We ran into a scenario that sparked some debate in our game revolving around a light clerics ability to use warding flare.
In our situation, our monk had finished his turn by engaging a wolf and using a Ki point to do Patient Defense. On the wolves turn (turns out there was one we didn't see yet), a second wolf came out of the woods and flanked our monk. The wolves then proceeded to attack our monk. Now, with the advantage and disadvantage rules, the wolves were attacking with straight rolls since they were at advantage for flanking and disadvantage from Patient Defense. One of the wolves rolled a natural 20 for a critical hit, at which point our light cleric announced he wanted to use warding flare to impose disadvantage on that strike. This is where the debate started.
We had two opinions at the table. The first was that, since disadvantage had already been imposed on the attack, you could not use warding flare to impose disadvantage on the same attack. This is the scenario we went with in game, but the DM allowed our cleric to not waste his warding flare charge as he would have "known" it should not be used in that instance. The second opinion was that, since the original strike already occured, and a reaction is being used at this point, it should allow disadvantage to be imposed on that role. Basically, they believe that the use of warding flare is something that technically comes after the original roles and therefore is not part of the original advantage/disadvantage mechanics.
Again, we went with the first scenario as part of the DMs call, but we certainly wanted to get clarification on it moving forward.
"If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantage and only one grants advantage or vice versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage."
Since the Warding Flare is stacked on the same attack, it would not impose disadvantage in this case. I would rule they couldn't use it in this case anyway as the DM had already rolled the attack. The flare being a reaction doesn't change anything as its the attack roll that matters.
"If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantage and only one grants advantage or vice versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage."
Since the Warding Flare is stacked on the same attack, it would not impose disadvantage in this case. I would rule they couldn't use it in this case anyway as the DM had already rolled the attack. The flare being a reaction doesn't change anything as its the attack roll that matters.
This sums it up perfectly. The DM was generous in letting the ability be redacted so as not to be wasted but, per the way dis/advantage is described, the Cleric could not use the ability to impose any penalties on the attack roll.
Since the Warding Flare is stacked on the same attack, it would not impose disadvantage in this case.
And I think this was where the debate came into play, as a few of the players insisted on it not technically being part of the same attack. It was just confusing at the time, so I figured clarity from the community would help when we start up our next session.
Agree with above that the Disadvantage should not stack (and it is appropriate to remind the Cleric before they waste it that the Monk is already carefully defending themself and a flashing light will not aid further).
However, it should also be pointed out that the flare must be declared before the attack is rolled, not after it is revealed to be a hit, miss or critical. To facilitate this the DM should be in the habit of pausing and glancing at the Cleric for a second whenever an attack is being made within 30ft, perhaps quickly asking "flare?", until their reaction is gone.
From your explanation it sounds like you are under the impression that there are two separate attack rolls due to the intervening reaction. There are not. It is a single attack (which implies a single attack roll [with however many situational extra dice]) with an opposing reaction affecting it. However, depending on the wording of the reaction-ability, the reaction is taken either before or after the attack roll:
[In your case RAW clearly state that the reaction is used before the attack hits]
Normal attack sequence: 1. Declare attack: "I attack this creature" 2. Make an attack roll (apply modifiers): "19!!" 3. Compare attack score to AC to determine hit or miss: "19 to hit vs AC18. It's a hit! 4. Roll damage on hit: "6 slashing damage" 5. Subtract/add damage (resistance/vulnerability): "6 damage halved due to resistance to slashing damage" 6. Update current HP: "That leaves me at 0 HP..."
Reaction situation 1: 1. Declare attack: "I attack this creature" 2. Reaction: "I use Warding Flare!" 3. Make an attack roll at disadvantage (apply modifiers): "16!!" 4. Compare attack score to AC to determine hit or miss: "16 to hit vs AC18. It's a miss!
Warding Flare
"... 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".
Reaction situation 2: 1. Declare attack: "I attack this creature" 2. Make an attack roll (apply modifiers): "19!!" 3. Compare attack score to AC to determine hit or miss: "19 to hit vs AC18. It's a hit! 4. Reaction: "I use the Shield spell!" 5. Recalculate Hit vs AC: "18+5=23AC. The attack misses!
