Adjudicating Immediate actions

[irdeggman]

I have to then assume this same arguement applies when confirming a critical hit also.

That is to say that the confirmation roll can be interupted via an immediate action.

 

[MarkB]

I've found a couple of interesting data points regarding the question of whether an immediate action can 'interrupt' an attack action to come between the hit and the damage.

First, the mystic aegis spell is used as an immediate action when you are targeted by a spell and gives you Spell Resistance against that spell - so clearly, you can use an immediate action after you know where a spell is targeted, but before its effects are resolved.

Second, the Knight's Improved Shield Ally special ability is an immediate action that allows him to take the full force of a blow aimed at an adjacent ally. It must be used after the attacker determines that an attack has succeeded, but before he rolls damage. That's a pretty specific example of an immediate action which not only can, but must interrupt an attack action.

 

[KarinsDad]

I've found a couple of interesting data points regarding the question of whether an immediate action can 'interrupt' an attack action to come between the hit and the damage.

First, the mystic aegis spell is used as an immediate action when you are targeted by a spell and gives you Spell Resistance against that spell - so clearly, you can use an immediate action after you know where a spell is targeted, but before its effects are resolved.

Second, the Knight's Improved Shield Ally special ability is an immediate action that allows him to take the full force of a blow aimed at an adjacent ally. It must be used after the attacker determines that an attack has succeeded, but before he rolls damage. That's a pretty specific example of an immediate action which not only can, but must interrupt an attack action.

Yes, but just because a specific immediate action can interrupt the mechanics of the attack resolution does not mean that all immediate actions can interrupt the mechanics of the attack resolution.

Note also that the examples you listed do not allow these specific immediate actions to interrupt at other times. That implies that they are exceptions to the general rule.


This is no different than spells. The Fly spell allows a character to land safely if dispelled, but this does not mean the Levitate spell does the same thing.


Characters can interrupt the actions of other characters. They cannot interrupt dice rolling because it is not something the opposing character does. It is something the opposing player (or DM) does. It is an out of character activity, hence, cannot be interrupted in character (unless specifically noted).

Regdar: "Hark, I hear dice rolling!"
Jozan: *Quickly casts Delay Death on Regdar*

Only when the rules explicitly state (such as for Action Points or the examples you listed) that this can be done, is it allowed.

 

[Warmage-in-Onley]

Then it would behoove the authors to state when certain "metagamey" immediate action spells can be used in the descriptive text for those spells. IIRC, this may help explain how Nerveskitter actually functions (or is allowed to function at all).

 

[KarinsDad]

Then it would behoove the authors to state when certain "metagamey" immediate action spells can be used in the descriptive text for those spells. IIRC, this may help explain how Nerveskitter actually functions (or is allowed to function at all).

Nerveskitter already explicitly states when it is done via game mechanics: at the point initiatives are rolled.

Granted, you cannot cast an immediate action while flat-footed, but Nerveskitter is an implied exception to that rule since you often (except when you surprise enemies) roll for initiative while flat-footed. It seems obvious that with two conflicting rules, the one that allows the immediate action spell to be used (and useful) trumps the general rule that disallows immediate actions while flat-footed.

Are you rolling initiative? Yes. Then, Nerveskitter can be cast.

Otherwise, Nerveskitter would be a fairly worthless spell and could only be used when you surprise your opponents (obviously, not the only intent of the spell).

 

[Particle_Man]

After reading this discussion I am going to decide that, yes indeed, all characters that use immeadiate actions have precognitive flashes (or alternatively, the power to reverse time ever so slightly) so that they know when to use them and when not to. Even after damage is rolled from an attack.

Because it is easier that way.

 

[MarkB]

Yes, but just because a specific immediate action can interrupt the mechanics of the attack resolution does not mean that all immediate actions can interrupt the mechanics of the attack resolution.

Note also that the examples you listed do not allow these specific immediate actions to interrupt at other times. That implies that they are exceptions to the general rule.

Sure, but are they exceptions in that they expand beyond what Immediate actions can do, or are they exceptions in that they limit what these specific Immediate actions can do? The text could be read either way.

