Multiple attacks in one action and immediate reactions in RAW

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
So I'm playing a  Aegis of Ensnaring Swordmage in my friend's 4th ed D&D game and after playing a few sessions I discovered the general consensus ON THE INTERNET is that Snaremages suck, this came as a bit of a surprise to me since I've failed to notice whilst having too much fun bamfing myself and everything else everywhere.

For those without Arcane Power, essentially a Snaremage is an Arcane defender that marks a target then runs away giggling, if that monster gives up chasing you and hits your mate instead, you teleport it next to you as an immediate reaction. LoL worthy indeed.

I was typing up a post regarding how possibly to fix this issue (which personally I don't actually have, but I can see the theory*) so decided to thoroughly check the rules and how different defender powers worked, and I stumbled on something that rather confused me in how multiple attacks and immediate reactions work in RAW.

So, I think immediate actions are probably one of the most misunderstood bits of the basic rules, so quoting the majority of the rules:

PHB 268
Once per Round: You can take only one immediate action per round, either an immediate interrupt or an immediate reaction. If you haven't taken an immediate action since the end of your last turn, you can take one when a trigger allows you to.

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

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. For example, an enemy makes a melee attack against you, but you use a power that lets you shift away as an immediate interrupt.  If your enemy can no longer reach you, the enemy's attack 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. If a creature triggers your immediate reaction while moving (by coming into range, for example), you take your action before the creature finishes moving but after it has moved at least 1 square.
An immediate reaction might interrupt other actions a combatant takes after its triggering action.  For example, if a power lets you attack as an immediate reaction when an attack hits you, your action happens before the monster that hit you can take any other action. If a monster has a power that lets it make two attack rolls against you as a standard action, and the first one hits, you can use an immediate  reaction before the next attack roll.



Ok, so one reaction/round (not turn) and you can't use them on your own turn are rules that are often overlooked, and the bit about movement is kinda easy to miss but makes sense as an exception.
BUT... the bit about the reaction kicking in after an attack, but before the rest of the attacks from the same standard action, seems to directly contradict that the triggering action is completely resolved before the reaction.

Now, reading the rules. I've found it doesn't really explain anywhere what the process is for making multiple attacks as the same action.

With a Burst or Blast attack (close or otherwise), you roll once for damage, then make a separate attack roll. I vaguely assume that all the attack rolls happen simutaniously so any reaction to those attacks kicks in after all the attacks are resolved, so that the order that you make the attack rolls isn't actually a tactical issue.

But with a  ranger twin striking or Red dragon using double attack, both let you make two attacks against the same target or different targets as a standard action.
So from the above example in the PHB there can be a reaction or interrupt that kicks in between the claw attacks.

When making multiple attacks as the same action:
1) Do you need to specify the target of each attack BEFORE you resolve any of the attacks?
2) Can you change the target of later attacks. The obvious example is if your target dies on the first attack, can you then chose a different target with your next one? Same if you or them bamf out of range.

The fastest way is to roll all the dice
The cleanest way is to fully resolve each attack in order.
Either way, it's unclear if the attacker can change the target of their attacks midaction.

If I have a power that lets me teleport myself/enemy/ally as an immediate reaction after they are hit... then does the enemy get to choose a different target to make the reaction against?
The example given for immediate interrupts imply not, but interrupts are a different beast from reactions that's just implying a single attack, could the attack after that instead be at another target?

Now ironically the very power that I was checking up on all this for was. the Aegis of Ensarement description specifically mentions:  
If the target marked by this power is within 10 squares of you then it hits with an attack that does not include you as a target, you can use an immediate reaction after the target's entire attack is resolved to teleport the target to a space adjacent to you".



So seems specifically not to follow the above example in the PHB. From my reading of it, I need to wait until the dragon has made all of it's claw attacks for that action before bamfing it next to me.

I am at a utterly loss if there is anywhere in the 4th ed rules that specify how to deal with multiple attacks for the same action, we could make a houserule fairly easily, but anyone know if there is an official answer?


(The theory behind the problems with Snaremages are covered here: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...)
There's a lot going on here, and I won't answer everything.

'Attack' can be used ambiguously in 4E, and this is an instance where its referent matters.  For example, the level 1 elite white dragon wyrmling's at-will Dragon's Fury attack says "The wyrmling makes two claw attacks...", where the Claw attack is one of its MBAs.  So suppose the wyrmling makes a Dragon's Fury attack against your ally, which consists of two Claw attacks against said ally.

By RAW, you may bamf after the first Claw attack is resolved, even though the Dragon's Fury attack is not yet completely resolved.

Things are different with a burst / blast attack.  There, one attack is potentially hitting multiple targets, so you need to wait until that entire attack is resolved (for every target) before bamfing.

You do need to specify the target(s) of an attack before resolving said attack.  If an interrupt makes said attack against that target no longer possible (e.g., by sliding the target out of range), then the entire attack action is lost.  The creature cannot change targets in response to such interrupts.
"Attack" has two RAW meanings in 4e, as defined in th books. One is "attack power" and one is "attack roll and its effects." You have to understand from context which is being used. Sometimes it isn't clear.

Attack process (As of the RC).

1. Pick Power.
2. Pick all targets.
3. Roll.
4. See if hit/crit/miss.
5. Resolve damage.
6. If there is another target or a second attack, repeat steps 3-5.

The PHB encourages you to roll all the dice at once to speed up combat, not because things resolve all at once. I have 7 D20s in the colors of the rainbow. ROYGBIV is my order of resolution, whether it is for multi-attacks or bursts/blasts. I roll them all at once, and the damage dice. Then I do the resolutions in order. Sometimes the extra rolls are wasted because those attacks get negated before I get to them. Oh well.

So no, you can't change targets and yes Ensnaring Swordmages can negate the subsquent attacks of a multi-attack.
As long as the power is written something like "Standard action. Target: 1 creature. Two attacks" - If it was written as "Standard action. Make two claw attacks", then it could do the first attack and then do the secondary attack against the swordmage after the teleport.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein