Adjudicating Immediate actions

[KarinsDad]

Nonsense.

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?

From a mechanics point of view (i.e. allowing the players to get in immediate actions that they should be allowed to do), your point here is really non-sequitor to the discussion.

The DM should announce intent before he rolls the dice and he should only announce information that the players should have.

If he is going to be a jerk and not do this or do this in a manner that he relays information to the players that they should not yet have, that's his problem (and a problem for his players).


The DM should announce: "The NPC Wizard is casting a spell".

He could also announce: "Give me a Spot check. 23? You notice he is looking right at you."

He could also announce: "Give me a Spellcraft check. 12? 15? 26? It is a Fireball spell, but only Frodo knows this because he is the only one who made the roll."

All of these give the players a chance to react by casting an Immediate spell.


The DM should not pick up his dice, roll them and announce: "The NPC Wizard is casting a Fireball spell at Lego, Frodo, and Dimwhit and hits them for 40 points of damage.".

This could create problems when the player announces he wants to cast an immediate spell: a) because the player has more info than he should, and b) the DM is rushing combat to the point that reasonable actions by the players seem like metagaming.

If he does announce like this, then it is not rude to tell the DM that you have an Immediate spell that could affect the situation and that you would appreciate it if he would not just blurt info out like this and instead, give the players a chance to make decisions while the Wizard casts.

 

[irdeggman]

Determining damage is not an action, it is an effect.

There is no place in any of the combat rules that talks about determining damage being a separate action. There is however a variant that allows damage rolls to be made at the same time as attack rolls to speed up play.

See pg 45 of Eberon Campaign Setting to see how to ejudicate use of Action POints.

Basically you can use them to modify a roll (not damage) - attack, skill, ability check, casterlevel check or saving throw "before" the result of the roll is announced by the DM.

So once the attack roll is made it is too late to use an imediate action to counter it - based on the logic trail here.

 

[satori01]

In many ways Immediete Actions become Mulligans. Oh you hit me for 50 points of fire damage, here is this Instant that lets me get out of it. It is in some ways the magical advancement of the Evasion or Improved Evasion abillity. A lot of DM's hate rogues because of the whole Evasion abillity where they anounce damage from a trap or a dragons breath, and receive a head shake and smile from the rogue or monk player.

While Karin's Dad is right in some ways, to have vague rolls before a NPC's action; to see if the players "know or spot something", it would slow the game down to a crawl.

I agree sometimes it is important, and the most fair to do would be what you propose, but at high level, every action would require a series of those rolls.

 

[KarinsDad]

While Karin's Dad is right in some ways, to have vague rolls before a NPC's action; to see if the players "know or spot something", it would slow the game down to a crawl.

I agree sometimes it is important, and the most fair to do would be what you propose, but at high level, every action would require a series of those rolls.

In our game, virtually every spell cast by an NPC has one or two rolls per (for the most part spell casting) PC:

1) A Spot or Listen roll by any character (who wants to do so) beyond 30 feet of the NPC caster in order to see or hear enough of the casting to make a Spellcraft roll.

2) A Spellcraft roll by any character (again, who wants and can do so) within 30 feet or who made the Spot or Listen roll.

These 10 seconds or so of rolling per NPC spell cast has not significantly slowed down the game. Plus, our players WANT to know what the NPCs are casting, hence, they look forward to making these rolls. And, most NPCs do not cast spells anyway, so this is not the norm.

The game is for the players to enjoy. My players enjoy knowing what is happening in combat and do not consider it a problem to roll to find out. Not one player has said a single negative word about this.

Combat does not need to be rushed to the point that a DM does not allow a player to perform an Immediate Action. Even saying "The Ogre moves up to the Dwarf and swings his massive club, threatening to crush him" and pausing for just an instant is not a big deal.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There is no place in any of the combat rules that talks about determining damage being a separate action. There is however a variant that allows damage rolls to be made at the same time as attack rolls to speed up play.

See pg 45 of Eberon Campaign Setting to see how to ejudicate use of Action POints.

Basically you can use them to modify a roll (not damage) - attack, skill, ability check, casterlevel check or saving throw "before" the result of the roll is announced by the DM.

Of course, if you roll attack and damage at the same time, it cause a problem with Action Points.

Let's say I roll a 15 on my attack roll. I estimate the opponent's AC is probably somewhere between 16 and 18... I'll likely miss, but if I spend an AP, I'll likely hit.

I need to decide whether I want to spend an Action Point before the DM announces the result.

Let's say I roll attack and damage at the same time. And let's say my damage roll is a 1 on a d8. Do I want to spend an AP just to inflict minimum damage? Not really.

Now let's say the damage roll is an 8. Do I want to spend the AP to inflict maximum damage? Absolutely!

Should the decision on whether or not to spend an Action Point be influenced by the knowledge of a random outcome that is dependent on the Action Point?

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

Of course, if you roll attack and damage at the same time, it cause a problem with Action Points.

Let's say I roll a 15 on my attack roll. I estimate the opponent's AC is probably somewhere between 16 and 18... I'll likely miss, but if I spend an AP, I'll likely hit.

I need to decide whether I want to spend an Action Point before the DM announces the result.

Let's say I roll attack and damage at the same time. And let's say my damage roll is a 1 on a d8. Do I want to spend an AP just to inflict minimum damage? Not really.

Now let's say the damage roll is an 8. Do I want to spend the AP to inflict maximum damage? Absolutely!

Should the decision on whether or not to spend an Action Point be influenced by the knowledge of a random outcome that is dependent on the Action Point?

-Hyp.

Interesting, but not really germaine to the discussion of when can you perfrom an immediate action.

Another issue with using APs is that in a long encounter the player's eventually learn what AC/(or defense) is of their opponents. Hence they "know" when an AP is appropriate.

In our games we have roughly half and half of players who roll attack and damage at the same time. Yes, those that do will have the "potential" outcome result affect whether or not they use their APs - but IMO it is just a quirk in the system. Overall it is still a very good system.

The point was that damage rolls are not separate action and are the subsequence of a "successful" attack roll (which is the action). Sort of like rolling to confirm a critical hit. It is not a "separate" action it is an effect of the successful attack action.

 

[irdeggman]

Overall I think the entire issue depends on the gaming group.

After a couple of times of not slowing down to give the PCs a chance to roll checks to see what the NPC is doing and getting the red flag call from the players a DM will get the point that he should take a pause to allow such checks (specifically the Spellcraft checks to see what the NPC is casting).

If it never comes up then it doesn't have to be used.

 

[boolean]

Of course, if you roll attack and damage at the same time, it cause a problem with Action Points.

Let's say I roll a 15 on my attack roll. I estimate the opponent's AC is probably somewhere between 16 and 18... I'll likely miss, but if I spend an AP, I'll likely hit.

I need to decide whether I want to spend an Action Point before the DM announces the result.

Let's say I roll attack and damage at the same time. And let's say my damage roll is a 1 on a d8. Do I want to spend an AP just to inflict minimum damage? Not really.

Now let's say the damage roll is an 8. Do I want to spend the AP to inflict maximum damage? Absolutely!

Should the decision on whether or not to spend an Action Point be influenced by the knowledge of a random outcome that is dependent on the Action Point?

-Hyp.

Which is why there's a sidebar on p. 45 of the Eberron Campaign Setting that basically says: "When you're using action points, players shouldn't roll attacks and damage at the same time."

It also says that players should decide whether or not to use an action point before miss chances such as concealment are determined.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The point was that damage rolls are not separate action and are the subsequence of a "successful" attack roll (which is the action). Sort of like rolling to confirm a critical hit. It is not a "separate" action it is an effect of the successful attack action.

My point is, that it doesn't matter if they are seperate actions or not. Free actions, and therefore immediate actions can be performed WHILE performing other actions. So, WHILE attacking you (or anyone else) can choose to use an immediate action.

There are not restrictions listed anywhere about WHEN during an action a free action can be performed. For instance, when you draw a weapon while you are moving, does it happen at the beginning of your move, the middle of your move or the end of your move? Can the person choose if it mattered for some reason?

The same thing applies to immediate actions. If you can use an immediate action WHILE someone is attacking, does it happen before damage is rolled, before the attack is rolled, or before the effects are applied? And can the person casting the spell choose if it helps them?

 

[Nail]

My concern is with giving the players a sufficient opportunity to use their immediate actions at the appropriate time, without slowing the game down or allowing them to second-guess their actions.

Mine too.

This is *exactly* the issue of concern with this rule.