Help with Trigger vs. Immediate Reaction, Life or Death situation here!

96 posts / 0 new
Last post
Here is the issue:

We are having a lunchtime arena match, my Wilden swarm druid vs. Skidmark's (yeah that's his nickname) Human monk. We are both a couple of hit points from dying. He hits me with Dancing Cobra. I'm still standing with 5 hp. I pull out my Wrath of the Destroyer (Immediate Reaction) when he has only 4 hp left. He says that his Centered Flurry of Blows which is triggered by Dancing Cobra takes effect BEFORE my Wrath of the Destroyer. Which takes effect first? Does an Immediate Reaction trump a triggered free action?

I rolled my attack and the damage roll (if it goes through) drops him. If it doesn't, he drops me. We keep tallies on Wins vs. Losses and I'm normally the DM in the campaign, but it is unethical for me to rule in a situation in a PvP match where I am involved.

Who wins?
What's the actual trigger text for Wrath of the Destroyer?

There's no simple answer to your question, since the rules are kind of vague about when exactly a trigger free action occurs.  Different people play it differently.  But given that flurry of blows triggers off "you hit with an attack", I'd probably let it go first on the theory that you could technically invoke it before you rolled damage, while an immediate reaction has to wait until the entire triggering action resolves.
What's the actual trigger text for Wrath of the Destroyer?





Encounter
Immediate Reaction      Personal



Trigger: A bloodied enemy attacks you or your ally adjacent to you



Effect: You either make a melee basic attack against the triggering enemy or charge it. If your attack hits, the enemy is also dazed until the end of your next turn.




 



Wrath of the Destroyer triggers on an attack, Flurry of Blows triggers on a hit.  However, since Flurry of Blows is a free action, it all comes down to 'can free actions interrupt' or not.



 



If free actions can interrupt, then Flurry of Blows interrupts the hit, comes before the hit, and would resolve before Wrath of the Destroyer's reaction to the attack.




However, if free actions can't interrupt, then the reaction is triggered by the attack, and would come before a reaction triggered by the hit.



 



There's no RAW answer to this question.  You'll have to go back and remember how you ruled free actions working previously, and do it the same way as that, if you want to be fair.


Or you could just call it a draw.

The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.

Flurry of Blows hit first.

Order is:
Interrupt (immediately before trigger)
Free Action (immediately after trigger)
Reaction (after triggering action/attack completely resolves)

So the flurry of blows is when he attacks, and technically can be considered to resolve before the Cobra damage even occurs.   The Wrath of the Destroyer is after the Cobra attack is completely resolved.

So the final order is:
Dancing Cobra Attacks
Dancing Cobra Hits (trigger)
Flurry of Blows resolves (free action immediately follows trigger)
Dancing Cobra does damage
Dancing Cobra attack now resolved
Wrath of the Destoyer resolves (reaction follows triggeing action/attack completely resolving)

If you feel that a free action attack really shouldn't occur between a hit and damage for some reason, it should still resolve before the triggering attack is completely resolved, beating Wrath of the Destroyer.

Sigh, and Anki did such a good job of answering it correctly...

There is zero RAW about when free actions, even triggered ones, resolve. It isn't an asnwerable question, and anyone who does answer it is using a personal interpretation. Which isn't neccesarily wrong, there are enough free actions that each table had to come up with some kind of answer, but it should be presented as such whenever the discussion comes up.
There is zero RAW about when free actions, even triggered ones, resolve.




The lack of special rules for resolution of Free Actions doesn't mean we don't know when they resolve, or that relevent rules don't exist.

Both the PHB2 and PHB3 glossary define what a trigger means.  It is the point at which the power is used.  Interrupts and Reactions have special rules about how they resolve when used, interrupts before the trigger resolves and reactions after the triggering action resolves.  But Free Actions do not have special resolution rules.  As such, they resolve immediately when used just as any other power does ... and they are defined to be used when the trigger occurs.

So, rules relevent to Triggered Free Actions do exist, and they resolve immediately when used at the triggering event.

Here's a monkey wrench for you.  FoB  is a free action you can use any time after you've hit a creature with an attack on your round.  With that in mind, I'm partial to agreeing with one post above that says you can trigger FoB before you roll damage on that attack, since you know you hit already...

However!  Because Wrath of the destroyer is an immediate reaction to being "attacked" it doesn't care that you hit or not, the trigger is the character saying, "I'm attacking you," and the roll of his/her die.

Unfortunately, if I were to DM this and it came to a decision on my part, I'd let the FoB hit because the player with Wrath didn't choose to trigger it on the attack, and waited instead for the rest of the power to resolve.  It's obviously something that a casual game could rewind and say it works as intended; but in the spirit of PVP, he should have said he was gonna trigger Wrath when the other player declared he was attacking him.  It's like readying an action.  When you ready an action, it says you'd better declare your trigger to be when the creature moves, and not when it attacks, because otherwise you'll be waiting for it to finish attacking you because readying an action gives you an immediate reaction to the trigger.

just my .02
FoB  is a free action you can use any time after you've hit a creature with an attack on your round.




No it isn't.  It is a free action you can choose to use immediately when triggered by hitting.  That hit must occur on your turn.  You cannot use it "any time after", you must use it when you hit.

Meanwhile Wrath is a reaction to the attack.  As a reaction, it occurs after the attack has fully resolved, not immediately following the attack declaration.  edit: Also "attacked" is awfully vague in when you have to declare it, which I've realized was your actual point in regards to it. 
There isn't a really clear answer as to which resolves first. I'd suggest you assume that they both have equal 'precedence', and resolve the order in which they occur through an opposed Initiative check.
There is zero RAW about when free actions, even triggered ones, resolve.





The lack of special rules for resolution of Free Actions doesn't mean we don't know when they resolve, or that relevent rules don't exist.

Both the PHB2 and PHB3 glossary define what a trigger means.  It is the point at which the power is used.  Interrupts and Reactions have special rules about how they resolve when used, interrupts before the trigger resolves and reactions after the triggering action resolves.  But Free Actions do not have special resolution rules.  As such, they resolve immediately when used just as any other power does ... and they are defined to be used when the trigger occurs.

So, rules relevent to Triggered Free Actions do exist, and they resolve immediately when used at the triggering event.


Trigger: Powers that are immediate actions (interrupts or reactions) or opportunity actions have a trigger, which defines when you're allowed to use the power. Some powers that are free actions, or that require no action to use, have a trigger as well.

Grats, you inserted text that isn't there! There is zero RAW about when free actions resolve. Period. It does not exist. Based on the actual rules we have, it'd be just as easy to say it resolves several turns later. "Trigger" in no ways says "this resolves right now" and never has. Triggered Immediate Actions are specific, they occur immediately before, or immediately after the trigger. Simple. Free actions have no text like that. At all.

To quote myself.

There is zero RAW about when free actions, even triggered ones, resolve. It isn't an asnwerable question, and anyone who does answer it is using a personal interpretation. Which isn't neccesarily wrong, there are enough free actions that each table had to come up with some kind of answer, but it should be presented as such whenever the discussion comes up.



And I want to emphasize part of that. It is not neccesarily wrong to say they resolve at time x, y, or z. There are enough free actions that each table must come up with their own rule, but that rule is not RAW, because there is no RAW. Anki's answer was perfect.
Grats, you inserted text that isn't there! There is zero RAW about when free actions resolve. Period. It does not exist. Based on the actual rules we have, it'd be just as easy to say it resolves several turns later. "Trigger" in no ways says "this resolves right now" and never has. Triggered Immediate Actions are specific, they occur immediately before, or immediately after the trigger. Simple. Free actions have no text like that. At all.



All powers resolve when they are used, with the exception of immediate and opportunity actions.  As with anything in the exception based system that is 4e, the lack of something saying when they are resolved means they follow the normal resolution: you resolve a power when you use it.  When you use it is defined explicitly by the quote you just provided for triggers.

