Declaring Immediate Interrupts

[Max1mus]

Ok, so I asked CS the following:

Many interrupting powers trigger on hits or misses. On the other hand, some powers such as the 2nd level fighter power "No Opening" (p. 78) and the 3rd level ranger power "Disruptive Strike" (p. 106) are immediate interrupts which trigger off an attack.

When should these powers be declared - before or after the attack roll? Specifically, can the player or DM declare these after knowing the attack roll so that the power can only be used when it matters, or do they need to use the power before the attack roll is made?
​

I tried to avoid a leading question. In any case, Jason W's response was:

Immediate interrupts can be taken before or after the attack roll is made. The interrupt actually occurs prior to the attack itself, but the player is able to determine if the attack hit or missed prior to determining if they wish to use the interrupt. They can even find out how much the attack hit by prior to the decision as well.
​

Which is what I expected. Note that several powers are almost useless if you don't play it this way, and the staff of defense even explicitly goes further, saying it's a immediate interrupt triggering on an attack - but you can choose to use if even after the damage roll is known. In terms of RAW, no further precision is given than merely the fact that an "attack" can be interrupted (and if so, the interrupt is resolved before the attack) - but, notably, there's no stated requirement to interrupt an attack before any particular phase. IIRC there have been designer clarifications on this intent - certainly there have been for the subtly differently phrased Shield power.

In any case, RAW isn't explicitly precise and simply grants an ability without defining limits; CS (and likely RAI - certainly for most powers) suggest that it is possible to interrupt after the attack roll(s).

Thanks for doing the CS research. I feel kinda bad for not just doing it myself but I appreciated all the feedback from everyone. It was cool to hear everyones different play style. I think what we could all take from this is rule #1: If you don't like how it's "supposed" to be played, change it.

When you mention that RAW isn't explicitly precise, and still doesn't compromise itself, I agree. In my OP I could just have argued, "All it said was an enemy attacks me or my ally. And it did just that." There is no rule saying when I (player) have to say it. And the bottom line is I think it's funner that way if I were the PC or the DM.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Indeed, the DM should know the PC's standard AC. But with power bonuses, Second Wind, Total Defense, and feats (e.g., Shield the Fallen, Sideways Defense), AC will often deviate from that standard value. As such, I almost feel like the DM should let the player track AC and inquire at the time of the attack, every time. Otherwise, the DM will forget about the adjustments and the feats will become useless in actual play.

This is my biggest problem with 4e -- so many things to track, it's too much for mortal brains.

If you had read more than one sentence, you would have seen that i suggested just asking for the AC.

There are usually not that much AC changers on a normal character. And when you use second wind or a power which changes your AC you tell your DM that you have used them... and that your AC increases... or at least i hope so.

And +AC in certain circumstances are thing i never bother to track as DM... its the players responsibility to surprise the DM with +4 vs opportunity attacks or something... In which case you politely ask as player... "Did you take artful dodger into account?"

 

[Prestidigitalis]

If you had read more than one sentence, you would have seen that i suggested just asking for the AC.

Sorry. My eyes probably skipped over that bit -- old eyes get tired and sometimes misbehave. Or it may have been a brain cramp -- old eyes, old brain, it's all the same.

 

[SteveC]

I think the interpretation really comes down to do you want your players to take these powers or not. I can see both sides to the argument (although it looks like CS has a definite answer) but if the power has to be announced before you know if it will actually do anything, who is going to take it?

By doing that, you're essentially removing the powers from the game, which is fine, but a GM should realize that's what they're doing.

--Steve

 

[scarik]

In my games the players get to know the results of each attack before they interrupt it. I say 'The Zombie gets 22 vs your AC'. I feel not giving this kind of information is like not mentioning there are torches on the walls and then expecting players to grab a torch to resolve a plot point.