Immediate actions...

[Divide]

One very good way of explaining this to a player is by asking him to justify his actions with real world examples. Obviously, you're dealing with the physics of magic so this rule can really only carry so far, but if you are dealing with a fairly intelligent, fairly rational person, you can describe this situation as such:

You are in a gunfight, and someone shoots you. It penetrates your body armor and hits you in the chest, doing damage to you. You apply a piece of even stronger bulletproof duct tape to cover up the hole after you've already been shot. how would you ever in a million years also assume that you would magically be healed of the damage as well?

If your player can give you good enough reasoning for why this feat or spell would work that way, I'd say think about it, and then make a judges ruling. But in this circumstance, let your player know he is wrong. very very wrong.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

One very good way of explaining this to a player is by asking him to justify his actions with real world examples. Obviously, you're dealing with the physics of magic so this rule can really only carry so far, but if you are dealing with a fairly intelligent, fairly rational person, you can describe this situation as such:

You are in a gunfight, and someone shoots you. It penetrates your body armor and hits you in the chest, doing damage to you. You apply a piece of even stronger bulletproof duct tape to cover up the hole after you've already been shot. how would you ever in a million years also assume that you would magically be healed of the damage as well?

If your player can give you good enough reasoning for why this feat or spell would work that way, I'd say think about it, and then make a judges ruling. But in this circumstance, let your player know he is wrong. very very wrong.

O_O

I think you're wrong. Very, VERY wrong...

 

[Divide]

O_O

I think you're wrong. Very, VERY wrong...

Maybe I was being unclear (or maybe I'm just missing a joke here), but my answer was basically supporting what you had said earlier. It's just that Immediate actions could buff the AC before damage was rolled, but not after. I would even say that it would have to be before a roll to hit, but that's where I would think that the grey area in the rules comes in.

I think if there's feats that support the idea of the immediate action, and even as most people have put it, are in agreement with each other as to where said immediate action is resolved.

 

[Runestar]

If your player can give you good enough reasoning for why this feat or spell would work that way, I'd say think about it, and then make a judges ruling. But in this circumstance, let your player know he is wrong. very very wrong.

Wrong in what sense? Because he interpreted a rule incorrectly or because or because he wasn't roleplaying to the DM's satisfaction?

How well I can justify an ability working should have no impact on how well it does work.

It is all fine and dandy if I have an imaginative mind and can explain in clear detail how my PC deflects that bullet aimed at him. It simply makes the fight even more dramatic. But if I have no idea of physics, or just plain don't feel like narrating that scene, that shouldn't disadvantage me in any way.

The feat says it works that way, I feel I am entitled to that same benefit regardless of how well or poorly I roleplay that effect, IMO.

 

[Divide]

Wrong in what sense? Because he interpreted a rule incorrectly or because or because he wasn't roleplaying to the DM's satisfaction?

How well I can justify an ability working should have no impact on how well it does work.

And you're absolutely correct. but if there is a grey area inside of the rules, sometimes bringing those same rules to a different subject helps. My point inside of the analogy was that (inside of the given example of Protection Devotion) putting on more bulletproof armor (and this is specifically with protection devotion as found in Complete Champion, no other feat, I was merely replying to OP), no matter how quickly you put it on, isn't going to stop the bullet that you just took.

However, I don't think that my statement had anything to do with roleplaying. It was more concerning the physics of a real world circumstance, and the interpretation of the rules to D&D that deal with it. According to what the OP had said, the feat was as an immediate reaction, and the DM felt that the person playing it was drastically misinterpreting a rule. I was simply stating that by looking at the feat from an outside perspective, or at least as far outside as you can get, one might be able to arrive at a different conclusion.

I hope that provides some clarity to what I was trying to say.

 

[Runestar]

And you're absolutely correct. but if there is a grey area inside of the rules, sometimes bringing those same rules to a different subject helps.

My objections stems from what I perceive as an attempt to bring logic and physics into a discussion where those 2 were never meant to apply in the first place.

As mentioned earlier, the zephyr dance maneuver describes you as spinning gracefully away from an enemy's attack, yet you are allowed to use it after knowing whether you have been hit or not.

I perceive this is to be more of a game balance issue than a common-sense one. It would be much more meaningful if you could opt to use said ability after knowing if you have been hit or not, rather than having to choose before you know the result of your opponent's attack.

