eriktheguy
First Post
It seems to me that the issue here is that Wizards did not explain the mechanics of immediate interrupts and immediate reactions very well. Immediate reactions are simple enough, they happen in response to a triggering action, and resolve after the triggering action.
Interrupts add another layer of complexity. Sometimes interrupts happen in response to an action but prevent it from happening. A fighter's OA prevents an enemy from retreating. A rogue's OA kill the goblin and prevents it from firing its bow.
When multiple interrupts react to the same action, things get weirder. When a fighter's OA prevents a target from running away, it stops the target from moving. If the target is prevented from moving, do all the other players adjacent to the monster still get OAs? In this case, the answer is yes. When the target moves, it triggers OA's from all adjacent targets. After the fighter resolves his OA, the target is no longer moving. However, since the other players actions were still triggered, they are still allowed to resolve. Lets call the fighte player A and the other player, player B. The sequence looks something like this.
Monster declares action to move
Monster triggers OA from player A
Monster triggers OA from player B
Player A resolves his OA
The monster is no longer moving
Player B resolves his OA
Even though the triggering action is no longer valid when player B resolves his OA, the OA was still triggered and therefore occurs.
The situation with Viper strik occurs as follows.
Monster declares action
Warlord invokes Viper strike
Monster triggers OA from fighter
Fighter attacks the monster, according to the rules for combat challenge (PHB 76) the monster is now marked.
Fighter resolves attack, canceling movement if necessary.
Monster resolves action, shifting or not shifting as appropriate
When the monster initially declares its shift, it does not have a mark and does not grant the fighter its interrupt attack. At the end of the sequence the monster finally shifts. I do not interpret this as an interruptible action. The monster already declared its action, at which point it could be interrupted. Now the monster is simply resolving its action. Note that in this interpretation, the fighter fails to gain the second attack, regardless of whether the opportunity attack hits or misses.
Another interpretation is that the monster resolving its action is the same as the monster taking its action. After the fighter's opportunity attack is delivered, the monster will continue to attempt its shift. If the fighter's attack hits, no action occurs at this point and no combat challenge attack is delivered. If the fighter's opportunity attack missed, the monster will successfully shift and provoke the combat challenge attack.
The difference between these two possible outcomes depends on how you view immediate interrupts and actions. The first possible outcome sees the rules in this way:
An action triggers interrupts/OAs when it is declared. Interrupts are resolved, then the action is resolved. Resolving the action does not trigger further interrupts.
The second possibility sees the rules this way:
An action triggers immediate interrupts/OAs. If the interrupts do not prevent the action, the action continues to attempt to resolve, possibly triggering more interrupts/OAs that are possible only because of the actions taken with the previous interrupts/OAs.
I believe that the first scenario is the case here. The rules listed for immediate actions on page 268 state that an interrupt lets you act when a 'trigger arises' and act 'before the trigger resolves'. This wording seems to make a distinction between when the trigger arises (when the monster declares the action) and when it resolves (when the monster completes the action). In this case OAs/immediate actions can be declared only when the action is declared, and not while it is being resolved. In this case the fighter gets his OA against the monster, but no combat challenge attack, regardless of whether the OA hits/misses.
Obviously the rules were not made to deal with this specific situation. The rules about triggers and interrupts are not very clear concerning opportunity attacks (they claim that OAs are an interrupt, but only define interrupts as immediate actions).
In my opinion, when an action triggers an interrupt, the interrupt resolves before the triggering action, but after the trigger. This means that additional effects created by the interrupt cannot respond again to the same trigger.
As a side note the fighter does not completely lose here. His mark remains and could prevent the monster from shifting or attacking again if the monster is still adjacent to the fighter.
Interrupts add another layer of complexity. Sometimes interrupts happen in response to an action but prevent it from happening. A fighter's OA prevents an enemy from retreating. A rogue's OA kill the goblin and prevents it from firing its bow.
When multiple interrupts react to the same action, things get weirder. When a fighter's OA prevents a target from running away, it stops the target from moving. If the target is prevented from moving, do all the other players adjacent to the monster still get OAs? In this case, the answer is yes. When the target moves, it triggers OA's from all adjacent targets. After the fighter resolves his OA, the target is no longer moving. However, since the other players actions were still triggered, they are still allowed to resolve. Lets call the fighte player A and the other player, player B. The sequence looks something like this.
Monster declares action to move
Monster triggers OA from player A
Monster triggers OA from player B
Player A resolves his OA
The monster is no longer moving
Player B resolves his OA
Even though the triggering action is no longer valid when player B resolves his OA, the OA was still triggered and therefore occurs.
The situation with Viper strik occurs as follows.
Monster declares action
Warlord invokes Viper strike
Monster triggers OA from fighter
Fighter attacks the monster, according to the rules for combat challenge (PHB 76) the monster is now marked.
Fighter resolves attack, canceling movement if necessary.
Monster resolves action, shifting or not shifting as appropriate
When the monster initially declares its shift, it does not have a mark and does not grant the fighter its interrupt attack. At the end of the sequence the monster finally shifts. I do not interpret this as an interruptible action. The monster already declared its action, at which point it could be interrupted. Now the monster is simply resolving its action. Note that in this interpretation, the fighter fails to gain the second attack, regardless of whether the opportunity attack hits or misses.
Another interpretation is that the monster resolving its action is the same as the monster taking its action. After the fighter's opportunity attack is delivered, the monster will continue to attempt its shift. If the fighter's attack hits, no action occurs at this point and no combat challenge attack is delivered. If the fighter's opportunity attack missed, the monster will successfully shift and provoke the combat challenge attack.
The difference between these two possible outcomes depends on how you view immediate interrupts and actions. The first possible outcome sees the rules in this way:
An action triggers interrupts/OAs when it is declared. Interrupts are resolved, then the action is resolved. Resolving the action does not trigger further interrupts.
The second possibility sees the rules this way:
An action triggers immediate interrupts/OAs. If the interrupts do not prevent the action, the action continues to attempt to resolve, possibly triggering more interrupts/OAs that are possible only because of the actions taken with the previous interrupts/OAs.
I believe that the first scenario is the case here. The rules listed for immediate actions on page 268 state that an interrupt lets you act when a 'trigger arises' and act 'before the trigger resolves'. This wording seems to make a distinction between when the trigger arises (when the monster declares the action) and when it resolves (when the monster completes the action). In this case OAs/immediate actions can be declared only when the action is declared, and not while it is being resolved. In this case the fighter gets his OA against the monster, but no combat challenge attack, regardless of whether the OA hits/misses.
Obviously the rules were not made to deal with this specific situation. The rules about triggers and interrupts are not very clear concerning opportunity attacks (they claim that OAs are an interrupt, but only define interrupts as immediate actions).
In my opinion, when an action triggers an interrupt, the interrupt resolves before the triggering action, but after the trigger. This means that additional effects created by the interrupt cannot respond again to the same trigger.
As a side note the fighter does not completely lose here. His mark remains and could prevent the monster from shifting or attacking again if the monster is still adjacent to the fighter.
