Sure, the default Fireball is a ball of fire, but what if my spells all look like colored clouds? What if I use an item to change the type of damage?
Short of an Arcana check, monsters really shouldn't be able to respond that well to the attack.
This is technically how Shield or Second Chance works. Hit or Miss? Hit? Want to adjust that? No? Then take damage. You don't see how hurt you get or what bad conditions befall you before wanting that reroll... (Though we do that in my group anyways, because it's faster.)
"I cast Sid's Obscure Burning spell at him."
"Hit. He spontaneously become resistant to fire."
"What? How? He recognized the spell? But nobody's ever cast it! Or did he burn, and then found out it's fire, and then unburned?"
"...yes."
"You S.O.B."
You hit the monster and acid begins to scorch his skin. Suddenly his eyes flash green and the acid seems to lose its potency.
Bingo!
There's nothing I can see in either the definition of free actions or the definition of variable resistance which would suggest to me that a monster can use it as an interrupt to resist the damage it has just been hit with. The monster might choose to wait and see what damage type is being used against it before choosing its resistance type for the encounter, but if it does so, it will take full damage from that initial attack.
The problem is exactly this. Free Actions are not defined enough.
There are some triggerless Free Actions that do not function if Free Actions cannot interrupt other actions (Elven Accuracy is the most used example).
There are other Free Actions that get better if they can interrupt other actions (variable resist, for example).
There are also strange issues if you do not let free actions happen in the middle of other actions. You couldn't drop a held item in the middle of a move action. You couldn't talk and walk, or talk and attack at the same time. Etc etc.
There are some triggerless Free Actions that do not function if Free Actions cannot interrupt other actions (Elven Accuracy is the most used example).
Other than Eleven Accuracy, which ones are there again?
My general impression is that Free actions, unless they have a trigger or need to be used specifically as if triggered (ie Elven Accuracy), generally can't interrupt another action.
That's just an impression though, I agree it's not propertly defined.
Other than Eleven Accuracy, which ones are there again?
My general impression is that Free actions, unless they have a trigger or need to be used specifically as if triggered (ie Elven Accuracy), generally can't interrupt another action.
That's just an impression though, I agree it's not propertly defined.
Pray for More
You strike your enemy, but you pray to increase the amount of damage you deal.
Encounter Divine
Free Action Personal
Effect: If you don’t like the damage you have rolled with one of your attacks, reroll your damage. You must use the result of the second roll.
First published in Player's Handbook.
Fading Spiral
As a spiral of dark energy slams into your attacker, you phase out of reality
Encounter Arcane
Free Action Personal
Effect: Use this power when your use your Darkspiral Aura. You become insubstantial until the end of your next turn.
First published in Forgotten Realms Player's Guide.
Which was kind of my point. Are there any that don't have a trigger or an effectively invisible trigger that we KNOW can be used mid-action? (That's not a solid argument against allowing Free Actions mid-action, I'm just wondering if there is anything to disprove my general impression.)
Your bold lunge leaves you open to an enemy’s counterattack, but that’s just what you want.
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength modifier at 21st level.
Effect: The target can make a melee basic attack against you as a free action and has combat advantage for the attack. If the target makes this attack, an ally of your choice within 5 squares of the target can make a basic attack against the target as a free action and has combat advantage for the attack.
Both of these free actions have to occur within the standard action that is Brash Assault. The first free action lacks associated text to let them happen in the middle of the standard (apart from being in the effect line).
As opposed to Resist Variable, which doesn't necessarily indicate that it can happen when damage is occuring in the language.
Of course, I am kind of arguing a logic circle here. Any Free Action that doesn't explicitly indicate it can be used mid-action won't explicitly indicate it can be used mid-action.
When you are wielding two melee weapons and score a critical hit with your main weapon, you can make a melee basic attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target as a free action.
Could this free action happen in the middle of another action (say Rain of Blows)?
It has an implied trigger, but does not have to be involved in the attack that triggered it.
It seems to me that in those cases where free actions are specifically designated as interruptions, they had to call it a free action because either 1) the action is happening on your turn and thus could not be covered by an immediate action, or 2) the action is being given to someone else, and in order for the power to retain its maximum effectiveness, you wouldn't want to rely on the hope that they haven't already used their immediate action in the current round.
I feel like they are fudging a little bit calling these free actions, but it is the closest thing they have, and I can see their reluctance to add an entire new class of actions for these few odd cases.