No text inserted.  Just standard application of how these exception based rules work.  No exception, follow the normal proceedure.
All powers resolve when they are used, with the exception of immediate and opportunity actions.  As with anything in the exception based system that is 4e, the lack of something saying when they are resolved means they follow the normal resolution: you resolve a power when you use it.  When you use it is defined explicitly by the quote you just provided for triggers.

No text inserted.  Just standard application of how these exception based rules work.  No exception, follow the normal proceedure.

Quote your rules text that says you resolve an action when you use it, a general rule that specifically says it applies to all actions, not a specific rule. I'll go learn Japanese. We'll see who finishes first.

Must I emphasize, again, that Free Actions exist in the nebulous zone of no rules at all? It has been a standing complaint since day 1 of 4e.
Quote your rules text that says you resolve an action when you use it, a general rule that specifically says it applies to all actions, not a specific rule.

I'll have to wait until I get back to my PHB.  Given that the majority of the text on actions and use are not contained in the compendium.

But to throw up a possible strawman, it is therefore your contention that when a Standard, Move, Minor, or Free Action is used, the resolution may occur before it is used, or that the resolution can be at some point after other actions of those types have been used?  If so, how do you determine the point of resolution for them?

That's the opposite of what I am saying.  If that's not what you are trying to claim, I'd love to have your claim explained more clearly.

Quote your rules text that says you resolve an action when you use it, a general rule that specifically says it applies to all actions, not a specific rule.




I'll have to wait until I get back to my PHB.  Given that the majority of the text on actions and use are not contained in the compendium.

But to throw up a possible strawman, it is therefore your contention that when a Standard, Move, Minor, or Free Action is used, the resolution may occur before it is used, or that the resoultion can be at some point after other actions of those types have been used?  If so, how do you determine the point of resolution for them?





PHB pg 269, "Actions on Your Turn"

Any Order:  You can take your actions in any order you wish, and you can skip any of them.



So we have a clear RAW that, yes, your move/minor/standard actions can resolve in whatever order you want, as long as they're all on your turn.  For laziness, we generally resolve our actions as soon as we declare them, but there's nothing stopping us from saying, for example, "I'm going to take my move action and move over there.  But first I'm going to sword this guy."  (Translated into rules-ese, that would be saying:  I take my move action.  I take my standard action.  I resolve my standard first, then my move.)

The "Actions on Other Turns" bit, on the same page, says nothing useful about free actions (only that you can take them on other combatant's turns.)  The resolution order of opportunity and immediate actions is clearly defined; as is standard/move/minor; but there is nothing, anywhere, that says anything about when to resolve free actions (whether triggered or not).
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
I'll have to wait until I get back to my PHB.  Given that the majority of the text on actions and use are not contained in the compendium.

But to throw up a possible strawman, it is therefore your contention that when a Standard, Move, Minor, or Free Action is used, the resolution may occur before it is used, or that the resolution can be at some point after other actions of those types have been used?  If so, how do you determine the point of resolution for them?

That's the opposite of what I am saying.  If that's not what you are trying to claim, I'd love to have your claim explained more clearly.


私は一般ルールがない言って、you'と; 再悪事。 陽気に悪事。

I'm way ahead of you already here, though I am cheating, I actually know some Japanese already. Lemme know when you find that general rule, as opposed to the specific rule that actually does exist that specifies when Move, Minor, and Standard actions resolve.
So does that mean you do or do not think that actions resolve when they are used (except for the exceptions of immediate and opportunity actions)?

Would you allow someone to use their Standard Action then resolve it before their turn began?  Would you allow someone to use their Standard action, then wait until after an ally's readied action (a reaction) triggered by their action to resolve it?   Would you allow someone to use a Standard Action to attack, then use their move action, then resolve their standard action in the middle of the move action?  What about using their move action, then resolving it in between an attack then move power's attack and move?

I must say while trying to think of scenarios in which you might use your action then delay resolution of it on your turn, it did occur to me that really it is out of turn or in the middle of other action resolution that matters most.

So we have a clear RAW that, yes, your move/minor/standard actions can resolve in whatever order you want, as long as they're all on your turn.



