After the second time I was hit, I attempted to use Tide of Iron to push it away so that it couldn't attack me. The DM ruled that despite the fact that my attack has the result of pushing the target one square, the skeleton could use its immediate reaction before the push to attack me in return.
I disagreed, but accepted his decision for the session. However, it did cost me 30-40 hp (3 healing surges) over the rest of the encounter, so I'm curious:
a) According to the rules, was my DM's ruling correct? (After re-reading the rules for immediate actions on PHB 268, I could go either way on this.)
b) If not, how would you all suggest politely approaching the DM to suggest he revise his rule for next time?
Edit: after rereading, I see you used the word "reaction" when describing the situation. Therefore, no, it could not attack you.
Also, for section "b," I'd suggest merely taking the rules to the DM (outside the game, of course) and explain that you've studied them again and you think he was mistaken. There's no point in rehashing it any more than that, just fix the future sessions, can't go back and fix the past ones.
think of the spell speeds.
the chain can go on till no more immediate interrupts can be taken, where each one intterupts and supersedes the previous action.
good thing each unit has one immediate action per character's turn. good for oppurtunity actions too. except that means AoO's are almost guaranteed against you.
immediate interrupts are...
I asked specifically, and he said it was an immediate reaction (which is why I disagreed at the table). In general, I'm quite familiar with the rules; I'm only wavering on the "was the DM right" issue because of the last paragraph under the Immediate Action heading in the PHB.
... I'm only wavering on the "was the DM right" issue because of the last paragraph under the Immediate Action heading in the PHB.
You're wavering is caused only by the confusion that paragraph can sometimes elicit. The first paragraph has the important phrase in regards to this situation "...triggering action, event, or condition occurs and is completely resolved before...". So you resolve tide of iron totally before moving on, then the skeleton gets to act before anything else can occur in the turn. Which means you cannot move, activate a minor action power, or anything else until it has had its chance to take the reaction. That's what the second paragraph is trying to explain, not that it gets to act in the middle of your action. (unless, of course, you were a ranger using twin strike, then it would get to attack after your first attack, but that's a completely different issue :D)
The first paragraph has the important phrase in regards to this situation "...triggering action, event, or condition occurs and is completely resolved before...". So you resolve tide of iron totally before moving on, then the skeleton gets to act before anything else can occur in the turn. Which means you cannot move, activate a minor action power, or anything else until it has had its chance to take the reaction. That's what the second paragraph is trying to explain, not that it gets to act in the middle of your action.
Since the power works after they are hit with an attack they would get their reaction right after your attack. Then you would push them away. It is on the 2nd side of page 268 4E PHB under "For example". As the above post has said.
I've read the paragraph several times; it's the reason I reconsidered the position I took with my DM during the encounter. However, the "above post" doesn't actually agree with you, so I'm curious to hear you explain how you're reading it.
Let me put it another way. Suppose I had an encounter power that was written as follows:
Tide of Rainy Iron Blows
Encounter * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action; Melee weapon
Attack: Strength vs. AC, two attacks
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage. You can push the target 1 square and shift into the space that the target occupied.
When would this skeleton have been able to hit me back? Immediately after my first attack roll, but before the push? After the first push, but before the second attack? After my action had resolved entirely?
Note: If you plan to shift into the space the monster just left then I don't see how it would matter one way or the other. You would still be beside the monster when the action resolved unless you choose to not shift and I don't know if that is an option in your group or not.
If you have a Power which allows an attack as an immediate reaction to an attack from an enemy, can YOU use it before the enemy's attack knocks you prone?
If you have a Power which allows you to teleport as an immediate reaction to being hit by an enemy attack, can you teleport away before the attack knocks you prone (and then not be knocked prone, because you are out of reach of the attack)?
What if the Fighter readies an action to Bull Rush an enemy (who pushes on a successful attack) when it attacks you? He now has an immediate reaction to the attack. Will his Bull Rush come after the damage of the attack, but before the push effect?
If not, then he is being inconsistent in his handling of immediate reactions. Hopefully you can point out, in a nice way, that his handling of this rule was mistaken, because it needs to be handled consistently for players and monsters. The players need to be able to use Immediate Reactions the same way NPCs can use them, or it isn't very fair.
Maybe by pointing out the unintended consequences of his ruling, you can convince him his ruling was mistaken.
I think you are right, because the immediate reaction should resolve after the effects of the attack are resolved, and one of the effects of the attack is that you push the skeleton away. However, if your DM does not agree, then at least you and your party have some new options for using Immediate Reactions yourself.
The hit result is completely resolved before the reaction occurs. That includes the Push part, not just the damage part. If the fighter did not choose to follow them the skeleton's immediate reaction to attack will not help it since it will be out of range (unless it happens to be wielding a reach weapon).
Which would include him shifting into the square that the monster just left putting him still right next to the monster.
-You use Tide of Iron. If you hit, the Hit line occours, all of it.
-Does the situation fit the Immediate Reaction prerequisites (for example, are you in the monster's reach)? If yes...
-The Immediate Reaction takes place.
So...
The DM ruled that despite the fact that my attack has the result of pushing the target one square, the skeleton could use its immediate reaction before the push to attack me in return.
This is wrong. Completely wrong. And your DM should re-read the whole part of the rules about Interrupts.
However, you are wrong because when you use Tide of Iron you move into the target's square, so you take the attack. ;)
If you just pushed him, it would be different.
> Which would include him shifting into the square that the monster just left
> putting him still right next to the monster.
> However, you are wrong because when you use Tide of Iron you move
> into the target's square, so you take the attack. If you just pushed him, it
> would be different.
He doesn't have to follow the skeleton. Shifting into the square the creature just left is optional.
Reaction: An immediate reaction lets you act in
response to a trigger. The triggering action, event, or
condition occurs and is completely resolved before
you take your reaction, except that you can interrupt
a creature’s movement. If a creature triggers your
immediate reaction while moving (by coming into
range, for example), you take your action before the
creature finishes moving but after it has moved at
least 1 square.
Tide of Iron Fighter Attack 1
After each mighty swing, you bring your shield to bear and use it
to push your enemy back.
At-Will ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be using a shield.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you push the
target 1 square if it is your size, smaller than you, or one
size category larger. You can shift into the space that the
target occupied.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength modifier at 21st level.
So yes the attack has to resolve fully before the skeleton can react, including the push, and since you can chose to not shift into its square, if you chose to not shift, it can not use the re-action one the attack.
Though taking the re-action can be useful is there is another mele attacker in the party, as once it it used on you, the skeleton can not use it again until after its turn.
An immediate reaction might interrupt other actions a combatant takes after the triggered action. For example, if a power lets you attak as an immediate reaction when an attack hits you, your action happens before the monster can take any other action.
And as posted this is except a creatures movement.
Also I believe I said,
The move you used won't matter. It would be the reaction move you would need to look at. If the power has the activating thing of when it is hit by an attack then the monster would attack after you attack but before the push. Basically you hitting him causes the counter and that would happen right after you hit him. Then the impact of your blow pushes the monster back.
Note: If you plan to shift into the space the monster just left then I don't see how it would matter one way or the other. You would still be beside the monster when the action resolved unless you choose to not shift and I don't know if that is an option in your group or not.
Skeletal Rebuke (immediate reaction; at-will)
When hit by a melee attack, make a basic attack.
The trigger is when they are hit by the attack.
And the triggering attack must still fully resolve (including the damage and push) before they can react to it. An Immediate Reaction cannot interdict itself into the middle of an action in progress - only an Immediate Interrupt can do that.
Why does everyon leave out the 2nd part?
becaus eit does not conflict with the first part, the second part just says that you get the re-action before the triggering creature gets to take a second action, not before he finishes the attacks effects.
So, the first line about the trigger having to finish resolving holds, and it the key part.
I'll go with page 11 under "Specific Beats General".
So you will be house-ruleing all reaction powers to interupts I take it.
This is not a case of Specific beats General, The power does not state any exceptions to the timing rules of when a power can be used, and thus uses the standard rules for the type of action it is. If the counter attack power was an interupt, then it would trigger before the push, but as a reaction, the rules of reactions state when it triggers, and by that time it is to late.
It would be easier just to ask WotC for their imput.:lightbulb
An immediate interrupt would allow you to take your action when hit and before the damage and push - that's exactly what immediate interrupt powers like the wizard's Shield spell are all about (causing the hit to become a miss).
Oddly enough, the PHB example of an immediate interrupt is similar to this one albeit with the opposite intent by the defender: A defender using an immediate interrupt to shift away when someone attacks them, thereby preventing the attack from being able to land (since he's now out of reach).
We're playing through Scepter Tower of Spellgard, and my fighter had engaged a skeleton. The skeleton had the ability to make a melee attack whenever he was hit by a melee attack, as an immediate reaction.
After the second time I was hit, I attempted to use Tide of Iron to push it away so that it couldn't attack me. The DM ruled that despite the fact that my attack has the result of pushing the target one square, the skeleton could use its immediate reaction before the push to attack me in return.
I disagreed, but accepted his decision for the session. However, it did cost me 30-40 hp (3 healing surges) over the rest of the encounter, so I'm curious:
a) According to the rules, was my DM's ruling correct? (After re-reading the rules for immediate actions on PHB 268, I could go either way on this.)
Three things:
1) Does the skeleton have reach? If he does, it doesn't matter what sort of immediate action it is.
2) Is it an immediate reaction, or an immediate interrupt? An immediate reaction means he'll be pushed a square away; an immediate interrupt means he'll be adjacent to you.
If it was an immediate reaction and he didn't have reach, then you were right. If it was an immediate interrupt or he did have reach, then you were wrong.
b) If not, how would you all suggest politely approaching the DM to suggest he revise his rule for next time?
Ask him if it was an immediate reaction or an immediate interrupt. If it was an immediate reaction, point out the difference between the two and show him the rules. DMs are human too.
Though the skeleton would not be able to use its immediate reaction attack against you (due to being pushed out of reach), its immediate reaction attack would not be expended - it has the choice of whether to use it or not when the trigger occurs, and presumably it would not. Thus, this tactic won't necessarily help anyone else in the party - if someone else subsequently make a melee attack against it, it'll get to use its immediate reaction attack on them instead.
Three things:
1) Does the skeleton have reach? If he does, it doesn't matter what sort of immediate action it is.
2) Is it an immediate reaction, or an immediate interrupt? An immediate reaction means he'll be pushed a square away; an immediate interrupt means he'll be adjacent to you.
If it was an immediate reaction and he didn't have reach, then you were right. If it was an immediate interrupt or he did have reach, then you were wrong.
No reach, immediate reaction.
Ask him if it was an immediate reaction or an immediate interrupt. If it was an immediate reaction, point out the difference between the two and show him the rules. DMs are human too.
That was the other half of the OP. I pointed out the difference between reaction and interrupt at the time, and the DM ruled the skeleton's attack in anyway. Is there a polite way to bring it back up, or do I merely suck it up and accept that the DM is always right, regardless of whether he's correct?
One thing I would add:
Though the skeleton would not be able to use its immediate reaction attack against you (due to being pushed out of reach), its immediate reaction attack would not be expended - it has the choice of whether to use it or not when the trigger occurs, and presumably it would not. Thus, this tactic won't necessarily help anyone else in the party - if someone else subsequently make a melee attack against it, it'll get to use its immediate reaction attack on them instead.
At the time, the party's rogue (the only melee striker) was concentrating on another creature. All I had to do was last a few rounds toe-to-toe with the nasty skeleton while the strikers finished off its less-annoying allies. It worked out fine, but it would have been nice to save myself a couple of healing surges by not taking the skeleton's extra attack every round.
Oh, and this:
Just tell your DM off, and run your own game since you seem to know the rules better.
I'm not sure whether this was intended as written or sarcastically, but it comes off as "If you're so smart, why aren't you running the game?"
I'd prefer not to tell him off, both because he's a friend and because I enjoy the game. That's why, when I asked how I should approach the issue with the DM, I used words like "politely" and "suggest".
Additionally, I do already run another game, and one of the reasons I believe it runs smoothly is because I have good rules knowledge. You save a lot of time by not arguing with players, and the best way to do that is not to screw things up in the first place. For me, that means staying current on updates, paying attention to conversations on the Rules Q&A forum, and reviewing the relevant sticking points before sessions. I really don't see how good rules knowledge is a handicap for either a player or a DM.
I pointed out the difference between reaction and interrupt at the time, and the DM ruled the skeleton's attack in anyway. Is there a polite way to bring it back up, or do I merely suck it up and accept that the DM is always right, regardless of whether he's correct?
I'll stand by my suggestion of trying to use this interpretation yourself. Come up with an honest instance of trying to use an Immediate Reaction in the same way that the skeleton did. Maybe he'll let you, in which case, he's got a consistent House Rule on how Immediate Reactions work in his game. If he doesn't, let him know that you are confused, as Immediate Reactions worked this way for the enemy in another session.
As he's your friend, I probably don't need to say this, but don't be ridiculous or snarky about the question. Try to find a genuine instance where you would like to use an Immediate Reaction like the Skeleton did. I think that a good DM will either realize that he ruled the initial situation wrongly, or will be consistent and show you that he is applying a House Rule in these situations.
Now if he won't let YOU do it, but he lets the enemy do it, then I don't have any polite suggestions for you. If the rules mean one thing sometimes and something else at other times, I think you are stuck with this problem with the DM.
Also, sometimes it is just too much trouble to correct something wrong, but simpler to just do it right from here on out. I had a ranger last session kill a gnoll thanks to being Bloodied (and using a Bloodcrazed weapon), then after the attack, shifting, and burning an action point to charge and damage someone else, realize that he wasn't bloodied, because the cleric had healed him right before his turn. We didn't even say anything. We just moved on. Maybe you'll luck out.
You know them better than he does. You should be running it, or your own, or else unless you decide you will say nothing and submit to his rulings there will be conflict...because he doesn't care to check / correct himself.
I see it that you are here, so you are not all that willing to submit.
Summing it all up:
Tell your DM off, and run your own game. no sarcasm.
I'm saying that the event of the monster being hit triggers the counter. To resolve whether something hit or missed you add bonus/es and the D20 roll against AC or/and any defensive powers. If this is equal to or greater than you have hit. Then the event is resolved since you have determined that the melee attack has hit.
I am not seeing where anyone posted where in the "RAW" it says that the power is resolved if the trigger is just whether the power hit. IMO the power would have to say.
"When an enemy attacks with a melee attack, make a basic attack"
This would make the whole attack the trigger.
I'm sorry but I'm not seeing where "The triggering action, event, or
condition occurs and is completely resolved before
you take your reaction" = the person's standard action. To me this means any action, event, or condition can be chosen and that action, event, or condition has to be resolved first. In this case whether the attack hit or missed.
Note: It only says that the trigger has to be resolved. In this case whether a melee attack hit.
I'm sorry but I'm not seeing where "The triggering action, event, or
condition occurs and is completely resolved before
you take your reaction" = the person's standard action.
It doe s not mean the the re-action can not occur before the std action is finished, If you finished read the second paragraph that you quotesd earlier that would be clear, as they give an example about multiple attack powers, if you are hit with the first attack, then the reaciton can be applied before the second one.
However, the trigger having to resolve fully is sufficent to prevent the strike back in this case, because the hit does not full resolve fuly until its consequences are applied to the target of the attack, which includes the push, the triggering event is being hit, if the hit drops you you can not react to it now can you.
Note: that the example does show that a reaction power can interrupt powers without the power taking full effect.
It doesn't say anything about "consequences" of the hit.
No, but the part about waiting till the trigger is "completly resolved" does mean
applying the immediate consiquences of the hit need to be applied.
Plus, the trigger is not just the hit, but the also indvidual melee attack that hit you, which needs to resolve fully as well.
In addition to me reading the rules as other people, believing the power and its effects must all be completely resolved before the skelly attacks as a reaction, I think it also makes sense.
With an immediate interupt, the person sees your flinch, expects what's coming and reacts. In an immediate reaction, something happens to the person (or skelly) and this sets them off, allowing them a reactive response. What does NOT make sense to me is how the act of the power hitting, or simply touching the skelly, without any effects coming into play, allows him to react. If the attack misses, he gets no response, and if he is hit, he can react, before anything else happens? before that touch even confers damage?? That means he is reacting in the split second he is touched even gently by an attack that will hurt him. That makes no sense.
You can't seperate the damage and the push effect; that is clearly something that only happens because of the attack. He hits so hard it does a certain amount of damage and pushes them back; it is one attack that causes two things, but these things happen as one effect, and that is damage and push. I feel Ace is suggesting that the skelly reacts in a timeframe that does not make sense at all. How does he react to a pushing blow that he can only determine has hit him, by it hitting him?! There is no split second between "The attack is touching me" and "I am taking damage from being touched, and being pushed". It's one event; it's the confirmation of being hit that actually causes the damage and the push. I can't even make sense of Ace's argument logically.
A melee attack could miss and not trigger the power. The trigger is the hit. Melee attack just describes the type of attack that has to hit. We are just assuming that the whole power has to be resolved or is it in the rules?
OK, why are you not asking Customer Service as you have told us?
Also, here is the thing, as you are readint reaciton, you can react to the hit before the damage roll, it would be possible to drop the origional attacker befor his damage roll. at which point how can he roll damage for the attack that triggered your reaction?????
He cant he's dead.
That is not what a reaction does, that is what a interupt does.
Page 266 below the entry about turns and rounds. Everybody's actions in the game world happen almost at the same times. This means that they all my not start or end at the same time they all do over lap. The game of D&D breaks this up into turns so everyone doesn't go crazy trying to figure out what happens/ed.
My question is why can't the action, event, or condition just be the attack hitting. So in my view the PC attacks with TOI power and hits. That hit cause the monster to counter with his attack whether it be hit or miss as the monster takes damage and is pushed back.
Now in my games I would just go for the story answer and roll the attack for the monster. If the monster hit ten he was fast enough with his attack to land a blow before the push. If he miss the attack then I would tell the player that the PC managed to to push the skelly away and the thing swing went wild as it was pushed back. But that is just what I would do and not in the rules. It would be more fun but not in the rules.
My main problem is being told I'm wrong about the rules and no one knows where in the rules that proves them right. It talks about it on page 276 at the top of the page. Resolving an attack comes first then it describes what happen when you hit. According to this you determine whether the attack hits. This is the trigger and as such the monster attacks as it is taking damage then the impact of the damage sends the monster back 1 square. The counter happens right after the hit so you are almost attacking at the same time. This happen tons of times in movies. The hero is fight up close with the bad guy and the bad guy push them back only to look down and see that he was hit before he was able to push the hero.
OK, why are you not asking Customer Service as you have told us?
Also, here is the thing, as you are readint reaciton, you can react to the hit before the damage roll, it would be possible to drop the origional attacker befor his damage roll. at which point how can he roll damage for the attack that triggered your reaction?????
He cant he's dead.
That is not what a reaction does, that is what a interupt does.
CS only gives you the answer they are supposed to and that is it. On here you can discuss what are the rules.
Note: An iterrupt invalidates the action that is the trigger. The the case we are talking about an interrupt would happen before you attacked and if the monster hit you would lose you action. This was a reaction so you could counter the attack with another attack but was not meant to make you lose your action. As opposed to Displacement which happans before you hit making you reroll the attack.
