Priority of Immediate Reactions?

[vic20]

A fighter readies an attack with the trigger being when his ally the rogue attacks the goblin they are flanking.

The rogue attacks the goblin, and misses.

At this point, there are two immediate reactions that trigger off of the miss. The goblin's "Goblin Tactics" (when missed by a melee attack, shift one square) and the fighter's aforementioned readied attack.

If the goblin gets to react to the miss first, he can shift away from the fighter, seemingly negating the fighter's attack. Otherwise, the fighter attacks, and then the goblin shifts away.

I'm tempted to give the goblin priority, as his reaction is "inherent" to him being a goblin, whereas the fighter's reaction is a tactical maneuver, but I realize that this is just my desire to let the goblin do his "shtick".

 

[Hypersmurf]

If the goblin gets to react to the miss first, he can shift away from the fighter, seemingly negating the fighter's attack. Otherwise, the fighter attacks, and then the goblin shifts away.

My inclination is to say that effectively, the identical trigger is giving them an identical initiative result, and so the normal initiative tiebreaker rules come into play - highest bonus goes first, otherwise flip a coin.

-Hyp.

 

[keterys]

Interesting rules question. I'm surprised the rules are silent since this doesn't seem like a horribly rare event. I'd be inclined to have an initiative roll between the two determine order.

 

[Syrsuro]

A fighter readies an attack with the trigger being when his ally the rogue attacks the goblin they are flanking.

The rogue attacks the goblin, and misses.

At this point, there are two immediate reactions that trigger off of the miss. The goblin's "Goblin Tactics" (when missed by a melee attack, shift one square) and the fighter's aforementioned readied attack.

If the goblin gets to react to the miss first, he can shift away from the fighter, seemingly negating the fighter's attack. Otherwise, the fighter attacks, and then the goblin shifts away.

I'm tempted to give the goblin priority, as his reaction is "inherent" to him being a goblin, whereas the fighter's reaction is a tactical maneuver, but I realize that this is just my desire to let the goblin do his "shtick".

Actually, this specific case is, imho, clear. But only because of the precise wording.

But with a small change (see below) it becomes vague once more.

As written above:
The fighter's immediate triggers off of the attack.
The goblin's immediate triggers off of the miss.
I'd say that the attack precedes the miss and therefore the fighter's immediate precedes the goblins.

But if you change the conditions so that the fighter's immediate is triggered by his ally missing, then you have a problem as both are being triggered by the same event (the missed attack).

Personally, I'd go with their initiative modifier for the tiebreaker (with a roll-off if equal modifier), just as I would if they had tied for initiative.

(And although that doesn't impact my ruling or the rules, but I think its more important to let the PCs do their 'shtick' than it is to let the creatures do theirs.)

But that isn't a rule, it's a ruling. And I'm fine with that.

Carl


(edit) Aside: One of the things that appeals to me about 4E is what I see as an emphasis on RULINGs rather than RULEs. This is, imho, a return (at least in part) to an old school style of GMing and it takes some getting used to for some people.

The GM knows the rules and recognizes that creating a rule for every situation is futile. There will always be something that doesn't fit the rules (I'm sure that if Godel had been a game designer, he would have found a more formal wait of stating that). What matters is that you can apply rulings that both fit the rules and are consistent with their intent.

Carl

 

[Hypersmurf]

As written above:
The fighter's immediate triggers off of the attack.
The goblin's immediate triggers off of the miss.
I'd say that the attack precedes the miss and therefore the fighter's immediate precedes the goblins.

The attack incorporates the miss.

An immediate reaction occurs after the triggering event. The fighter's immediate reaction doesn't happen after the attack roll is made, but before the effect of the hit or miss is determined; if we ignore the goblin's immediate action, for example, the rogue will attack, and if he hits he will deal damage, and then the fighter's readied attack will take place.

So while you begin processing the attack before you begin processing the miss, both the attack and the miss are resolved at the same time (since the attack is not complete until the effects of the miss have happened)... and thus the triggering instant for both the fighter's reaction and the goblin's reaction is the same.

-Hyp.

 

[Syrsuro]

The attack incorporates the miss.

We are splitting millieseconds to resolve to simultaneous events. Small differences count. At least in my ruling.

An immediate reaction occurs after the triggering event. The fighter's immediate reaction doesn't happen after the attack roll is made, but before the effect of the hit or miss is determined; if we ignore the goblin's immediate action, for example, the rogue will attack, and if he hits he will deal damage, and then the fighter's readied attack will take place.

So while you begin processing the attack before you begin processing the miss, both the attack and the miss are resolved at the same time (since the attack is not complete until the effects of the miss have happened)... and thus the triggering instant for both the fighter's reaction and the goblin's reaction is the same.

If we imagine a more continuous timeline, what happens is:

1. The Ally begins his attack.
2. The Fighter notices that the attack has begun (his trigger was the attack, regardless of its success or failure) and begins his attack.
3. The Ally's attack is resolved (miss)
4. The Goblin reacts to the miss (his trigger was dependant upon the result of the attack and thus could not initiate until the attack was resolved), and starts to move.
5. The Fighter's attack is resolved.
6. The Goblin moves (if able).

The problem, as I understand your post, is that you believe that steps 1 and 3 are simultaneous, and take zero time. As I see it, they are not the same thing because immediate interrupts such as distracting strike are capable of acting during that brief instant between attack and resolution. So your assertion that the miss is simultaneous with the attack is, imho, incorrect.

But again - we are splitting microseconds here. In the parsed action world of D&D both Goblin and Fighter act after the Ally attacks and there is no RAW guidance for the order in which they should act. Which is why you make a ruling when the situation comes up based upon the situation at the table using logic such as the above.

Embrace the freedom, and make the (existing rules-based) rulings.

On the other hand, in my hypothetically simultaneous situation I can see an argument for the goblin always winning the tie because he knows whether or not he got hit while the Fighter has to spend a fraction of a second observing the outcome to be sure whether or not he got hit. So if the fighter's attack is dependant upon the outcome, the goblin will know the outcome first (in most cases, at least). In that case, you would only go to initiative modifiers if we were talking about two combants who both had actions triggered by the outcome, and thus both had to observe the outcome to determine whether the trigger condition had been met.

Again: We are making rulings, not seeking a rule that will cover all cases. As I think it should be.

Carl

 

[Noir le Lotus]

A fighter readies an attack with the trigger being when his ally the rogue attacks the goblin they are flanking.

The rogue attacks the goblin, and misses.

At this point, there are two immediate reactions that trigger off of the miss. The goblin's "Goblin Tactics" (when missed by a melee attack, shift one square) and the fighter's aforementioned readied attack.

If the fighter really stated this trigger, then his attack occurs before the rogue's attack !!

Rogue attacks => trigger fighter's readied action
Fighter attacks + resolved
rogue's attack resolved => the miss triggers the goblin immediate

If the fighter wanted to attack the goblin after the rogue, he sould have taken a delay action and then the goblin's immediate would have be done before the fighter could attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The problem, as I understand your post, is that you believe that steps 1 and 3 are simultaneous, and take zero time. As I see it, they are not the same thing because immediate interrupts such as distracting strike are capable of acting during that brief instant between attack and resolution. So your assertion that the miss is simultaneous with the attack is, imho, incorrect.

My assertion is that the resolution of the triggering action, "He attacks", and the resolution of the triggering action, "He misses", complete simultaneously.

A reaction triggered off "he attacks" doesn't take place before the "Hit" or "Miss" entry is parsed; it happens after, because the Hit or Miss is part of the triggering action.

If the fighter really stated this trigger, then his attack occurs before the rogue's attack !!

Rogue attacks => trigger fighter's readied action
Fighter attacks + resolved
rogue's attack resolved => the miss triggers the goblin immediate

That's a 3E ruling. In 4E, a readied action is a reaction, not an interrupt. The readied action takes place after the trigger, not before like in 3E.

-Hyp.

 

[Griogre]

Hmm, I agreed with Noir but I had forgot about the ready being after. I still think the gob would move before the fighter attacked if the rogue missed.

 

[blargney the second]

Assuming they trigger at identical times, I'd use initiative to determine which one goes first. (Either an opposed roll or just current init order.)