That rule says you can take them in any order.  It doesn't say that they do or do not resolve when you take them, use them, or however else you want to call it.

It means I'm learning Japanese while you try and support your argument, hopefully there is errata before I'm fluent so you don't feel so bad.
It means I'm learning Japanese while you try and support your argument, hopefully there is errata before I'm fluent so you don't feel so bad.



At this point, you should probably try to support your argument instead.  Ignoring my counter points won't make yours any more valid.

I will come back to address your one counter point asking for a general rule as soon as I have access to my PHB (a couple of hours), so feel free to wait until then.  I'd hate to be hypocritical or anything. 
It means I'm learning Japanese while you try and support your argument, hopefully there is errata before I'm fluent so you don't feel so bad.



At this point, you should probably try to support your argument instead.  Ignoring my counter points won't make yours any more valid.

I *will* come back to address your one counter point asking for a general rule as soon as I have access to my PHB (a couple of hours), so feel free to wait until then.

I should support my argument when you have zero rules text and I actually quoted the text you said supported your arguement, but didn't?

No, that is quite all right. Besides, you are attempting to put me in a position of proving a negative. There is no RAW about when free actions resolve. Since you cannot prove a negative, I have no further argument. The burden of proof is always on the person trying to prove the positive statement, which in this case if your "There is RAW text to support when triggered free actions resolve." I'm sure people who have been looking for it for the last three years were just looking in the wrong spot.

The trigger quote you quoted still supports my argument.  It defines the trigger as when you can use the power.

The rest of it follows from actions resolving when they are used.

I'll come back to the rest of it later.  Since you apparently want to stick with "prove it" as opposed to an actually addressing the result of your point of view.


The trigger quote you quoted still supports my argument.  It defines the trigger as when you can use the power.

I'll come back to the rest of it later.  Since you apparently want to stick with "prove it" as opposed to an actually addressing the result of your point of view.


No, it doesn't. I understand you can't see why, since you've just demonstrated your grasp of formal logical is fairly weak by responding with attitude to the perfectly reasonable statement "You cannot prove a negative." For instance, if you did have a strong grasp of formal logic you would've corrected me by pointing out that there should be an addendum "except through inference." Which is extremely difficult.

I understand you think you are being clever, but my position has no issues. There is no general rule for when actions resolve. There are specific rules for when certain types of actions resolve. Every action, in fact, except free ones (well, and No Actions).

But I digress, and I am getting distracted from my Japanese lessons. Not that I really have to be in a rush to learn it.
So does that mean you do or do not think that actions resolve when they are used (except for the exceptions of immediate and opportunity actions)?



I think the distinction between 'resolve' and 'used' is irrelevant for actions on your turn.

Would you allow someone to use their Standard Action then resolve it before their turn began?



No, because then it wouldn't be on their turn.....I should think that would be obvious.

Would you allow someone to use their Standard action, then wait until after an ally's readied action (a reaction) triggered by their action to resolve it?



No, because a reaction occurs after the triggering event, by definition.

Would you allow someone to use a Standard Action to attack, then use their move action, then resolve their standard action in the middle of the move action?



No, because nothing says it can occur in the middle of another action, meaning that each action must occur seperately, though in any order.

What about using their move action, then resolving it in between an attack then move power's attack and move?



See above.

I must say while trying to think of scenarios in which you might use your action then delay resolution of it on your turn, it did occur to me that really it is out of turn or in the middle of other action resolution that matters most.



Yep.  It doesn't matter what order your actions resolve in on your turn, as long as every action is self-contained; because as long as every action is self-contained, declaration and resolution are the same thing.




That rule says you can take them in any order.  It doesn't say that they do or do not resolve when you take them, use them, or however else you want to call it.



See above.  It doesn't matter what the difference between 'resolve' and 'taken' is, as long as it's on your turn and doesn't occur during another action.

The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
There are specific rules for when certain types of actions resolve. Every action, in fact, except free ones (well, and No Actions).



What exactly is the specific rule for Standard, Move and Minor that does not apply to Free Actions and isn't a general rule?