To the OP this is why it is easier to talk with your group as a whole and decide how it should work from now on. I would suggest telling the DM that you would like to have a group discussion about this rule and go from there. A good DM values their players imput on rules even if they don't use them.
My question is why can't the action, event, or condition just be the attack hitting. So in my view the PC attacks with TOI power and hits. That hit cause the monster to counter with his attack whether it be hit or miss as the monster takes damage and is pushed back.
I got that part. What you're failing to explain is how, in your view, an immediate reaction is any different from an immediate interrupt.
You're arguing that the skeleton's immediate reaction ability is triggered as soon as it's determined that he's been hit--before damage or other effects from the attack are applied. What would happen if the skeleton knocked the fighter unconscious with that immediate attack? Does the fighter still deal damage? Does he still push the skeleton back?
At what point, precisely, do you think an immediate reaction can break into someone else's standard action?
That ambiguity is nicely banished if you read the "completely resolved" line that several people have referenced; it's from the last paragraph in the left column on page 268. "An immediate reaction lets you act in response to a trigger. The triggering action, event, or condition occurs and is completely resolved before you can take your reaction..."
"Completely resolved" seems to indicate that my fighter's attack is resolved--whatever is on the "Hit:" line of my ability happens, including damage and possibly other effects, as outlined on page 276--and then the skeleton gets to use its immediate reaction.
I have to go to bed people. I'll post again tomorrow night or in the mourning if I have time before work.
Note: The attack would only resolve completely if it was the trigger. Which in this case it is not the melee attack hitting is the trigger. That entry never says a reaction can't interrupt action types. Only that it the trigger must be resolve and that EXCLUDES movement. So you can set the trigger when someone moves next to you. Then the reaction would stop the creatures movement while you take the reaction. Interrupt comes before trigger action, event, condition and reactions come after the trigger. If I hit a gnome with the same move and deal damage then the gnome would turn invisible before the push but after the damage. Because the damage is the triggering event. Not the action causing the damage.
Note2: As for the damage killing the PC I would say that would be the DM's call on how it should work. I would say the attack still hit because the hit triggered the reaction so the Dead PC wouldn't be able to roll damage but the player would be more then happy to help out the group.
Note3: It is unlikely that in 4e a monster would do enough damage in one attack the kill a PC. Even if the PC was at one HP.
THe trigger occurs, that is not in quesiton, so we look at the rules for the timing of the reaciton.
Reaction: An immediate reaction lets you act in
response to a trigger. The triggering action, event, or
condition occurs and is completely resolved before
you take your reaction,
Simplest viewpoint is the hit has ot resolve fully, so what is up for debate is what is entailed in a hit. You are saying nothing other then the attack having hit, and he can react before anything else if cone, If only they had defined ehat a hit is.... Oh wait they did.
ATTACK RESULTS
When you make an attack, compare your attack roll
to the appropriate defense score of the target.
✦ Hit: If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the
defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has
a special effect, or both.
Automatic Hit:....
As the attack is a hit, evething under the hit entry of the rules needs to occur before it is finished resolving, whixh includes the effect on thew hit line of the power.
There, that RAW enough for you.
That's not how the game's official rules handle it, but you're free to apply this house rule in your own games.
OK, lets start this train of though over again.
THe trigger occurs, that is not in quesiton, so we look at the rules for the timing of the reaciton.
Simplest viewpoint is the hit has ot resolve fully, so what is up for debate is what is entailed in a hit. You are saying nothing other then the attack having hit, and he can react before anything else if cone, If only they had defined ehat a hit is.... Oh wait they did.
As the attack is a hit, evething under the hit entry of the rules needs to occur before it is finished resolving, whixh includes the effect on thew hit line of the power.
There, that RAW enough for you.
I believe The part above that table talks about about how to resolve an attack. The table only tells what happens after you resolve whether an attack hits.
So essentially you're claiming that there's no difference between an immediate reaction and an immediate interrupt - because you're proclaiming them to both work in exactly the same way.
That's not how the game's official rules handle it, but you're free to apply this house rule in your own games.
Again with this "house rule". I have already said what I consider the difference is.
Note: An iterrupt invalidates the action that is the trigger. The the case we are talking about an interrupt would happen before you attacked and if the monster hit you would lose your action. This was a reaction so you could counter the attack with another attack but was not meant to make you lose your action. As opposed to Displacement which happans before you hit making you reroll the attack.
To me everyone is assuming that completely resolve means the effects after the hit is determined. Just because this is the main view doesn't make it RAW.
Note: An iterrupt invalidates the action that is the trigger. The the case we are talking about an interrupt would happen before you attacked and if the monster hit you would lose you action.
Just little correction to the above: An Interrupt may invalidate the action that is the trigger. It doesn't automatically do so as you seem to indicate.
