one-on-one with the bandit captain, and roughly the same result would have come about. If the druid had not been drawing all the ranged attacks from early on, those would have been more spread out and that would have had a greater effect on the combat than which way one reads warding flare ultimately did.
Finally, a quick thought on OP topic: in practice, I tend to roll the dice for an attack (both the attack roll and damage roll) as I'm announcing it. Consequently, I'm ok with a player saying, "Hey, wait a minute, I want to use warding flare" after I make the attack roll, in that case, I just roll again and treat it as if the two rolls were simultaneous. That being the case, I do sometimes have situations where I rolled an attack, declared it a hit, and then had to go back and say the attack missed subject to a retroactively declared disadvantage. I don't think that breaks things so long as we aren't rewinding other players' turns. That being said, if I get the sense that a player is taking advantage of this practice by always waiting for the result of the attack to be declared and only using the ability when they get hit, I'll start enforcing my ruling that, technically, the warding flare declaration may be made after the attack roll, but must be made before the result of the attack is known.
Your gut reaction was technically the correct path. RAW, Warding Flare only imposes disadvantage on a single attack roll, not all attack rolls made by a single creature.
I'd say it can be used after the attack roll, but before the result is compared against the AC of the target. That said, it can't negate a Critical Hit if used in this way. A 20 will always hit.
While I agree with your analysis on warding flame v. multi attack, and the application of the wording of guided strike, I'm not sure the same is true regarding the honor due a nat 20.
So with all due respect (as I generally agree with your analysis elsewhere in the forums as well), are you suggesting that a nat 20 overrides disadvantage all the time? Or only when the PC isn't quick enough to notify the DM of the disadvantage in time for the DM to pick up 2d20 instead of 1? Do you see this as more a matter of what the PC sees or does not see (i.e. once the player sees the 20, they know they're hit so it's unfair to allow disadvantage post hoc once the outcome is known to the player, but if the DM rolls a nat 20 behind a screen or across the table from a PC who can't see the roll, it's ok to allow disadvantage because the result wasn't known to the player)?
If that were how it's to be interpreted, then yes. Once you know the die, it doesn't matter. It all comes down to timing.
Guided Strike expressly says it can be used after the die has been rolled, but before the result has been compared against the target's AC. Using it is an informed choice. But when it comes to Warding Flare is different, that language is absent. So the DM has to decide when it's too late to invoke the feature. Does it have to be when the attack is declared, or can it be after a hit known (like with shield)? The feature isn't clear.
This is why I brought up Guided Strike. It adds a clause about being able to use the feature after the die has been rolled. It also requires cooperation, because a DM who is too quick with their narration means the War Domain cleric will miss the trigger; thus depriving the cleric of not only a hit but a class feature.
Ultimately, it requires a ruling that can vary from DM to DM. A Critical Hit cannot overcome disadvantage, unless both die are 20s, because the lower die always wins. By the same token, it might be too late to impose disadvantage. I only meant to propose one possible application of the feature, not a definitive answer.
Guided Strike expressly says it can be used after the die has been rolled, but before the result has been compared against the target's AC. Using it is an informed choice. But when it comes to Warding Flare is different, that language is absent. So the DM has to decide when it's too late to invoke the feature. Does it have to be when the attack is declared, or can it be after a hit known (like with shield)? The feature isn't clear.
I believe you are correct to apply the example of Guided Strike instead of that of Shield. After a little more review, I notice that Bardic Inspiration and the Lucky feat both use this same "after the roll but before the result" language. In this context, it would seem that Warding Flare is intended to work with the same concept in mind when it says "before it hits or misses".
Shield seems to be a different matter, and also complicated by magic missile. But then that's magic for you, right? As far as class features go, it seems there is consistent use of the "after the roll but before the result" concept.
Keep in mind that attempting to impose advantage / disadvantage after the roll has some odd implications.
For example - if the roll is already made with advantage, and then you attempt to apply disadvantage to it, how do you resolve things? You aren't rolling an extra die, you are removing one of the two dice. It requires that DMs designate d20s as "first" and "second" when rolling. And then it has the side effect of players knowing the exact values of both d20s before the feature is used. Yes, DMs can change their process to account for this, but it seems an odd and unnecessary burden to impose.
I'm still of the opinion that you cannot apply advantage/disadvantage after dice are rolled. The wording of Guided strike is irrelevant - use the wording of advantage or disadvantage and the wording of Warding Flare. Once you've resolved your d20 and added modifiers, it is too late to also throw in advantage/disadvantage. And warding flare does not suggest you can do such a thing either.
There is no way by the rules to impose disadvantageafter the die roll because disadvantage itself imposes effects separate from the roll itself, specifically it cancels advantage, it negates sneak attack and it has no effect if the opponent already has disadvantage.
The feat is worded such that it imposes disadvantage, it is not a dice replacement or reroll. Using the disadvantage mechanic is fundamentally different than silvery barbs, guiding strike, lucky feat, portent, shield, bardic inspiration or any other ability that modifies a roll, causes a reroll or is a dice replacent.
Therefore RAW it must be done before the roll.
If the text was different and it said you can force the "attacker to roll a second die and take the lower result" then you could do it, but that is not the same as "disadvantage".
Warding Flare on level 6 isn't populating to reflect that when a cleric is level 6, that it gets the class feature update on the character sheet on reference: "Starting at 6th level, you can also use your Warding Flare feature when a creature that you can see within 30 feet of you attacks a creature other than you." I am unsure if anyone has noted this before, I updated it under custom for easy reference but if someone could fix it.
qn: must the Warding Flare ability be used prior to the die bring rolled? Or you can do it after you see the roll?
I would say you use it before they roll, based on the part that reads “causing light to flare before the attacker before it hits or misses.”
Since it say before it hits or misses, I read it it mean you don’t know if it will hit or miss before you use the power. So when the DM says a creature is attacking you, you would have to activate the power before the DM rolls the attack.
Precisely this. It's a great ability if you're about to be swatted by an enemy that you'd rather not get hit by. Your DM (or you as the DM) can rule it differently if you choose, but as written:
Creature Initiates Attack Within 30 Feet>
Declares Light Cleric as the target>
Choice to use Reaction to use Warding Flare>
Attack Roll
It's similar in wording to the War Doman's Channel Divinity: Guided Strike.
I'd say it can be used after the attack roll, but before the result is compared against the AC of the target. That said, it can't negate a Critical Hit if used in this way. A 20 will always hit.
Well, considering that the AC is your own, then you are already comparing it once the die is rolled
That's just the die. You don't know the modifier.
Warding Flare is before the roll. You can't impose disadvantage (or advantage) on a roll after it is already made. You can only add bonuses/penalties or force rerolls.
This depends entirely how your group is doing things. For this ability to work as it is (presumably) supposed to work, you need either a lenient dm or a dm that gives ample time between declaring an attack and rolling for it.
What I'd like to know is how many times can you use it in one turn? If faced with an enemy who can multi-attack and is going after you, can you use Warding Flare multiple times in one turn? Or can you only use it once? And if you can only use it once, does its effect affect every attack taken against you from that target?
It uses your reaction. So once.
No, because it uses your reaction.
Yes, unless you have multiple reactions, and you should not have multiple reactions.
Ah, I see the problem. I've never taken that close a look at the domain power before. The English is broken, and there's no errata. Ok, so when this happens, only your DM can fix it. I'll provide the RAW, and then my personal interpretation of the intent, but since there's no errata, you'll need to ask your DM if they agree with me.
RAW (emphasis mine):
That's word salad so bad it might as well say "...causing light to flare up the down spigot down the upward path", so here's my interpretation:
As you can see, I chopped the gibberish off the end, rejecting it as having no rules weight. If it does have rules weight, because it fundamentally does not obey any rules of English grammar, it might say anything your DM decides it says, so ask them.