The rules really don't tell us whether an Immediate action can interrupt another action - they just say that they can be performed at any time. Whilst it's possible to argue that no action other than a Readied action can interrupt another action, it's also easy enough to argue that an action which takes almost no time and can be taken at any time is indeed capable of interrupting other actions. The fact that many Immediate actions are mechanically designed to do just that supports such an argument.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure, but are they exceptions in that they expand beyond what Immediate actions can do, or are they exceptions in that they limit what these specific Immediate actions can do? The text could be read either way.

True. Although I tend to side on "specifics" over "general". In this case, we have a specific rule, we do not have a general rule. Hence, the specific rule must happen. The general rule does not exist, but it does not make sense to give it the same power and utility of the specific rule, otheriwse, there would be no need for the specific rule. Or alternatively, the specific rule (at least once in the rules) should read "Like all other immediate actions, ..." or some such.

The rules really don't tell us whether an Immediate action can interrupt another action - they just say that they can be performed at any time. Whilst it's possible to argue that no action other than a Readied action can interrupt another action, it's also easy enough to argue that an action which takes almost no time and can be taken at any time is indeed capable of interrupting other actions. The fact that many Immediate actions are mechanically designed to do just that supports such an argument.

I think that several game mechanics, immediate action included, can interrupt actions. Actions are "in character / in game" activities. The phrase "at any time" refers to when the character can interrupt activities, not when the player can since the character must be aware of the activity that s/he is interrupting in order to do so.

What I do not think a character can do unless explicitly indicated is interrupt game resolution (i.e. rolling the dice and determining effect). Dice rolling is a "player / out of character" activity. The characters do not know that dice are being rolled. They should not be able interrupt between a normal to hit roll and a critical hit roll. Declaring an immediate action to interrupt is a character action, so you can only interrupt activities that the character is aware of (unless noted otherwise by the text of the Immediate Action).

 

[Particle_Man]

Out of curiousity, if you don't allow immediate actions to occur "between" the to hit and damage rolls because that doesn't make sense in character, how do you make sense, in character, of the high level knight (phbii) 1/rd ability to take all the damage from one attack meant for an ally, which itself can be decided (will I do it for this attack?) after the attack roll (george got hit!), but before the damage roll (or did he?). Whether the latter ability is an immediate action or not, whether it is an exception or not, how would you describe it happening?

And would it follow that the same "in character" description could theoretically apply to immediate actions?

 

[KarinsDad]

Out of curiousity, if you don't allow immediate actions to occur "between" the to hit and damage rolls because that doesn't make sense in character, how do you make sense, in character, of the high level knight (phbii) 1/rd ability to take all the damage from one attack meant for an ally, which itself can be decided (will I do it for this attack?) after the attack roll (george got hit!), but before the damage roll (or did he?). Whether the latter ability is an immediate action or not, whether it is an exception or not, how would you describe it happening?

I wouldn't.

WotC is about making money. So, any "cool" idea they can come up with is fair game, regardless of how balanced it is and regardless of whether the idea makes sense from a character perspective.

With regard to Action Points, that is an idea designed to prevent character death. That is hard to do game mechanics-wise without interrupting game mechanics.

With regard to the Knight ability you mention, you'll note that it is in PHBII. The further you get from core rules, the more nonsensical yet cool (i.e. bigger, better, badder at any cost, even if it forces the players to make metagaming decisions) ideas WotC throws into the game.

DM: "Your friend gets hit."
Player: "I use my ability and take the damage instead."
DM: "How?"
Player: "Err, don't worry about it. Pretend the enemy attacked me instead."
DM: "Duh, ok."

And would it follow that the same "in character" description could theoretically apply to immediate actions?

No, since I would not give such a description.

WotC might change Immediate Actions so that you can interrupt game mechanics with them some day, but at the moment, the only interruptions to game mechanics listed in the game are for specific special abilities.

Until they change it, I will continue to debate against metagaming rules that are not listed in the game.