4E Resolving "Simultaneous" Attacks

[Trog]

I had had a question on the 4E method of resolving the attacks done by elite monsters that have an attack that allows them to make two of their basic melee attacks on a PC. So I called WotC to ask about it. Actually I had to call them twice. The first time I got an incorrect answer it seems. I thought I'd share what I found out from them (the second time) to help clear things up for others.

The basic issue is an elite creature has a power that allows it to make two basic melee attacks as a standard action. The character has a power that allows them to shift away if they are missed by an attack. How do you resolve this?

The way to properly resolve this (according to WotC) is to do each attack in turn. There are no simultaneous attacks. So a monster attacking with both hands using an attack during an attempted Double Attack and a monster attacking twice with the same single weapon are resolved in exactly the same way, one attack roll at a time.

To illustrate this: The monster makes the first attack. If the attack hits, it hits and damage is applied. Then the second attack is taken. If the first attack misses, the PCs free action power could be used to shift away from the attacker thus taking them out of harm's way for the second attack. The attacking creature may not split the attacks with another action. Like take the first attack, miss, the PC shifts away, the monster uses its move action to close the distance and then takes its second attack, for example.

Luckily this is how my group had interpreted this interaction already but I could not find any info on this in the published material. It's possible I overlooked it, though. Anyway there you have it.

[Aron Times]

I'm guessing that the power is an immediate reaction since it triggers only when the character is missed by an attack, whereas interrupts trigger when the character is hit.

The short answer is that if the elite can no longer reach the character, he doesn't get to make his second attack. For example, Wizard's Escape, an immediate interrupt that lets the wizard teleport away when he gets hit by an attack, would be useless if it still allowed the attacker to continue his other attacks.

[erikun]

That's pretty much how I read it.

If it is an immediate reaction upon a miss, then the character moves after the first attack misses. If the monster can target another character with the second attack, they are free to do so. If, however, they cannot - because both attacks only target one creature, or because no other characters are end range - then the monster's standard action is over and they do not get another attack.

If it is an immediate interrupt, though, the character's action goes first. The character would move/teleport out of the way before the attack, and the (first) attack would be wasted.

[Trog]

No. This particular power is listed as a free action, actually. Not an immediate interrupt nor an immediate reaction. Hence the initial confusion.

I cannot tell you what power it is offhand as it is not my character but that of one of my players and I do not have their character sheet.

[Aron Times]

Free actions are even better than immediate actions. If it's a free action, he gets out of the way without expending his immediate action for the turn.

[TheEmerged]

My understanding:

A power that is an immediate reaction happens after the triggering power resolves, but a power that is an immediate interrupt happens before the triggering power finishes. I'm basing this on PHB pg 268.

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.

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.

[erikun]

I think we're going to need the wording of the Free action, then. It is my understanding that Free actions can only be taken on your turn, which would make it useless. The only actions you should be taking on an opponent's turn are Immediate actions and No actions.

[TheOOB]

Free actions can be taken at any time they make sense unless the power says otherwise(and many do).

[TheEmerged]

If this is the goblin racial power (or based on it), it's an immediate reaction.

Free Actions. Per PHB 267, they can happen "during your or another's combatant's turn."

Ultimately, we're going to need to see the specific powers in question.

[KillianHawkeye]

It is my understanding that Free actions can only be taken on your turn, which would make it useless.

You got that backwards. It is actually immediate actions that you cannot take on your own turn.

[Asbestos]

You got that backwards. It is actually immediate actions that you cannot take on your own turn.

Are you sure? Because if I have a power that lets me take an immediate action when an opponent attacks me and on my turn I move and provoke an OA... doesn't that trigger the power?

[Artanis]

Doesn't really matter because you can't use an immediate action during your turn.

[Colmarr]

Are you sure? Because if I have a power that lets me take an immediate action when an opponent attacks me and on my turn I move and provoke an OA... doesn't that trigger the power?

The trigger condition is met but you can't actually spend the action (immediate action) you need to spend to use the power. So, by RAW, no it doesn't work.

However, a lot of monsters have an immediate action power that triggers on being bloodied or killed. Our DM got so sick of them being triggered by OAs (ie. during the monster's turn) and thus not being able to use them that he did away with that rule.

I personally think that it's a good houserule for monsters. Not sure it would be such a good idea to apply it to PCs as there's much more room for cheese.

[Jack_Banzai]

Are you sure? Because if I have a power that lets me take an immediate action when an opponent attacks me and on my turn I move and provoke an OA... doesn't that trigger the power?

Player's Handbook, page 268. "You can't take an immediate action on your own turn."

