Immediate actions can interrupt

[Darg]

There are definitely still some inclarities in the use of immediate actions and to what extent "interrupted" actions are wasted.

What the MH quote does tell us is that they can interrupt and save you from other actions, and that they can be used when an action is declared but hasn't happened yet, contrary to arguments like this.

It also tells us that they take effect before the action they interrupt. That could be read to mean that they take effect retroactively, or it could be read to mean that they must be used before the interrupted action "takes effect" in order to have an effect.

How this interacts with discrete movement and multi-step actions like full attacks is sort of thorny; if willing to be a little flexible you could take the use of "action" in that quote as colloquial and treat individual decisions like each space of movement or each attack made as an "action" for this purpose, which isn't the strictest RAW but lines up better with conventional implementation.

There are a lot of specific immediate action abilities that have specific parameters for how they work; like I said I don't think those should all be treated as indications of how immediate actions work in general.

You could also argue that this text from MH is invalidated by the later definition in RC. I don't think that's necessarily the case, because this omitted sentence simply defines in more detail the meaning of what RC says.

Even if you don't agree, we don't know why the text was later omitted, but we do know that the text was written in the first place because they believed it. That's a stronger evidence of intent than the forerunning, which means it does provide a margin of positive evidence of intent.


TLDR while more clarity would still be good on immediates, this bit of text at least clarifies that they can be used to pre-empt declared actions, whereas some people had previously argued that there's no discrete "declaration" step -- that declaring an action is the same as beginning to execute it.

This thread got linked in a comment on that Q&A site at the bottom. Their comment mentioned that the definition of the immediate action was part of a different rule set. So I happened to find a book to look at and it was true. The definition for immediate actions are found in the glossary for skirmishes along with definitions for other things that do not match up with normal play. As this is so, the definition and rules for its use in MH are quite invalid because it doesn't pertain to normal D&D rules.

We now know why it was omitted in future rulebooks.

[Elves]

This thread got linked in a comment on that Q&A site at the bottom. Their comment mentioned that the definition of the immediate action was part of a different rule set. So I happened to find a book to look at and it was true. The definition for immediate actions are found in the glossary for skirmishes along with definitions for other things that do not match up with normal play. As this is so, the definition and rules for its use in MH are quite invalid because it doesn't pertain to normal D&D rules.

That's a good catch, and Hey I Can Chan, feel free to pipe in if you're reading this -- but given that immediate actions were carried over to the main rules with the exact same functionality, you can't deny that it's a strong statement of intent about how they're meant to work.

We now know why it was omitted in future rulebooks.

I disagree. Hey I Can is assuming:

a) that the sentence not being included in RC means the writers disagreed with it. But in many cases, RC or other sources omitted examples and explanatory text from the original source of a rule. That's why we sometimes go back to where rules first appeared for more context.

b) that its omission in RC provides any information at all. It doesn't -- it just removes information, creating more vagueness. That makes the positive evidence from the original appearance informative, regardless of source, because it's all we have to go on in resolving this ambiguity.

[Darg]

That's a good catch, and Hey I Can Chan, feel free to pipe in if you're reading this -- but given that immediate actions were carried over to the main rules with the exact same functionality, you can't deny that it's a strong statement of intent about how they're meant to work.


I disagree. Hey I Can is assuming:

a) that the sentence not being included in RC means the writers disagreed with it. But in many cases, RC or other sources omitted examples and explanatory text from the original source of a rule. That's why we sometimes go back to where rules first appeared for more context.

b) that its omission in RC provides any information at all. It doesn't -- it just removes information, creating more vagueness. That makes the positive evidence from the original appearance informative, regardless of source, because it's all we have to go on in resolving this ambiguity.

The problem is the the rules in the MH are different. The skirmish rules are not the rules for playing D&D. They share some similarities, but they are fundamentally different. Some actions are missing and others don't work the same. Examples are that you can't bull rush and charging doesn't provide the -2 penalty to AC nor the +2 to bull rush attempts because it doesn't exist.

Just because it is the first iteration of the rule, doesn't mean it is the first iteration for non-MH play. This means that the text not being a part of the rule first presented for 3.5 play is more than likely how they wanted it worded. Especially when you realize that the rules for swift and immediate actions were reprinted many times in the same way before its mention in the RC.

[Elves]

Our problem is RC's definition of immediate action doesn't provide enough information to tell when they can or can't be used. It leaves open several possibilities.

The skirmish rules aren't RAW for the main game. But there's an ambiguity in the immediate action rules, and the MH definition is the most authoritative source we have for disambiguating it.

If Hey I Can Chan wants to say "technically, my reading is viable", he can -- it's one of multiple viable readings under RC. But if we're making a good-faith effort to figure out how immediate actions should work given all the evidence at hand, MH is evidence.

This means that the text not being a part of the rule first presented for 3.5 play is more than likely how they wanted it worded.