Shield
An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile.
* - which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell [emphasis mine]
Reaction situation 3: 1. Declare attack: "I attack this creature" 2. Make an attack roll (apply modifiers): "19!!" 3. Compare attack score to AC to determine hit or miss: "19 to hit vs AC18. It's a hit! 4. Roll damage on hit: "6 slashing damage" 5. Reaction: "I use Spirit Shield!" 6. Subtract/add damage (resistance/vulnerability): "6 damage reduced by 6. I take 0 damage!"
Spirit Shield
If you are raging and another creature you can see within 30 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to reduce that damage by 2d6.
Reaction situation 4: 1. Declare attack: "I attack this creature" 2. Make an attack roll (apply modifiers): "19!!" 3. Compare attack score to AC to determine hit or miss: "19 to hit vs AC18. It's a hit! 4. Roll damage on hit: "6 slashing damage" 5. Subtract/add damage (resistance/vulnerability): "6 damage halved due to resistance to slashing damage" 6. Update current HP: "That leaves me at 0 HP..." 7. Reaction: "I use Strength before Death!"
Strength before Death
If you take damage that reduces you to 0 hit points and doesn’t kill you outright, you can use your reaction to delay falling unconscious, and you can immediately take an extra turn, interrupting the current turn.
From your explanation it sounds like you are under the impression that there are two separate attack rolls due to the intervening reaction. There are not. It is a single attack (which implies a single attack roll [with however many situational extra dice]) with an opposing reaction affecting it. However, depending on the wording of the reaction-ability, the reaction is taken either before or after the attack roll:
What you are saying is correct. The impression was that in using the reaction with warding flare, that is somehow separates the spell ability from the original stack of advantage/disadvantage.
In regards to the timing these spells, our DM gives us the opportunity to pay attention to our situation when being able to use these abilities. Since these abilities require you to use them before it is determined whether a hit or miss occurs, he usually calls out his dice roll and gives us a chance to use these reactions before applying modifiers and fully announcing a hit. This requires us to know our party AC scores as well as guess at the creatures attack modifiers (or learn it as the fight goes on). The campaign is tougher as it is, so he gives us more of an opportunity to utilize all of our abilities as often as possible.
Hi Everyone,
We ran into a scenario that sparked some debate in our game revolving around a light clerics ability to use warding flare.
In our situation, our monk had finished his turn by engaging a wolf and using a Ki point to do Patient Defense. On the wolves turn (turns out there was one we didn't see yet), a second wolf came out of the woods and flanked our monk. The wolves then proceeded to attack our monk. Now, with the advantage and disadvantage rules, the wolves were attacking with straight rolls since they were at advantage for flanking and disadvantage from Patient Defense. One of the wolves rolled a natural 20 for a critical hit, at which point our light cleric announced he wanted to use warding flare to impose disadvantage on that strike. This is where the debate started.
We had two opinions at the table. The first was that, since disadvantage had already been imposed on the attack, you could not use warding flare to impose disadvantage on the same attack. This is the scenario we went with in game, but the DM allowed our cleric to not waste his warding flare charge as he would have "known" it should not be used in that instance. The second opinion was that, since the original strike already occured, and a reaction is being used at this point, it should allow disadvantage to be imposed on that role. Basically, they believe that the use of warding flare is something that technically comes after the original roles and therefore is not part of the original advantage/disadvantage mechanics.
Again, we went with the first scenario as part of the DMs call, but we certainly wanted to get clarification on it moving forward.
"If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantage and only one grants advantage or vice versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage."
Since the Warding Flare is stacked on the same attack, it would not impose disadvantage in this case. I would rule they couldn't use it in this case anyway as the DM had already rolled the attack. The flare being a reaction doesn't change anything as its the attack roll that matters.
This sums it up perfectly. The DM was generous in letting the ability be redacted so as not to be wasted but, per the way dis/advantage is described, the Cleric could not use the ability to impose any penalties on the attack roll.
And I think this was where the debate came into play, as a few of the players insisted on it not technically being part of the same attack. It was just confusing at the time, so I figured clarity from the community would help when we start up our next session.
