Fighters, Opportunity Attacks, Movement and Interrupts

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
Just a quick question, while running the KotS, I came across something that is a bit confusing, maybe someone else can shed light on it. When the fighter marks an opponent, whenever that opponent shifts the fighter can make an immediate interrupt attack. Am I correct in interpreting that an interrupt attack cancels the shift? I don't find it clear when it says if an interrupt invalidates an action it cancels it. Is that a judgment call from a DM? I was treating it as such, and it kept marked kobolds from running away. They'd shift, which normally prevents Opportunity attacks, and if they get hit with an interrupt and they lost their shift.

Now, with the above, you get an opportunity attack when moving, so with the above would the fighter still get an opportunity attack? Are opportunity attacks and Immediate interrupts different? I know you can only take one opportunity action, but are interrupts, specifically with the fighters combat challenge technically different mechanics? Because if they are, that is really good for fighters when they mark 'shifty' opponents like kobolds.
I believe Immediate Actions / Interrupts are actions taken by a character (not on their own turn), in response to an attack directed against them.

Opportunity attacks are taken against opponents who provoke them in other ways (moving through threatened area, getting up from prone, etc.)

I could be wrong, but I believe that is correct.
We've seen two versions of Combat Superiority, presumably tied to Weapon Style.

OA's are triggered by Moving away from an opponent. This means intent to move multiple squares. Under normal circumstances the OA just does damage and the target is allowed the rest of their movement. The Sword and Board Fighter has an ability that stops the movement of the target if the OA lands.

Shifting is a Move Action that does not provoke OA's. Normally you can only shift a single square, though Powers such as Dodge and Expeditious Retreat allow you to shift much more than one square.

All Fighters get Combat Superiority that allows them to make a basic attack (not an Opportunity Attack) against targets that shift through threatened squares. This attack does not stop the movement. If your Wizard uses Expeditious Retreat to escape from my Sword and Board Fighter I get to make a single basic attack against you as you shift away but you still get to continue your shifting.

Edit: and yes, OAs and Immediate Interrupts are technically different even if they behave similarly. An Immediate Interrupt is, generally, a Power with a specific trigger that allows it to resolve in between the declaration of another action and that action's resolution. Some will stop the action (counterspell) others will force a change of some kind (retargeting as with the Justicar Power).

Even though OAs and IIs behave very similar to each other they are considered different for the purpose of other rules, abilities, feats, and powers that refer to and/or modify the results of each, particularly OAs.

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
who, squatting upon the ground,
held his heart in his hands, and ate of it.
I said, "is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter – bitter," he answered;
"but I like it,
"beacuase it is bitter,
"and because it is my heart."

We've seen two versions of Combat Superiority, presumably tied to Weapon Style.

That is a possibility. It is also a possibility that the one from D&DXP is an older version and has been replaced. 21 days from today.
OA's are triggered by Moving away from an opponent. This means intent to move multiple squares. Under normal circumstances the OA just does damage and the target is allowed the rest of their movement. The Sword and Board Fighter has an ability that stops the movement of the target if the OA lands.

I figured as much with OA's, very similar to before, but you can do more of them, but only once per enemy's turn. This is where my confusion came from wondering if Immediate Interrupts are considered OA's. It seems they are not.
Shifting is a Move Action that does not provoke OA's. Normally you can only shift a single square, though Powers such as Dodge and Expeditious Retreat allow you to shift much more than one square.

I am aware of Shifting not provoking OA's, but that is why I specifically mentioned the fighters marking ability which removed the advantage of shifting somewhat. You shift, and I get an attack on you (interrupt action), the same if you attack someone else (interrupt action)
All Fighters get Combat Superiority that allows them to make a basic attack (not an Opportunity Attack) against targets that shift through threatened squares. This attack does not stop the movement. If your Wizard uses Expeditious Retreat to escape from my Sword and Board Fighter I get to make a single basic attack against you as you shift away but you still get to continue your shifting.

This is where my confusion actually comes out. An interrupt stats, from KotS: An interrupt lets you act before the triggering action is resolved. If the interrupt invalidates the triggering action, that action is lost.
Shifting is supposed to prevent an attack, but the fighter that marks an opponent gets an attack, so technically a DM could rule that you have invalidated what a shift is supposed to do, meaning it is lost. It could be a matter of DM interpretation. I'm hoping the PHB will detail what can and cannot invalidate an action.
Edit: and yes, OAs and Immediate Interrupts are technically different even if they behave similarly. An Immediate Interrupt is, generally, a Power with a specific trigger that allows it to resolve in between the declaration of another action and that action's resolution. Some will stop the action (counterspell) others will force a change of some kind (retargeting as with the Justicar Power).

