Repulsive Armor vs Warding Blades

[Prestidigitalis]

When the rules entry for the thing in question tells you verbatim that it interrupts something, then calling it an interrupt is a -very- reasonable thing to do. It interrupts, it is an interrupt.

It isn't an -immediate- action, and I think nitpickery over the 'interrupt' part WHEN THE RULES FOR IT SAY 'INTERRUPT' is a waste of time and effort. The -important- word, ruleswise, is immediate vs. opportunity and that is what you should be focused on.

I disagree. Oh well.

 

[DracoSuave]

I disagree. Oh well.

With which part, exactly?

Thing is, 'interrupt' as a noun carries no rules baggage that applies to immediate interrupts that differentiate it from opportunity actions. In fact, 'interrupt' is what makes immediate interrupts behave -more- like opportunity actions, as opposed to reactions which behave less--the only place the two differ meaningfully is in how often you can use them and what events trigger one but not the other. That's covered by the 'opportunity/immediate' part of it--interrupt doesn't have anything to do with that.

So, calling an opportunity action an interrupt is fine, as there's no rules baggage that differentiates it. Disagree with that if you like, but that's a fact.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

With which part, exactly?

Thing is, 'interrupt' as a noun carries no rules baggage that applies to immediate interrupts that differentiate it from opportunity actions. In fact, 'interrupt' is what makes immediate interrupts behave -more- like opportunity actions, as opposed to reactions which behave less--the only place the two differ meaningfully is in how often you can use them and what events trigger one but not the other. That's covered by the 'opportunity/immediate' part of it--interrupt doesn't have anything to do with that.

So, calling an opportunity action an interrupt is fine, as there's no rules baggage that differentiates it. Disagree with that if you like, but that's a fact.

I understand where you're coming from. You just have to be careful not to end up confusing the issue when you get into talking about the Opportunity and Immediate aspect of things. When you say "interrupt" people will naturally assume it is "Immediate Interrupt".

Yes, OAs interrupt other actions and preceed the resolution of those actions. So I will put my 2 cents in for the OP's analysis of the order of resolution in this case, the interrupt will precede the reaction. An OA would precede a reaction as well.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

With which part, exactly?

To quote AA's comment @13:

You just have to be careful not to end up confusing the issue when you get into talking about the Opportunity and Immediate aspect of things. When you say "interrupt" people will naturally assume it is "Immediate Interrupt".

Calling an OA an "interrupt" makes people think they are a type of Immediate Interrupt. In a rules discussion, it's just begging for confusion.

Incidentally, there is a very clear parallel in computer programming. In computing, an "interrupt" is a VERY specific thing. If I say that some event interrupts an ongoing calculation, most listeners will immediately start trying to figure out whether or not I literally meant an interrupt.

 

[DracoSuave]

To quote AA's comment @13:

You just have to be careful not to end up confusing the issue when you get into talking about the Opportunity and Immediate aspect of things. When you say "interrupt" people will naturally assume it is "Immediate Interrupt".

Calling an OA an "interrupt" makes people think they are a type of Immediate Interrupt. In a rules discussion, it's just begging for confusion.

Incidentally, there is a very clear parallel in computer programming. In computing, an "interrupt" is a VERY specific thing. If I say that some event interrupts an ongoing calculation, most listeners will immediately start trying to figure out whether or not I literally meant an interrupt.

This is the part where I point out that the PHB does, in fact, explicitly state that Opportunity Actions interrupt. That is the term used. So while you might not like it, it is irrelevant. The PHB says these things interrupt. Deal with it.

And that confusion is -exactly- why I say to focus the attention not on the word 'interrupt' but on 'immediate/opportunity' because those are the words that are meaningful here. If people get confused, it's because of a lack of focus on the meaningful words that describe the type of action.

If you were asked 'What is the difference between Opportunity actions and Immediate interrupts' you'd say 'The action type' and not 'One's an interrupt and the other is not' because the latter is incorrect and misleading.

 

[Iron Sky]

I think they are referring to 4e's Keyword lexicon. If you were teaching me the rules and you said:

"There are two types of Immediate Actions and you can only take one of those a turn. There's Immediate Interrupts and Immediate Reactions. Oh, there's also Opportunity Actions which interrupt but aren't Interrupts..."

