Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Warden L6 Utility "Bears Endurance"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5729141" data-attributes="member: 2011"><p>Sorry, I don't have my copy of RC available (I'm in the process of moving) and cannot verify that some other set of rules don't qualify the rules you quoted.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Precisely, it's not quite an immediate reaction. It's in that gray area of "a third type of interrupt" that I mentioned earlier where some portion of the game mechanics of the trigger have partially occurred with your interpretation. Enough so that a PC cannot immediate interrupt it and prevent the NPC from moving into the adjacent square.</p><p></p><p>Unlike "to hit" where the hit can be totally interrupted. The trigger itself has not actually occurred yet. That's still to be determined.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Take the following case:</p><p></p><p>R.EF</p><p></p><p>R is the ranger with Weave Through the Fray. E is the enemy. F is the Fighter with Combat Challenge.</p><p></p><p>E shifts into the square next to the Ranger.</p><p></p><p>With your interpretation, E has not actually shifted into the square next to the Ranger, the Fighter's interrupt occurs. E then completely moves into the square next to the Ranger. E has totally shifted into the square, then the Ranger's interrupt occurs.</p><p></p><p>RE.F and then the Ranger shifts.</p><p></p><p>With my interpretation, the Ranger could interrupt the enemy's shift at the same instance that the Fighter can and we have:</p><p></p><p>REF</p><p></p><p>Both interrupts occur because the enemy started to move adjacent, but didn't quite get into the square when both immediate interrupts fire off.</p><p></p><p>Just like with the shift, the enemy starts to move when moving adjacent and that movement is interrupted with my interpretation.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Your interpretation is that "gray third type of interrupt" I mentioned earlier in the thread where the trigger completely or partially resolves.</p><p></p><p>The enemy actually gets into the square next to the Ranger, so the Ranger cannot interrupt that movement at all.</p><p></p><p>My interpretation is consistent. Your interpretation sometimes completely stops the trigger from happening at all (Shield, Combat Challenge) and then determines if the trigger still happens after applying the effect of the interrupt, and sometimes lets part or all of the trigger happen (Bear's Endurance, Weave Through the Fray), and then applies the effects of the interrupt after applying part or all of the trigger first.</p><p></p><p>You pick and chose how to interpret the rule "it cannot be used unless the trigger occurs" based on which trigger that we are talking about.</p><p></p><p>You can quote rules until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that you change how you interpret the rule on a case by case basis. I don't.</p><p></p><p>The trigger always occurs with respect to allowing an interrupt, but always does NOTHING with respect to game mechanics in my interpretation. The enemy has not actually shifted into the adjacent square, but the DM has declared that he is going to do so, so mechanically, the enemy is still in the same square he started in. Both the Ranger and Fighter declare interrupts, so the Ranger shifts and the Fighter attacks.</p><p></p><p>You allow the game mechanics to actually apply sometimes and don't allow it to do so others.</p><p></p><p>Now, there are no rules (TMK) on which interrupt occurs first. The easiest way is based on which player declares first. If the Ranger player declares first, then the Ranger shifts, the Fighter attacks and gets CA, the enemy cannot move and does nothing. If the Fighter player declares first, then the Fighter attacks and does not get CA, the Ranger shifts, the enemy cannot move and does nothing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Now, to throw a third monkey wrench into the discussion.</p><p></p><p>R.EF</p><p></p><p>Same scenario, but the Ranger uses Answer with Steel instead (i.e. attack when enemy moves adjacent).</p><p></p><p>You could argue that my interpretation is inconsistent because the enemy has not quite yet left the square and the Ranger still attacks, even though the foe is out of range. You'd be wrong, but it's easy to come up with the thought that this is an issue.</p><p></p><p>It is not an issue. Specific rules trump general rules. It does not matter that the enemy hasn't game mechanically yet left the square.</p><p></p><p>There are many immediate interrupts that are illegal based on other rules. That does not matter. The II power trumps the general rules. Another example: Martyr’s Blessing, Punish the Assailant, Angelic Intercession. All of these allow the PC to get hit instead of an ally, even if the PC is not in range of the attack. Specific trumps general. The interrupt states that the PC is hit instead, so the PC is hit instead. End of discussion.</p><p></p><p>Answer with Steel states that the enemy moving adjacent is attacked, so he is attacked. Even though with my interpretation, the Enemy hasn't quite gotten into that square yet. If the Ranger kills the enemy, the enemy is dead two squares away because the Ranger interrupted the movement and the movement never actually happened. Just like with Shield, the Wizard interrupted the hit and the hit never actually happened.</p><p></p><p>With my interpretation, the action, event, or condition that triggered the interrupt can be prevented. In this example and your interpretation, it cannot. The enemy first moves next to the Ranger, the enemy dies, and the enemy falls next to the Ranger. Why? Because with your interpretation, the movement that triggered the interrupt cannot actually be interrupted.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sorry dude, but if you are not going to apply the rules the same way every time, then your interpretation is flawed.</p><p></p><p>The trigger "you are hit" occurs, but any game mechanics (including the actual to hit calculation) of "you are hit" do not occur until after the interrupt is resolved. The trigger "the foe shifts" occurs, but any game mechanics (including the actual movement) of "the foe shifts" do not occur until after the interrupt is resolved. The trigger "the foe moves adjacent" occurs, but any game mechanics (including the actual movement) of "the foe moves adjacent" do not occur until after the interrupt is resolved. The trigger "the PC drops below zero hits" occurs, but any game mechanics (including the actual dropping below zero) of "the PC drops below zero hits" do not occur until after the interrupt is resolved.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The trigger occurs according to the rules, but it does not resolve. No portion of the trigger actually happens. It just starts to happen. One cannot pick and choose which portions of the trigger to apply and which ones to not apply.