Questions about immediate action resolution

[A_S]

1. When an immediate action is declared in response to something you do on your turn, under what circumstances can you change your action in response to that declaration?

In general, I consider immediate actions to work just like readied actions (i.e., they resolve immediately before the action that triggers them), except that you don't have to ready them ahead of time. If this interpretation is correct, then the triggering action goes through as long as it's still a valid action. From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm):
If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
However, this conflicts with the text of the Wings of Cover spell, which says:
Your foe's first attack in this round cannot be made and is wasted against you, though he could decide to take any other action, including choosing to attack one of your allies instead, or take a full attack action that grants him additional melee attacks against you in this round (if your foe is of high enough level to have additional attacks).

...

Your foe could choose to attack the area in which you have taken cover with an area attack (such as a fireball spell).
Is Wings of Cover an exception to the general rule in that it allows your attacker to change their action after you cast it? Or is that text clarifying something that can always be done in response to an immediate action?

The SRD text on readied actions also doesn't clarify what happens if the triggering action is no longer valid (e.g., if you Abrupt Jaunt out of range of an incoming melee attack). Is the action wasted? Or can the attacker choose a different, more appropriate action in its place?

2. Can immediate actions be declared in response to part of an action, and if so, what are the consequences?

Imagine that your opponent declares a charge (a full-round action) against you. Can you take an immediate action (say, Abrupt Jaunt away) after the movement portion of the charge, but before the attack portion? If you do so, what action is your opponent considered to have made, a move action (because he hasn't attacked yet) or a full-round action (because he declared the charge as a single action, not a move followed by an attack)? Does the answer depend on whether he charged less than his normal movement (i.e., something he could have done with a single move action) or more than his normal movement (which he would have had to spend two move actions to do had it not been part of a charge)?

Similar issues arise with declaring immediate actions partway through full attacks. According to the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack):
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
So, can you retroactively change your iteratives into a move action if your opponent Abrupt Jaunts away after your first attack, even though at that point you would have already declared your intention to continue with the full attack? If the immediate action occurs after your second attack, do the remainder of your iteratives go to waste without allowing you to do anything else in their place?

-----

If anybody can explain these issues to me, especially with pointers to the relevant rules text, I'd be very grateful. Also, if anybody has advice on good ways to rule on ambiguous cases or houserules regarding immediate action resolution that have worked well for them, I'd love to hear about it.

Thanks!

[Aracor]

Well, some of your questions simply have no answers as far as RAW. Your interpretation that it works similar to a readied action is fairly common, but as you've noticed it opens some holes. So part of the answer to your first one is: Ask your DM.

As for Wings of Cover vs Abrupt Jaunt, AJ doesn't actually say they can change their action. However, as that's already by FAR the most powerful immediate action magic there is, I as a DM would allow the action to be changed. In which case you'd have to be cautious about how you use it.

As for part of an action? No. Simply no. If someone is trying to charge you, you abrupt jaunt. If you can put difficult terrain or something in the way so they can't charge you, then sure, you force them to make a different choice. If you just bounce ten feet and they still have a valid charge path from their original square, then I'd rule they still charge you.

Immediate actions through full attacks: You're looking at it backwards. If they try to take an attack and you jaunt (even assuming the very permissive ruling that you can make yourself completely immune to melee by jaunting out of their attack range), whether an attack is a full attack or not is determined AFTER the result of the first attack has been determined. You've pretty much quoted the relevant rules text right there. They attack you. You bounce away (I would rule that if you bounce before they attack, they can simply move up or charge and hit you anyway, assuming they still have a move action). As they can't take a full attack without a ranged weapon, so far they've only used a standard action. If they haven't also used a 5' step, then they can take a move action to get right up in your grill again.

I wouldn't allow you to use abrupt jaunt to allow someone to automatically miss you. There's already a mechanism in place to determine whether or not you're hit: armor class. Once the first attack is resolved, I'd absolutely allow you to jaunt to avoid a full attack (even on a pounce charge), but as I said, jaunt is not a replacement for armor class. You've got plenty of ways to raise it, or create miss chances, or any other number of ways to foil melee. I don't see jaunt as an instant get-out-of-melee free card. Even with that ruling, it's STILL amazingly powerful in a huge number of situations.

[Than]

I've always treated Immediate Actions as interrupts. Like feather fall interrupts the act of falling before the splat. Abrupt jaunt in your example would get you out of the way of the charge and effectively negate the opponents action. A charge is a full round action, not a move and a standard action combo. Once they start charging (move toward you) they are committed. If you jaunt out of melee range they can only spend the attack portion of the action on the empty space, or another target within reasonable range of that straight-line charge.

