Instinctive Darkness Feat Clarification

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
I have a player trying to take the feat Instinctive Darkness and I just want clarification on how it works.

Instinctive darkness: You can use your cloud of darkness racial power as an immediate reaction when you are the target of a melee or close attack.

Cloud of Darkness: The burst creates a cloud of darkness that remains in place until the end of your next turn. The cloud blocks line of sight, squares within it are totally obscured, and creatures entirely within it are blinded until they exit. You are immune to these effects.

The way he is reading the power is whenever he gets targeted by an attack the cloud of darkness can trigger which results in the cloud dropping causing him to be totally obscured which results in a penalty to the triggering attack roll, which can potentially cause it to miss.

He is arguing that since it states that the reaction triggers when he is targeted, rather than attacked the power can be used to avoid damage.

My question: Does the cloud drop after the attack does damage, or before?

From the glossary in the compendium:
"An immediate reaction waits for its trigger to finish, not necessarily for the action that contains the trigger to finish."
So, yes, it causes an attack penalty which can cause the triggering attack to miss. 
ah no, pretty sure DevoDog has this wrong.

Immediate Reactions happen after the trigger resolves.  The trigger being the attack targeting the PC.  The cloud appears AFTER the attack is resolved (hit or miss).  Targeting something with an attack is part of using said attack.  It does not affect the attack at all, for that to happen it would have to be an Immediate Interrupt.  That's the reason this feat is bad.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

From the glossary in the compendium:
"An immediate reaction waits for its trigger to finish, not necessarily for the action that contains the trigger to finish."
So, yes, it causes an attack penalty which can cause the triggering attack to miss. 


It means the opposite of that.  It does not affect the triggering attack whatsoever.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Oh good, this question again.

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

That is what remains of the last thread on this topic. It ran for pages.

There are a minimum of two ambiguities. One is a power without a defined trigger that reacts to targeting and can invalidate an attack if it kills the target, which strongly implies you can react between steps 2 and 3 of the attack process. Which makes sense, given the attack process rules and what "making an attack" constitutes. The rest of the action would continue as normal, interrupts are still special in that the entire triggering action is lost. The second is the extra line added to the reaction rules in the RC.

This is a change from the understanding we had of the rules the first ~3-4 years of 4e's existence, where targeting was considered part of the "attack."
Thanks for the help. 

This is a change from the understanding we had of the rules the first ~3-4 years of 4e's existence, where targeting was considered part of the "attack."



And, notably, this interpretation causes many Reactions (like Instinctive Darkness!) to act as Interrupts instead.
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.

This is a change from the understanding we had of the rules the first ~3-4 years of 4e's existence, where targeting was considered part of the "attack."



And, notably, this interpretation causes many Reactions (like Instinctive Darkness!) to act as Interrupts instead.


And isn't actually an interpretation required by the text.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

This is a change from the understanding we had of the rules the first ~3-4 years of 4e's existence, where targeting was considered part of the "attack."



And, notably, this interpretation causes many Reactions (like Instinctive Darkness!) to act as Interrupts instead.

Still not true. Interrupts lose the entire action. Inserting reactions between steps in the attack process does not cause them to act as interrupts.


And, notably, this interpretation causes many Reactions (like Instinctive Darkness!) to act as Interrupts instead.

Still not true. Interrupts lose the entire action. Inserting reactions between steps in the attack process does not cause them to act as interrupts.



"I attack you!"
"I use a reaction to your attack!"
"A reaction?  So it triggered because of my attack, that means it happens after my attack, right?"
"No, my reaction to your attack happens before your attack, and can change your attack, including causing your attack to fail."
"That's an interrupt"
"No, it's a REACTION.  You can tell, because I used it after you started your attack and it resolved before your attack resolved!"
"That's the DEFINITION of an Interrupt."
"It's a reaction because by creatively misreading a badly-proofread chart that doesn't match the text or examples or other rules, reactions are interrupts.  Also Customer Service agrees with this interpretation every single time they're asked."
"But Customer Service are always wrong, and the rules text is clear, and the other rules are clear, and the poorly-proofread chart also breaks all kinds of other attacks."
"I don't care, because this favours me mechanically and thus it doesn't matter that it's contradictory and stupid, I'm going to defend it to the death."

I think that covers the entire debate, really.
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.
lol.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Except for your constant and irrational hyperbole about it, I guess it does. Reactions can (and do) invalidate things that come after them. Interrupts invalidate their triggers and, when they do, they invalidate the entire action containing the trigger. Those are dramatically different things. No amount of you whining about it will change the facts. ^.^
Do we really have to do this again?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition