Declaring Immediate Interrupts

[Eldorian]

I don't know what you mean by "an attack is defined by..."
Because the attack roll isn't a definition, it's a mechanic.

But it would make more sense to trigger a "when you are attacked" as soon as possible, and that is when the attack is declared, not after the first steps of its resolution are made.

I thought it would be quite obvious what I meant. Attack is defined in DnD as something that has an attack roll. The player doesn't know he's being attacked until there is a roll.

 

[sfedi]

I thought it would be quite obvious what I meant. Attack is defined in DnD as something that has an attack roll. The player doesn't know he's being attacked until there is a roll.

Oh, I see.

Well, I'm used to the mechanic of "first, player A declares his actions".

Or to declare what you are doing/attempting BEFORE you roll.
(I don't accept rolls that are made and then declared why they are made)

That's why I "saw" a setp before rolling.

Hope it helped.

 

[Ryujin]

(I don't accept rolls that are made and then declared why they are made)

I'm much the same way, when I run a game. If I didn't call for a roll (out of combat) or hear what it was for (in combat), then there wasn't a roll made.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Actually, as a DM you should know your PC´s AC.

And if not, you should ask for the AC an describe your attack with words like: "This strike barely hits you" or this attack "A very precise attack which hits you with full force" or an "unaimed but very hard blow" to give hints.

Indeed, the DM should know the PC's standard AC. But with power bonuses, Second Wind, Total Defense, and feats (e.g., Shield the Fallen, Sideways Defense), AC will often deviate from that standard value. As such, I almost feel like the DM should let the player track AC and inquire at the time of the attack, every time. Otherwise, the DM will forget about the adjustments and the feats will become useless in actual play.

Given even the small number of things that I can do in order to change my defences (power use, Weapon of Summer, Shadow Walk), my DM has to ask from round to round. In a tight situation I might manage defences that are 6 or more points higher vs. specific attacks. This tends not to be the case for the rest of the party, but he takes the time to ask anyway. For this reason interrupts are not an issue in our group.

Exactly. My DM always had our standard values on hand. However, all situational bonuses for our characters were ours to track. For example, I was expected to remember my character still has Shield active, or that Levitate was lowering my AC/Ref. There are so many instances of situational bonuses that it's impossible for the DM to track them all, especially once you hit Paragon. He was very good with the leading descriptions as well; he might say, "the thug just manages to slash you in the arm," leaving open the opportunity to choose to use Shield without flat out giving me a number.

That's why I think it's better for the DM to ask for a defense, rather than ask if X is a hit. It puts more of the tactical onus on the player, and prevents a small amount of meta-gaming.

However, this might not work for all groups. I suppose it depends on the type of DM and players you have.

 

[Max1mus]

I think the mistake here is in the way the DM is checking if there was a hit.

Rather than asking "Does an 18 hit your AC", my DM would ask "What is your AC?" The subtle difference here is that it gives a player a chance to jump in before a hit is calculated, allowing both the PC and DM to set a pace for the battle. Even if the DM had already announced a hit, the PC doesn't generally know by how much the hit happened. That make it harder to meta-game the power if the trigger is "on attack" and he had already rolled. Finally, it makes retroactively changing the result easier and less painful, since it's less resolved.

As an aside, I don't have a problem with the PC seeing the roll. It adds some tactical value to using Immediate Interrupts, depending on the effect. I'm most familiar with Shield, and the roll adds a certain amount of decision-making. On a 19, chances are I'll have to take the hit; on a 12 it's a little more of a gamble, and on a 2... well, if I'm getting hit on a 2, I may be screwed anyway.

As far as the "What is your AC?" mode goes, I think I remember that being used in the WoTC video example of 4ed play on their website. The version you mentioned with the player seeing the result of the d20 is a nice compromise. You are get a little strategy and a little fun. Good idea.

In the past, clarifications from WotC have tended to suggest that the player may know the details of the incoming attack in these cases. See not only the shield power, but for instance also the staff-of-defense class feature; that's an immediate interrupt vs. an attack which you explicitly get to declare after the damage total is known(!).

If you needed to declare before knowing the attack roll, some powers would be almost useless; for instance the 2nd level Fighter power "No Opening" (which, given it uses the same action as CC, is probably not a good power anyhow, but at least it's conceivable if you can use it after knowing the attack roll).

They rules don't say what's the intended usage is. I strongly suspect RAI is that the player (or DM, as may be) may declare interrupts after the attack roll.

I've sent a question to CS about this, referring to the fact that some powers trigger explicitly of hits/misses. Let's see what they think.

You're right. No Opening would be pretty useless unless you knew the attack results... unless your fighting a Rogue that is. Please post the response from CS here. I am very curious to see what they say to you.

I disagree with this. Even if you use it when the DM rolls a natural 1, it still does a decent chunk of damage. So its not a waste. Less useful than if it was a hit, sure, but thats a different matter.
When I'm DMing I announce who I'm attacking with a monster, then roll the dice (in front of the players) then announce the result (ie hit/miss) before doing the damage. From the time I announce who I'm attacking, there's probably a good 5 seconds or so that players can pipe up they want to use an interrupt on the 'on attack' powers. I haven't found it slows down gameplay at all. I do, however, err slightly on the nice side and let them see the numerical result of the attack roll but still use 'on attack' triggered powers before I actually say hit/miss, so they can make educated guesses.

Good point. It is still 1[W] + Str or Dex if you hit. I guess that wouldn't be a total loss. Especially if you hit AND kill.

 

[Sanzuo]

So I am playing a Ranger in my campaign who has the power "Disruptive Strike." It is a very useful power that is an Immediate Interrupt and reduces the attack of the enemy if I hit. The Trigger is "You or an ally is attacked by an enemy." The problem is when I try to use it I get called out on it. Here's an example of play:

DM: The goblin attacks Leeroys Wizard. (Rolls) Does a 18 hit your AC?

Leeroy: Just barely. My AC is 17.

Me: Then I want to use Disruptive Strike.

DM: That's cheating. You can't do that when you already know the result of the roll.

I think that's how you are supposed to use it. I can only use it once per encounter and STILL need to hit for it to work. Am I supposed to shout it out as the DM is rolling the dice? But what if he misses? Then the power is wasted. It's hard to argue my side because of powers like the Wizard's Shield that have the Trigger "You are hit by an enemy." How would you guys rule this? Is it overpowered the way I m using it? When should one declare immediate interrupts?

Edit: I'm wrong - But see below.

I think your DM is kind of making a dick move by adhering to that so stringently. The flow of combat goes by pretty quickly and there's a lot of crap going on. It can be kind daunting to keep track of everything your character is capable of, especially at higher levels. For the purposes of immediate actions I give my players a little bit of a buffer to call out if they're going to use them or not. I give them until the end of the current turn (not round) to call out their immediate actions. After the turn, it's too late and we're moving on to the next turn. It encourages players to use their abilities and keeps combat moving at a relatively good pace.

For example:

The players are riveted by the combat that's going on, they are battling a solo and several of his lackies. Suddenly one of the lackies gets a lucky crit on Fred's mage in the back row, and he does enough damage to incapacitate Fred's mage.

"BUT WAIT", Greg the Warden says, "I had that guy marked and I'm standing next to him so I get an immediate interrupt to attack him with Warden's Strike."

"Ok" Sanzuo the totally awesome, manly and handsome dungeon master says; "Since the turn isn't over I'll let you make the attack."

Greg does so, and does enough damage to kill the lacky. Sanzuo tells Fred to forget about the damage on his mage and they move on.

If, in the same example, Greg waited until much later in the round or even next round when Fred failed his death save to announce he missed the chance to make his attack, I would have said "Sorry, please remember sooner!"

 

[Destil]

The way we play is: you can Interrupt an attack even if you know if the attack would hit (or not), for monsters and PCs alike.

This hasn't led to an imbalance regarding Interrupt vs. regular powers, in our experience.

Cheers, -- N

This is both the most fun and fastest option. And thus, in my opinion, the best.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I thought it would be quite obvious what I meant. Attack is defined in DnD as something that has an attack roll. The player doesn't know he's being attacked until there is a roll.