</p><p></p><p>That is what you are doing and that is why your interpretation is flawed and incorrect. You are not allowing the trigger to 100% completely be interrupted in every single case and then figuring out after the effect of the interrupt if the trigger still occurs afterwards. I am.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 5729141, member: 2011"] Sorry, I don't have my copy of RC available (I'm in the process of moving) and cannot verify that some other set of rules don't qualify the rules you quoted. Precisely, it's not quite an immediate reaction. It's in that gray area of "a third type of interrupt" that I mentioned earlier where some portion of the game mechanics of the trigger have partially occurred with your interpretation. Enough so that a PC cannot immediate interrupt it and prevent the NPC from moving into the adjacent square. Unlike "to hit" where the hit can be totally interrupted. The trigger itself has not actually occurred yet. That's still to be determined. Take the following case: R.EF R is the ranger with Weave Through the Fray. E is the enemy. F is the Fighter with Combat Challenge. E shifts into the square next to the Ranger. With your interpretation, E has not actually shifted into the square next to the Ranger, the Fighter's interrupt occurs. E then completely moves into the square next to the Ranger. E has totally shifted into the square, then the Ranger's interrupt occurs. RE.F and then the Ranger shifts. With my interpretation, the Ranger could interrupt the enemy's shift at the same instance that the Fighter can and we have: REF Both interrupts occur because the enemy started to move adjacent, but didn't quite get into the square when both immediate interrupts fire off. Just like with the shift, the enemy starts to move when moving adjacent and that movement is interrupted with my interpretation. Your interpretation is that "gray third type of interrupt" I mentioned earlier in the thread where the trigger completely or partially resolves. The enemy actually gets into the square next to the Ranger, so the Ranger cannot interrupt that movement at all. My interpretation is consistent. Your interpretation sometimes completely stops the trigger from happening at all (Shield, Combat Challenge) and then determines if the trigger still happens after applying the effect of the interrupt, and sometimes lets part or all of the trigger happen (Bear's Endurance, Weave Through the Fray), and then applies the effects of the interrupt after applying part or all of the trigger first. You pick and chose how to interpret the rule "it cannot be used unless the trigger occurs" based on which trigger that we are talking about. You can quote rules until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that you change how you interpret the rule on a case by case basis. I don't. The trigger always occurs with respect to allowing an interrupt, but always does NOTHING with respect to game mechanics in my interpretation. The enemy has not actually shifted into the adjacent square, but the DM has declared that he is going to do so, so mechanically, the enemy is still in the same square he started in. Both the Ranger and Fighter declare interrupts, so the Ranger shifts and the Fighter attacks. You allow the game mechanics to actually apply sometimes and don't allow it to do so others. Now, there are no rules (TMK) on which interrupt occurs first. The easiest way is based on which player declares first. If the Ranger player declares first, then the Ranger shifts, the Fighter attacks and gets CA, the enemy cannot move and does nothing. If the Fighter player declares first, then the Fighter attacks and does not get CA, the Ranger shifts, the enemy cannot move and does nothing. Now, to throw a third monkey wrench into the discussion. R.EF Same scenario, but the Ranger uses Answer with Steel instead (i.e. attack when enemy moves adjacent). You could argue that my interpretation is inconsistent because the enemy has not quite yet left the square and the Ranger still attacks, even though the foe is out of range. You'd be wrong, but it's easy to come up with the thought that this is an issue. It is not an issue. Specific rules trump general rules. It does not matter that the enemy hasn't game mechanically yet left the square. There are many immediate interrupts that are illegal based on other rules. That does not matter. The II power trumps the general rules. Another example: Martyr’s Blessing, Punish the Assailant, Angelic Intercession. All of these allow the PC to get hit instead of an ally, even if the PC is not in range of the attack. Specific trumps general. The interrupt states that the PC is hit instead, so the PC is hit instead. End of discussion. Answer with Steel states that the enemy moving adjacent is attacked, so he is attacked. Even though with my interpretation, the Enemy hasn't quite gotten into that square yet. If the Ranger kills the enemy, the enemy is dead two squares away because the Ranger interrupted the movement and the movement never actually happened. Just like with Shield, the Wizard interrupted the hit and the hit never actually happened. With my interpretation, the action, event, or condition that triggered the interrupt can be prevented. In this example and your interpretation, it cannot. The enemy first moves next to the Ranger, the enemy dies, and the enemy falls next to the Ranger. Why? Because with your interpretation, the movement that triggered the interrupt cannot actually be interrupted. Sorry dude, but if you are not going to apply the rules the same way every time, then your interpretation is flawed. The trigger "you are hit" occurs, but any game mechanics (including the actual to hit calculation) of "you are hit" do not occur until after the interrupt is resolved. The trigger "the foe shifts" occurs, but any game mechanics (including the actual movement) of "the foe shifts" do not occur until after the interrupt is resolved. The trigger "the foe moves adjacent" occurs, but any game mechanics (including the actual movement) of "the foe moves adjacent" do not occur until after the interrupt is resolved. The trigger "the PC drops below zero hits" occurs, but any game mechanics (including the actual dropping below zero) of "the PC drops below zero hits" do not occur until after the interrupt is resolved. The trigger occurs according to the rules, but it does not resolve. No portion of the trigger actually happens. It just starts to happen. One cannot pick and choose which portions of the trigger to apply and which ones to not apply. That is what you are doing and that is why your interpretation is flawed and incorrect. You are not allowing the trigger to 100% completely be interrupted in every single case and then figuring out after the effect of the interrupt if the trigger still occurs afterwards. I am. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Warden L6 Utility "Bears Endurance"
Top