We don't know why this sentence wasn't included. You can suggest that they wanted to change how it worked, but you could just as well argue that they thought the ability to interrupt was already implied in the free action rules (usable at any time). So the omission doesn't tell us anything in particular. OTOH, we do know that the MH wording is how they intended it to work in one particular context.



Imagine there's a new variant of chess called skirmish chess, which includes a new rule. Normal chess decides to incorporate the new rule, but doesn't include a clear definition. People argue over multiple ways the rule could work. Which would win? The best way is to refer to the definition from skirmish chess. So even though the skirmish chess rules aren't RAW for normal chess, they effectively end up being so.

[Darg]

The term interrupt in the PHB is used to describe 2 scenarios: interrupting a spell cast and to describe the immediate nature of an AoO as it interrupts the flow of actions in a round. The first is quite obvious on how it works. The second interrupts the flow of actions by happening the instant after the trigger goes off instead of waiting turns.

An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).

Interrupting actions doesn't mean that it retroactively happens prior to an event in 3.5e. AoOs and readied action had to be given explicit permission to interrupt spell casts because the first happens after the action happens and the latter happens before the spell cast.

At this point there is little else to debate. One can use a rule for skirmish or one can use the rule provided for normal play. How one wants to rule it is up to them. I personally find little sense in the argument that using the skirmish rule prevents feint paradoxes. The paradox also happens when the event that causes the use of the action is prevented from happening, whether by killing the target or negating the action in it's entirety. Yes, I'm going to wait until they choose to attack me to simply use celerity to cast finger of death to kill them before they actually choose to attack me. It's silly. If you choose to decide that at the quickest they resolve simultaneously and they do nothing more than what is written, you remove all paradox. You don't waste any character's action based on speculation.

[Elves]

At this point there is little else to debate. One can use a rule for skirmish or one can use the rule provided for normal play.

And what is the rule provided for normal play? The whole reason we're discussing this is it's not clear how exactly it works.

You use an either-or phrasing, but it's not as if these two statements are in contrast to each other; they can function in complete agreement.

[Darg]

And what is the rule provided for normal play? The whole reason we're discussing this is it's not clear how exactly it works.

You use an either-or phrasing, but it's not as if these two statements are in contrast to each other; they can function in complete agreement.

It's usable at any time. It is that simple. It does not roll back time for themselves only. If the caster wants to jaunt before getting hit they can. All they have to do is pick a moment before the attack takes place and the creature continues from that moment to finish their turn, possibly doing something different because the jaunt happened prior to the event they wanted to prevent. You are right, they can work in agreement. I'm really just against any interpretation that causes a paradox mechanically. If it happens in response to an action taken it shouldn't prevent the action from taking place, nor should it require that the action continue even though the stimulus for the action no longer existed in the first place.

[hamishspence]

The idea for "Immediate Actions Interrupting" appears to be "in response to an attack beginning to take place".

Just as Feather Fall is "in response to the character beginning to fall".

So, just you can fall but take no damage (thanks to your Immediate Action) so you can have someone begin swinging their weapon at you but take no damage (thanks to your Immediate action allowing you to teleport out of the path of the swing).

No paradox in not taking Falling damage thanks to using an Immediate Action to interrupt the fall - no paradox in not taking melee damage thanks to using an Immediate Action to interrupt the attack.

[Darg]

The idea for "Immediate Actions Interrupting" appears to be "in response to an attack beginning to take place".

Just as Feather Fall is "in response to the character beginning to fall".

So, just you can fall but take no damage (thanks to your Immediate Action) so you can have someone begin swinging their weapon at you but take no damage (thanks to your Immediate action allowing you to teleport out of the path of the swing).

No paradox in not taking Falling damage thanks to using an Immediate Action to interrupt the fall - no paradox in not taking melee damage thanks to using an Immediate Action to interrupt the attack.

You're coming up with something not supported by rules. Attacks are resolved with attack rolls which are opposed by AC. If there is no AC to oppose the roll then there is no attack to miss. There is no "starting to attack."

Flicker is probably the best example. It either alters the rules to make immediate action teleport weaker or stronger. The likely outcome is that it was meant to be a benefit, not a penalty.

[Elves]

In the end, it's kind of a stupid discussion because we don't have enough information to definitely say which is right.

To start from the basics, one argument is that because an immediate action can be taken "at any time", you can use it at literally any point during a creature's turn, including when it's about to take an action.

Hey I Can Chan's counterpoint is that because the game lacks a codified declaration phase, declaring an action is the same as performing it -- rendering most actions un-interruptable.

I think his argument has merit, but considering the evidence we have, it seems significant that the original description of immediate actions does provide that any action can be interrupted.

His argument is also based on the fact that action declaration isn't a defined gameplay step the way it is in some games -- but since in practice it's something that occurs and that some mechanics (including some immediates) do interact with, it may not be true that it's mechanically insignificant.

Our choices are to either contact the old devs and try to get a firmer answer, or choose the readings we prefer.