Ok, thank you for clearing that up. (I'm new to the game and still learning the rules of actions/bonus/reaction/etc.
It bends the rules, but it doesn't break them. It's a subordinate clause. "Causing" is used in place of "because" because the alternative would be longer and ink and paper cost money. The meaning isn't lost.
If you're going to try and lord grammar rules over anyone, then you should know how utter B.S. that is. Those rules were created purely to feel superior over the uneducated masses. And they're routinely defenestrated whenever it's deemed convenient to do so.
This happened in my game last night, and my search for a relevant erratum led me here. I'll give the setup, my ruling in the moment, and my subsequent thoughts.
Three level 4 PCs (light domain cleric, circle of the land plains druid, transmuter wizard) are moving through a wooded highlands terrain shortly after sunrise when they encounter eight bandits and a bandit captain. The druid is in the lead scouting, and her stealth roll is below the closest bandit's passive perception while his stealth roll is above her passive perception.
The bandit uses a prearranged imitation birdcall to alert his comrades and the druid wildshapes as the cleric and wizard move to close the distance. Bandits engage the terrifying shapechanger with light crossbows, PCs respond with ranged spells in the case of the cleric and wizard and melee attacks in the case of the wildshaped druid, whereupon the bandit captain jumps out of hiding and rushes the cleric.
The cleric's player states that the character is using warding flare; I state that it only imposes disadvantage on the first of the attack rolls granted by the bandit captain's multiattack action (reasoning from the specific and consistent use of the singular tense in the relevant PHB text); player objects and reasons that when one is temporarily blinded by a flare of light, the effect lasts for a few seconds as the glare fades, and therefore his attacker would have disadvantage on all attacks made in those few seconds, not only the first one; I give him the benefit of the doubt, reverse my initial ruling and run the rest of the combat accordingly.
The druid, being subject to 6-8 light crossbow attacks per round, takes a lot of damage and spends later rounds of the combat making death saving throws and soaking in healing spells, the bandit captain makes a big splash with his multiattack, but ultimately lands few hits on the cleric and never really feels like a significant threat.
In retrospect, I tend to think that my first reaction was the correct one. As a full combat round is six seconds long, and it is assumed combatants are constantly in motion during that time, sequential attack rolls (e.g. multiattack) are not made from the same position or in the same way even when made with the same weapon. Therefore, I tend to think that a character triggering warding flare by using their reaction in response to perceiving an attack imposes disadvantage on that one attack roll, not the entirety of the attacker's action. But I could see myself coming to a different conclusion in different circumstances (e.g. a light sensitive attacker, or multiple simultaneous attack rolls such as in Scorching Ray).
That said, I don't regret the ruling I made. It is worth noting that this ruling did not break the encounter. Had I stood by my original ruling, the cleric would have certainly taken more hits but, owing to his relatively high AC and access to healing spells, I'm confident he would have survived a one-on-one with the bandit captain, and roughly the same result would have come about. If the druid had not been drawing all the ranged attacks from early on, those would have been more spread out and that would have had a greater effect on the combat than which way one reads warding flare ultimately did.
Finally, a quick thought on OP topic: in practice, I tend to roll the dice for an attack (both the attack roll and damage roll) as I'm announcing it. Consequently, I'm ok with a player saying, "Hey, wait a minute, I want to use warding flare" after I make the attack roll, in that case, I just roll again and treat it as if the two rolls were simultaneous. That being the case, I do sometimes have situations where I rolled an attack, declared it a hit, and then had to go back and say the attack missed subject to a retroactively declared disadvantage. I don't think that breaks things so long as we aren't rewinding other players' turns. That being said, if I get the sense that a player is taking advantage of this practice by always waiting for the result of the attack to be declared and only using the ability when they get hit, I'll start enforcing my ruling that, technically, the warding flare declaration may be made after the attack roll, but must be made before the result of the attack is known.
*edited for typos*
Your gut reaction was technically the correct path. RAW, Warding Flare only imposes disadvantage on a single attack roll, not all attack rolls made by a single creature.
