Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5398334" data-attributes="member: 58197">You need a stack for interrupts too.Suppose the rogue moves, an enemy takes an OA in response to the rogue's movement, and then the fighter takes a Combat Challenge attack in response to the OA. If the fighter's Combat Challenge attack crits and kills the enemy, the OA never completes. How can you handle this without a stack?[Edited to add: Ah, I see what you're doing--you are using a stack for interrupts, it's just that you're relying on the call stack rather than constructing your own. Fair enough, but I think it makes things unnecessarily complicated, since as you point out you'll have to build a queue of reactions for each interrupt, and the reactions can have interrupts and reactions piled on top of them, and each action is made up of several different events each of which can trigger interrupts and reactions separately, and... talk about head asploding! If you handle the whole thing with a single stack, it's a lot cleaner IMO.]I don't see why you need multiple stacks, however. The system I outlined above should address all the issues. In the case you mention with a reaction to an interrupt, you start with the original action on the stack:{ Original Action }Somebody interrupts it. Interrupts go immediately above whatever they're interrupting:{ Original Action, Interrupt }Somebody responds to the interrupt with a reaction, which goes immediately below whatever it's reacting to:{ Original Action, Reaction, Interrupt }When the time comes to resolve all this, you deal with Interrupt first, then Reaction, then Original Action. Exactly as it should be.</blockquote>

Verification