Opportunity and interrupt confusion

[ShinRyuuBR]

I've been noticing people are confusing trivialities about opportunity and interrupt actions a lot, and its clearly a matter of unclear terminology. From the Scalegloom Appendix, we have this:

Opportunity Action: When an enemy lets its guard down, you can take an opportunity action. You can only take one opportunity action on each combatant's turn (if available). An opportunity action interrupts the action that triggered it.

The most common opportunity action is an opportunity attack. When an enemy
leaves a square adjacent to you, or when an adjacent enemy makes a ranged or an area attack, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy.

Immediate Action: Interrupts and reactions are immediate actions. Specific powers define the trigger for these actions.

You can take only one immediate action per round, and you can't take an immediate action on your turn.

An interrupt lets you act before the triggering action is resolved. If the interrupt invalidates the triggering action, that action is lost.

A reaction lets you act immediately in response to a triggering action. The triggering action is completely resolved before you take your reaction.

The parts I've underlined are the real issue. An opportunity action always interrupts the triggering action, but an INTERRUPT action doesn't! Unless the result of the interrupt invalidates the triggering action. If the interrupt does not INTERRUPT, why call it that? I can forsee loads of confusing posts and e-mails about this simple matter of terminology.

I'm going to try to bring this to WotC's attention before it's too late...

Now, suppose we exchange the terms. We'd have interrupt actions, the most common one being the interrupt attack (or perhaps interrupt strike flows better from the tongue). Then we'd have immediate actions, that can be opportunity actions or reactions. It would be nice to have a simple, single term for "opportunity actions", but I think it's as clear as it can get.

Any thoughts?

 

[small pumpkin man]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What do you think "interrupt" means in this context? I assumed it just meant "happens before the action is finished", in that sense, opportunity actions and Interrupts work the same way. (except Interrupts are once per turn)

eg if someone moves away from you, hitting someone with an op attack doesn't stop them from moving away, it interrupts it in the sense that the attack is resolved halfway through.

 

[ShinRyuuBR]

At least in my native language, interrupting something is synonimous to aborting it. Even if this is not the case, by saying an OA interrupts and then defining interrupt as something particular to the system is a recipie to disaster as well.

 

[Nytmare]

But the OA "interrupts" and then uses that same definition.

If an OA kills a creature, interrupting whatever the triggering action was, that triggering action never actually happens. There isn't a contradiction.

 

[JesterOC]

The parts I've underlined are the real issue. An opportunity action always interrupts the triggering action, but an INTERRUPT action doesn't!

But it does interupt it, not only that it is possible for the action that triggered to interupt to be completely stoped.

If the interrupt invalidates the triggering action, that action is lost.

The action that can be lost is the action that triggered the interupt, not the immediate action as the immediate action acts first (unlike the reaction that allows the triggering action to occure first).

My main question regarding this is the immediate reaction of the dragon. The dragon has an immediate action when it becomes bloodied, the breath weapon recharges and it can use it immediatly. But according to the rules that have been leaked the dragon can't react if it was bloodied by an opperatunity attack on its turn!

That seems pretty odd to me.

 

[small pumpkin man]

At least in my native language, interrupting something is synonimous to aborting it. Even if this is not the case, by saying an OA interrupts and then defining interrupt as something particular to the system is a recipie to disaster as well.

If I interrupt you conversation, I stop you from talking, when I stop talking you can then finish what you were saying. When I schedule an interrupt on a computer processor, the processor stops what it's doing until the interrupt is finished, then it goes back to what it was doing. In both cases, obviously if the interruption does something specific to prevent the following action, the action can't be finished, but the action isn't incapable of being finished just because it was interrupted.

The very fact that this is how "an interrupt" immediate works, will show you that this is the interpretation they're using.

Saying an OA "interrupts an action", and then defining an in interrupt as something else might be a problem, if "an interrupt" didn't work essentially exactly the same way.

Interrupt (from merriam-webster)

transitive verb
1: to stop or hinder by breaking in <interrupted the speaker with frequent questions>
2: to break the uniformity or continuity of <a hot spell occasionally interrupted by a period of cool weather>

Note that both of those imply that something can be interrupted several times in the same action.

 

[ShinRyuuBR]

There isn't a contradiction.

True, if interrupt does not mean abort, there is no contradiction.

The action that can be lost is the action that triggered the interupt, not the immediate action as the immediate action acts first

That was clear enough, what I'm questioning is what exactly "interrupting" entails and what it doesn't. In my day-to-day life, interrupting means to abort something. You might retry whatever was interrupted, but in D&D combat that would mean losing the action and tryng it again as another action.

That seems pretty odd to me.

It is VERY odd to picture the scene, but it makes sense in the system. An immediate action can not be used in your own turn. If you trigger an OA, you do so in your turn, so you can't take an immediate action triggered by an OA against yourself. This prevents chains of immediate/opportunity actions. Though I'm not sure it is necessary, since you can only make one OA per target per round. Go figure...

Edit:

1: to stop or hinder by breaking in <interrupted the speaker with frequent questions>
2: to break the uniformity or continuity of <a hot spell occasionally interrupted by a period of cool weather>

Note that both of those imply that something can be interrupted several times in the same action.

I understand and concede to your point in your post, but I'll argue that definition #1 is vague enough to allow being interpretated as aborting. #2 is clearer.

 

[JesterOC]

But the OA "interrupts" and then uses that same definition.

If an OA kills a creature, interrupting whatever the triggering action was, that triggering action never actually happens. There isn't a contradiction.

Only if you read into it too much. The interupt does not reverse time, the triggering event does not get removed, however after the interupt is over there is a chance that the situation has changed to a point where the original triggering event is no longer valid (like the creature died).

JesterOC

 

[D'karr]

My main question regarding this is the immediate reaction of the dragon. The dragon has an immediate action when it becomes bloodied, the breath weapon recharges and it can use it immediatly. But according to the rules that have been leaked the dragon can't react if it was bloodied by an opperatunity attack on its turn!

That seems pretty odd to me.

The general rule is that you can take an immediate action only when it is not your turn. However, a specific rule supersedes a general rule.

If you read the Bloodied Breath entry for the dragon you will notice something in the description that allows him to use the breath, even on his turn.

Bloodied Breath
The dragon's breath weapon recharges automatically, and the dragon uses it immediately

That immediately I highlighted is not as in immediate action it is as in "immediately whenever the condition is met"

That is a specific rule that supersedes the general rule. So it happens even on his turn.

I had this rule question with one of the judges at DDXP and he got the same answer from HQ.

 

[Bishmon]

That was clear enough, what I'm questioning is what exactly "interrupting" entails and what it doesn't. In my day-to-day life, interrupting means to abort something.

That's not necessarily true, though. If I'm talking, and you interrupt with a question, that doesn't necessarily make me abort talking. I can continue to talk if I want.

On the other hand, though, if you interrupt me by breaking my jaw, that's probably going to abort my speaking.

That's why the one clause you underlined, about an interrupt invalidating the trigger action, is necessary. Sometimes an interrupt will force an abort of the triggering action (like when you broke my jaw when I was speaking), but sometimes it won't (like when you merely interrupted with a question I ignored).

It may be a little tricky to grasp right away, but there's no contradiction. In fact, it's probably the best way to describe that sort of series of events in game terms.