While I agree with your analysis on warding flame v. multi attack, and the application of the wording of guided strike, I'm not sure the same is true regarding the honor due a nat 20.
So with all due respect (as I generally agree with your analysis elsewhere in the forums as well), are you suggesting that a nat 20 overrides disadvantage all the time? Or only when the PC isn't quick enough to notify the DM of the disadvantage in time for the DM to pick up 2d20 instead of 1? Do you see this as more a matter of what the PC sees or does not see (i.e. once the player sees the 20, they know they're hit so it's unfair to allow disadvantage post hoc once the outcome is known to the player, but if the DM rolls a nat 20 behind a screen or across the table from a PC who can't see the roll, it's ok to allow disadvantage because the result wasn't known to the player)?
If that were how it's to be interpreted, then yes. Once you know the die, it doesn't matter. It all comes down to timing.
Guided Strike expressly says it can be used after the die has been rolled, but before the result has been compared against the target's AC. Using it is an informed choice. But when it comes to Warding Flare is different, that language is absent. So the DM has to decide when it's too late to invoke the feature. Does it have to be when the attack is declared, or can it be after a hit known (like with shield)? The feature isn't clear.
This is why I brought up Guided Strike. It adds a clause about being able to use the feature after the die has been rolled. It also requires cooperation, because a DM who is too quick with their narration means the War Domain cleric will miss the trigger; thus depriving the cleric of not only a hit but a class feature.
Ultimately, it requires a ruling that can vary from DM to DM. A Critical Hit cannot overcome disadvantage, unless both die are 20s, because the lower die always wins. By the same token, it might be too late to impose disadvantage. I only meant to propose one possible application of the feature, not a definitive answer.
I believe you are correct to apply the example of Guided Strike instead of that of Shield. After a little more review, I notice that Bardic Inspiration and the Lucky feat both use this same "after the roll but before the result" language. In this context, it would seem that Warding Flare is intended to work with the same concept in mind when it says "before it hits or misses".
Shield seems to be a different matter, and also complicated by magic missile. But then that's magic for you, right? As far as class features go, it seems there is consistent use of the "after the roll but before the result" concept.
Keep in mind that attempting to impose advantage / disadvantage after the roll has some odd implications.
For example - if the roll is already made with advantage, and then you attempt to apply disadvantage to it, how do you resolve things? You aren't rolling an extra die, you are removing one of the two dice. It requires that DMs designate d20s as "first" and "second" when rolling. And then it has the side effect of players knowing the exact values of both d20s before the feature is used. Yes, DMs can change their process to account for this, but it seems an odd and unnecessary burden to impose.
I'm still of the opinion that you cannot apply advantage/disadvantage after dice are rolled. The wording of Guided strike is irrelevant - use the wording of advantage or disadvantage and the wording of Warding Flare. Once you've resolved your d20 and added modifiers, it is too late to also throw in advantage/disadvantage. And warding flare does not suggest you can do such a thing either.
There is no way by the rules to impose disadvantage after the die roll because disadvantage itself imposes effects separate from the roll itself, specifically it cancels advantage, it negates sneak attack and it has no effect if the opponent already has disadvantage.
The feat is worded such that it imposes disadvantage, it is not a dice replacement or reroll. Using the disadvantage mechanic is fundamentally different than silvery barbs, guiding strike, lucky feat, portent, shield, bardic inspiration or any other ability that modifies a roll, causes a reroll or is a dice replacent.
Therefore RAW it must be done before the roll.
If the text was different and it said you can force the "attacker to roll a second die and take the lower result" then you could do it, but that is not the same as "disadvantage".
Warding Flare on level 6 isn't populating to reflect that when a cleric is level 6, that it gets the class feature update on the character sheet on reference: "Starting at 6th level, you can also use your Warding Flare feature when a creature that you can see within 30 feet of you attacks a creature other than you." I am unsure if anyone has noted this before, I updated it under custom for easy reference but if someone could fix it.