The correct answer to the OP's question has been said several times, but I repeat it once more: Whole Tide of Iron Hit line occurs before the skeleton has a chance to use his Immediate Reaction and thus (if the Fighter does not follow the skeleton after the push) the skeleton cannot attack the fighter with the attack without a reach weapon/attack.
I suggest that you (mccowen the OP) chat with your GM about the matter. Since you said you are friends, it won't probably result in anything unfortunate. Private discussion may work best - some people may consider 'having been wrong and been shown the correct way' humiliating to some degree and privateness may protect the GM's pride a little bit.
An immediate reaction might interrupt other actions a combatant takes after the triggered action. For example, if a power lets you attack as an immediate reaction when an attack hits you, your action happens before the monster can take any other action.
This quote (that you pointed out in the first page) actually proves your point wrong, Ace_of_time. It's the "second part" that everyone's leaving out. It says quite clearly that an immediate reaction may interrupt actions taken after a combatant takes the triggered action. So yes, the entire standard action takes place before the immediate reaction. It has to. Otherwise if a reaction had a push as part of it's effect, it may invalidate the action that triggered it. Which a reaction is not allowed to do.
There's a specific Swordmage encounter power called Blastback Swipe (Player's Guide to Faerun page 28) that can be used in conjunction with the Aegis of Assault ability. Do you read the use of Blastback Swipe with Aegis of Assault as invalidating the damage portion of the enemies' attack?
As I see it, either the push from Tide of Iron invalidates the Skeleton's immediate reaction, or Blastback Swipe doesn't invalidate the enemies attack. I'm pretty certain it's the first one, based on rules arguments in this thread, the paragraph from the PHB you quoted, and my own interpretation of the rules. Besides, if immediate reactions invalidate actions that trigger them, the only difference (that I can see) between the two is the description (or, to be clear, fluff).
To me everyone is assuming that completely resolve means the effects after the hit is determined. Just because this is the main view doesn't make it RAW.
Actually it is, for a very6 simple reason.
EVERYTHING IN THE HIT LINE OF A POWER IS A PART OF THE POWER HITTING.
The hit can not be fully resolved until its effects on the game state are accounted for, basic common sense if nothing else
THe effects of the hit include the Hit line of the power
Therefore the hit line must be accounted for before the hit can fully resolve.
Also, as to the line from the Attack Results check, yes it is valid, as the event that triggers the reaction IS the attack results check. IT is the event that causes the trigger, and has to finish before the reaction can take place. Why, because being hit is just a part of that check, It only occurs in relation to that check. hte reaction trigger off a flag that that check sends up, and it needs to finish before the reaction can take place.
Besides, I looked at the encounter I think you were in, and it looks like you had much bigger issues. I definitely would have allowed the use of Tide of Iron as you intended, I think it was a good idea for the situation.
This quote (that you pointed out in the first page) actually proves your point wrong, Ace_of_time. It's the "second part" that everyone's leaving out. It says quite clearly that an immediate reaction may interrupt actions taken after a combatant takes the triggered action. So yes, the entire standard action takes place before the immediate reaction. It has to. Otherwise if a reaction had a push as part of it's effect, it may invalidate the action that triggered it. Which a reaction is not allowed to do.
There's a specific Swordmage encounter power called Blastback Swipe (Player's Guide to Faerun page 28) that can be used in conjunction with the Aegis of Assault ability. Do you read the use of Blastback Swipe with Aegis of Assault as invalidating the damage portion of the enemies' attack?
As I see it, either the push from Tide of Iron invalidates the Skeleton's immediate reaction, or Blastback Swipe doesn't invalidate the enemies attack. I'm pretty certain it's the first one, based on rules arguments in this thread, the paragraph from the PHB you quoted, and my own interpretation of the rules. Besides, if immediate reactions invalidate actions that trigger them, the only difference (that I can see) between the two is the description (or, to be clear, fluff).
It is all in how you read it. That part "triggering action" could mean the action types used in the trigger or could be referring back to the first part that being triggering action, event, or condition. I never said that the ToI power wouldn't resolve after the attack. That was someone who tried to say the if by some off chance there was a monster of the some about level that could do enough damage in one basic melee attack to kill the PC then the action that the PC took would be invalid. This couldn't happen. Because if the move was invalid then the move wouldn't even have took effect to cause the damage that killed. It is just a person's way of trying to prove some else is wrong by coming up with some off the wall thing that could make the whole thing wrong. Even if the monster could deal enough damage to kill a PC in one hit. The PC's attack triggered the attack that killed him/her and would still be resolved haveing still taken place. It would look something like this.
1. The PC would use Tides of Iron. If that hit.
2. That would trigger the counter attack which would then be rolled and if it hit.
3. Both would deal damage and effects of the attacks. Causing the skelly to deal damage to the PC right before being paused back by the damage he just took.
