Immediate Interrupts: Rule vs Etiquette?

[SteelCoyote]

I've been through the Core books and WotC's FAQ, but still can't get the answer I'm looking for...

Problem:
In order to create a sense of roleplaying's suspension of the mechanics behind the scenes, when my players are in combat, I describe NPC and PC attacks in flavor terms such as: "wild swing", "miss", "deflected by armor", "hit", and "ringing blow" instead of simply stating "22", "19", etc.

This tends to keep the game as something players from previous editions would recognize and enjoy rather than simply reducing it to a purely tactical level like D&D minis.

However, when the player wants to use an Immediate Interrupt like Shield, I'm not sure if I'm required to state the numerical value of the attack, or whether it's OK to simply state that the character has been hit, and it's up to the player to decide whether to use the power or not:

Shield

You throw up your hand, and a shield of arcane energy springs into existence, protecting you against imminent attacks.
Encounter Arcane, Force
Immediate Interrupt Personal
Trigger: You are hit by an attack
Effect: You gain a +4 power bonus to AC and Reflex defense until the end of your next turn.

I've been playing it as "You've been hit, do you wish to use Shield or not?" but my player argued that it's not fair to make him decide unless he knows if the power would work and prevent him from taking damage.

I countered that it's the risk inherent in using the power, and if the attack would hit regardless of his expenditure (i.e. the attack was greater than the +4 bonus he'd receive), then at least Shield still grants him the bonus against any other attacks until the end of his next turn.

Question
Since the rules don't explicitly state whether the player must know if the use of an intermediate interrupt would be successful before using it, it seems to come down to a point of etiquette.

To keep with the flavor of the game, and in line with the idea that a character wouldn't know if his use of Shield would work until he tries it, I've been sticking to not telling the players if their interrupts would work before they decide to activate them...

I've been treating Shield the same way I treat the Swordmage's Aegis of Assault immediate reaction: nowhere does it imply that the basic attack granted by the power will always hit. It merely gives the player the chance to make the basic attack.

Likewise, opting to use Shield as your immediate interrupt offers no guarantee of success, just the chance of success (and the benefit that it stays until the end of your next turn).

Is this the correct way to do it?

 

[LightPhoenix]

Is this the correct way to do it?

I can't speak to "correct," but that's the way my DM does it with me as well.

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

You can really go either way. On one hand, sure it can sorta feel like the power was wasted. At the same time, you didn't just blow your turn's standard action or anything, so it's nothing TOO major. I'd say it really depends on the group you're playing with.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Defenses can change on a round to round basis.
Therefore our method of declaring attacks always goes something like this:
Attacker: I'm (insert descriptive text)
*Dice roll*
Attacker: I got (dice roll+modifier) versus (appropriate defense)
Defender: That hits/misses my defense.

So necessarily we would know whether or not such a power would deflect the given attack.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I would say as long as the player knows before they choose their powers that they know how you adjudicate them. Similar to powers that modify OAs ... knowing how the DM plays the game will ussually determine which feats or powers are more useful.

In our games we do make sure we use the numbers ... as there is ussually a chance someone that puts a correction out "Are you counting combat advantage?" "You used your second wind last turn, remember?" "I moved three squares so I have concealment" etc, etc, etc. If you can keep track of all the players bonuses/penalties then it's ok. Then again, the players are probably telling you what they rolled, and thus a monster character with that kind of ability is going to either get better use out of it, or just use it as their first option.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Question
Since the rules don't explicitly state whether the player must know if the use of an intermediate interrupt would be successful before using it, it seems to come down to a point of etiquette.

I think you're looking at this wrong. There's a way to make you both happy.

The PCs are experienced combatants. They can probably tell how accurate the enemy's shot was. Thus, you don't need to say "He hit you by 4." You can just say, if the player asks, that the PC instinctively feels that the shield will be enough to make the difference, or it won't.

Keeps it descriptive, and gives the player the answer he wants.

 

[gnfnrf]

I believe that it is intended that the player knows the attack result for any defense when attacked (hit or miss).

This is not explicitly in the rules, but consider this line, PHB p. 57.

"Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creatures knows exactly what you've done to it and what conditions you've imposed."

DnD4E is built around players having fairly good information about what is happening on the battlefield. Denying them this information will change the game, particularly for powers like shield.

--
gnfnrf

 

[aurance]

I think you're looking at this wrong. There's a way to make you both happy.

The PCs are experienced combatants. They can probably tell how accurate the enemy's shot was. Thus, you don't need to say "He hit you by 4." You can just say, if the player asks, that the PC instinctively feels that the shield will be enough to make the difference, or it won't.

Keeps it descriptive, and gives the player the answer he wants.

This is a great suggestion.

 

[SteelCoyote]

I think you're looking at this wrong. There's a way to make you both happy.

The PCs are experienced combatants. They can probably tell how accurate the enemy's shot was. Thus, you don't need to say "He hit you by 4." You can just say, if the player asks, that the PC instinctively feels that the shield will be enough to make the difference, or it won't.

Keeps it descriptive, and gives the player the answer he wants.

This is a great suggestion.

I concur! And I think it'll work best with my group.

Thanks to all for your comments & suggestions.

 

[nittanytbone]

I agree that telling the player if it will be helpful or not is essential. If you don't, I'd expect to see that power retrained for something more reliable ASAP. Reducing the number of viable power options at a given level isn't a good thing, IMHO.