"Can't finish its action..."

[Greja]

B.

A player is going to be less happy with A than B - thats a viable reason as a DM. It makes for better story telling when the PCs are able to follow through on their heroic actions - how many times in movies/stories/comics has the hero had gain his concentration twice for the 'big heroic action' due to being knocked around in a fight?

I believe the fairest to treat power's effects and usage as the same. If the power goes off consider it an action spent. If not, not. I wouldn't even consider it an action, but just intending to do an action (which resulted in the unfortunate result of being KO'd).

 

[Saeviomagy]

Reliable: If you miss when using a reliable power, you don’t expend the use of that power.

It's regrettable that it wasn't phrased "Reliable: You only expend the use of that power when your attack is successful". Then it wouldn't have to be a judgement call. As it is, a real RBDM could rule otherwise. But yeah, I'd rule the same way with Reliable since I believe that is the intent.

I was under the impression that this was changed to

"Reliable: If you do not hit when using a reliable power..."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Correct. The choice of the point of origin defines the selected targets.

The choice of the point of origin defines where the burst will originate, if the power actually manages to create a burst.

Since no burst occurs, though, who are "all creatures in burst"? No burst, no creatures in burst.

"Where the burst would be" lets you figure out who the targets would be if there were are burst, but it doesn't tell you who the targets are, because there aren't any.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

B.

A player is going to be less happy with A than B...

I think you might have your A and B mixed up, based on your commentary?

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

"Interrupt: An immediate interrupt lets you jump
in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting
before the trigger resolves. If an interrupt invalidates
a triggering action, that action is lost. For example,
an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you
use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate
interrupt. If your enemy can no longer reach you, the
enemy’s attack action is lost."

Enemy uses Standard Action to make an attack against me. I use a power that allows me to shift 1 square. Can the enemy uses it's Move Action to shift back next to me, then use his Standard Action to make an attack? Since he can reach me, he no longer should lose his attack action, right?

And the enemy's attack action needs clarifying. There is no "attack action" that I am aware of. However, all attacks are powers which do use a specific type of Action (Standard, Move, Minor, Free, and a couple others). Could "attack action is lost" be referring to the Action type (ie Standard) that is required to make the attack, but not the attack power itself (thus, allowing you to not was a Daily Power)?

 

[NMcCoy]

My interpretation: If a power is invalidated by an interrupt, the action is lost but the power is not expended. And none of this paladin-burst-silliness for me, thanks - first of all, if the attack action's lost the attack isn't made, so Divine Challenge doesn't trigger. Secondly, the "burst hasn't happened yet so the targets aren't targets" seems... dubious at best. The only thing like this that I'd consider debatable is targeting someone next to the paladin with Force Orb (which, as I see things, would trigger Divine Challenge - you made a ranged attack that didn't include the paladin (DC interrupts), and then *after it hits* you made a secondary attack against the paladin).

 

[billd91]

I'm going to agree that if you lose the action you lose the power, but I'd also rule that a fighter's Reliable power would not be expended, just like if he had attacked and missed. That's totally a personal judgment call, though.

That's the interpretation I'd go with too.

 

[rushlight]

I choose option A. Imagine your standard action is quarter. You want to use your quarter to buy some gum from a machine - but when you try to use your quarter, a bully knocks you down and you lose your quarter. The gum is still there, waiting - until you get another quarter. In effect, you "spend" your standard action to activate a power. Should something prevent you from "spending" that action, you haven't activated your power yet - although your action is still lost until you get more.

 

[jdpacheco]

The choice of the point of origin defines where the burst will originate, if the power actually manages to create a burst.

Since no burst occurs, though, who are "all creatures in burst"? No burst, no creatures in burst.

"Where the burst would be" lets you figure out who the targets would be if there were are burst, but it doesn't tell you who the targets are, because there aren't any.

-Hyp.

You can't have it both ways.
Either: An attack happens. This means the whole burst. If the burst doesn't include the pally, then fine. But if there is even a single attack roll, and the pally is an intended target, then DC doesn't apply.
Or: No attack ever happens. Therefore there is no attack which does not include the Pally, so DC doesn't apply.

You can't say "The burst doesn't happen, so the pally's DC is triggered."

 

[Syrsuro]

I choose option A. Imagine your standard action is quarter. You want to use your quarter to buy some gum from a machine - but when you try to use your quarter, a bully knocks you down and you lose your quarter. The gum is still there, waiting - until you get another quarter. In effect, you "spend" your standard action to activate a power. Should something prevent you from "spending" that action, you haven't activated your power yet - although your action is still lost until you get more.

Not to twist your analogy beyond all relevance - but the quarter is still there also. Unless the bully picks the quarter up and walks away with it - and there isn't an analagous ability to pick up your powers and walk away with them (at least not yet).

But of course - trying to compare a power or ability to a physical object like a quarter is odd, to say the least.

If I wanted to argue in favor of "losing the power", I would point to the disruption of spell in earlier versions. You start casting the spell, someone interrupts your spell, the spell is lost.


But as it happens, while I agree that you do lose the power (excepting reliable powers), I disagree that it is because the power and the action are the same thing. The rules for the interrupt specify that you lose the power and this does not (imho) automatically mean that you lose the power. But it also does not mean that you retain the power - rather you lose the power because you already started to use it.

Note: An opportunity action takes place before the target finishes its action. This does not say 'before the target initiates its action. It is the initiation of the action which both triggers the OA and which expends the power.

As I see it, you initiate your power. At this point, the power has been expended, and even if something causes the power to later have no effect (i.e. player goes unconscious, target becomes invalid, player decides not to complete the action, etc.) the power is no longer available (exception: reliable powers). So if you are dropped before you can complete the action, the power is not lost because the attack caused you to lose the power, the power is lost because you already initiated it. The power fails to complete because the attack caused you to lose the opportunity (the action) and therefore you were unable to complete it. I.e. - the loss of the power is due to the players starting to use the power and, indirectly, because conditions made it impossible for the power to be used.

That said, I can see why someone might want to house rule a concentration check type rule to allow a character to retain their power, or (better yet, imho) allow them to immediately expend a healing surge to choose to retain the power. But these would be house rules and not RAW/I.

Carl