Now barring whether the attacks hit or not I'm not saying the action would cancel the ToI power. Just that the skelly would get his attack roll right after the players then both would deal damage at the same time almost. Now if you want to to can assume that that part in the book says that the action Type must be resolved first. But that would just be us assuming tat that is what it says. The fact is that No Where In The Rules In There Current State Does It Say That The Whole Action Type Is Resolved First. Just the Triggering Action, Event, Or Condition. In this cases whether the attack hit
would need to be resolved.
Note: From what I'm getting No is saying I'm wrong about the Hit being the trigger Just that some rule not stated saying that the whole action type has to be resolved first. The only way that the other way would be true is if:
1. There is some rule not posted that says the whole action type must be resolve first before the reaction. Or.
2. The standard action it's self is the trigger.
Now with the word as it stands the hit is the trigger. Not the action Type causing that hit.
Note: I don't have that book so I could guess how the powers would work together. I am sorry about not answering this part. I'll see if one of my friends has the book in question so as to refer to the powers. If they rules don't cover the use of them together I would say it would the DMs call.
Still say the OP needs to talk about this with the group as a whole and decide how it should work for them.
Page 57 on the right side under HIt: Talks about this also. the Hit: entry happens after you resolve whether the attack hits not as part of whether the attack hits.
I never said that the ToI power wouldn't resolve after the attack. That was someone who tried to say the if by some off chance there was a monster of the some about level that could do enough damage in one basic melee attack to kill the PC then the action that the PC took would be invalid.
That was me (among others), and I asked because according to your ruling there's no difference between an immediate interrupt and an immediate reaction. You still haven't addressed this problem.
It is just a person's way of trying to prove some else is wrong by coming up with some off the wall thing that could make the whole thing wrong.
It's not off-the-wall; it's extremely relevant precisely because it exposes a hole in your argument.
1. The PC would use Tides of Iron. If that hit.
2. That would trigger the counter attack which would then be rolled and if it hit.
3. Both would deal damage and effects of the attacks. Causing the skelly to deal damage to the PC right before being paused back by the damage he just took.
This is how an immediate interrupt works, which is not what this enemy has.
Now if you want to to can assume that that part in the book says that the action Type must be resolved first. But that would just be us assuming tat that is what it says. The fact is that No Where In The Rules In There Current State Does It Say That The Whole Action Type Is Resolved First. Just the Triggering Action, Event, Or Condition. In this cases whether the attack hit
would need to be resolved.
"The triggering action... occurs, and is completely resolved before you can take your reaction" is not an ambiguous statement.
Note: From what I'm getting No is saying I'm wrong about the Hit being the trigger Just that some rule not stated saying that the whole action type has to be resolved first. The only way that the other way would be true is if:
1. There is some rule not posted that says the whole action type must be resolve first before the reaction. Or.
2. The standard action it's self is the trigger.
We're arguing that "completely resolved" means that you deal with all of the steps under "Making an Attack" on page 269, and then the monster gets to break in with an immediate reaction. (An immediate interrupt doesn't have this limitation.) You're arguing that "completely resolved" doesn't mean anything at all, and that the two action types are functionally identical.
Note: I don't have that book so I could guess how the powers would work together. I am sorry about not answering this part. I'll see if one of my friends has the book in question so as to refer to the powers. If they rules don't cover the use of them together I would say it would the DMs call.
You have the PHB, presumably, and you excerpted the skeleton's power earlier:
Skeletal Rebuke (immediate reaction; at-will)
When hit by a melee attack, make a basic attack.
You have all the information anyone here has.
Page 57 on the right side under HIt: Talks about this also. the Hit: entry happens after you resolve whether the attack hits not as part of whether the attack hits.
Actually, the word "resolve" doesn't occur anywhere in that passage. I did find some other interesting uses of the word "resolve", though:
- Page 232, "Thrown Weapons": "Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon... automatically returns to its wielder's hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved." According to your ruling, I get the weapon back after I've rolled my attack, but before I've actually dealt damage.
- Page 288, "Charge": "After you resolve a charge attack, you can't take any further actions this turn." According to your ruling, you can never deal damage with a charge attack, since your turn ends with a successful attack roll.
Either the "Hit:" line is included in "resolving" the attack, or those entries are entirely nonsense.
Note: From what I'm getting No is saying I'm wrong about the Hit being the trigger Just that some rule not stated saying that the whole action type has to be resolved first. The only way that the other way would be true is if:
1. There is some rule not posted that says the whole action type must be resolve first before the reaction. Or.
2. The standard action it's self is the trigger.
Well lets look at the triggering line again
"When hit by a melee attack"
The triggering line includedes the melee attack that causes the reaction to trigger, and a hit is just an outcome of the attack, nothing more, just the attack being sucesful. So the triggering EVENT is actually the attack, which needs to finish resolving.
In order to teleport before you're pushed, the power would have to be an Immediate Interrupt.
As I said before, you're free to house rule that an Immediate Reaction works just the same way as an Immediate Interrupt, but that's neither RAW or RAI.
You teleport after you're pushed.
In order to teleport before you're pushed, the power would have to be an Immediate Interrupt.