That is not correct at all. In fact, there are numerous "definitions" of what an attack is in 4e. I put quotes around "definitions" because there is no glossary defintion of the word Attack in the PHB you can go to too look up the definition. Instead, we must extrapolate what the definition is whenever we read the word Attack in the game rules.

Attack could mean attack roll.
It could also mean using at Attack power which doesn't require an attack roll. See Rain of Steel or most of the Wall powers, which are considered attacks, but do not require an attack roll.

For a more lengthy discussion on what an attack is in 4e, check out this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/234297-custserv-what-attack.html

 

[eamon]

That is not correct at all. In fact, there are numerous "definitions" of what an attack is in 4e. I put quotes around "definitions" because there is no glossary defintion of the word Attack in the PHB you can go to too look up the definition. Instead, we must extrapolate what the definition is whenever we read the word Attack in the game rules.

I wouldn't put that so strongly. There is a definition in the combat section, where attacks are described and all the various situational bonuses (flanking etc) are highlighted. This is the definition - clearly - of an attack.

Nevertheless, the word attack is also used descriptively (as in "the monster viciously attacked") and as a modifier describing a class of powers ("attack powers"). Unfortunately, this means that some texts refer to an attack when they probably don't mean (or shouldn't mean) the combat section rules.

In general though, When a combat mechanic refers to "an attack", barring relevant context to the contrary, it's a safe assumption they mean an attack as per the combat section: one that might provoke an OA, that might break stealth, that might flank, that gets certain bonuses and penalties when you are prone, etc.

Attack could mean attack roll.
It could also mean using at Attack power which doesn't require an attack roll. See Rain of Steel or most of the Wall powers, which are considered attacks, but do not require an attack roll.

I wouldn't call those "attacks" - for instance, you can't get combat advantage with them (e.g. by flanking); and they aren't melee/ranged/close or area.

The word "attack" is sometimes used ambiguously, and sometimes it's even likely to have been mis-used in confusion. But because these cases occur does not mean that they occur commonly; they are the exception. The vast majority of cases, the plain combat-section defined attack rules are applicable. You don't flank when using an attack power, you flank when using an attack.

So, while there are confusing spots where the combat-section definition is probably not what was meant (or what's best), the existence of said confusing bits doesn't mean the general rule is nowhere useful. There is a combat section on attacks; its rules work just fine in the vast majority of cases.

However, I saw that you resuscitated the old thread...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/234297-custserv-what-attack.html

If there is disagreement on the above assessment of the status of attacks, then I suppose we could attempt to restore the thread to its former glory ;-).

 

[eamon]

Ok, so I asked CS the following:

Many interrupting powers trigger on hits or misses. On the other hand, some powers such as the 2nd level fighter power "No Opening" (p. 78) and the 3rd level ranger power "Disruptive Strike" (p. 106) are immediate interrupts which trigger off an attack.

When should these powers be declared - before or after the attack roll? Specifically, can the player or DM declare these after knowing the attack roll so that the power can only be used when it matters, or do they need to use the power before the attack roll is made?
​

I tried to avoid a leading question. In any case, Jason W's response was:

Immediate interrupts can be taken before or after the attack roll is made. The interrupt actually occurs prior to the attack itself, but the player is able to determine if the attack hit or missed prior to determining if they wish to use the interrupt. They can even find out how much the attack hit by prior to the decision as well.
​

Which is what I expected. Note that several powers are almost useless if you don't play it this way, and the staff of defense even explicitly goes further, saying it's a immediate interrupt triggering on an attack - but you can choose to use if even after the damage roll is known. In terms of RAW, no further precision is given than merely the fact that an "attack" can be interrupted (and if so, the interrupt is resolved before the attack) - but, notably, there's no stated requirement to interrupt an attack before any particular phase. IIRC there have been designer clarifications on this intent - certainly there have been for the subtly differently phrased Shield power.

In any case, RAW isn't explicitly precise and simply grants an ability without defining limits; CS (and likely RAI - certainly for most powers) suggest that it is possible to interrupt after the attack roll(s).