Level Up (A5E) Reaction Explanation

[Breeyark]

Not exactly

The trigger is being targeted. It does not interrupt the attack because this happens even before the attack happens, but the attack then does happen.


I do agree that this works like an interrupt for melee attacks, because it happens when you're already hit but can actually invalidate the hit if the new AC is high enough to deflect the attack. It's not great for consistency, but specific beats general and here the "including against the triggering attack" is fundamental to make the spell work as intended. Maybe it could have been formulated as "when you're targeted" like the feat above, but then one would have to burn a spell slot before knowing if there's a point in using it, which isn't great either.

What I meant more precisely with "there are no interrupts" is that interrupts are not even defined and there are no rules for them. I do agree that it would have been better if there were such a definition and some spells or effects were defined as interrupts rather than general reactions.

I’m not trying to be a pain, but is targeting covered in the rules that would allow this wording to be less confusing?

 

[noodohs]

I’m not trying to be a pain, but is targeting covered in the rules that would allow this wording to be less confusing?

Sort of, it's covered in the section on making an attack: Making an Attack | Level Up. I'm not sure that it makes it less confusing as it does not specifically call it out as separate from the attack, but keep in mind that if you cannot target a creature, you generally cannot attack them. Hence targeting a creature is a prerequisite for making an attack, which is to say you have to target them first before you can make an attack. I suppose you could argue that because it is part of the process of making an attack that it is part of the attack, but then you'd also have to argue that you don't get to know whether or not you can target something before declaring an attack and run the risk of your entire action being wasted because you can't target them. Then again, in Pathfinder 2 (obviously this is not applicable here, just interesting), targeting is part of the Strike action (which you'd use to attack), but there they can call out specific actions (like Strike) that can trigger reactions, so it's (hopefully) less confusing.

 

[Steampunkette]

For my part:

Making an attack is process that can be interrupted at several points.

1) Choose the Attack Action
2) Choose a Target
3) Roll the Attack Roll
4) Determine Whether it Hits
5) Deal Damage

Depending on the wording of the ability and the reaction designer's intent, a given reaction can trigger after each of those five points. Arcane Riposte specifies that you respond to an "Incoming Attack" with your reaction.

To me, that's after 3 and before 4. Because you could fire off your Arcane Riposte the moment you are being attacked whether it's a wild swing or deadly accurate. Thus you can use Arcane Riposte to avoid taking damage from an attack by killing someone mid-swing.

My reasoning for this is simple: Reactions acts as Interruptions to the normal flow of action.

The Shield spell, for example, would not function if you were to use it after step 5. So Step 5 cannot be the end of the "Triggering Attack". In fact the wording of Shield is "When you are Hit" so you're using the Shield spell between 4 and 5, specifically, and forcing the gameplay loop back to 4, to see if the attack still hits.

So when I write reactions, sometimes you'll see "When you are attacked" as compared to "When you take damage from an attack" indicating where in the normal flow of action your reaction exists and whether or not the ability can protect you, or others, from taking damage from the attack it interrupts.

It's the Inigo Montoya vs Count Rugen moment. The Arcane Riposte stops the attack as long as you get revenge for your father's ignominious death before the strike lands.

This moment, right here. The incoming attack is stopped as soon as the counterattack kills the baddie.

 

[lichmaster]

I’m not trying to be a pain, but is targeting covered in the rules that would allow this wording to be less confusing?

AFAIK very indirectly, in the sense that there are some actions/spells that reference targeting an enemy. I haven't found examples of targeting being separated from the action/spell itself though, so whether it's a phase of the attack/spell or something that happens before it open to debate, but this really feels like splitting hairs