Immediate Reaction Clarification

[Xyrlove Woodsoul]

The RC states that the "triggering action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the reaction takes place."

Thus, lets say a monster's trigger for its immediate reaction power was: Monster x is attacked.
Now, if the monster is hit by an attack would one apply the result of the attacker's hit before the monster can react? Or does the monster react immediately after it is hit, that is, before applying any result of that hit? The reason I ask is because in my last session I dropped a monster to zero hit points with an attack, but the monster had an immediate reaction power with a trigger: An enemy attacks monster x. Thus, the dm ruled that the monster could use its immediate reaction before it was dropped to 0 hit points. Was this ruling correct?

 

[bargle0]

The RC states that the "triggering action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the reaction takes place."

Thus, lets say a monster's trigger for its immediate reaction power was: Monster x is attacked.
Now, if the monster is hit by an attack would one apply the result of the attacker's hit before the monster can react? Or does the monster react immediately after it is hit, that is, before applying any result of that hit? The reason I ask is because in my last session I dropped a monster to zero hit points with an attack, but the monster had an immediate reaction power with a trigger: An enemy attacks monster x. Thus, the dm ruled that the monster could use its immediate reaction before it was dropped to 0 hit points. Was this ruling correct?

The entire action is resolved before the reaction. So, the monster would have died before being able to make its reaction. Among other things, this also means that daze attacks prevent immediate reactions from triggering.

 

[Xyrlove Woodsoul]

:/ Thanks. That's what I thought. It's frustrating playing in an organized event (LFR) in a clique (that I'm not part of), when the DM makes up a lot of her own rules that are not in the "grey area" category, e.g., forced movement without maintaining LOE, becoming Hidden without having total concealment *or any concealment for that matter,* and a host of other things, then applies such aforementioned things arbitrarily.
Home games- more power to her.
But organized play? Meh

 

[Ferghis]

bargle0 is correct. However, some powers are poorly worded, and sometimes (rarely) the clear intent of the power clashes with the rule. I think there is a waist item that lets you roll a save against being dazed as an immediate reaction to becoming dazed. Under RAW, that clearly doesn't work, and you couldn't save against a condition you don't yet have as an interrupt. It should probably be a free action, but that wouldn't use up your immediate action. So, yeah, apply the rule judiciously.

 

[Unwise]

I would have thought the opposite was true, given that there are so many powers with reactions that don't make sense if they happen after damage is applied. I'm not that great with official ruling though.

I guess there are just lots of poorly worded powers. It seems that a lot of powers that give damage resistance only kick in after the hit, but seem to be intended to kick in before the damage is applied.

 

[Xyrlove Woodsoul]

Yes, the wording is sometimes poor, and there was a lot of ambiguity before the RC, but given that the RC now states that the trigger of a immediate reaction is completely resolved before the immediate reaction takes place, I think this clears up most of the ambiguity. In the case of an immediate reaction power being triggered by being an attack, I really don't see what other language could be used (and what else could it mean for an attack to fully resolve, other than, either applying the hit line - in the case of a hit; or not applying the hit line- in the case of a miss?), and such language is used even in the newer powers, for example;
Moonlight Escape (Warlock hexblade power)
Immediate Reaction
Trigger: An adjacent enemy attacks you.

 

[bargle0]

Yes, the wording is sometimes poor, and there was a lot of ambiguity before the RC, but given that the RC now states that the trigger of a immediate reaction is completely resolved before the immediate reaction takes place, I think this clears up most of the ambiguity. In the case of an immediate reaction power being triggered by being an attack, I really don't see what other language could be used (and what else could it mean for an attack to fully resolve, other than, either applying the hit line - in the case of a hit; or not applying the hit line- in the case of a miss?), and such language is used even in the newer powers, for example;
Moonlight Escape (Warlock hexblade power)
Immediate Reaction
Trigger: An adjacent enemy attacks you.

The key is that the entire action resolves, not just the triggering part of the action. Reactions can't cancel anything.

Where are you running in to these problems with LFR? Locally, I find that experienced LFR judges are often well versed sticklers for the rules. In particular, LFR rules give DMs very little wiggle room in terms of rule interpretation.

EDIT: I take that back, a little bit. Each square of movement is considered an independent event for the purposes of immediate & opportunity actions.