[TheEmerged]

You got that backwards. It is actually immediate actions that you cannot take on your own turn.

Before anyone goes all wikipedia on him and asks for the citation...

You can't take an immediate action on your own turn.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Hey, I have an excuse, I'm posting between calls at work

[dsmiles]

Good to know.

[Kurald Galain]

Free actions are much like immediate reactions, only without the restrictions. Immediate reactions can be done (1) once per round, and (2) not during your own turn. Free actions can be done whenever.

Free actions are not interrupts, however. Interrupts can explicitly change the event that triggers them (e.g. causing an already-rolled attack to miss), but reactions and free actions cannot.

It would depend on the exact wording of the monster and the player power whether the movement occurs after the first attack roll, or after the entire attack.

[kc0bbq]

However, a lot of monsters have an immediate action power that triggers on being bloodied or killed. Our DM got so sick of them being triggered by OAs (ie. during the monster's turn) and thus not being able to use them that he did away with that rule.

All the powers like this that I can think of offhand (i.e. Bloodied Breath on dragons) say something to the effect of "...and use it immediately.", specific trumps general and they use the power.

[Kurald Galain]

All the powers like this that I can think of offhand (i.e. Bloodied Breath on dragons) say something to the effect of "...and use it immediately.", specific trumps general and they use the power.

By RAW, that would most likely not work, because it requires "immediate action" to have a different meaning than "action immediately", which would require serious grammatical nitpicking. Also, the part that lets them recharge said power is still clearly an immediate reaction.

It's not exactly good tactics for the DM to provoke OAs in such a fashion. On the other hand, for some adventuring parties (e.g. with wizards and paladins) it may well be possible to keep the monster dazed most of the time, which also prevents it from taking immediate actions.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure why the game needs a distinction between "immediate" and "free" actions. It has one, by RAW, but it may have been easier without that.

[Dragonmuncher]

Hm. So both of these rulings are irritating me.

First: The double attack thing. IMO, the attack should be resolved as one attack, not two. Mostly because, the way 4e is set up, you're NOT making two attacks. You're using ONE attack, that has an attack roll and targets AC, which has a secondary target that requires a second attack roll.

Just like when you cast Fireball and each target burned doesn't count as a separate attack, neither should this.

Second: The immediate action thing. It just seems silly to me that if a monster has an ability that says "When I reach 50% health, I erupt in a fireball... unless it's my turn."

I suppose it's not a HUGE deal if it happens immediately after his turn ends and he can use an immediate action then (although it'd depend on the power), but it still seems "unrealistic."

[tcrudisi]

First: The double attack thing. IMO, the attack should be resolved as one attack, not two. Mostly because, the way 4e is set up, you're NOT making two attacks. You're using ONE attack, that has an attack roll and targets AC, which has a secondary target that requires a second attack roll.

Except, let's look at Twin Strike (page 105 of the PHB).
Attack: Strength vs. AC (melee; main weapon and off-hand weapon) or Dexterity vs. AC (ranged), two attacks

Just like when you cast Fireball and each target burned doesn't count as a separate attack, neither should this.

Once again, let's use the PHB (page 271) under Area Attack:
When you make an area attack, you make a seperate attack roll against each target in the area of effect...

Second: The immediate action thing. It just seems silly to me that if a monster has an ability that says "When I reach 50% health, I erupt in a fireball... unless it's my turn."

I suppose it's not a HUGE deal if it happens immediately after his turn ends and he can use an immediate action then (although it'd depend on the power), but it still seems "unrealistic."

Actually, I agree with you here. It is silly, but I also assume it's for balance purposes. Being able to use immediate actions on your own turn would make for some really powerful combos and tricks. I also cheer when my players are able to do that to an enemy, as it means they are using great tactics.

[Colmarr]

It is silly, but I also assume it's for balance purposes. Being able to use immediate actions on your own turn would make for some really powerful combos and tricks.

In players' hands, yes.

In monsters' hands, particularly the immediate actions with bloodied/killed triggers, I think imbalance and combos are less of an issue.

[Kurald Galain]

I suppose it's not a HUGE deal if it happens immediately after his turn ends and he can use an immediate action then (although it'd depend on the power), but it still seems "unrealistic."

I would hope it's firmly established by now that the design goal of 4E is not to be realistic, but rather, to be balanced and easy to play.

If you want a list of "things in 4E that are not realistic", well, that's something for a new thread perhaps, but it would be a long one. Then again, there's also quite a bit to be said about "things in 3E that are not realistic", even though realism was a design goal for 3E.

(using "realism" in the sense of "verisimilitude", not in the sense of "resembling real life")