[Deophaun]

If you jaunt out of melee range they can only spend the attack portion of the action on the empty space, or another target within reasonable range of that straight-line charge.
Interestingly, a charge need not be in a straight-line. Sure, under normal circumstances that's what happens, but the actual requirements are:

-Move directly toward the closest square you can attack the target
-Clear path between start of movement and end

If you're in an open field, charging someone, and they jaunt in the middle of your movement, you can still continue your charge at them provided that you still move to the closest square, and he hasn't put an obstacle between you and the start (original position, not current) of the charge. Aracor is mostly correct in his assessment. I think RAW only differs in that you do not recalculate the entire charge from the start (that is, the charger still has to have enough movement left from where he wound up to reach you, and the closest square is determined from his new position, not the original).

Counter-intuitively, because of how "clear path" is defined, this means that if the target jaunts to put difficult terrain between himself and the charger's current position, the charger can still charge over that difficult terrain (provided he has the movement remaining) as long as it also isn't in a line from his original position to his end.

[A_S]

Thanks for the replies; glad to hear I'm not the only one who can't find a clear explanation of this stuff in the rules text.

Immediate actions through full attacks: You're looking at it backwards. If they try to take an attack and you jaunt (even assuming the very permissive ruling that you can make yourself completely immune to melee by jaunting out of their attack range), whether an attack is a full attack or not is determined AFTER the result of the first attack has been determined. You've pretty much quoted the relevant rules text right there. They attack you. You bounce away (I would rule that if you bounce before they attack, they can simply move up or charge and hit you anyway, assuming they still have a move action). As they can't take a full attack without a ranged weapon, so far they've only used a standard action. If they haven't also used a 5' step, then they can take a move action to get right up in your grill again.
I'm sorry; I didn't state my question clearly. The case I was asking about wasn't where you declare your immediate action in response to the first attack, but in response to the second attack (i.e., right after the attacker commits to full attacking).

Sequence:
1. Bob the fighter attacks Willy the wizard.
2. Bob rolls against Willy's AC, and the attack either hits or it doesn't.
3. Bob has so far only used up a standard action, but he says, "Okay, I keep attacking."
4. Willy Abrupt Jaunts away.

Does Bob have a move action left, or has he already blown it by declaring his intent to full attack (even though the teleportation occurs before he actually does so)?


Counter-intuitively, because of how "clear path" is defined, this means that if the target jaunts to put difficult terrain between himself and the charger's current position, the charger can still charge over that difficult terrain (provided he has the movement remaining) as long as it also isn't in a line from his original position to his end.
This explanation seems like it implicitly assumes that it's possible to use an immediate action partway through the movement portion of a charge. Otherwise, the start>end path and the charger>target path would necessarily be the same path, right? Am I understanding correctly?


Ask your DM.
In this case, that's going to be me. I'm trying to get a grasp on what the rules actually are before I decide if and how I want to house rule them. At the moment, I'm leaning toward:

Immediate actions resolve immediately before the action they are declared in response to, just like readied actions. Unless the text of the immediate action specifically indicates otherwise (e.g., the Wings of Cover spell), the actor who declared the triggering action may change that action if and only if it is no longer a valid action (e.g., a melee attack against a wizard who has used Abrupt Jaunt to teleport out of range of melee attacks).

Immediate actions may not be declared partway through an action (e.g., between the movement and attacking portions of a charge); they must be declared in response to an action as a whole.
Does this seem like a relatively clear and reasonable house rule to use? Does anybody have ideas on what might be better?

[Deophaun]

This explanation seems like it implicitly assumes that it's possible to use an immediate action partway through the movement portion of a charge. Otherwise, the start>end path and the charger>target path would necessarily be the same path, right? Am I understanding correctly?
Yes. Immediate actions are based on the rules for free actions, and so can be used at any time, even simultaneously during another action.

EDIT:
Does this seem like a relatively clear and reasonable house rule to use? Does anybody have ideas on what might be better?
The problem with this rule is that it makes a lot of immediate actions of questionable value. Think of all immediate actions which give a boost to AC or saving throws. You've just nerfed them to hell, because by playing them like a readied action, you're allowing any caster to a) know that their targets just increased their defense and b) change their target to something softer. Additionally, if you have to declare an immediate action at the start of an action, then you are not allowed to wait to know if you are the target of the action before you use it. So basically every defensive immediate action (which most immediate actions are) get burned up on false alarms and cease to be effective.

[Than]

3. Bob has so far only used up a standard action, but he says, "Okay, I keep attacking."

My group has never played that way. At the start of our action we declare our intent to use a full attack action. Someone blips out after the first swing, oh well.

As for the charge we don't allow you to zig and zag for those. Straight line or bust. Besides, if it was intended to allow you to charge in anything but a laser straight line they wouldn't have made a feat (or was it class feature?) specifying that ability.

[Devronq]

Have you ever played MTG? They use a system called "the stack" for things like this and its what i use in this situation. Basically whoever declares their action last goes first and then in reverse order from there. So with all immediate actions if player 1 says he does something then player 2 then player 3 then player 3's action would happen first, then player 2 then player 1.

