Cunning Escape: Thief level 5 ability

[Colmarr]

Cunning Escape is an immediate reaction power triggered when "An enemy attacks you".

Its effect is "You gain a +4 bonus to all defences against the triggering enemy's attack. [Plus other stuff]".

Am I right in assuming that for all intents and purposes I should treat this portion of the power as an interrupt rather than a reaction?

 

[radja]

almost, with one crucial difference: the reaction takes place after the announcement X attacks you, an interupt would take place after announcing the result of the attack: X hits AC 21.

in short, as a reaction:
DM: The tarrasque attacks you.
Rogue: Oh no!! I escape cunningly!
DM: Ok, the tarrasque hits AC 52
Rogue: Ouch! I did not escape cunningly.

as an interrupt:
DM: The tarrasque attacks you!
Rogue: this may sting a bit...
DM: The tarrasque hits AC 25
Rogue: Ha! I escape cunningly, bringing my AC to 27! Missed me, you big oaf!

 

[Ferghis]

radja is correct with respect to RAW. However, I find that making players waste resources is a bit of a dick thing to do, so I would advise the player of the attack roll's result before making them decide whether to use the power or not.

 

[the Jester]

radja is correct with respect to RAW. However, I find that making players waste resources is a bit of a dick thing to do, so I would advise the player of the attack roll's result before making them decide whether to use the power or not.

Oh come on now. Playing by the rules is a "dick thing to do"?? This is definitely a playstyle choice, not a "dick thing to do". I could argue that robbing the players of challenge is a "dick thing to do" just as easily as you're arguing that following the rules of the game is a dick thing to do; that you're cheating for them and taking away the sense that they really earned their victory.

Heck, if it's so terrible to use the power as written, if it's so terrible that it isn't a guaranteed success, it sure is a shame that a 5th level rogue has no other options available... oh wait, they have PLENTY.

If a player doesn't feel it's worth the chance of wasting an ability once in a while, he or she should choose an ability without that drawback. But again, playstyle preference.

 

[Ferghis]

I wouldn't stand up and leave a table that plays with theJester's style (which happens to be RAW). I just think it's more fun to use a power and actually have an impact on gameplay, instead of simply wasting a power almost every time its used.

Oh come on now. Playing by the rules is a "dick thing to do"?? This is definitely a playstyle choice, not a "dick thing to do". I could argue that robbing the players of challenge is a "dick thing to do" just as easily as you're arguing that following the rules of the game is a dick thing to do; that you're cheating for them and taking away the sense that they really earned their victory.

Well, there were many rules that, if applied as written, were terrible rules. That's the main reason why they were changed in the erratas and updates. So, yes, following bad rules can be a bit of a dick thing to do. If you want an example of current bad rules, implementing the revised skill check DCs makes a higher level character less likely to succeed at a moderate or difficult skill check than an otherwise-identical lower level character. How would you describe a DM applying these rules in a hardass and inflexible manner?

Heck, if it's so terrible to use the power as written, if it's so terrible that it isn't a guaranteed success, it sure is a shame that a 5th level rogue has no other options available... oh wait, they have PLENTY.

Actually... (raises nerdy know-it-all finger), they don't. That's the only power a Thief gets at level 5. The fact that the essentials rogues have no other choices for a power at that level would make the "success" of attaining level 5 very unattractive for me, as a player.

If a player doesn't feel it's worth the chance of wasting an ability once in a while, he or she should choose an ability without that drawback. But again, playstyle preference.

Given the spread of a d20 attack roll, it's actually quite rare for a power that boosts a defense by 4 to actually have any impact on the attack if one doesn't know the attack roll's result. At +4 to defenses, it would have no impact 80% of the time. So, without the information necessary to determine whether it will have an impact, the power becomes very rarely useful indeed.

 

[Redbadge]

Also, they made a mistake with this power in the first place. The 4/27/2011 errata changed the action type to immediate interrupt.

Immediate reactions can only occur after the entire triggering action has been resolved (in the case of "an enemy attacks you", this includes resolving all damage as specified in the Rules Compendium). In other words, the original power would actually look like this:

As a reaction:
DM: The tarrasque attacks you.
Rogue: Oh no!! I escape cunningly!
DM: (Finishes resolving the attack before applying the immediate reaction). Ok, the tarrasque hits AC 25 and deals 38 damage.
Rogue: (Applies Cunning Escape) Ok, after recording my damage, my AC becomes 27. At least I still get to shift 3 at the end of the turn.

 

[the Jester]

Actually... (raises nerdy know-it-all finger), they don't. That's the only power a Thief gets at level 5.

Oh, whoops! My bad- I didn't realize it was a thief feature and just assumed it was a rogue utility power.

Given the spread of a d20 attack roll, it's actually quite rare for a power that boosts a defense by 4 to actually have any impact on the attack if one doesn't know the attack roll's result.

Hmm, my experience (with shield) is that it is effective about half the time. But that's hardly a statistical sample.

 

[Ferghis]

Oh, whoops! My bad- I didn't realize it was a thief feature and just assumed it was a rogue utility power.

No worries: apparently none of us except Redbadge noticed that it has been updated to an interrupt.

 

[Gorgoroth]

...

On the one hand, with "Shield being an interrupt" increasing your AC by 4, meaning you don't know whether it was needed before the DM actually hits (or is the trigger "it hits", rather than "you are attacked"?), I can see how it's a gamble whether to use it. Which is sort of semi-tactical and kind of fun, and keeps the power down.

But with clever use of "reaction"'s trigger in 5e, you could react to getting swung at, so it would amount to an interrupt with the trigger "an enemy attacks you", so same as Shield. In a sense it's realistic this way because before an enemy actually lands his blow, you don't know whether your ring of protection is enough or even if Shield would help. So it kinda works. If removing interrupts from the game entirely speeds up combat, it makes it slightly more difficult for players but the risk is manageable.

Say, if AoOs are special types of "reactions", so the trigger would be "when the enemy enters your square?" Because logically, if you react to an enemy leaving a threatened square, and you don't have reach, how can you hit him? Does not compute. The reaction trigger would have to be "the enemy starts to run away"...which while mechanically in the end, identical...stretches believability.

I guess if AoOs are out in Core, then this is moot. I'd be fine with that. But you should have a way to specify a specific reaction to occur...like an enemy tries to rush past me, grab him, trip him, hit him with my sword, whatever. But that would open up basically all types of abuse too. Essentially everyone would have two attacks per round, on different turns.