Free Attacks reaction "Resolving the triggering event"

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
The situation, numbers on the keypad:

Artificer on "7"

Lacedon Ghoul on "4"

Avenger on "2"


Artificer's turn: she uses "Thundering Armor"- centered on herself.

Show
Thundering Armor Thunder ripples outward from your implement, coalescing around you or an ally before focusing its might on a nearby enemy.
At-Will
Arcane, Implement, Thunder
Standard Action Close burst 10
Primary Target: You or one ally in the burst
Effect: The primary target gains a +1 power bonus to AC until the end of your next turn. Make an attack.
  Secondary Target: One creature adjacent to the primary target in the burst
  Attack: Intelligence vs. Fortitude
    Hit: 1d8 + Intelligence modifier thunder damage, and you push the secondary target 1 square away from the primary target.
    Level 21: 2d8 + Intelligence modifier thunder damage.


Lacedon Ghoul triggers his free action "Waterlogged":
Show
Triggered Actions
Waterlogged
At-Will Trigger: A creature adjacent to the lacedon hits it.
Attack (Free Action):
Melee 1 (the triggering creature);
+12 vs. Reflex Hit: The target falls prone.



Question 1: As a free action, the triggered action is resolved as a "Reaction", right? Unless the free action needs to be a interrupt in order to work, isn't it?

Question 2: A Reaction is solved like this "The triggering action or events occurs and is completely resolved before the reaction takes place. An immediate reaction waits for its trigger to finish, not necessarily for the action that contain the trigger to finish". (RC, page 196)

The artifiver players states that since Thundering Armor has a built-in push, the whole attack is resolved before the triggered action kicks in, thus she could be able to push the Lacedon Ghoul to, say, square "1" in the keypad, and voiding the response attack by being out of range.
The DM ruled that, since that would invalidate the triggered action, in this case the free action should be solved as an interrupt of sorts, acting after resolving the hit but before the forced movement.
Which is correct?

Question 3: The avenger has the Battle Awereness feat (as any sane avenger would do ), triggering when the Lacedon lashes his Waterlogged free action. MBA as an interrupt: Overwhelming Strike. Could the Lacedon Activate "Waterlogged" against this new attack? What if the Avenger shifts out of range to "3"? what if he slides the lacedon to 2? Whould that invalidate the original Waterlogged attack on the Artificer?



Thanks all

1: Yes, it resolves as a reaction unless it must be an interrupt to function.  There's no reason for it to need to interrupt (it's not changing any numbers in the triggering attack, for instance), so it resolves as a reason, which means...

2: If you have a way to cause it to be out of reach, its free action attack fails to go off.  As a DM, I'd say that this means it cannot ever trigger is, so the power never activates, which means...

3: The avenger can't use BA, because the Lacedon never attacked.  However, to actually resolve to core question, if the Avenger uses Overwhelming Strike on the Lacedon, and then slides it without shifting, or shifts away without sliding, it can't use Waterlogged against him.  To resolve the other core question... because BA is an immediate interrupt, if you use it against an enemy which is attacking your ally, it resolves before the enemy's attack roll, so, for instance, if you slide the target, you can invalidate the triggering ttack entirely.  If you knock it prone, it takes a -2 to the triggering attack for beign prone, etc etc.

Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Thank you for the response!

So, in a nutshell. our DM was wrong and the Lacedon shouldn't had triggered its Free action attack, for being out of range. He argued something about "if the action includes movement, then the reaction kicks in just before".

Just to clarify, that's only in case the trigger is the movement itself, right? Thus, not the case in here.

Thank you again!

Erm, from the context, there's no real answer to that question.

Reactions resolve after the entirety of the triggering attack or after a square of movement if triggered by movement, forced or otherwise.  Interrupts are different, but Waterlogged is not an interrupt.

Battle Awareness is though.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
The artifiver players states that since Thundering Armor has a built-in push, the whole attack is resolved before the triggered action kicks in, thus she could be able to push the Lacedon Ghoul to, say, square "1" in the keypad, and voiding the response attack by being out of range.

This is correct.

The DM ruled that, since that would invalidate the triggered action, in this case the free action should be solved as an interrupt of sorts, acting after resolving the hit but before the forced movement

That is not what "Unless the free action needs to be a interrupt in order to work" is intended to indicate. It is intended to indicate:
"Unless the free action needs to be a interrupt in order to ever work"
rather than
"Unless the free action needs to be a interrupt in order to work in your given situation"
  Such as "You reduce the attack roll/damage taken by X."

  It works as an interrupt but it would be too late as a reaction.
  Such as "You reduce the attack roll/damage taken by X."

  It works as an interrupt but it would be too late as a reaction.

Bad example, as there are immediate reactions that reduce the damage of an attack, such as the Kensei's U12.
"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks
A free action that boosts your defence against a triggering attack or forces the enemy to reroll the attack (or allows you to reroll an attack roll) would be an example of a free action that must be resolved as an interrupt.

An example would be Hideous Defiling from the Nightmare Beast in Dark Sun Creature Catalog

It's a free action attack that triggers when the Nightmare Beast misses a target with his Black Lightning attack, and if he hits any targets with Hideous Defiling, he can reroll the Black Lightning attack roll.
  Such as "You reduce the attack roll/damage taken by X."

  It works as an interrupt but it would be too late as a reaction.

There are exemples of damage reduction done as a reaction (ex. Caiphon's Leap, Grounding Rebuke, Defensive Volley, Tenacity of the Tusked, Narrow Escape etc..)

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

  Such as "You reduce the attack roll/damage taken by X."

  It works as an interrupt but it would be too late as a reaction.

There are exemples of damage reduction done as a reaction (ex. Caiphon's Leap, Grounding Rebuke, Defensive Volley, Tenacity of the Tusked, Narrow Escape etc..)



And they're wrong.  As in, should be forwarded to the Errata Team.  At least, if they still did errata. 

Not having errata'd them yet does not mean that damage reduction as a reaction works according to the rules.  It does not.  Ever.  To emphasize, again, an example of a power does not mean that the power demonstrates the functioning of a general rule.

It's as wrong as if I were to write a power that didn't have the Weapon keyword, but decided to have a range of Melee Weapon.  It's just wrong, incorrect, an error.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
If Narrow Escape was an Interrupt, you wouldn't take half damage from the attack since you also teleport... 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Yes, Narrow Escape is a very badly written power.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
You could keep all those powers as reactions by instead saying they heal you by the amount that normally would have been reduced, but that leads to its own set of potential issues:

1) If the original damage would have put you below 0, you would get extra healing since you would first go back to 0 and then heal
2) The powers would all be boosted by items and effects that increase healing gained. 
3) They would also be negated by effects that prevent healing (ex: Clay Golem's Slam attack, or the aura of a Klurichir)
3) Any effects that trigger on becoming bloodied or reaching 0 hp would trigger before the healing occurs.

Personally, I don't have an issue with a reaction type power reducing damage taken, even if its not called out in the immediate reaction rules as a specific case that breaks the general rule of resolving after the triggering effect, simply because its clearly RAI to make those powers work, and avoids the complications I listed above.



Or you could accept that the powers are wrong.

Powers aren't infallible, they have errors all the time. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition