Adjudicating Immediate actions

[KarinsDad]

However, at the very least, we can assume that if an enemy can attack someone, then hit, then take a free action to grapple that if an enemy attacks someone, hits, then you can declare an immediate action between hitting and damage being rolled.

There are no actions allowed in the game between hitting and damage being rolled. It is one action, not two. Actions are atomic units. You can do an action during another action, but you cannot split up an action into different parts and than make a determination when part one is done and before part two is done to do something else.

You can declare the immediate action when the attack is declared, but if you declare it after the "to hit roll" is made (presumably because you see if it hit or not), you cannot declare your immediate action before the damage is actually rolled and assigned.

Granted, there are some specific actions which appear to allow this such as using an Action Point. But, it is explicitly called out in the rules that you can do this. Even here, you do not get to declare to use an Action point before finding out if the Saving Throw is made or not. You roll the dice, declare an Action point or not, and then determine if the save made or not.

But, this is an explicit exception to the rules. Once you roll the "to hit" die, nothing can interrupt the damage dice unless there is a specific rule, spell, etc. that explicitly allows you to do so.

 

[frankthedm]

However, at the very least, we can assume that if an enemy can attack someone, then hit, then take a free action to grapple that if an enemy attacks someone, hits, then you can declare an immediate action between hitting and damage being rolled.

No, you can assume that. That assumption is your own.

Improved Grab
If a creature with this special attack hits with a melee weapon (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No, you can assume that. That assumption is your own.

Improved Grab
If a creature with this special attack hits with a melee weapon (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.

Err...I'm not sure what part of that doesn't say that a creature can take a free action after it hits. If free actions cannot be performed after a hit is successful, then how would they use that ability?

 

[frankthedm]

Err...I'm not sure what part of that doesn't say that a creature can take a free action after it hits. If free actions cannot be performed after a hit is successful, then how would they use that ability?

You are trying to squeeze in an action BEFORE damage is being done. The improved grab attempt starts after the damage is inflicted.

Otherwise a critter with improved grab could hit, pull a victim out of an area affect that granted DR and then inflict its attack's damage.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

You are trying to squeeze in an action BEFORE damage is being done. The improved grab attempt starts after the damage is inflicted.

Ahh, ok. So far that seems to case. All effects seem to be needing to be used before the actual action completes.

Is it fair to assume you at least know what it is that is ABOUT to affect you before you cast the spell? You make a spellcraft roll and know what spell is being cast at you, then you can put protection up against it, you know the enemy is about to attack with an axe so you can put some protection up that will help against that?

 

[Warmage-in-Onley]

Let's be careful in how we interpret the game-term Instantaneous. It's used to describe duration (I like to think of it as in does not last beyond its prescribed use) but if you cut it down to no time at all then the visual effects and flavor of most spells disappear altogether. Then you're left with "you've taken fire damage, but didn't see any fire or source of attack" which just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Some Webster's definitions: done, occurring, or acting without any perceptible duration of time; done without any delay being purposely introduced; ocurring or present at a particular instant. In my game, magic is wondrous and spells have visible effects beyond the damage they do. Many instantaneous spells have Reflex saves which seem to indicate that split-second reaction. What's wrong with a little immediate action time being allowed here (and almost all of them seek to protect you from something, usually from granting you a bonus to saves, temp hp, or some type of resistance). The nerf arguments eliminate the utility of pretty much all immediate action spells - and maybe the designers don't understand their own products and designs - but I gotta believe that immediate action spells are there to be used as something is happening.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think its perfectly reasonable to interpriet "instantaneous" as a duration in which no one can act during. Would you allow a wizard to cast a pointblank fireball then a quickened protection from energy before taking damage?

EDIT: Spellcasting, on the other hand, takes some time to accomplish. It would be possible to cast a spell between the wizard starting casting the spell and finishing casting the spell. Just not between finishing casting the spell and the spell's effect occuring.

 

[Nail]

So, is the arguement so far that "Immediate Actions cannot interupt other actions?"

Given that an Immediate Action is like a Free Action, and Free Actions can take place during other actions.......I'm not sure how you arrive at the above statement in yellow.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think the statement is that you can't interrupt an action that has already taken place. You can't wait to see who is targetted by a scorching ray for example before casting energy aegis on him, becuase at that point it is too late.

Feather fall can be cast when you know you're falling, but not after you've hit the ground. So if you see the ogre swinging his axe at an ally, you can cast delay death, but as soon as that axe hits, its too late.

 

[Nail]

I think the statement is that you can't interrupt an action that has already taken place.

Nonsense.

#1) How do you know "what has already taken place?" => By the DM telling you.

#2) How does the DM "tell you"? By describing what happens.

#3) Can you interupt your DM before he's finished describing what happens? => Absolutely.


The issue really becomes: How rude do you want your players to be?