Even though OAs and IIs behave very similar to each other they are considered different for the purpose of other rules, abilities, feats, and powers that refer to and/or modify the results of each, particularly OAs.

Okay, so it seems that a fighter can get two free attacks on said moving kobold, which is how I ruled it. This is nasty for fighters, in a good way I mean.
I am aware of Shifting not provoking OA's, but that is why I specifically mentioned the fighters marking ability which removed the advantage of shifting somewhat. You shift, and I get an attack on you (interrupt action), the same if you attack someone else (interrupt action)

The attack here is considered a Reaction, not an Interrupt.

This is where my confusion actually comes out. An interrupt stats, from KotS: An interrupt lets you act before the triggering action is resolved. If the interrupt invalidates the triggering action, that action is lost.
Shifting is supposed to prevent an attack, but the fighter that marks an opponent gets an attack, so technically a DM could rule that you have invalidated what a shift is supposed to do, meaning it is lost. It could be a matter of DM interpretation. I'm hoping the PHB will detail what can and cannot invalidate an action.

I'm under the assumption that the Interrupt needs to explicitly state that it invalidates the action, i.e. "Kick: Rogue Encounter 5, Immediate Interrupt, Trigger: Adjacent enemy uses a Spell or Prayer power. Dex vs Ref - 1[w] and the Spell or Prayer is interrupted."

Also the deterrence factor of the "attack even on a shift" is that the target ends up in a position where moving any significant distance means taking an OA and hoping the Fighter misses, or using a move action to shift (taking an attack, but not getting stopped) then trading standard action for move action or making use of a limited Power (/encounter or /day) to shift further. If the reaction from shifting also stopped the shift I think it would make Fighters a little too hard to get away from and would remove all tactical options: might as well try for the move, since the shift is a meaningless trade-off.

Okay, so it seems that a fighter can get two free attacks on said moving kobold, which is how I ruled it. This is nasty for fighters, in a good way I mean.

I'm pretty sure the Fighter would only get one attack on the Kobold, move or shift reaction, depending on what the kobold uses, not both. It strikes me that the entire point of the Kobold shift-as-minor ability is to say "these guys can slip away from anyone."

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
who, squatting upon the ground,
held his heart in his hands, and ate of it.
I said, "is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter – bitter," he answered;
"but I like it,
"beacuase it is bitter,
"and because it is my heart."

The attack here is considered a Reaction, not an Interrupt.

I'm going by the KotS fighter, as it is the most up to date. I haven't read the PHB, so I can't gather info from there, but in KotS it specifically says that you make a basic melee attack as a immediate interrupt. So it is an interrupt, not a reaction.
I'm under the assumption that the Interrupt needs to explicitly state that it invalidates the action, i.e. "Kick: Rogue Encounter 5, Immediate Interrupt, Trigger: Adjacent enemy uses a Spell or Prayer power. Dex vs Ref - 1[w] and the Spell or Prayer is interrupted."

I haven't seen any rogue abilities that have done this, or if I have I don't recall - there's previews from so many sources - so if that is the case, then that makes sense.
Also the deterrence factor of the "attack even on a shift" is that the target ends up in a position where moving any significant distance means taking an OA and hoping the Fighter misses, or using a move action to shift (taking an attack, but not getting stopped) then trading standard action for move action or making use of a limited Power (/encounter or /day) to shift further. If the reaction from shifting also stopped the shift I think it would make Fighters a little too hard to get away from and would remove all tactical options: might as well try for the move, since the shift is a meaningless trade-off.

That makes a lot of sense actually, not canceling the shift that is.
I'm pretty sure the Fighter would only get one attack on the Kobold, move or shift reaction, depending on what the kobold uses, not both. It strikes me that the entire point of the Kobold shift-as-minor ability is to say "these guys can slip away from anyone."

I still think I was right with the fighter getting two attacks in this case. At least by the rules. Tactically it makes more sense for a marked by the fighter foe to just move instead of making a shift, but depending on the situation (a kobold that is slowed and needs to get by a fighter to warn the others, will use whatever he can to get away). Also, while kobolds are great at getting away, that is still the case even if the fighter could possibly get two free attacks, because they shift as a minor action and can still move. effectively 7 squares of movement for these guys (more if you don't attack and just move) That is still really good. Plus the fighter can only mark one opponent, so I think it is hardly game breaking.
Ok, my understanding of this fighter ability is that 1. It does not say the opponent must be marked. 2. As an immediate action, you may only make one such attack per round. 3. If some enemy felt like shifting away from you, they would trigger this ability, but their movement would continue as normal, and 4. If some enemy shifted away from you, then moved by you, they could provoke and attack of opportunity. (this means you may get 3 attacks on the same enemy in one round, but who in their right mind would shift away, then move by you provoking an attack of opportunity.

