Declaring Immediate Interrupts

[Max1mus]

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?

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think the RAW is unclear here.

I DM a ranger with Disruptive strike and allow the player to know if his attack will have an effect or not (as in your example). This makes it a really strong power, but not unbalancing so. It's only once per encounter. Besides, it makes it much more fun for the players.

The same goes for the Shield wizard utility power...

Checking how they are written, it seems that Shield's trigger is "on hit", in other words after you know when you are hit. Disruptive Strike's trigger is "on attack", which probably is before you know if it's a hit or miss.

One reason not to go by this reading is that:
a) it's less fun for the player
b) the DM has to declare every attack and pause to let you interrupt, which would slow the game down.

 

[Atzilla]

I think RAW is clear:

Trigger: "You or an ally is attacked by an enemy", means interrupt before the attack roll
Trigger: "You or an ally is hit by an enemy", means interrupt before you take damage

PHB p.268:
Interrupt: An immediate interrupt lets you jump
in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting
before the trigger resolves.

Since it's an out-of-turn attack it's quite powerful already, our ranger uses it as written and is very happy with it.

 

[Max1mus]

I still don't think it's clear.

Interrupt: An immediate interrupt lets you jump
in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting
before the trigger resolves.

Your character is still acting before the trigger resolves. That doesn't mean that the player has to.

 

[Max1mus]

Maybe the problem is thinking that the DM and the players are playing against each other instead of with each other. The book isn't going to go over rules about declaring these things when the point of the game is for everyone to have fun. I guess it's up to the DM but it depends on what kind of DM you have. The fun one or... the other one. If everyone is having fun, problem solved.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Fun is important and I KNOW the ranger playing is having a blast when he disrupting shots my ZOMBIE SMASH! On the other hand, I love it when he rolls 2, re-rolls gets a 3 and I ZOMBIE SMASH! the chracter for 4d8+7 damage for 37 damage

Did I mention I like the flavour of the ZOMBIE SMASH!

 

[ricardo440]

We played it that you interuppted before the attack roll.

It wasn't hard. Usually you know what you are going to do it on, something you have hunted and something big that is going to squish someone in trouble. So you just say to the GM "wait when you get to the ZOMBIE'S Turn"

I think it is up to the ranger to be quick off the mark and say when he wants to use it.
GMs usually say something like "the Zombie tries to smash Fred". Plenty of time for a ranger to say he wants to shoot.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Whatever the interpretation, it's much harder to use Immediate Interrupts (and to some extent, Immediate Reactions) when your DM rushes through turns, especially if your DM *really hates* to be interrupted when he is speaking...

 

[Eldorian]

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?

The DM gave the player exactly the amount of time it takes you to roll the dice, and he's complaining that the immediate action was declared after the dice roll?

Besides, an immediate action can be declared after the action your reacting to. It's the only thing fair to the player, otherwise you run roughshod over his ability to act.

 

[lukelightning]

Did I mention I like the flavour of the ZOMBIE SMASH!

To the tune of Monster Mash:

I was working in the graveyard late one night
When my eyes beheld an eerie sight
For my zombie from his grave began to rise
And suddenly, to my surprise

He did the smash
He did the zombie mash
The zombie smash
It was a graveyard bash
He did the smash
It caught on in a flash
He did the smash
He did the zombie smash