I'm curious, not trying to be defensive or snarky.  I'm not trying to bring attitude or be smart.  I understand that I've failed to produce a RAW general rule.  But I didn't understand why you wouldn't respond to the flip side of actions resolving when they are used.  Now I think I'm understanding that your full argument is: There is a specific rule for all actions except free actions, and no general rule.   I would imagine (and correct me if this incorrect) that the extension of that argument goes along the lines of : Therefore it's possible that Free Actions may interrupt, react or resolve immediately.

And here is another case to justify the designers having to say that they write rules to satisfy reasonable peoples interpretations. 
What's the actual trigger text for Wrath of the Destroyer?


Encounter
Immediate Reaction      Personal



Trigger: A bloodied enemy attacks you or your ally adjacent to you


Effect: You either make a melee basic attack against the triggering enemy or charge it. If your attack hits, the enemy is also dazed until the end of your next turn.




wait, if the Wrath triggers on the attack, it can be resolved before the attack and damage is rolled of the Dancing Cobra or the Flurry. After the reaction to the attack is resolved (i.e. Wrath attack and damage are finished), then the Dancing Cobra can be resolved and Flurry also.

If the Wrath would cause the monk to become unconscious before the attack roll or damage roll was rolled out, then the entire attack could be argueably nullified before the monk could complete his attempted attack.

the reason that i'd argue this is the trigger of Wrath is not specifically stated as "a bloodied creature damages you or an adjacent ally," nor "a bloodied creature hits you or an adjacent ally." 

so, i'd say that the declaration of an attack against the wilden or adjacent ally counts as the trigger; this gives the wilden a chance to possibly stop the attack and damage before it is attempted.  

so, the trigger starts the reaction of making an attack against the bloodied creature and must be fully resolved before the attack and damage of the triggering attack can be resolved.

if the Wrath power does not hit, or does not do sufficient damage to drop the monk, then Dancing Cobra and Flurry can continue as normal.
wait, if the Wrath triggers on the attack, it can be resolved before the attack and damage is rolled of the Dancing Cobra or the Flurry. After the reaction to the attack is resolved (i.e. Wrath attack and damage are finished), then the Dancing Cobra can be resolved and Flurry also.


That's not how immediate reactions work though:
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

Since the triggering action is an attack, WoD doesn't occur until the attack is completely resolved.  So if FoB can occur before the attack is resolved, then it wins.
No action may transpire during any other action.  All actions take place serially.  

The interpretation of the word "trigger" to mean "I can do this right now" is erroneous.  Trigger in this context is more akin (as I have said in another thread) to "qualifier" or "prerequisite."  

The only thing that can inject itself into the completion of an action in progress is an interrupt, such as an opportunity attack or powers that are classified as interrupts.  Free actions do not interrupt others' actions.  If they did, they would be interrupts, not actions.

So when a player is going through a round, technically a DM could force you to lay out a list of your actions, which you then would go through one at a time.  Action 1, done.  Action 2, done, Action 3, done, etc.  Or simply ask you to complete action X before proceeding to action Y, because things that occur as a result of X (like, an OA that might include a dominate effect which would stop your turn, or an immobilize that would kill your move actions) might prevent Y from occurring.

So, the action sequence of your encounter reads:

(0) You beat the tar out of each other, to 1hp each or thereabouts.
(1) He spends a standard action, and attacks you with Dancing Cobra.  This qualifies you to use your Wrath attack.   You indicate that yes, you will react to his DC attack this way.
* note that if you do not call it, you miss your opportunity here (most tables will not interpret this strictly, however).
(2) DC hits.  This qualifies him to use CFoB.
(3) DC resolves.
(4) Your Wrath now executes and resolves as an Immediate Reaction to his DC attack.
(5) Assuming he is still conscious, he may continue his action sequence.  In this case, he may next spend a free action to accompany the DC hit with CFoB, for which he qualified by hitting you with DC.