In any case, ALL interrupts require a trigger, even these weird free-action implicit interrupts (where the trigger is the power that grants the free action in the first place). Variable resistance does not have a defined trigger, so it must be the normal style of free action, which cannot interrupt.
Also, if you think about it, why would they not just make it an interrupt if they intended it to be used that way? You're not going to use it at any other time if you can treat it as an interrupt, so why add the broader free-action functionality? The only logical answer is that free actions are not interrupts, but they are the next most flexible action type in the designer's toolkit.
In any case, ALL interrupts require a trigger, even these weird free-action implicit interrupts (where the trigger is the power that grants the free action in the first place). Variable resistance does not have a defined trigger, so it must be the normal style of free action, which cannot interrupt.
So you would not allow a player to talk and attack, talk and walk, walk and drop an item while walking, etc. ?
So you would not allow a player to talk and attack, talk and walk, walk and drop an item while walking, etc. ?
Careful there ... you're about to muddy some waters.
An interrupt does not, by any definition, happen in the middle of another action. It happens retroactively before the action it was interrupting.
If you want to start quibbling about two actions happening at the same time, then by RAW I'd have to say no, you can't do those things simultaneously. By RAI, of course I allow those you mentioned because they are largely inconsequential. (Also, they are not in the same class as the interrupt-style free actions we were talking about -- those are all very specifically denoted in power descriptions.)
The activation of variable resistance is not inconsequential, so strict adherence to the rules is mandatory.
Ive Heard that while you have as many free actions as possibile its limited down to only doing certain things a few times and only during certain situations.
For Example you cannot continue a long speech in mid combat during one round of combat. Your limited to saying 1-2 sentences MAX during that round at any time.
Damage Sources are considerd to be something that happins in an Instent.
Like when someone fires a gun and the bullet hits you. As a free action you cant just put on a Bullet prove vest as a Interrupt as you now know hes going to shot you with that hidden gun to reduce the damage.
A Free action Is limited and has its own restrictions However such things like this is up to the DM To call. However commen sence would tell me that you can gain a Resistance to Ignore damage that was allready dealt to you.
As Such if your fireball is doing Cold damage but still looks like a normal fireball. He Would possibly want to resist FIRE considering it looks like that.
His Skin freezeing and such allready dealt damage to him he cant just give himself a shiled to ICE all of a sudden to heal damage allready dealt (To do this you need Fast healing/Regeneration) He can however with that shield start preventing damage done to him as a after effect (Like if the Fireball dealt X Damage at the start of each round or such) his Resistance to it may now deal with that after effect.
With the whole Your acid attack melts his skin and then his eyes grow green and you see the acid stop.
Personaly He was still dealt damage by the Acid attack (Hints his skin melting) The reistance hes giving himself is to prevent that acid attack from getting Worse (Hints his skin still melting from the acid attack)
However Its invertly up to the Current DM.
IF He/she wants our Option i would say it Cant be used as an Interupt like that But it can be used (And he can guess what type of damage is going to be dealt to him) Like Fire when a fireball is comming at him.
However in the case of droping a weapon while walking you could just say the trigger is when he reaches a certain spot while walking hes going to drop the weapon.
Or after a certain amount of time of holding the weapon its going to be droped.
In these cases the trigger would be something very simple.
Besides a free action dosnt have to be an interupt. they can be reactions and such. Depends on the way you use it i would suppose.
Such as a free action calling the orc as a dwarf lover when he said something about your mouther Might be consider more of a Reaction then an interupt.
The activation of variable resistance is not inconsequential, so strict adherence to the rules is mandatory.
Please, cite me the passage that says you cannot take any actions in the middle of other actions.
Say a standard in the middle of a move.
You can turn the argument around to decide what is fair: if a player is about to get hit with an unknown attack, and could use variable resistance, should he be able to activate it with the correct type or not?
Yes.
Please, cite me the passage that says you cannot take any actions in the middle of other actions.
Say a standard in the middle of a move.
Why would I try to find a passage backing up a statement I never made?
But for the record, I'm pretty sure most people will agree that you cannot take a standard action in the middle of a move action unless you have a power that says you can.
Oh, fine, here:
Why would I try to find a passage backing up a statement I never made?
You said "strict adherence to the rules is mandatory."
I was looking for a source defining those rules.
This establishes that your actions are done in some kind of order. The existence of an order means that they do not happen simultaneously. That's what order means: one ends before the next begins.