[Curmudgeon]

1. When an immediate action is declared in response to something you do on your turn, under what circumstances can you change your action in response to that declaration?
You appear to be under the misapprehension that actions must be declared in D&D, and then executed based on that declared plan of action. It's almost never the case that you must declare what you're going to do ahead of time. Instead, you can take any legal actions available to you whenever it's your turn. If the situation changes, you can take different actions.

The Stunning Fist feat is one of the few cases in the rules where your are required to declare an action ahead of time. Ready is another case; you declare your plan ahead of time, with the triggering condition necessary for that plan to be executed.

[Lafaellar]

Have you ever played MTG? They use a system called "the stack" for things like this and its what i use in this situation. Basically whoever declares their action last goes first and then in reverse order from there. So with all immediate actions if player 1 says he does something then player 2 then player 3 then player 3's action would happen first, then player 2 then player 1.

That's exactly the way I do it.

[NEO|Phyte]

My group has never played that way. At the start of our action we declare our intent to use a full attack action. Someone blips out after the first swing, oh well.

So you're playing with a houserule, then. Not having to commit to a full attack until the second swing is RAW (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack).


Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack

After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

[A_S]

The problem with this rule is that it makes a lot of immediate actions of questionable value. Think of all immediate actions which give a boost to AC or saving throws. You've just nerfed them to hell, because by playing them like a readied action, you're allowing any caster to a) know that their targets just increased their defense and b) change their target to something softer. Additionally, if you have to declare an immediate action at the start of an action, then you are not allowed to wait to know if you are the target of the action before you use it. So basically every defensive immediate action (which most immediate actions are) get burned up on false alarms and cease to be effective.
The first part is why I included the restriction that you can change your action only if your original action is invalid. So, If you try to smack a duskblade, and he casts Deflect, you have to go through with the attack (despite the increased AC), because attacking is still a valid thing to do. But if you try and smack a wizard, and he Abrupt Jaunts away, you get to pick something else, rather than wasting your action.

I'm not sure I understand the second part...don't you usually declare the target of an action at the same time you declare the action (with a few exceptions like not having to decide the target of iterative attacks until the earlier attacks are finished)?


Have you ever played MTG? They use a system called "the stack" for things like this and its what i use in this situation. Basically whoever declares their action last goes first and then in reverse order from there. So with all immediate actions if player 1 says he does something then player 2 then player 3 then player 3's action would happen first, then player 2 then player 1.
Yes, and I definitely had the stack in mind when coming trying to figure this stuff out. I think I prefer not to use it unmodified, though, because it makes immediate actions a bit overpowered (the "immediate actions work just like the stack" interpretation is the one that lets you use Abrupt Jaunt to automatically force your enemies to waste their attacks).


You appear to be under the misapprehension that actions must be declared in D&D, and then executed based on that declared plan of action. It's almost never the case that you must declare what you're going to do ahead of time. Instead, you can take any legal actions available to you whenever it's your turn. If the situation changes, you can take different actions.
This interpretation makes an awful lot of immediate actions completely worthless. When you play, do you allow a spellcaster to do something besides casting a spell when somebody uses Divine Denial to counter their spell? Or repick what they shoot at an Iot7V after the veil has gone up, so they can pick something that isn't blocked by the veil that was chosen?

By my reading, the existence of immediate actions already implies a delay between action declaration and resolution (otherwise, there would be no time at which it would be legal to say, "no, I use ," since the triggering action would already have resolved).

You mention readied actions, too. The readied action itself is obviously a special case, since it must be declared [i]far in advance of when it resolves. The triggering action, on the other hand, is more evidence that there's a delay between action declaration and resolution: first the triggering action is declared, then the readied action resolves, then (if it's still a legal action) the triggering action resolves. This is in fact why I started off with the assumption that immediate actions are like readied actions that you don't have to ready; it's the only interpretation I could find that gives coherent results with all the immediate actions I could find (except the contradictory text in Wings of Cover).

[Deophaun]

I'm not sure I understand the second part...don't you usually declare the target of an action at the same time you declare the action (with a few exceptions like not having to decide the target of iterative attacks until the earlier attacks are finished)?
Nope. If I start casting a spell, I do not have to declare a target until the spell takes effect. This is easiest to see with the summon monster series of spells, which take one round to cast. You start casting on your turn, everyone else gets to move, and then at the start of your turn the spell takes effect, at which point you determine what monster you summon and where it appears.

From the SRD:

You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.

[A_S]

Nope. If I start casting a spell, I do not have to declare a target until the spell takes effect. This is easiest to see with the summon monster series of spells, which take one round to cast. You start casting on your turn, everyone else gets to move, and then at the start of your turn the spell takes effect, at which point you determine what monster you summon and where it appears.

From the SRD:

Well there ya go. Thanks. I'll drop the rule about partial actions.