Interrupts and invalidation

[eamon]

Certain actions can interrupt other actions. The interrupted action can be invalidated. I'm curious as to where to draw the line as to what can interrupt and what can be invalidated.

Immediate reactions, immediate interrupts, and opportunity attacks have the potential to interrupt things. First issue is immediate reactions, which act in response to a trigger. It's clearly stated that the trigger can be part of a move (i.e. at least one square), so immediate reactions can potentially interrupt any action that contains movement.

Can you trigger an immediate reaction on being hit and resolve the immediate reaction after the hit but before potential other hits within the same action (say, such as twin strike's first strike, or blade cascade's first strike)?

Some interrupts explicitly say what they invalidate (such as combat superiority's stopping effect), but when they don't, the effects of the interrupt may still make continuing the original action impossible. At least, it may make continuing the original action as originally planned impossible. How much can you change your mind during an action is unclear:

Can you attack someone else with a basic attack if an interrupt suddenly makes your original target invalid? If you use twin strike, can you choose your second target with knowledge of the results of the first? If you blade cascade, can you choose the next target with knowledge of the results of the previous hit? If your path becomes blocked during movement, can you choose another path (and would this disrupt a charge)? If a fighter interrupts someone who's shifting away and pushes them with a shield pushing combat challenge, can his target change his mind about where he shifts, or is his shift lost?

The issue is really that it's not clear to me how much of an action you must declare and/or resolve before determining whether to interrupt, and once interrupted, how much of an unperformed action can still be changed (obviously you can't simply change the past).

 

[DracoSuave]

Certain actions can interrupt other actions. The interrupted action can be invalidated. I'm curious as to where to draw the line as to what can interrupt and what can be invalidated.

Immediate reactions, immediate interrupts, and opportunity attacks have the potential to interrupt things. First issue is immediate reactions, which act in response to a trigger. It's clearly stated that the trigger can be part of a move (i.e. at least one square), so immediate reactions can potentially interrupt any action that contains movement.

Can you trigger an immediate reaction on being hit and resolve the immediate reaction after the hit but before potential other hits within the same action (say, such as twin strike's first strike, or blade cascade's first strike)?

Yes. You react to the trigger, but your immediate happens before any other things needing resolution.

Some interrupts explicitly say what they invalidate (such as combat superiority's

stopping effect), but when they don't, the effects of the interrupt may still make continuing the original action impossible. At least, it may make continuing the original action as originally planned impossible. How much can you change your mind during an action is unclear:

It's easy. You can't change your mind. If you've had to declare aspects of the action, then you're committed to it. You can't, for example, after you've rolled to hit someone decide that it's not going to work that you want to attack someone else.

Can you attack someone else with a basic attack if an interrupt suddenly makes your original target invalid?

If you've got a standard action interrupted, unless you're spending action points to get different actions, you don't get that action back. So no, you can't use a basic attack if your previous one got blitzed.

If you use twin strike, can you choose your second target with knowledge of the results of the first?

No. The targets of the power are declared before you roll the dice to attack. If the power worked sequentially like that, it'd be written with secondary attacks. (some powers -are- written that way.)

[quoteIf you blade cascade, can you choose the next target with knowledge of the results of the previous hit?

Yes and no. If the final results of the previous hit were 'Hit, deal damage' then yes, you can attack again, and choose a new target (as that's how the power works as written), however if that previous hit were changed into a miss (Staff of Defense, Shield, Ranger's dodging powers, etc) then you've actualled missed and you don't get the additional attacks.

If your path becomes blocked during movement, can you choose another path (and would this disrupt a charge)?

Movement is decided one square at a time. If movement is interrupted, they can complete the squares of movement -unless- movement becomes impossible or explicitly negated.

If a fighter interrupts someone who's shifting away and pushes them with a shield pushing combat challenge, can his target change his mind about where he shifts, or is his shift lost?

This is a good question.

The issue is really that it's not clear to me how much of an action you must declare and/or resolve before determining whether to interrupt, and once interrupted, how much of an unperformed action can still be changed (obviously you can't simply change the past).

If a decision has to be made to enact an action, then it can't be changed post-interrruptus. So charging has a decision to be made as to who is charged before movement begins. Therefore, you can't change that if it is interrupted. Power-use is the same way. If you get your power's use negated, you can't choose a different power in its place or different targets.

 

[Chen_93]

If a decision has to be made to enact an action, then it can't be changed post-interrruptus. So charging has a decision to be made as to who is charged before movement begins. Therefore, you can't change that if it is interrupted. Power-use is the same way. If you get your power's use negated, you can't choose a different power in its place or different targets.

The only "problem" I see with this is movement. How/when is movement declared. Is it "I move one square to the north" or is it "I move from square x to square y".

The latter means any forced movement interrupts negate the movement since you are no longer moving from x to y. The first forces the people to continue in that directly regardless of where you push them.

The final choice is that movement location is only declared on resolution and therefore interrupts need to occur BEFORE movement is declared. Fighter's know the creature is going to shift, but not where, when they need to decide to take their CC attack or not.

The last option is the weakest for players but tends to have the least problems with it. This is generally how we're running it in our game though people frequently just declare where they are moving anyways pre-interrupt, though really don't need to be held to this (since it is being declared before its allowed to be).

 

[DracoSuave]

The only "problem" I see with this is movement. How/when is movement declared. Is it "I move one square to the north" or is it "I move from square x to square y".

Yeah, that is a pickle.

The latter means any forced movement interrupts negate the movement since you are no longer moving from x to y. The first forces the people to continue in that directly regardless of where you push them.

It'd negate the -square- of movement at most. I don't like the idea of pushes being negated by continuing movement, or the idea of pushes negating all other movement. It's simpler just to negate the square of movement, and force the poor guy to deal with his new position.

The final choice is that movement location is only declared on resolution and therefore interrupts need to occur BEFORE movement is declared. Fighter's know the creature is going to shift, but not where, when they need to decide to take their CC attack or not.

That can't happen tho, because interrupts are declared -after- the movement actually attempts to occur, re, during resolution. Same as how Staff of Defense is declared -after- the damage roll. That's the whole definition of interrupt.

The last option is the weakest for players but tends to have the least problems with it. This is generally how we're running it in our game though people frequently just declare where they are moving anyways pre-interrupt, though really don't need to be held to this (since it is being declared before its allowed to be).

Yeah most people declare their movement in advance which is fine, and when they step on a 'bad square', you say -stop-. At that point, I don't like the idea of players going 'I, uh, changed my mind.'

 

[Syrsuro]

Yeah, that is a pickle.



Yeah most people declare their movement in advance which is fine, and when they step on a 'bad square', you say -stop-. At that point, I don't like the idea of players going 'I, uh, changed my mind.'

Nothing wrong with them changing their mind.

But they already stepped on that 'bad square' so no matter how much they change their mind they can't change that.

But if what they learn by stepping on that 'bad square' makes them want to go a different direction - you really have a problem with that?

Likewise in this case (or in the case of forced movement interrupting their move): The situation changes and they can change their movement after that change. But whatever triggered the change (stepping on 'bad square', forced movement, opponent moving to block them) happens first and then they get to change their mind and continue moving using the new information.

The best proof of this is the responses regarding kobolds with Dragonshield Tactics. If you approach a kobold and he shifts away in response to your moving adjacent to him, you are NOT stuck standing one square away. Rather, if you have movement left you can choose to continue your movement to follow him - a clear case of changing your movement to compensate for new information which occured during your movement.

But then 'bad squares' are typically Immediate Reaction type events (you step on it and something happens) NOT Immediate Interrupts (you are about to step on it and something happens). Frankly, if there was a 'bad square' that was more interrupt like, I probably would allow them to change their mind and not step on the bad square (Your passive perception causes you to notice that there is a trap on that square. Do you still step there?).

In my view all movement (OK, all movement except teleports) occurs step by step. I may say I am running across the room. But I can react to what I see each step of the way. So if I get half-way across the room and see someone hiding behind a pillar I do not have to continue my move to my original destination - I can change my path to end up by the newly spotted opponent.

Because movement occurs in this way, actions that interrupt movement can be reacted to. If you push me, I can choose a new path or even a new destination.

Charges are somewhat of a different case, imho. As I see it, the path is changeable. As I learn more information I can choose a new route as long as the route taken is the most direct available route at each step of the way. However, the target of the charge is preselected. Thus, although I can choose a new path along the way in response to new information, pushes, obstacles, etc - if I don't end up moving by a direct route to my original target I don't get an attack (having, in effect, just double moved rather than move+charge).

Carl