I'd probably be confused.

English language-wise, you are totally correct Draco, Opportunity Actions do interrupt and making an OA does interrupt the enemy's turn. It is not and Interrupt though.

In 4e-mechanical speak, referring to them as interrupts causes avoidable languaging confusion, especially on a Rules forum.

 

[keterys]

Sometimes it's worth using different words, for the sake of not confusing people - whether it's "correct" or not.

Now, for the really 'cool' part - since you get the OA for Warding Blade for them entering the square, it happens before they enter the square. So RAW you can only make the attack if you have reach. I'd wager not RAI, but hey

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Sometimes it's worth using different words, for the sake of not confusing people - whether it's "correct" or not.

Now, for the really 'cool' part - since you get the OA for Warding Blade for them entering the square, it happens before they enter the square. So RAW you can only make the attack if you have reach. I'd wager not RAI, but hey

I don't get this at all... this is the way I see it/interpret it:

Targets are adjacent (or within 2 squares) to you - your Avenger uses the power Warding Blade, pushing all but the primary target 2 squares away. Your Avenger had Repulsive Armor up.

Non-primary target attempts to move back into an adjacent square. 2 triggers are at
work here - one is an immediate reaction and one is an immediate interrupt. The IR allows the target to complete its move action before it kicks in and the II takes full effect *before* the target completes its action. So the II hits, then the IR kicks the target one square back out.

And this is a case where a specific rule over-rides a general rule, so if any of the other non-primary targets enter an adjacent square, you get an OA against them as well, (or any that hit or miss) at least until the end of your next turn.

I don't see where the need for reach comes in - Unless you mean if a target with reach 2 hits or misses you? Can you explain further please?

Thanks!

PS But I do love OOTS!

 

[eamon]

The PHB uses the word "interrupt". In that English-language sense, OA's are interrupts; they interrupt.

Furthermore, from a mechanical perspective, OA's clearly are resolved before the triggering action - just like Immediate Interrupts. Both syntactically and semantically there is thus justification to group OA's and Immediate Interrupts in a category you might name "interrupts".


Now, if you feel that this is potentially confusing, and that pedagogically speaking another approach is preferable, that's a fine choice to make. But, please, don't claim that it's somehow wrong to mention that OA's are interrupts. They are "interrupts" even though interrupts is not a game-defined term and even though saying so might mislead a reader into believing it is a game-defined term.

(Ultimately, in this instance it doesn't matter that it's not a game-defined term since it behaves consistently even without such a definition.)

 

[eamon]

I don't get this at all... this is the way I see it/interpret it:

Targets are adjacent (or within 2 squares) to you - your Avenger uses the power Warding Blade, pushing all but the primary target 2 squares away. Your Avenger had Repulsive Armor up.

Non-primary target attempts to move back into an adjacent square. 2 triggers are at
work here - one is an immediate reaction and one is an immediate interrupt. The IR allows the target to complete its move action before it kicks in and the II takes full effect *before* the target completes its action. So the II hits, then the IR kicks the target one square back out.

And this is a case where a specific rule over-rides a general rule, so if any of the other non-primary targets enter an adjacent square, you get an OA against them as well, (or any that hit or miss) at least until the end of your next turn.

I don't see where the need for reach comes in - Unless you mean if a target with reach 2 hits or misses you? Can you explain further please?

Thanks!

PS But I do love OOTS!

Firstly, before we get bogged down by another terminology debate, you're referring to Opportunity Actions as Immediate Interrupts. That's obviously confusing, although it doesn't affect the outcome of your example, so I won't mention it further.

Opportunity Actions resolve before the triggering event; so what keterys is refering to is that when an enemy other than Warding Blade's primary target enters an adjacent square, the Opportunity Action resolves before the move. Since that is the case, if you don't have a reach weapon and if the enemy came from a non-adjacent square, then, when the Opportunity Action resolves, the enemy is still out of reach. Therefore, if you don't have a reach weapon, you cannot take the Opportiny Action.

Of course, you can take the Opportunity Action if the enemy hits/misses you, so even by RAW it's not entirely worthless, though keterys may well be right in assuming that RAI is that you get a chance to hit him even without a reach weapon. On the other hand, the wording of the power even mentions reach, so you'd hope they considered this...