Rules on interrupts of movement

[hailstop]

A PC has a power that as an immediate interrupt, with the trigger being when an enemy moves adjacent to him, that he can shift his speed.

What exactly does the enemy do after that? Does he:

1) immediately stop, but can move again if he has an action.
2) if it was a move action that triggered it (ie he actually moved into the adjacent space), he can continue to move, and if he can get adjacent to the PC he can attack.
3) if it was a move as part of a standard action (say a charge), can he still finish his move and attack if he was still able to get adjacent?

I'm thinking it's not 1, but 2 and 3...as otherwise that power is also forcing him to stop moving.

 

[Kordeth]

A PC has a power that as an immediate interrupt, with the trigger being when an enemy moves adjacent to him, that he can shift his speed.

What exactly does the enemy do after that? Does he:

1) immediately stop, but can move again if he has an action.
2) if it was a move action that triggered it (ie he actually moved into the adjacent space), he can continue to move, and if he can get adjacent to the PC he can attack.
3) if it was a move as part of a standard action (say a charge), can he still finish his move and attack if he was still able to get adjacent?

I'm thinking it's not 1, but 2 and 3...as otherwise that power is also forcing him to stop moving.

You are correct. Interrupts only resolve before you resolve the triggering action, they don't stop the triggering action unless the triggering action is invalidated by the interrupt.

For example, if an enemy had a power that said "you may shift to any other square adjacent to an enemy adjacent to you," and you interrupted by shifting away from him, the enemy would not move, because you are no longer adjacent to him and therefore he no longer meets the requirements of his power.

 

[Tony Vargas]

2 & 3, yes. Though, in the case of a charge, his movement has to be in a straight line, and end not just in an adjacent square, but in the closest square from which he can attack the target - so unless the target moved straight back in the line of the charge, it's unlikely the charge could be completed after the target has moved with an interrupt.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Though, in the case of a charge, his movement has to be in a straight line...

It has to be 'directly'. There's argument as to the meaning of the word, but it seems that as long as each square you move brings you one square closer to your target, you're moving 'directly'.

-Hyp.

 

[Syrsuro]

It has to be 'directly'. There's argument as to the meaning of the word, but it seems that as long as each square you move brings you one square closer to your target, you're moving 'directly'.

-Hyp.

Interesting Hypothetical:

In the above scenario the PC is charging an opponent.

The opponent shifts past the PC back in the direction from which he came.

Can the PC (who was charging the opponent) change his direction (backtrack) to complete the charge?

At any given time, his movement is in a direct line toward the opponent but due to the opponents change in position his actual movement doubles back upon itself and is clearly not a direct path to the opponents final position.

Carl

 

[jontherev]

It has to be 'directly'. There's argument as to the meaning of the word, but it seems that as long as each square you move brings you one square closer to your target, you're moving 'directly'.

-Hyp.

I agree, but I'd say you need at least another 10' of movement left in the charge to complete the charge if the defender shifted somewhere behind the charger, since you have to change directions so drastically. The charger completes the rest of his movement (if any left) right after the shift, and then does the rest of his turn. So, if the defender was to shift 2 squares away from the charger, but still in front of the charger, AND the charger had another 5' of movement left...then he could continue his charge and finish the attack. If, however, the defender was to instead shift adjacent to and behind the charger, then I'd say that the +1 bonus from the charge is not applicable against the original defender since he can't move enough to charge again (maybe ruling it a minor action to shift directions, which normally you can't do in the middle of an action). But, in the same last example, let's say the defender shifts 3 squares behind the charger...if the charger had a minor action and another 10' of movement left, then I'd let him complete the charge by turning around and starting a new charge as part of the same action. Also, the attacker could instead just change targets and charge someone else. Most of this would be my interpretation of the rules, as I don't think this is spelled out.

 

[Hypersmurf]

At any given time, his movement is in a direct line toward the opponent but due to the opponents change in position his actual movement doubles back upon itself and is clearly not a direct path to the opponents final position.

It's not directly toward's the opponent's final position, but fortunately, "directly towards the opponent's final position" is not the requirement of Charge. "Directly towards the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy" is the requirement, and every time he moves, he is moving directly towards the nearest square from which he can attack the enemy.

Let's say you - accurately - predict that your opponent to the north of you is going to teleport with a readied action to arrive to the south of you. You can't begin charging to the south, even if that's where he is by the time you arrive, because when you start charging, the nearest square from which you can attack him is north, not south.

It leads to an unusual situation where, against a stationary opponent to the south, you may not charge north-and-then-south, but against the readied teleporting opponent, that is the only legal charge.

-Hyp.

 

[Tony Vargas]

By that logic, you could move 'directly' towards an opponent who was fully concealed behind a 15' wide wall that blocked line of effect - as long as you and the oppenent were each far enough from the wall that a series of diagonal moves could take you around the wall.

While I admit that the distance moved is the same in 4e, whether you go directly along a row or comumn of squares, or off at a 45-degree angle, then back, due to the oversimplification of diagonal moves, I think the line of effect rules make it clear that one can reasonably draw a distinction between a diagonal-exploiting equal-distance path and a direct path (the series of squares that most closely follows a straight line to the destination - since litterally straight-line paths in 4e movement are only possible along rows, columns, or diagonals, which'd be silly).


And, Hyp, I have to observe that, in other threads you take the most litteral interpretation possible, while here, you take a much more nuanced one. I'm starting to suspect that you just enjoy positing counter-intuitive interpretations. Such 'murphy's rules' /are/ amusing (on occassion they're even superior interpetations, balance-wise), I have to admit, so I'm not even going to try to discourage you.

 

[Hypersmurf]

By that logic, you could move 'directly' towards an opponent who was fully concealed behind a 15' wide wall that blocked line of effect - as long as you and the oppenent were each far enough from the wall that a series of diagonal moves could take you around the wall.

Right - although unless you can see him, it may be hard to determine what the nearest square from which you can attack actually is, and whether or not it's occupied.

And, Hyp, I have to observe that, in other threads you take the most litteral interpretation possible, while here, you take a much more nuanced one.

Where am I not being literal, here?

-Hyp.

 

[Yumepenguin]

My group has always played #3 this way:

Enemy designates the closest square that he must charge to.
Enemy reaches said square.
PC uses power to move away.
No actions can be taken after this charge, therefore causing the Enemy to lose the attack as the target is no longer in range.

Also, in my mind somebody running at you so recklessly couldn't just change targets either even if it ended next to another PC.