Immediate Interrupt Question

[Caliber]

This will (hopefully) be a simple question. If an Immediate Interrupt power has a trigger saying "When hit with an attack" and the effect would effectively negate the attack, say, by teleporting you out of range of the attack, are you still damaged?

That is, if our hypothetical Immediate Interrupt said "when hit by an attack teleport 5 away" and you are then hit by a melee attack and teleport out of the attackers reach, were you hurt? Or do you teleport before damage is assigned?

Thanks!

 

[Squizzle]

This will (hopefully) be a simple question. If an Immediate Interrupt power has a trigger saying "When hit with an attack" and the effect would effectively negate the attack, say, by teleporting you out of range of the attack, are you still damaged?

That is, if our hypothetical Immediate Interrupt said "when hit by an attack teleport 5 away" and you are then hit by a melee attack and teleport out of the attackers reach, were you hurt? Or do you teleport before damage is assigned?

Thanks!

Immediate INTERRUPTS happen before the trigger resolves, and thus can preempt the event they are interrupting. Immediate RESPONSES happen immediately after the triggering event resolves completely, and thus cannot affect said event.

 

[CapnZapp]

This will (hopefully) be a simple question. If an Immediate Interrupt power has a trigger saying "When hit with an attack" and the effect would effectively negate the attack, say, by teleporting you out of range of the attack, are you still damaged?

That is, if our hypothetical Immediate Interrupt said "when hit by an attack teleport 5 away" and you are then hit by a melee attack and teleport out of the attackers reach, were you hurt? Or do you teleport before damage is assigned?

Thanks!

You would teleport away before the attack even connects. No aspect of the attack (except the one that triggers your interrupt) resolves before the interrupt happens. But this doesn't mean the attack is negated or cancelled - it will still happen; only that it might fizzle completely (if it was directed solely at you and you teleported out of range).

This is what separates INTERRUPTS from REACTIONS (not "responses")

 

[Infiniti2000]

pg. 268 says, "If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, that action is lost. For example, an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate interrupt. If your enemy can no longer reach you, the enemy's attack action is lost."

So, not only are you not damaged, but the attack action was lost. However, I'll point out that the wording of the interrupt power is extremely poor. It effectively creates a paradox because it says 'when hit' and not 'when attacked'. If you teleport/shift away and are not in fact hit, then your power couldn't possibly have been triggered! The benefit of this over the power saying attacked is that you can now choose not to activate it until you are actually 'injured'. A book example of this, btw, is Evade the Blow (Ranger 16, PHB).

 

[DracoSuave]

There's no paradox. An interrupt happens before the event that triggers it, and may undo the event. So, if you are hit, and you use the interrupt, and it makes the hit impossible, you didn't get hit.

The rules are very explicit about that.

 

[N0Man]

So, not only are you not damaged, but the attack action was lost. However, I'll point out that the wording of the interrupt power is extremely poor. It effectively creates a paradox because it says 'when hit' and not 'when attacked'.

It's not a paradox, but rather a minor retcon that immediately changes the action that is being resolved. There are many 4E powers that allow you to respond to a success of an enemy or failure of a player with a "wait, that's not what really happened" power. It interrupts the action that is still being resolved, but in a way that allows you to change what would have been inevitable. I'm actually a fan of this new mechanic.

If you teleport/shift away and are not in fact hit, then your power couldn't possibly have been triggered!

I think this will depend on the circumstances. If you prevent an attack by moving, then their attack never happened. If they still have movement left they can continue their move to close that distance. If they can't reach you, they are out of luck.

The benefit of this over the power saying attacked is that you can now choose not to activate it until you are actually 'injured'.

Absolutely.

 

[Griogre]

I think this will depend on the circumstances. If you prevent an attack by moving, then their attack never happened. If they still have movement left they can continue their move to close that distance. If they can't reach you, they are out of luck.

Often this is not correct. If the character moves and then attacks and the move is not part of an attack he is finished moving. You can't move take a standard action and move again unless the standard action gives you movement.

Even with a standard action power like deft strike which gives you movement, if you start you attack and the target teleports 2 squares away you can't just stop your attack, move and then attack again.

Somewhat problematical is whether you can change your attack from a melee attack to a thrown attack after the target teleports.

Of note for interrupts is "attack" is not well defined in 4E (its not formally defined at all). Is it using the power? Or the “to hit” roll? This matters with powers that give multiple attacks. Attack in the rules is often used interchangeably between rolling to hit and using an attack power - and this can have a big impact on interrupts, particularly reactions.

 

[DracoSuave]

Somewhat problematical is whether you can change your attack from a melee attack to a thrown attack after the target teleports..

Not at all probematical.

In the former case, you're executing one power, a melee attack, and in the other case, you're executing a completely different power, Ranged Basic Attack. If you're in the middle of resolving the first power, then after interruption, you finish resolving all other effects of the power. This may include other targets you've declared, effect: line stuff, the Reliable keyword, etc.


So, as an example, let's say you Blinding Barrage, and attack 3 targets with it. One of those targets teleports out of the area of effect, and let's say he teleports beside you. Well, you attack the other two targets still, and you still resolve the effects of that. That's obvious. But you certainly don't get to say 'Well, he's beside me, so I'll Deft Strike him now.' without spending your Action Point.

This doesn't change when the power being interrupted has only one target. Interrupts, whether opportunity or immediate, are either there to capitalize on movement (ex: attacking the square left, to prevent things from escaping too easily) or are there to mitigate or alter the effects of a power. If you decide you can use a second power after the first is mitigated, you completely go against the entire -purpose- of the interrupt action.

 

[Glyfair]

However, I'll point out that the wording of the interrupt power is extremely poor. It effectively creates a paradox because it says 'when hit' and not 'when attacked'.

But they aren't the same thing. If a power is triggered "when hit" it doesn't trigger "when missed" which would be triggered for the "if attacked" (assuming the obvious timing switch).

 

[Infiniti2000]

It may not be the same thing, I agree, but it's still technically a paradox. If your interrupt only occurs upon condition X and the interrupt action itself invalidates condition X, then the interrupt couldn't have happened. This, of course, now reintroduces condition X . . .

Anyway, as I said, I understand how it's supposed to work, but it's just bad wording. I can kind of follow along with the explanation of "if the attack would've hit..." but that's still significantly different than having to decide whether to use an interrupt power prior to knowing the result. Doesn't the Warden's interrupt powers work on "attack" and not "hit?"