Timing of Immediate actions

[Kurald Galain]

(from the Q&A thread)

The spell Stone Shield (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/stone-shield) is an immediate action that effectively adds +4 to your AC against one attack. Are there rules on when you have to declare this? In particular, can you use it retroactively to turn a hit into a miss? (e.g. I normally have AC 20; the DM says "the troll hits AC 22"; I then decide to cast Stone Shield turning my AC into 24, making the troll miss). There are several similar "immediate" spells, such as Saving Finale (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/saving-finale), or abilities like the Saving Shield feat (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/saving-shield-combat).

I haven't been able to find RAW on the matter, but there seems to be little point to the spell otherwise. Is there a firm rule about this or is it up to the DM?


One forum user responds,

the spell does not confer any ability to turn back time, nor does it state that any action is to be redone (unlike with saving finale, where it specifies that the saving throw is rerolled). Therefore, it cannot "turn a hit into a miss".

Another forum user says the opposite,

Your example with the troll is exactly how it works. The DM declares his total to-hit number and you can change your AC in response.

So which is it? Perhaps there is a FAQ or rulebook section that references this?

[Psyren]

I'm not actually saying "the opposite." If combat progressed to the point that you already got hit and took the damage, then I would agree, it's too late to stone shield at that point. Rather, what I'm saying is that the DM announcing his number gives you time to respond.

[Elkad]

Since there are other immediate actions that allow you to raise your AC after the hit is declared. I'd go with yes, you can declare it after the roll.

Zephyr Dance, Desert Wind 3
"You gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against a single attack. You can choose to use this maneuver after an opponent resolves his attack but before he determines damage."


Pretty sure I've seen others.

[Fax Celestis]

The latest you can use it is directly before the damage dice leave the DM's hand and clatter onto the table.

Immediate actions are just that: immediate. They happen precisely when you activate them.

[Dalebert]

I picture immediate actions almost like reflexes. You have this spell cocked and ready to go. An opponent is swinging at you and you can see he's going to connect, but even faster than you (a clunky wizard) can dodge, your mind says "stop!" and triggers the wall to block it.

[Psyren]

I picture immediate actions almost like reflexes. You have this spell cocked and ready to go. An opponent is swinging at you and you can see he's going to connect, but even faster than you (a clunky wizard) can dodge, your mind says "stop!" and triggers the wall to block it.

Keep in mind that Stone Shield is also available to combat-focused classes like Magus and Bloodrager, among others, so it's not always a "clunky wizard" :smalltongue:

I agree with your overall point though - it happens fast enough to let you do it mid-swing. The gesture and verbal component are likely very abrupt.

[Dalebert]

Any thoughts on the other point of contention raised? Do you get to know whether it will be enough to block the attack, i.e. do you know the total attack value first?

[StoneCipher]

You would not know if it is a hit or miss, and your DM shouldn't tell you until damage is rolled. I would say that if damage is rolled, you cannot declare an immediate action to turn it into a miss. However, if the DM says "x is attacking you" at that point, regardless of them rolling attack dice or not, you should be able to use your immediate action.

I imagine a successful attack roll being the potential to hit and the damage being the moment of contact.

[Psyren]

Any thoughts on the other point of contention raised? Do you get to know whether it will be enough to block the attack, i.e. do you know the total attack value first?

This really depends on how your DM announces hits. If he tells you the total to-hit then you will know whether or not using it will make a difference. If he merely tells you what he rolled (and leaves out any of the modifiers), you may end up wasting it - either using it on a high roll you didn't have a prayer of beating anyway, or using it on a middling/borderline roll that would have missed you anyway. If he doesn't tell you anything at all the spell becomes pretty useless.

Historically, I and my DMs have used the first one; It doesn't harm anything. I can see using the second method though. The third I would be against.

[Kurald Galain]

If he doesn't tell you anything at all the spell becomes pretty useless.

Well, yes. If you would have to announce the spell when the DM says you're being attacked, then the spell has a 80% chance of doing absolutely nothing (which means that it's really not worth preparing).

The spell is already pretty limited (it's a racial spell, that requires you to have stone nearby, and that will likely only protect you against one hit) so I don't see the need to limit it any further.

[HMS Invincible]

Well, yes. If you would have to announce the spell when the DM says you're being attacked, then the spell has a 80% chance of doing absolutely nothing (which means that it's really not worth preparing).

The spell is already pretty limited (it's a racial spell, that requires you to have stone nearby, and that will likely only protect you against one hit) so I don't see the need to limit it any further.
I'm wary of . Saying too late because damage was rolled. People often move past the attack into damage without waiting for the Pc to respond. I'd wait for the turn to end before saying too late.

[StoneCipher]

I'm wary of . Saying too late because damage was rolled. People often move past the attack into damage without waiting for the Pc to respond. I'd wait for the turn to end before saying too late.

The DM should ALWAYS announce attacks prior to them happening unless the PC is unaware of their presence. It's vital for a lot of things to know if you're being attacked before you are actually hit.

Once the attack is announced, you should interrupt the DM and say "[immediate action happens]" then he can proceed. If he does not let you interrupt or wait, he is not doing it right. Immediate actions are MEANT to interrupt things.

[Dalebert]

I'm taking it as a given, and I think this is Psyren's position, that it acts as an interrupt. That means you can announce when the DM says you were hit and it has a chance to stop it. You would never cast it for a failed attack. Whether or not you know whether it will make enough of a difference to stop the hit seems to be the point of contention, i.e. whether the hit was good enough that it would still succeed after a temporary +4 to your AC.

It seems like a reach to say your DM must tell you the final attack value but I do think you should be able to use it as an interrupt, i.e. after the DM says you were hit but before damage. An immediate action means it's an interrupt action and can be activated once you realize the attack is otherwise going to hit you, e.g. "It's coming right at me!" But you can't possibly predict how much damage it's going to do before hitting you.

[Psyren]

I'm personally even fine with "what's your AC?" "28." "It hits you." "I cast stone shield, making my AC 32!" *DM glances down briefly, then back up.* "it still hits you." So long as the players can infer, correctly, that at least at that point in time (and perhaps all the time) the monster was able to hit a 32 AC.

To put this in terms of the in-game action, if you noticed a magic javelin or fireball bead flying toward you (i.e. you're not flat-footed or helpless), your instinct if you had this spell would likely be to throw it up, whether you knew it would stop the projectile or not. If the magic javelin then punctured your rocky barrier and jabbed you, or if the bead detonated so powerfully that even the barrier didn't help you duck out of the way, that's still a reasonable outcome - the spell didn't save you and it may not have even helped at all. But at least you got to throw it up there, and now you know your opponent is pretty dangerous. Assuming you survived that initial assault, you can modulate your tactics accordingly, possibly even considering retreat.

But what I would not agree with, is "I cast stone shield." "Too late." followed by rolling for damage.

[HMS Invincible]

Can you explain the benefits of hiding attack rolls most of the time? I know it's a style difference and it's useful for fudging and surprise attacks.

[jjcrpntr]

In the game I'm running our rule is immediate actions must be declared when I say "the monster swings at you". I just don't like the retroactive nature of saying oh my 24 ac.. ok it hit nope my ac is now 28 after they've been hit. That said I always give a pause before I roll damage in case they want to use something like this.

[StoneCipher]

Can you explain the benefits of hiding attack rolls most of the time? I know it's a style difference and it's useful for fudging and surprise attacks.

To force more immersion and reduce metagaming. I don't like it when people base decisions on something they know the numbers on. It also allows me to fudge. I do a lot of fudging for and against the PCs to control the story. I'm not a fan of character death in unimportant battles.

[kardar233]

In the game I'm running our rule is immediate actions must be declared when I say "the monster swings at you". I just don't like the retroactive nature of saying oh my 24 ac.. ok it hit nope my ac is now 28 after they've been hit. That said I always give a pause before I roll damage in case they want to use something like this.

I would concur; in my game immediate actions have to be declared as a direct response to an action.

DM: The Orc swings at you, what's your AC?
Player: It's 17.
DM: He.... hits.

The declaration of any immediate action would have to happen after the declaration of the action but before the attack or anything is rolled.

[Elkad]

I would concur; in my game immediate actions have to be declared as a direct response to an action.

DM: The Orc swings at you, what's your AC?
Player: It's 17.
DM: He.... hits.

The declaration of any immediate action would have to happen after the declaration of the action but before the attack or anything is rolled.

Except some immediate actions (like Zephyr Dance) specifically say you can use it after you are hit, but before damage is rolled.

[Kurald Galain]

DM: The Orc swings at you, what's your AC?
Player: It's 17.
DM: He.... hits.


Incidentally, I know only one DM who runs his games this way, and I find that it noticeably slows down combat for no good reason (as opposed to DM: "the orc hits AC 20" - player "he hits").

[Psyren]

Except some immediate actions (like Zephyr Dance) specifically say you can use it after you are hit, but before damage is rolled.

This - and also, how would it work with Misfortune? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle/archetypes/paizo---oracle-archetypes/dual-cursed-oracle)

[jjcrpntr]

Except some immediate actions (like Zephyr Dance) specifically say you can use it after you are hit, but before damage is rolled.

spells that specifically state that it can be used after the but before the damage we use as normal.

I just don't like the idea of having someone get hit (say a buffed wizard with greater luminous armor/shield all that stuff so he has pretty decent AC) I say what's your ac, ok the orc hits you. THEN the player says nope I abrupt jaunt away. So my rule is I say ok what's your ac the orc is going to swing at you. If you don't abrupt jaunt then you don't get to.