(4E) Quick Rules Question

[Zocelot]

Hello all, I've got a quick 4E question about getting hit.

My ground has been playing with a rule where, if you get hit by an attack and then move (or shift) away as an interrupt, you are not affected by the attack, provided you are out of reach.

I couldn't find any such rule in the PHB, and I myself think it's counterintuitive that you can get "hit" by an attack and still not get hit by it. Is there a rule that says what I outlined above, and if so where is it located?

Thanks a lot for help.

[Behold_the_Void]

As I understand it, if it's an Interrupt, then you go BEFORE the action you are interrupting. Not sure where, but I imagine it's on the rules for the "Interrupt" keyword, the index probably has it.

[Gralamin]

Hello all, I've got a quick 4E question about getting hit.

My ground has been playing with a rule where, if you get hit by an attack and then move (or shift) away as an interrupt, you are not affected by the attack, provided you are out of reach.

I couldn't find any such rule in the PHB, and I myself think it's counterintuitive that you can get "hit" by an attack and still not get hit by it. Is there a rule that says what I outlined above, and if so where is it located?

Thanks a lot for help.

If you have an immediate interrupt that allows you to move or shift when hit with an attack, then it misses if you are no longer a valid target. This means that for a close or area, you must move outside the burst / blast/ wall, for a melee you must be out of their melee reach, and for ranged you must be outside their total range. This is covered on page 268 of the PHB.

[Swordgleam]

In addition to what the other people have said, I'm fairly sure you're doing it right. Because otherwise, all those "shift away from attack as interrupt" utilities are really underpowered.

[Inyssius Tor]

There are two types of immediate actions, though you can only take one immediate action per round.

Immediate reactions take effect after whatever triggers them.

Immediate interrupts take effect before whatever triggers them.

--Page 268 of the Player's Handbook.

In other words: your group is right.

[oxybe]

imagine the immediate interrupts that let you move away is kinda like Spiderman's Spider Senses: that blow is going to land, but you instinctively move out of the way moments before it actually collides.

[zoobob9]

As most others have said, you need a specail power that lets you do that OR you need to prepare the action as a standard action on your previous turn. If you don't have a power or prepare the action, you take damage.

[DabblerWizard]

There are two types of immediate actions, though you can only take one immediate action per round.

Immediate reactions take effect after whatever triggers them.

Immediate interrupts take effect before whatever triggers them.

--Page 268 of the Player's Handbook.

In other words: your group is right.


I realize I'm nit picking, but your paraphrase of the Immediate Interrupt (I.I.) rules is logically inconsistent. It makes no sense to say that the Interrupt effect occurs before the triggering action. You take an I.I. after a triggering event takes place. A triggering event is a mechanically appropriate reason to interrupt another character's actions. Without this trigger, you would be arbitrarily taking a turn where it's not appropriate.

With that said, the following might be a better paraphrase of these actions:

Immediate reaction: [Enemy's turn] - Enemy A takes a standard/minor/move action that triggers (or initiates) Player B's action. Enemy A completes their action. Player B's triggered action reacts.

Immediate interrupt: [Enemy's turn] - Enemy A takes a standard/minor/move action that both triggers (or initiates) and reacts player B's action. Enemy A may or may not complete their action.

[Kurald Galain]

I realize I'm nit picking, but your paraphrase of the Immediate Interrupt (I.I.) rules is logically inconsistent. It makes no sense to say that the Interrupt effect occurs before the triggering action.

Yes it does, it's a mechanical artifact similar to how timing rules in Magic: the Gathering work: whatever is announced last is resolved first.

[Yakk]

[interrupt] ... and, if the original action is no longer legal, the original action is wasted.

[KillianHawkeye]

It makes no sense to say that the Interrupt effect occurs before the triggering action.

Because what it really is is "the Interrupt occurs before the triggering action resolves."

What this means is that (for example) the attack hits you, but before the damage is applied, you take your immediate action. Then, the triggering attack gets resolved only if it is still valid.

It makes a lot more sense if you view an action as resolving in phases. I.E., the action is declared, the action is performed, the results of the action are applied. Interrupts generally occur between steps 2 and 3 here.

[Saintjebus]

yes, your group is right. It's like the 3.5 contingency rules- "If an attack would reduce me to 0 HP, teleport 200 ft straight up." When the actions finish, the attacker has used his attack, you have not lost any HP, and are 200 ft into the air.

Basically, the way that interrupts work requires a little bit of retconning every time they are used.

[DabblerWizard]

Because what it really is is "the Interrupt occurs before the triggering action resolves."

What this means is that (for example) the attack hits you, but before the damage is applied, you take your immediate action. Then, the triggering attack gets resolved only if it is still valid.

It makes a lot more sense if you view an action as resolving in phases. I.E., the action is declared, the action is performed, the results of the action are applied. Interrupts generally occur between steps 2 and 3 here.

Oh sure. I agree with you. I think we're having a misunderstanding because (1) we're differing on what we consider to be the important part of Inyssius's quote, and (2) there's a slight semantic ambiguity between triggering, initiating and resolving. Let me rephrase.


Immediate interrupts take effect before whatever triggers them.

(1) As far as what Inyssius said in the above quote, I misinterpreted his use of the word "effect" and put emphasis on his use of the word "before". In this case, "before" basically means "resolved".

I interpreted Inyssius' statement as meaning: immediate interrupts resolve before the triggering action takes place. That interpretation is obviously inconsistent with the game's mechanics, because immediate interrupts can't come into play unless an action triggers them into being permissible.

I realize now, that is not what was meant.

(2) The initiation of certain enemy actions triggers a scenario where immediate interrupts and immediate resolutions can be considered. Whether the enemy's action resolves before the character's action resolves, depends on the details of the specific power, namely, whether it's an immediate interrupt or immediate reaction (and of course, whether the player decides to use the power or not).

In other words, using KillianHawkeye's example:

Immediate reaction: Enemy action is declared - player action becomes permissible - enemy action is performed (i.e. completed) - player action is performed immediately afterward (assuming player decides to do so)

Immediate interrupt: Enemy action is declared - player action becomes permissible - player action is performed (assuming they decide to do so) - enemy action may or may not be performed (depending on circumstances)

This is basically what I was trying to say in my original posting for this topic. :smallsmile:

[KillianHawkeye]

I'm glad I could help clarify it for you. :smallsmile: