Immediate actions...

[IceTea]

I don't see anything there that would allow an immediate action to "undo" what has already occurred. If the attack roll has been made, and a hit has been announced, it's too late.

If, on the other hand, the action ("I attack the cleric,") has been announced, but the result has not yet been determined, I think the immediate-actor should be able to "interrupt" with his immediate action. But you pay your nickel and you take your chances; the attack might have missed anyway.

Exactly what I meant, this attack has already occured and thus activation of the ability is after the hit. I will go for this explenation and follow these directions next time it occurs, it is what i originally thought but all my 4 players argued against.

And i must agree with other posts, I shouldnt throw dice openly, it's a bad habit and will not be done again. I will also only say miss or hit, not which AC I hit, or miss on.

I will be the strict DM, have been too lax for a while now but thats about to change, will give my players a warning before next session though...

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

For the record, I don't agree that feather fall should be an immediate action spell.

I think feather fall was just fine as written in the PHB: a free action that you could explicitly take out of turn. The problem with feather fall as an immediate action (IMO) is that you can't cast it when flat-footed. Thus, if you're walking along the edge of a cliff and it crumbles, causing you to fall, you can cast feather fall, because you're not flat-footed (because there is no combat). But if you're walking along the same cliff and an invisible enemy pushes you over the cliff, you can't cast feather fall because you're in combat and flat-footed. I think that's dumb.

Yeah, that's dumb. I'd say, "at least uncanny dodge prevents you from being flatfooted, so there's that." But then just recently I was informed i had been using a houserule this whole time, because uncanny dodge only prevents the AC loss from flat footed, not the condition itself *angry face*

Stupid RAW...

The write-up of immediate actions is also dumb. An immediate should ALWAYS burn next round's swift action, not have some funky extra clause for using it during your own action. Then you get pleasant questions like, "What if it's my turn and I already used my swift action?" Depending on how you reply, you then get "So...I can't use the immediate RIGHT NOW, but...if I wait for the instant my turn in the round is offically over, I can, even though it's still the same round?" or "Oh, you'll allow me to take it? So basically all the RAW is good for is to force you to use your swift BEFORE your immediate?"

I've always treated immediate actions as taking away next round's swift action, no matter when it's used, and it's yet to prove broken. In fact, partially nerfing the ever-popular Nerveskitter with that ruling has turned into a rather happy unintended consequence. (IME, most people would rather have their swift on the first full round of combat, rather than the surprise round if there is one)

EDIT: There are TONS of items and abilities that let you apply them after a confirmed attack, but before damage is rolled. Wall of Blades maneuver (ToB), Gauntlets of Giantfelling (MIC), Factotum's Cunning Insight (Dungeonscape)... Many more...

I'd let the player use the energy resistance after knowing he was hit but NOT after learning the damage result. Of course, you may want to give him a second or ask him if he wants to use his devotion feat in the future, in case of an issue where he would have considered using it if given the chance. Can be as simple as rolling the dice and just delaying telling him the result, if you do die rolls "behind the screen."

 

[irdeggman]

For the record, I don't agree that feather fall should be an immediate action spell.

I think feather fall was just fine as written in the PHB: a free action that you could explicitly take out of turn. The problem with feather fall as an immediate action (IMO) is that you can't cast it when flat-footed. Thus, if you're walking along the edge of a cliff and it crumbles, causing you to fall, you can cast feather fall, because you're not flat-footed (because there is no combat). But if you're walking along the same cliff and an invisible enemy pushes you over the cliff, you can't cast feather fall because you're in combat and flat-footed. I think that's dumb.

In other posts I stated how I handle this situation and why.

Basically all of your character's movement is resolved on his trun in the initiative order (it is a quirk in the D&D rules that differ from reality in that actions are quantum and not really continuous).

But what this means is that if the character is falling due to a trap (he was flat-footed because it wasn't his turn to act) - the trap goes on the "surprise" round and then the character starts to fall on his turn in the initiative order and is no longer flat-footed - this allows use of feather fall to "save him" and works with the rules as written.

Well that is my interpretation and I am sticking with it.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I shouldnt throw dice openly, it's a bad habit and will not be done again. I will also only say miss or hit, not which AC I hit, or miss on.

Do whatever you think works best, of course, but I will say that I roll in the open and I think that's the better practice. For one, it curbs any soft-hearted urge I might have to fudge (or black-hearted urge to cheat). Two, I think PCs should have some ability to judge their opponents' abilities, so letting the players see which rolls hit and which ones miss allows them to guesstimate.

What I don't do is announce what the total result is (exact AC hit, DC met, etc.). If I'm rolling to hit, I roll the d20 in the open for all to see, ask the player what his character's AC is, and announce whether the attack hits or misses. (Obviously, this doesn't work for things like damage rolls, but that doesn't bother me. YMMV.)