I believe the best way to handle this would be to use this method to show the flow of combat and how the dis/advantage worked out.
Initiative 20: Monk uses Patient Defense (imposes disadvantage)
Initiative 15: 2nd Wolf flanks (gains advantage)
**At this point in time the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out**
Initiative 10: 1st wolf attacks (gains advantage)
**At this point in time the advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out**
Initiative 10 Reaction: Cleric uses Warding Flare (causing disadvantage)
**This is the same turn as the canceled out advantage states, no further adjustments can be made**
Agree with above that the Disadvantage should not stack (and it is appropriate to remind the Cleric before they waste it that the Monk is already carefully defending themself and a flashing light will not aid further).
However, it should also be pointed out that the flare must be declared before the attack is rolled, not after it is revealed to be a hit, miss or critical. To facilitate this the DM should be in the habit of pausing and glancing at the Cleric for a second whenever an attack is being made within 30ft, perhaps quickly asking "flare?", until their reaction is gone.
From your explanation it sounds like you are under the impression that there are two separate attack rolls due to the intervening reaction. There are not. It is a single attack (which implies a single attack roll [with however many situational extra dice]) with an opposing reaction affecting it. However, depending on the wording of the reaction-ability, the reaction is taken either before or after the attack roll:
[In your case RAW clearly state that the reaction is used before the attack hits]
Normal attack sequence:
1. Declare attack: "I attack this creature"
2. Make an attack roll (apply modifiers): "19!!"
3. Compare attack score to AC to determine hit or miss: "19 to hit vs AC18. It's a hit!
4. Roll damage on hit: "6 slashing damage"
5. Subtract/add damage (resistance/vulnerability): "6 damage halved due to resistance to slashing damage"
6. Update current HP: "That leaves me at 0 HP..."
Reaction situation 1:
1. Declare attack: "I attack this creature"
2. Reaction: "I use Warding Flare!"
3. Make an attack roll at disadvantage (apply modifiers): "16!!"
4. Compare attack score to AC to determine hit or miss: "16 to hit vs AC18. It's a miss!
Reaction situation 2:
1. Declare attack: "I attack this creature"
2. Make an attack roll (apply modifiers): "19!!"
3. Compare attack score to AC to determine hit or miss: "19 to hit vs AC18. It's a hit!
4. Reaction: "I use the Shield spell!"
5. Recalculate Hit vs AC: "18+5=23AC. The attack misses!
Reaction situation 3:
1. Declare attack: "I attack this creature"
2. Make an attack roll (apply modifiers): "19!!"
3. Compare attack score to AC to determine hit or miss: "19 to hit vs AC18. It's a hit!
4. Roll damage on hit: "6 slashing damage"
5. Reaction: "I use Spirit Shield!"
6. Subtract/add damage (resistance/vulnerability): "6 damage reduced by 6. I take 0 damage!"
Reaction situation 4:
1. Declare attack: "I attack this creature"
2. Make an attack roll (apply modifiers): "19!!"
3. Compare attack score to AC to determine hit or miss: "19 to hit vs AC18. It's a hit!
4. Roll damage on hit: "6 slashing damage"
5. Subtract/add damage (resistance/vulnerability): "6 damage halved due to resistance to slashing damage"
6. Update current HP: "That leaves me at 0 HP..."
7. Reaction: "I use Strength before Death!"
What you are saying is correct. The impression was that in using the reaction with warding flare, that is somehow separates the spell ability from the original stack of advantage/disadvantage.
In regards to the timing these spells, our DM gives us the opportunity to pay attention to our situation when being able to use these abilities. Since these abilities require you to use them before it is determined whether a hit or miss occurs, he usually calls out his dice roll and gives us a chance to use these reactions before applying modifiers and fully announcing a hit. This requires us to know our party AC scores as well as guess at the creatures attack modifiers (or learn it as the fight goes on). The campaign is tougher as it is, so he gives us more of an opportunity to utilize all of our abilities as often as possible.
Simply put the spell works for YOU. Not others. Debate ends.
At lvl 6 it works for anyone within 30ft of the Cleric.