When to declare immediate actions?

[JesperKT]

I could really use some guidelines on when exactly you have to declare an immediate action.

1st example: Crucial Advice (Ranger Utility 2)
- Trigger: "Ally makes a skill check"
- Option A: Before the ally makes the roll.
- Option B: After the roll, but before DM tells if it was a success.
- Option C: After DM tells if it was a success.

2nd example: Disruptive Strike (Ranger Attack 3)
- Trigger: "Ally is attacked"
- Option A: Before attacker makes the attack roll.
- Option B: After attacker makes the attack roll.

 

[deleteme123456]

It's certainly ambiguous for the 1st example. Clearly you're OK at A, no one can tell you that's not allowed, and there's some case for B, and some DMs / players may even be OK with C... and since skill checks in general aren't game-breaking, I'd probably give you B, but that's mostly my opinion and not based on any hard facts/rules.

For 2, I posted sometime last week or so a detailed description of what I consider the full attack sequence.

I think of it somewhat like magic, where there's a "declare attackers" step... imagine that there's a step in making an attack where you announce which power you're going to use and all the targets you're going to use it against. To some extent, there is, but it's not very formalized. In my game, right there, once you've announced who you're attacking, that's the chance for interrupts that rely on being the target of an attack, or more generally "is attacked" or "makes an attack" (but not things that specifically trigger off "makes an attack roll"). After they've made the attack roll, there's a small window for things to modify the attack roll but very few things need to be used there, most can wait until you know whether the attack is a hit, because most interrupts say "you (or an ally) is hit by an attack", and if the interrupt is used, you return to the "check if attack hits" step. So I'd only let you use D. Strike in your Option A.

 

[Mengu]

The 1st example, I'll go with Option C (but you might see some different table play on this one). It's an immediate reaction, so it's definitely not A. And as a DM, I like to make sure powers are useful, and giving a bonus to a skill check that already succeeded doesn't seem useful.

2nd example is B. Again, in table play the conversation usually goes something like this:

DM: Hey fighter, does a 22 hit you?
Fighter: Dang, by one point.
Ranger: Wait, I use Disruptive Strike, it's an immediate interrupt!
DM: Ok, roll to hit...
Ranger: I hit AC 27 for 14 points, and he takes a -6 penalty to that attack!
DM: As the huge orc champion is about to bring his axe down on the fighter, you shoot the orc in the arm, he almost drops the axe, though recovers quickly but his aim is ruined and misses the fighter.

 

[JesperKT]

I lean mostly towards agreeing with infocynic, even though I don't like it (i'm playing a ranger). If Example 2 should use option B, the trigger should most likely have stated "ally is hit" (like the wizard Shield power).

This, however, will make the penalty portion of the Disruptive Strike rather weak. In effect giving it a 25% chance of making the attack miss (for a wis 14 ranger).
But still, the attack only uses an interrupt, so maybe the damage is enough to make the power useful, and the off 1 in 4 change of thwarting the attack a nice bonus.

 

[deleteme123456]

Yeah, getting an attack as an interrupt or minor action is already fairly powerful, especially when you talk about the extra chance to use striker damage if you missed on your main attack, plus all the static mods you can add (str, weapon focus, enhancement, iron armbands). Anything on top of that is nice.

FWIW at our table the DM's d20 roll is out in the open, and then he'll ask "what's your AC?" and then tell you hit or miss. You can't figure out the exact modifier (without a couple of rolls at least) but you can probably tell that if the DM rolled a 10, it's probably a miss or just barely a hit, whereas if the DM rolled a 19, there's not a lot of powers you can use that are going to negate that hit. If you watch the rolls, and you know that the monster hit the wizard on an 8, you can probably guess that it will hit the fighter on the 10, but it's probably going to be close enough that it's worth trying.

 

[Stalker0]

Immediate Reactions occur after the triggered action is taken and completely resolved (there's a quote in the PHB somewhere if I have to drag it out).

So for the first one, its option C. The skill check is made, all of its effects are determined (aka success or failure).

Reactions are easy, its the interrupts that get ya.

 

[JesperKT]

Immediate Reactions occur after the triggered action is taken and completely resolved (there's a quote in the PHB somewhere if I have to drag it out).

So for the first one, its option C. The skill check is made, all of its effects are determined (aka success or failure).

Reactions are easy, its the interrupts that get ya.

I agree Immedieta Reactions OCCUR after the triggered action is taken and completely resolved.

The question is: Can you wait to ANNOUNCE that you are using the immediate action until the triggered action has been completely resolved, or do you in fact need to announce the usage the moment the trigger appears?

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Um... what does it matter when you announce it.

A Player, before his turn, says "On my turn, I hit him".
B Player, when his turn comes, says "I hit him."

It seems pedantic to not allow a player to do A.

Given that for reactions, the reaction has no effect until after the trigger is resolved, what does it matter when the player announces it? Indeed, I would think that it would be easier to remember to use the power by announcing it when the trigger occurs rather than after it is resolved. That said, if a player didn't announce it then, I see no reason not to allow them to do so when the reaction would need to be resolved.

For interupts, on the other hand, would need to be announced at the point of the trigger, as anything else requires the GM to "roll back time", which can be highly annoying if it occurs too often.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Given that for reactions, the reaction has no effect until after the trigger is resolved, what does it matter when the player announces it? Indeed, I would think that it would be easier to remember to use the power by announcing it when the trigger occurs rather than after it is resolved. That said, if a player didn't announce it then, I see no reason not to allow them to do so when the reaction would need to be resolved.

I think the point is this:

Player A: I make a Diplomacy check.
Player B: I add 5 to the check with my immediate reaction that I need to declare when the trigger comes up(a skill check is made).
Player A: I roll a 30. Sorry, 35 with the bonus.
DM: It was DC 15. You make it.
Player B: Well, then I don't want to add the bonus if it isn't going to have any effect at all. That's an encounter power and I want to save it for when it'll be useful.
DM: Sorry, you have to declare you are using a power when its trigger happens. It's effects just happen after the roll is completed.

VS

Player A: I make a Diplomacy check. I get 10.
DM: No, sorry, it is DC 15.
Player B: I use my Immediate Reaction to add 5 to the roll.
DM: Oh, then you succeed.

The same thing can work in a number of other circumstances. For instance, Aegis of Assault. Do I declare I am activating it when my marked target hits an ally(which is what the trigger is) and then have the Ranger who was hit activate one of his Interrupts, hit, and kill the enemy? Or do I get to wait and find out the enemy is dead before I decide to use my immediate action for the round?

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Ah - I (perhaps inaccurately) was thinking of anything that can modify the trigger as an interupt.