The key is that a player must spend an action to execute the intended behavior.  If the player is not in a state to spend an action, then the action may not be spent.  In this case, the flavor text of CFoB also helps clarify the situation - CFoB is not an addition to the attack of DC, it is a separate attack used as a follow up to a prior attack.  It is a separate action (albeit a free one that requires a prior hit), not an enhancement to an existing action.

Same goes for a Tiefling's Infernal Wrath power.  Although it is a free action triggered in response to someone else hitting the tiefling, if the tiefling is knocked unconscious or ground into a paste by the attack, then there is no reasonable way Infernal Wrath could be triggered.  

As a DM, if you were to announce your intention to use your Wrath attack as soon as he mentioned his intent to attack you, I'd give it to you.  On the flip side, if he resolved that attack and was moving on to CFoB, I'd call it too late for you to invoke it.   

  T

Edit:  

To take this to its worst-case scenario, let's look at your monk versus a Tiefling with Infernal Wrath.

(0) You beat the tar out of each other.
(1) Monk spends a standard action, attacks with DC.  
(2) Monk hits with DC.  This "triggers" - enables the use of - both Infernal Wrath and CFoB.
(3) DC resolves damage.   Standard action begun in (1) is now over.
(4) Assuming the character on the receiving end of the damage done in (3) is still standing, you're stuck with a big "Now what???"

Here you have your quandary.  I believe Alcestis is correct, there is no RAW regarding which of the two triggered free actions will take place first.

A legitimate argument could be made to resolve whichever one of them gets called out first ("Infernal wrath!"), or to go with the higher initiative first, or flip a coin, or allow both to resolve simultaneously.  

Personally, I'd go with simultaneously.  It's more dramatic, and now you have a race to see which one of you makes a 20 on your death save in order to struggle into consciousness just enough to crawl over to your opponent and crush his head with a rock.  Or maybe you both bleed out.

  T
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?
No action may transpire during any other action.  All actions take place serially. 






I would point you to the Fey Charge feat:
Benefit: When you charge, you can expend your fey step racial  power as a free action to replace up to 5 squares of your charge  movement with teleportation.   If the charge attack hits, you do  not expend fey step.

If you can't ever use a free action during another action, this feat would be unusable.

Also, from the FAQ:

23. Can I wait until the Dungeon Master has determined if I  have hit or not to use my Wand of Accuracy class feature?  Yes, you can use this ability at any point during the resolution of  the power.



At least in the Compendium, WoA is listed as a free action.

When you perform a Fey Charge, you have already decided to spend the Free Action of teleport movement prior to the charge, or else it would have been just a normal charge.  The feat functions as written.  ("I'm going to Fey Charge the orc" - which means I am choosing to spend my free action to modify the movement of this charge.)  Even if you wish to read it as a combination of simultaneous actions, you land in the case of a specific exception to the rule.  

The Wand of Accuracy FAQ is a poorly written conversion of a rule which was originally written to provide someone the option to "line up" an attack prior to executing it (free action to obtain the +3, standard action to which it is then applied), and has turned it into a copy of the 16th level utility Insightful Riposte, which puts the free action after the standard action, modifying the roll of the standard action and potentially changing the outcome of that action.  

Despite the inherent mistake of the WoA wording, it is a specific written exception to a rule.  It states "you can use this ability"; it does not state "you can use any free action during the resolution of another action."

So the two cases you mention, while they do contradict the case, are specific exceptions to that case, and still follow RAW - being overrides of the normal rule.  They would not present any rational person with the idea that "because this feat enables me to use a free action to teleport during my charge, I can therefore use this other free action power to pants my opponent and jam a carrot in their bunghole in the middle of their combat swing."  

  T



 
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?
Of course, I forgot to add Elven Accuracy...

I guess the point is that there are enough exceptions to your interpretation to call it into question, especially since it is never explicitly given in the rules.  Not that I think your interpretation is untenable, just not any better supported than other interpretations.
Yeah, RAW is a bit of a mess on this one. It's been explicitly escalated to the errata team, but I don't know that we'll see anything soon, because frankly it's not an easy rules quandary to undo without changing a lot of powers.

