Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Syrsuro" data-source="post: 4448836" data-attributes="member: 58162">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</blockquote>

Verification