 

[DumbPaladin]

...as a DM I have recently begun experiencing the players exploiting the rules as I see them.

You should probably go with that instinct. Unless your players are wholly unreasonable, they will understand when you very politely point out that you feel rules are being abused.

I play a Paladin 6 / Sorcerer 1 / Abjurant Champion 4 who uses Protection Devotion, to the party's benefit, on a frequent basis. I always take my immediate action in response to the DM saying, "The monster attacks Player X...", provided Player X is within 30' of me. (I have the highest AC in the party, so I no longer activate it when monsters attack me.)

The one luck feat -- Advantageous Avoidance -- that allows you to force an opponent to reroll an attack roll goes out of its way to say: "Unlike other luck feats, you can use this feat after seeing the success of the roll to be affected." I've always felt this meant this particular feat was rather unusual, and that's why they were pointing this out.

To me, the intention is rather clear, even if the wording isn't: players aren't supposed to be able to interrupt the DM after he's made a roll in order to try and futz their way out of a bad result, waiting ONLY until such a situation to utilize their special abilities.

If you don't want to stop rolling your dice in the open, how about simply declaring that monster Z is going to attack player X, and then waiting to see if anyone wishes to take an immediate action, before you roll?

 

[IceTea]

The one luck feat -- Advantageous Avoidance -- that allows you to force an opponent to reroll an attack roll goes out of its way to say: "Unlike other luck feats, you can use this feat after seeing the success of the roll to be affected." I've always felt this meant this particular feat was rather unusual, and that's why they were pointing this out.

To me, the intention is rather clear, even if the wording isn't: players aren't supposed to be able to interrupt the DM after he's made a roll in order to try and futz their way out of a bad result, waiting ONLY until such a situation to utilize their special abilities.

The wording on Advantageous Avoidance will go a long way of making my point. To your second point I must agree, there are very few opportunities where interrupting game like my example should be allowed, and fortunately you brought forth the example I need.

 

[HoboGod]

Do whatever you think works best, of course, but I will say that I roll in the open and I think that's the better practice. For one, it curbs any soft-hearted urge I might have to fudge (or black-hearted urge to cheat). Two, I think PCs should have some ability to judge their opponents' abilities, so letting the players see which rolls hit and which ones miss allows them to guesstimate.

The ability to fudge and cheat makes DMing fun! Sometimes I roll with a d10 and decide when it's best to add 10 or leave it as is. Dice shouldn't kill players, I should kill players. They can judge their ability as players by what I have to throw at them.

 

[milo]

At the cost of a feat to negate a hit 1 time a day unless you are a cleric or paladin with turn attempts to use to power it isn't that bad. Yes it gives everyone within 30' a bonus to AC, but it may not be an opportune to get both benefits at the same time.

Edit: I have never seen this feat in use in any of the games I play in. With the ability to use this as a way to negate a hit once a day I can see it being used.

 

[Runestar]

The ability to fudge and cheat makes DMing fun! Sometimes I roll with a d10 and decide when it's best to add 10 or leave it as is. Dice shouldn't kill players, I should kill players. They can judge their ability as players by what I have to throw at them.

But having to make a snap decision as to whether to fudge or not is not. I would rather that choice be taken out of my hands by making all my rolls in the open, for better or worse.

I mean - if you are going to fudge the result, why even bother rolling in the first place, when you could just decide beforehand how often the foe hits for how much damage etc.

Similarly, my players have no doubts as to whether I fudge my rolls or not. So when that hill giant crits thrice in a row, everyone knows it is really because of the most fickle of women (lady luck) and not because I am a rat bastard DM.

 

[Malachei]

But having to make a snap decision as to whether to fudge or not is not. I would rather that choice be taken out of my hands by making all my rolls in the open, for better or worse.

I mean - if you are going to fudge the result, why even bother rolling in the first place, when you could just decide beforehand how often the foe hits for how much damage etc.

In couldn't agree more. I think it is really important that players trust the neutrality of the DM -- all the suspense of the game is based upon this trust. In my campaign, the more important a roll is, the more likely that I'm rolling it open. Fudging dice, IMO, can be a plague, that slowly spreads and can lead to railroading campaigns. I have, on occasion, players awarded bonus modifiers or monsters negative modifiers, to reflect the situation of an "unfair" win or loss -- however, before the die is rolled. If the challenges for the players are about right, there is no problem in letting the dice roll, and it is my role as the DM to decide how lethal my game should be beforehand, during preparation for the session, when I design the encounters, by selecting and defining the challenges (and their difficulty).