Personally, I think the 'most correct' interpretation is that free actions occur when they're declared. Right away, no delay, in the middle of other actions, etc. No rule I've found states that anyone has any ability to delay free actions from occuring when declared, nor that you must resolve an action (as reactions do), nor that they step in front of another action (like interrupts). Which makes them slower than Interrupts (not by much) and faster than reactions. The DM _does_ have full ability to restrict the use of free actions, so the DM is free to say 'Okay, you can do that after your power finishes' or 'No, that's too many free actions to do at once' by simply stating someone can't do a free action at the time. 

Regardless of correct-ness, just have the DM pick how they want to handle it, and move on from there. Not worth losing any sleep over. 
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
wait, if the Wrath triggers on the attack, it can be resolved before the attack and damage is rolled of the Dancing Cobra or the Flurry. After the reaction to the attack is resolved (i.e. Wrath attack and damage are finished), then the Dancing Cobra can be resolved and Flurry also.



That's not how immediate reactions work though:
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

Since the triggering action is an attack, WoD doesn't occur until the attack is completely resolved.  So if FoB can occur before the attack is resolved, then it wins.


mmmm. well, i'd say that clinches the arguement about my perspective.

given that the Wrath wouldn't knock the monk down until after the DC is completely resolved, I hope that wilden has a pretty awesome power that can be used as a melee basic attack- something with a healing surge attached perhaps.
No action may transpire during any other action.  All actions take place serially.  




That's a valid interpretation ... right up until it invalidates the majority of triggered free action powers.  I must say the more I reread the actions portion of the PHB, the more I think that they never intended for actions to occur in the middle of other actions at all.  Certainly I get the impression that they never intended parsing the attack sequence the way many of habitually do.  But then you figure how many triggered free action or pretty much any interrupt is supposed to work and you can't see an easy way to do it otherwise.

I couldn't get online last night, but I did read my PHBs thoroughly, and I have to concede that Alcestis is 100% correct.  There is no general RAW rule that says: when you take an action, you resolve it at that point.  I was cursing this morning because I realized that I did not check if there is anything that says that in regards to powers, but I wouldn't suspect there is.  I was also unable to find a specific rule for Standard/Move/minor that said this either.

I still think that immediate resolution for Free Actions is the way that makes the most sense ... but leaving it open from a general all encompassing rule allows flexibility.  For Free Actions that attack or do damage being triggered by your own attack or critical hit or the like, it certainly also makes sense to have them occur directly after the original attack does it's damage.  But not after a reaction.
No action may transpire during any other action.  All actions take place serially.  





That's a valid interpretation ... right up until it invalidates the majority of triggered free action powers.  I must say the more I reread the actions portion of the PHB, the more I think that they never intended for actions to occur in the middle of other actions at all.  Certainly I get the impression that they never intended parsing the attack sequence the way many of habitually do.  But then you figure how many triggered free action or pretty much any interrupt is supposed to work and you can't see an easy way to do it otherwise.

I couldn't get online last night, but I did read my PHBs thoroughly, and I have to concede that Alcestis is 100% correct.  There is no general RAW rule that says: when you take an action, you resolve it at that point.  I was cursing this morning because I realized that I did not check if there is anything that says that in regards to powers, but I wouldn't suspect there is.  I was also unable to find a specific rule for Standard/Move/minor that said this either.

I still think that immediate resolution for Free Actions is the way that makes the most sense ... but leaving it open from a general all encompassing rule allows flexibility.  For Free Actions that attack or do damage being triggered by your own attack or critical hit or the like, it certainly also makes sense to have them occur directly after the original attack does it's damage.  But not after a reaction.


Actually, regarding powers, there is.  PH pg. 278, under Durations: "Unless otherwise noted, a power is instantaneous and has no lasting effect." 

Returned from hiatus; getting up to speed on 5e rules lawyering.

Yeah I saw that.  But does that indicate that you must use the power, spend the action, and resolve immediately?  It sounds like it does but I wasn't sure that's the correct meaning for that rule.  If so, then a Free Action power with a trigger resolves when the trigger happens, because that's when you use the power.