If you ask me to justify this, I would interpret it that your skill allows you to gauge beforehand if the attack would hit or miss you, allowing you a small window of opportunity to take the appropriate precaution if need be.

 

[Divide]

My objections stems from what I perceive as an attempt to bring logic and physics into a discussion where those 2 were never meant to apply in the first place.

As mentioned earlier, the zephyr dance maneuver describes you as spinning gracefully away from an enemy's attack, yet you are allowed to use it after knowing whether you have been hit or not.

I perceive this is to be more of a game balance issue than a common-sense one. It would be much more meaningful if you could opt to use said ability after knowing if you have been hit or not, rather than having to choose before you know the result of your opponent's attack.

If you ask me to justify this, I would interpret it that your skill allows you to gauge beforehand if the attack would hit or miss you, allowing you a small window of opportunity to take the appropriate precaution if need be.

Okay, I had misread the issue from the original poster. I don't know where I got this, but I had thought that he had said that he was using it after damage had been rolled, and then deciding to activate it, which changes a lot of my original post because of my own stupidity

I'll post more tomorrow (after I'm awake), but I still don't necessarily think that this should be done after a hit resolves.

 

[irdeggman]

Maybe I was being unclear (or maybe I'm just missing a joke here), but my answer was basically supporting what you had said earlier. It's just that Immediate actions could buff the AC before damage was rolled, but not after. I would even say that it would have to be before a roll to hit, but that's where I would think that the grey area in the rules comes in.

I think if there's feats that support the idea of the immediate action, and even as most people have put it, are in agreement with each other as to where said immediate action is resolved.

I believe SotS was refering to justifying things using real world examples.

As I have said in other posts trying to rationalize D&D using real world comparisons leads to madness. The game is fantasy and has an extemely simplified and vague combat system by design.

 

[Divide]

Bah, spent half an hour replying to this and wasn't logged in. MEH!

Let me try this again:

I had misread the original poster. It was my mistake and I am very very wrong heh. the problem (as I was seeing it) was the player was trying to argue that AC would help after determining damage, which was not the case. That is my bad, and I apologize

Either way, Runestar: I would agree with you concerning the manuver zephyr dance, as it's explicitly stated as working a certain way to add +4 to your ac AFTER a hit has been determined but BEFORE damage had been rolled.
h

The problem that I would have is with Protection Devotion working in the same way is that it has no such wording (or even an indication) to show this feat working after a hit has been determined. It would seem (to me at least) that this is more a feat designed for the protection of others and not for the protection of yourself. In my opinion, this type of feat is an "oh hey, this <insert cr 17 monster> took an unexpected left for the caster, let's hope this +4 will negate at least SOME of the its."

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I believe SotS was refering to justifying things using real world examples.

As I have said in other posts trying to rationalize D&D using real world comparisons leads to madness. The game is fantasy and has an extemely simplified and vague combat system by design.

Not just the "realism" issue. I was balking more at the idea that considering this is a game, I really don't like forcing a player to explain (under intense scrutiny) how his class feature or ability works. I honsetly could not explain why a Ranger gets his favored enemy bonuses when he has no idea he's fighting a favored enemy. But I'd find it appalling if a DM then stripped me of that class feature for that encounter just because I couldn't explain it myself. I just think that's really awful...

Also, his gunslinging example was really nothing all like applying an immediate action magical ability in the midst of being struck.

EDIT:

"You are in a gunfight, and someone shoots you. It penetrates your body armor and hits you in the chest, doing damage to you. You apply a piece of even stronger bulletproof duct tape to cover up the hole after you've already been shot. how would you ever in a million years also assume that you would magically be healed of the damage as well?"

Apples to oranges. A slightly better comparison would be having a spell to use as an immediate action, to apply a layer of super strong duct tape over your skin after the bullet has pierced your armor/defenses, but before it has actually burrowed into your flesh and done damage. That's why I said I'd allow it after the hit was confirmed, but not after damage had been dealt. And if you expect me to explain how the hell I instantly applied the magical duct tape in a split second like that, or in other words, how do immediate actions exist...screw you! "It's a game," "it's magic," "Do you really want to spend three hours arguing about this?"... pick your favorite reply, but I should NOT have to explain my own abilities to that extent and I never will.