Order does not imply one ending before another can begin. If there are 10 racers and they are seeded so they start a race at a different time, that is a start order. After the first racer starts, the next one starts some predetermined time afterwards. Does this mean that the first racer has now finished the race since order implies one ends before the next begins?
I understand most people agree that you cannot take actions in the middle of other actions (for standard, move, and minor, at least), but it is not written in the books anywhere.
You said "strict adherence to the rules is mandatory."
I was looking for a source defining those rules.
Order does not imply one ending before another can begin. If there are 10 racers and they are seeded so they start a race at a different time, that is a start order. After the first racer starts, the next one starts some predetermined time afterwards. Does this mean that the first racer has now finished the race since order implies one ends before the next begins?
No, you said it yourself -- the event referred to by the verb "seed" is the start of the race. So the start times are the things that happen in order, not the race in its entirety. You aren't going to win this way; I know what words mean, no matter how you try to twist them.
I understand most people agree that you cannot take actions in the middle of other actions (for standard, move, and minor, at least), but it is not written in the books anywhere.
Yes, it is, in exactly the place I quoted.
No, you said it yourself -- the event referred to by the verb "seed" is the start of the race. So the start times are the things that happen in order, not the race in its entirety.
So you're agreeing with us then? You can start as many actions as you want as long as you don't start them at the same time.
Yes, it is, in exactly the place I quoted.
Yeeahhh.... Where was that again?
So you're agreeing with us then? You can start as many actions as you want as long as you don't start them at the same time.
Um, no, I was referring to the specific example of the race and the verb "seed." You are not very good at reading. "Seed" applies only to the start of the race. Taking an action refers to the entire action.
Yeeahhh.... Where was that again?
Um, no, I was referring to the specific example of the race and the verb "seed." You are not very good at reading. "Seed" applies only to the start of the race. Taking an action refers to the entire action.
Really? Where does it specify this? I am taking a move action to walk over there, while I'm half way there I am taking a free action to drop my torch.
I've just done two actions, one was 'seeded', if you will, into the order of events after I began my move action but before I completed it.
It implies nothing of the sort. You have quoted a rule about quantity. It has nothing to do with order or lack thereof.
You are not very good at reading.
Ditto.
Really? Where does it specify this? I am taking a move action to walk over there, while I'm half way there I am taking a free action to drop my torch.
I've just done two actions, one was 'seeded', if you will, into the order of events after I began my move action but before I completed it.
Please try to follow me here -- the whole "seed" thing was Suoitidure's anecdotal example of something that was not even relevant to this argument in the first place. There is no "seeding" in D&D.
If you want to argue that you can take a move action inside a standard action or vice versa, you are going to have a lot more people than just me to argue with.
Yesterday I ran a game with 4 other DM's as players. When they ran into that Glabrezu with resist variable, I brought up the issue, and said it wouldn't be fair to use it as an immediate interrupt. They laughed and said of course you reduce the damage immediately, it's a free action and you can do what you want. All 4 DM's agreed with it. So I went ahead and used it as interrupt. It was fine. High level brutes with resist variable already suffer enough, it's their only way to show off at least a little. So yeah, in our groups we'll use it as immediate interrupt from now on.
Seems like the idea was made as an afterthought for all kinds of trivial things that probably wouldn't matter, but then they started making more and more fairly important things use free actions without bothering to tighten up the basic rule.
Many free action powers PC's have function the same way. They have a trigger, just like an interrupt, but are free actions. The intention is to not limit them in their usage. The word free really means free.
Many free action powers PC's have function the same way. They have a trigger, just like an interrupt, but are free actions. The intention is to not limit them in their usage. The word free really means free.
When I see a free action for a PC action (ones with Triggers), first thing I think about is "how often would this be used on a PC's turn." Usually the answer is most of the time.
Please try to follow me here --
You are not very good at reading.
I don't think you know what "imply" means.
First of all, what is your problem? Do you need to resort to insults to prove your point? Please refrain.
Please try to follow me here -- the whole "seed" thing was Suoitidure's anecdotal example of something that was not even relevant to this argument in the first place. There is no "seeding" in D&D.
Really, so there is absolutely no way that an action can follow another and another and another to create a chain of events in D&D? Secondly he was using the term as an example not a definition.
You quoted: "You can take your actions in any order you wish, and you can skip any of them."
He replied with: "Order does not imply one ending before another can begin."
And then proceeded to list an example of said reply.
You then attempted to disprove his argument by saying this: "No, you said it yourself -- the event referred to by the verb "seed" is the start of the race. So the start times are the things that happen in order, not the race in its entirety. You aren't going to win this way; I know what words mean, no matter how you try to twist them."
So you are agreeing with: "Order does not imply one ending before another can begin."
I don't think anyone twisted any words, we are all using the English language appropriately, and you have yet to prove that one cannot take an action while another one is ongoing. (I'm am talking about free actions at the moment.)
If you want to argue that you can take a move action inside a standard action or vice versa, you are going to have a lot more people than just me to argue with.
Considering that I have NEVER said anything about Move actions within Standard actions or vice versa, this is wholly irrelevant to what you quoted above it. In other words: No I do not want to argue that you can take a move action within a standard action or vice versa.
No, it doesn't. [...] That rule does not deal with interrupting actions, so it cannot imply anything about interrupting actions.
Who said anything about interrupting actions? I'm not trying to interrupt an action.
What you said is like saying, "Since it doesn't specify that the sky is blue, it implies that the sky is green," when the color of the sky wasn't even being discussed in the first place.
Let me use that exact example and fill in what I said in place of 'colors and sky' and see if it still makes sense:
What you said is like saying, "Since it doesn't specify that the action cannot be taken while another is ongoing, it implies that you can take them at ANY TIME," when Free Actions aren't even being discussed in the first place.
Hmm, nope, doesn't really make sense in this context now does it? Guess what I said is nothing like what you said. :P
There is no rule that says you can take them at any time.
I never said there was, I said there is a rule that implies it. Secondly, there is no rule that states the opposite so using that argument brings us nowhere.
It only says you may take as many as you want, and that you may take them during other people's turns. Not anytime during other people's turns, but during other people's turns according to the rules of order that apply to all actions.
Which brings us back to: "Order does not imply one ending before another can begin."
Don't we love these hair splitting discussions.
You BET I do... :D
Which brings us back to: "Order does not imply one ending before another can begin."
Yes it does. It also implies they are discrete elements that cannot be subdivided.
First of all, what is your problem? Do you need to resort to insults to prove your point? Please refrain.
I usually only get snippy when I feel words are being twisted or some other sort of rhetorical subterfuge is in play. I find it offensive, and my tone will reflect that.
"Whats a Player to Do?" Forum? Really? Who thought it was a good idea to move this here? :p
Free actions are superior. They don't need to have "interrupt" or "reaction" spelled out, since you really can take them at any time.
I would not say so.
Interrupts happen just after the declenching condition, even if the action is not completely resolved yet.
I would not allow free actions in the middle of another action ("I hit with my dagger, so I have +4 to hit because I am a rogue, and then I use a free action before the damage roll and change weapon, I take this big damage superior weapon I don't have proficiency with, but it doesn't reduce its damage...")
I only allow "frees" between actions. But it is my own ruling, here, not RAW.
The funny thing about free actions whenever you want, is that one round is 6 seconds, it's a free action to talk, and if you can take as many as you like, you can recite Lord of the Rings in 6 seconds. :P
The Peasant Railgun is a much better way to abuse the 6 seconds thing.
I would not say so.
Interrupts happen just after the declenching condition, even if the action is not completely resolved yet.
I would not allow free actions in the middle of another action ("I hit with my dagger, so I have +4 to hit because I am a rogue, and then I use a free action before the damage roll and change weapon, I take this big damage superior weapon I don't have proficiency with, but it doesn't reduce its damage...")
This, is why this thread belongs in the rules forum...
No one would ever suggest that one could use a free action in such a manner. Not to mention that there is no actual TIME between a Hit and Damage Calculation.
Effects such as Fire, Poison, Cold, Acid, etc. however take some time to fully do their damage. Hence there would be time to activate ones variable resistance. This is sensibly explained as (once again) per:
You hit the monster and acid begins to scorch his skin. Suddenly his eyes flash green and the acid seems to lose its potency.
No one would ever suggest that one could use a free action in such a manner. Not to mention that there is no actual TIME between a Hit and Damage Calculation.
Effects such as Fire, Poison, Cold, Acid, etc. however take some time to fully do their damage. Hence there would be time to activate ones variable resistance.
The rules don't mention that it takes any time for elemental effects to do their damage. On the contrary, it seems to be pretty instantaneous as far as the rules are concerned.