But the rule may just be saying "the effects of the power don't extend beyond your turn" or something along those lines.

That's a valid interpretation ... right up until it invalidates the majority of triggered free action powers.



p268 PHB.  Bottom left.   Only interrupts may "jump in" on another action, potentially invalidating it. Immediate reactions are specified to occur after the triggering action is resolved.  

In order for a "free action" to perform in the same way that either one of these does, it would require text enabling it to do so.  As it stands, *only* interrupts and reactions are allowed to perform this way.  Free actions, trigger or no, are not granted this capability unless their entry specifically gives them that ability (see text between Opportunity and Immediate). 

Free actions with a trigger require that trigger in order to be eligible for use.  That's it.  No other reaction ability is granted to them.  They are, in no way other than being quick and costing negligible time, special.  They are simply actions that may be taken in line with any others normally used.

 T 
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?
You misunderstood what I mean.  It's a nice theory ... right up until the majority of triggered Free Action powers fail to work unless they resolve in the middle of another action.

Edit: Which doesn't necessarily apply to Free Action attack powers, such as Flurry of Blows.

That's a valid interpretation ... right up until it invalidates the majority of triggered free action powers.



p268 PHB.  Bottom left.   Only interrupts may "jump in" on another action, potentially invalidating it. Immediate reactions are specified to occur after the triggering action is resolved.  



How does Elven Accuracy work?

Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
As for the initial question, I agree with Thomas.J.Theobald (though less verbosely): regardless of how the rules might call for the situation to be handled, I'd have both characters knock each other out.  Its such a classic that it would be too good to pass up.

I think that D&D is best played using the Rules of Cool and Fun and sometimes even the Rule of Handwaving.  As has been shown in this thread, the books themselves are often vague when it comes to many issues.  If the DM makes a call that resolves an issue in a cool way, the players won't object. 

For example, my party was fighting two rage drakes.  They were (rightly) a bit scared, and so they retreated into the hall so only one could get to them at a time.  I described how the second was waiting, crouched, like a big cat ready to pounce.  Well, it turned out that the person to kill the first one was the barbarian, triggering his free charge action.  The rage drake had a readied action to charge when the other one was killed.  My players ask, "which one happens first?"  I reply, "Well, Garth (the gnome barbarian) essentially carves a path through the first drake, emerging in a bloody mess on the other side in midair heading toward the second drake.  Meanwhile, that drake has leapt into the air with a load roar.  They meet in them middle and carnage ensues."  It was  a cool image, the players loved it, and we didn't have to look anything up.


That's a valid interpretation ... right up until it invalidates the majority of triggered free action powers.




p268 PHB.  Bottom left.   Only interrupts may "jump in" on another action, potentially invalidating it. Immediate reactions are specified to occur after the triggering action is resolved.  




How does Elven Accuracy work?





EA is a free action that enables you to re-roll an attack roll.  Your action completes, and if you choose, you may alter that action's outcome with EA.  

In the step-by-step it would go something like this:

(1) Attacker declares standard action, performs attack.
(2) Any interrupts resolve.
(3) Attack resolves.
(4) Any immediate reactions triggered by 1/2 complete.
(5) Attacker, assuming he/she may still act, may now call free action EA.
(6) Attack roll of (1) is changed retroactively, old result of (3) is replaced by new result.

Since EA only enables adjustment of personal attack rolls, (4) would be unaffected by its use even if the executor of it is rendered incapable of action by the new result (since, RAW, the change took place after the reaction).  I think had I written the power myself, I would have made it an immediate reaction for clarity and to restrict the timing of its usage a little in order to avoid that logic flaw. 

  T
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?
You misunderstood what I mean.  It's a nice theory ... right up until the majority of triggered Free Action powers fail to work unless they resolve in the middle of another action.

Edit: Which doesn't necessarily apply to Free Action attack powers, such as Flurry of Blows.



I see what you're after, but I don't see any non-immediate free actions with triggers that would require they work in the middle of another action.  Can you give me an example?

  T 
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?