As I said before, you're free to house rule that an Immediate Reaction works just the same way as an Immediate Interrupt, but that's neither RAW or RAI.
Good point. I confess to having been a lazy poster and only skimmed the previous posts.
Yes but the immediate reaction to being hit is that he gets an attack. If you had a power that allowed you to teleport if you are hit with a melee attack as an immediate reaction, and someone hits you with tide of iron, pushing you over a cliff into a volcano, would you teleport before or after you were pushed? I would say before and I agree with the DMs ruling in this case as well.
This would be an interrupt in this case. Because the teleport could cancel the push. I in the case above that we have been talk about it be a reaction because the power couldn't cancel the damage or push. I think the confusion is in the mean of completely.
1com·plete
Pronunciation: \kəm-ˈplēt\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): com·plet·er; com·plet·est
Etymology: Middle English complet, from Latin completus, from past participle of complēre
Date: 14th century
1 a: having all necessary parts, elements, or steps b: having all four sets of floral organs cof a subject or predicate : including modifiers, complements, or objects
2: brought to an end : concluded
3: highly proficient
4 a: fully carried out : thorough b: total , absolute cof a football pass : legally caught
5of insect metamorphosis : characterized by the occurrence of a pupal stage between the motile immature stages and the adult — compare incomplete 1b
6of a metric space : having the property that every Cauchy sequence of elements converges to a limit in the space
synonyms see full
— complete·ly adverb
— com·plete·ness noun
— com·ple·tive \-ˈplē-tiv\ adjective
— complete with : made complete by the inclusion of
My thinking is the #2 meaning is what they mean. Where as most here believe they mean #1a. Also most think action means action types where as I think in this case I believe that the power is talking about the event of being hit and that resolving it is just decide whether it hit and whether any power will be use that could cancel it.
The not having the book was for the other powers that were posted that are not in my book. I don't have the Player guide to FR4e book. I assumed they were both in that book. I don't know what they do so can't make a call n how tey would work together. Sorry.
There's a specific Swordmage encounter power called Blastback Swipe (Player's Guide to Faerun page 28) that can be used in conjunction with the Aegis of Assault ability. Do you read the use of Blastback Swipe with Aegis of Assault as invalidating the damage portion of the enemies' attack?
About the comment about the off the wall thing: I fail to see how a situation that can't possible ever happen in 4e D&D is extremely relevant and puts holes in my views. I am reading the rules to say one way and others are reading to say another way. It never says a reaction doesn't interrupt actin types. Only they trigger action, event, or condition. To me be hit is a condition. To others it is part of an action that must be resolved. The rules can be read ether way. I don't need a "House Rule" in this case.
I have said it a number of times.
Interrupt=can cancel action
Reaction=can't cancel action and the triggering action, event, or condition must be resolved first.
I fail to see how this is the same in other views. You think I'm wrong because it interrupts the standard action you took. But it can interrupt any action type as long as that was not the trigger. The action in this case is not (when attack by a melee attack). It is when hit by one. The hit is the trigger and the melee attack describe the type of hit that triggers the power. Although I could see how a DM would see it you all way too. Tat is why I said they should talk as a group about the read the lines.
You teleport after you're pushed.
In order to teleport before you're pushed, the power would have to be an Immediate Interrupt.
As I said before, you're free to house rule that an Immediate Reaction works just the same way as an Immediate Interrupt, but that's neither RAW or RAI.
I understand that that is how you read the rules to be working. It is not how I read them. That example would have to say " When damaged by a melee attack. You teleport X squares." In order for it to work that way te way I am reading it. If it worked the other way then why does the racial power of a Gnome have them having to take damage. If taking damage =a attack hitting as you all say they wouldn't need to put the damage part in only when he was hit by an attack. If I'm wrong about this then does the gome power word it that way. There would be no need to say hit by on one power and damaged by on the other if you had to fully resolve the action type used first.
The way the poster worded that example makes it an interrupt not a reaction.
If it worked the other way then why does the racial power of a Gnome have them having to take damage.
because there are other ways one can take damage beside being hit from an attack (eg : miss effects that deal half damage), and not all attacks deal damage.
also, with regards to the definition you quoted, nope, we are all on the wavelength with regards to what completed means. We disagreement is with you interpretation for what it means to be hit/what needs to be done to completely resolve the hit. Everyone else is agreeing that it means the effects of the hit need to be applied, as they are a part of being hit. and the trigger refers to an attack that hits as the triggering event, not the hit on its own, which adds to what had to be resolved before the triggering conditions are completed (the attack needs to complete).
There have actually been a couple points that it has been obvious that you are misinterpreting what others are saying.
Note: If you really need a reply before then I come on once a day to check Joe Wood thread and My DM profile so feel free to PM me and I'll try to send a something back.
Sorry be back later.
If it's not an interrupt, it doesn't interrupt the attack. So the attack completes. Then the skeleton reacts. Immediately.