Since the rules cannot differentiate between a well-meaning attempt to avoid damage and a cheesy, abusive exploit, it makes more sense to go with the more restrictive interpretation of the rules.
Or ask for better guidelines regarding free actions, which is all I've really wanted all along.
It is not logical for you to switch your weapon to apply damage after you already hit with another weapon. That just doesn't make any sense at all.
However, (do I really need to quote DiLune AGAIN?), it DOES make sense that you are not burned, frozen or poisoned instantly (not saying this cannot be so, but from most discritions of powers this is not the case, as more over such an instantaneous effect would be a lot more crippling than the powers currently are). So it would make sense for one to use a Free Action to activate variable resistance.
And the rules do not preclude that even if you use the most strictest of applications.... is all I have been saying all along.
Secondly, if this is cheese then so are the swordmages interupts, the warlocks curse, marks in general, flanking, hell anything that helps you reduce or increase damage above the norm... what a cheesy game D&D is... :P
I put in bold the statement in question. In the compendium I can only find 10 monsters with variable resistance: the 5 Scathebeasts from FRCG, Flux Slaad, the 3 Immoliths, and Orcus (I did a search using "variable resistance").
Try again using just "variable", as most monsters don't have "Variable resistance" anywhere in their text box. It's something more like "Resist 20 variable 3/encounter", and I know at least most of the epic-level demons have it.
Don't we love these hair splitting discussions.
Yesterday I ran a game with 4 other DM's as players. When they ran into that Glabrezu with resist variable, I brought up the issue, and said it wouldn't be fair to use it as an immediate interrupt. They laughed and said of course you reduce the damage immediately, it's a free action and you can do what you want. All 4 DM's agreed with it. So I went ahead and used it as interrupt. It was fine. High level brutes with resist variable already suffer enough, it's their only way to show off at least a little. So yeah, in our groups we'll use it as immediate interrupt from now on.
And I say your 4 DMs are wrong, and need to go back to the rulebooks for a review. RAW, free actions, though they can be taken during another character's turn, don't interrupt. The definition of an interrupt (which is a type of Immediate action):
Interrupt: An immediate interrupt lets you jump in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting before the trigger resolves. If an interrupt invalidates a triggering action, that action is lost. For example, an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate interrupt. If your enemy can no longer reach you, the enemy’s attack action is lost.
Now, let's look at the definition of "free action"
Free actions take almost no time or effort. You can take as many free actions as you want during your or another combatant’s turn. The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn. Examples: speaking a few sentences, dropping a held item, letting go of a grabbed enemy.
Free actions may be made during another's turn, but they cannot interrupt someone else's action. The only thing that can be used as an interrupt is *GASP* an interrupt.
The reason that it says that it is a free action is to make sure that it does not detract from the three main actions one has in a turn: Standard, Move, Minor. However, Free actions, even though you can take them on someone ELSE'S TURN, can't happen as interrupts. That is why there are immediate action types, specifically interrupts.
Interrupts specifically state that you have a trigger, and you resolve the interrupt before the action that triggered it completed.
Free actions have no such rules. As such, free actions and Interrupts are NOT the same and CANNOT work the same way, or they would not have bothered making two separate definitions for "Free Action" and "Immediate Action: Interrupt".
It can't be clearer than that.
It can't be clearer than that.
I'm sorry for reanimating this thread but seeing as MM3 wasn't out when the last post was posted...
I refer to page 44 of the Monster Manual 3... that would be the Demon section of the book... I'd say it got way way way more clearer than how you described it... it's a triggered action with an effect that's a free action that applies the resistance after the fact...
PC A: Scorching burst!
DM: ok, the demon flares with abyssal fire in response, you can tell it is now resistant to fire
PC's: ok, no more fire attacks guys!
You could make the argument that this still limits what the PCs do, and so it is still having an effect. This is totally true. I just felt like I wanted a slightly bigger impact, and my group has not complained.
Also, I like a previous poster's explanation of how it works (not that we need to know that...saying, "this doesn't make sense" in D&D doesn't makes sense to me): you blast the demon with a fireball, but the instant its skin begins to heat up it flares with abyssal fire and grins. Its like how when you touch something hot you can pull your hand away before really getting burned (taking damage)...how does it work? It is a reflex. No conscious thought is required. Your brain doesn't have to think...hey now, this doesn't feel good, better pull away. The same thing could be true of Variable Resist...it is a reflex.