Mounted combat KD question

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Okay, had another unusual moment come up in our Death's Reach excursion this evening.

I was fighting the Death Knight, who was mounted on a Wyvern. I had picked the Death Knight for the target of my attack. I critted. I've got a couple of crit enhancing feats, so I knocked him prone and he was dazed. Now I'm using twin hammers with Two-Weapon Opening, so I get a second, free action attack (MBA). Now according to the rules we could find, the rider when knocked prone, gets a saving throw. He makes it, he stays in the saddle. He fails, off he goes, to an adjacent square of *his* choice. Now the question is, since the attack granted by TWO is a *free action* MBA, and free actions are supposed to happen near instantly, could the rider choose an adjacent square that put him out of reach of the free action attack before it hit him?

We had a lot of mixed opinions about this around our table.

Thanks gang.

 

[OnlineDM]

I'd say that if you hit with an attack that knocks a mounted target prone and also lets you make a follow up MBA as a free action, that you finish resolving the original attack first (which includes the effects of being knocked prone) and then make the MBA. So in this case, yes, the mounted target could fall off the far side of the mount, putting it out of reach of your follow-up.

Note that if you weren't dealing with a mounted target, I would say that the original attack would knock the target prone, which would give you combat advantage for the free follow-up. So, it's not usually going to be a bad thing. You'd also have combat advantage from the dazing in this case, but either way I'd say you completely finish the effects of the first attack and then make the free follow-up.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'd let you hit him and have him count as prone, with the rationale that he's in the process of falling out of his saddle, and it takes a moment for him to end up in another square.

Then again, if a PC was subject to the same situation, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt and give him cover from his mount for the second hit.

 

[KarinsDad]

As far as I can tell, free actions occur after other actions unless the free action itself states that it is part of another action.

Two-Weapon Opening implies this. "When you are wielding two melee weapons and score a critical hit with your main weapon, you can make a melee basic attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target as a free action."

This indicates that the free action happens when the critical hit happens.

 

[Karmic_vegeance]

I think RAW, you resolve the effects of the MBA granted by Two-Weapon Opening before the effects of the critical hit, essentially interrupting the critical hit after the attack roll. The trigger occurs when you roll the natural 20 on your attack roll (scoring a critical hit), and the free action immediately takes effect. This also means you wouldn't have the benefits from the critical hit, so no CA from prone/daze.

The situation seems mostly identical to that presented by the Monk's Flurry of Blows. Flurry of Blows is a free action that triggers when you hit an enemy with an attack, and is generally considered to occur immediately after the attack roll but before the damage and other effects of the triggering power, interrupting it similarly to the Two-weapon Opening situation. This allows the monk to still deal its bonus damage even when using powers that would normally push its target out of range of the Flurry.

It is also a commonly held belief that the Warden's free action AoE mark is allowed to interrupt movement actions and powers that the Warden uses between squares of movement, or even to be used during a charge attack to mark the target of the charge (before the charge attack is rolled, so that it avoids the restriction on actions after charging).

However, this doesn't seem like a very well-covered section of the rules. Most judgment regarding free actions like this has been from common opinion and CustServ responses like the one in this post:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5135334-post5.html

The Compendium is not very helpful in this case.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think RAW, you resolve the effects of the MBA granted by Two-Weapon Opening before the effects of the critical hit, essentially interrupting the critical hit after the attack roll. The trigger occurs when you roll the natural 20 on your attack roll (scoring a critical hit), and the free action immediately takes effect. This also means you wouldn't have the benefits from the critical hit, so no CA from prone/daze.

It's part of the same action, but there's nothing to indicate that it occurs before the critical hit resolves. Just before the action is complete. It's not an immediate interrupt.

RAW is fairly unclear on this.

The situation seems mostly identical to that presented by the Monk's Flurry of Blows. Flurry of Blows is a free action that triggers when you hit an enemy with an attack, and is generally considered to occur immediately after the attack roll but before the damage and other effects of the triggering power, interrupting it similarly to the Two-weapon Opening situation. This allows the monk to still deal its bonus damage even when using powers that would normally push its target out of range of the Flurry.

I think there are some generally held rules that are not in RAW, but are used. As an example, if a monster has Double Attack and can push with them (e.g. Yensurros, Ghostly Malison) and hits the same foe with both, both attack rolls are resolved, the damage for both attacks are resolved, and then the push occurs.

For this type of situation where the PC (or NPCs for that matter) is attacking the same foe twice, the best resolution appears to be that both attack rolls are resolved, then both damages, then both conditions or other effects. This avoids a lot of issues with gaining CA from the critical hit before the other hit, or gaining extra damage with the critical hit via headman's chop and the MBA hit knocking the foe prone, etc.

None of this is RAW though.

Possibly the best solution is to let the player decide since the rules are unclear.

It is also a commonly held belief that the Warden's free action AoE mark is allowed to interrupt movement actions and powers that the Warden uses between squares of movement, or even to be used during a charge attack to mark the target of the charge (before the charge attack is rolled, so that it avoids the restriction on actions after charging).

Warden's Fury is an immediate interrupt. Warden's Grasp is an immediate reaction where IRs allows movement to be interrupted. Neither of these can be used on the Warden's turn during a charge though. TMK, there are no Warden free action AoE marks.

Also, free actions can be done after charges. For example, using an action point is a free action.

However, this doesn't seem like a very well-covered section of the rules. Most judgment regarding free actions like this has been from common opinion and CustServ responses like the one in this post:

Agreed.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Agreed with KD that the rules are unclear. I, however, really detest interrupting the resolution of powers, meaning that you've hit and now you want to apply another action in between the attack roll and the damage, or the attack roll, damage, and remaining resolution? That's just ugly for a free action. I can understand it for interrupts, but this is a free action where you essentially choose when it occurs. Yensurros's power could be applied to two targets (or the same one if one attack misses), so that certainly doesn't prove anything and I wouldn't allow both to hit before pushing 4 squares. Similarly, on this feat in question, I would resolve the first attack and then apply the free action if it's still relevant.

 

[the Jester]

I think by the RAW that he can indeed fall out of your reach and neutralize that followup attack.

I might let you make it against the mount, though, if you thought to ask.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

I think by the RAW that he can indeed fall out of your reach and neutralize that followup attack.

I might let you make it against the mount, though, if you thought to ask.

Wouldn't work, unless you house-ruled it. TWO says it has to be against the same target:

"When you are wielding two melee weapons and score a critical hit with your main weapon, you can make a melee basic attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target as a free action."

So I dunno...

 

[Karmic_vegeance]

TMK, there are no Warden free action AoE marks.

Just to note, this is actually how the warden's marking mechanic works.

Nature's Wrath: Once during each of your turns, you can mark each adjacent enemy as a free action. This mark lasts until the end of your next turn. In addition, you gain the warden’s fury and warden’s grasp powers. You can use these powers against enemies to prevent them from harming those you protect.

I believe it was mentioned in a Warden Class Acts article published in Dragon that you could use Nature's Wrath in the middle of your movement action if you so chose.

Also ignore any references I made to flurry of blows, which is actually a No Action power rather than a Free Action power. This actually muddles things up quite a bit. Finally, ignore the contradictory "This is RAW - but the RAW is unclear" message of my previous post - that was a product of posting at 4AM. There really isn't RAW in this case.

I think there are some generally held rules that are not in RAW, but are used. As an example, if a monster has Double Attack and can push with them (e.g. Yensurros, Ghostly Malison) and hits the same foe with both, both attack rolls are resolved, the damage for both attacks are resolved, and then the push occurs.

Well, Yensurros' attacks are similarly unclear, but have no sort of free-action allowance so I'd only let them resolve similarly to the Fighter's Dual Strike, rather than the Ranger's Twin Strike. That is to say, roll one attack roll, and apply damage and other effects before then making the secondary attack, rather than making both attacks and then applying both effects. So no push 4 if the same target is hit twice.

Possibly the best solution is to let the player decide since the rules are unclear.

This. If I were DM'ing this particular situation, I wouldn't see any good reason for me to rob the PC of his extra critical benefit.