P.S. As this ability is worded as an immediate interrupt an adjacent enemy who makes an attack that does not include you as a target opens himself up to an attack from you. This attack does not prevent the enemies attack from functioning except for the case where your interrupt attack drops your foe.
I still think I was right with the fighter getting two attacks in this case. At least by the rules. Tactically it makes more sense for a marked by the fighter foe to just move instead of making a shift, but depending on the situation (a kobold that is slowed and needs to get by a fighter to warn the others, will use whatever he can to get away). Also, while kobolds are great at getting away, that is still the case even if the fighter could possibly get two free attacks, because they shift as a minor action and can still move. effectively 7 squares of movement for these guys (more if you don't attack and just move) That is still really good. Plus the fighter can only mark one opponent, so I think it is hardly game breaking.

I think I need a diagram to see what you're describing. In my mind I see this: Fighter and Kobold are adjacent. Fighter has a melee weapon and only threatens the squares directly adjacent to them. The Kobold shifts 1 square as a minor action, taking a Basic attack from the Fighter, and is now out of the Fighter's threatened area. From here the Kobold still has a move action and a standard action and can move without penalty from the Fighter, as the Fighter does not threaten the square the Kobold stands on.

Alternate situation is the Kobold and Fighter are adjacent, the kobold attempts a Move away from the Fighter. The Fighter gets an OA against the Kobold. If the Fighter is sword-and-board (DDXP) and the OA lands the move is ended. If the Fighter is 2H (KotS) the move continues as normal. Against the DDXP Fighter, assuming the OA stopped the Kobold's movement, the Kobold can now a) trade Standard for Move and move again without an OA (since OA's are limited to 1/round/target without Relentless Opportunist) or can Shift, triggering a Basic Attack from the Fighter for Shifting, and then do whatever with their Standard action.

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
who, squatting upon the ground,
held his heart in his hands, and ate of it.
I said, "is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter – bitter," he answered;
"but I like it,
"beacuase it is bitter,
"and because it is my heart."

This is where my confusion actually comes out. An interrupt stats, from KotS: An interrupt lets you act before the triggering action is resolved. If the interrupt invalidates the triggering action, that action is lost.
Shifting is supposed to prevent an attack, but the fighter that marks an opponent gets an attack, so technically a DM could rule that you have invalidated what a shift is supposed to do, meaning it is lost. It could be a matter of DM interpretation. I'm hoping the PHB will detail what can and cannot invalidate an action.

I don't think that would be a fair ruling. What a shift does is move you 1 square. Why you might shift would be whatever you feel like, though certainly "so I don't get hit" is a good reason. You don't need to declare "why" you're doing something in D&D though. You can shift whenever you want, even if no one's around. Just you, alone, in your house, shifting the night away. ;)

If the interrupt did something like "Opponent can't move" or "Opponent loses his legs", then it would make sense that it invalidates the triggering action.
I don't think that would be a fair ruling. What a shift does is move you 1 square. Why you might shift would be whatever you feel like, though certainly "so I don't get hit" is a good reason. You don't need to declare "why" you're doing something in D&D though. You can shift whenever you want, even if no one's around. Just you, alone, in your house, shifting the night away. ;)

If the interrupt did something like "Opponent can't move" or "Opponent loses his legs", then it would make sense that it invalidates the triggering action.

I agree with you that the ruling is unfair, but I disagree on the language you used. What a Shift does is allow you to move without provoking an Opportunity Attack - that is the defining feature. The 1 square is mutable. We have seen powers (rogue Tumble, Shadar-Kai Dance of Death, wizard Expeditious Retreat) that allow you Shift more than 1 square. The common thread, though, is that no Opportunity Attacks are provoked.

4E is an exceptions based game. The rules are simplified, but every power or ability can break those rules somehow. The Fighter's Combat Superiority is an exception. As an Immediate Interrupt, he can make a Basic Attack against an opponent that Shifts. By the by, it must be an Immediate Interrupt because if it were an Immediate Reaction, the shifting creature would be out of the Fighter's reach before the attack went off (Reactions are resolved immediately following the resolution of the triggering action, Interrupts occur before the triggering action finishes).

Combat Superiority doesn't invalidate the Shift. The action still takes place. But the action triggers another action. Even if you want to go by a strict reading of the rules, the Shift prevents Opportunity Attacks. The Combat Superiority doesn't allow an Opportunity Attack, it allows a Basic Melee Attack. So, the Shift worked as intended. No Opportunity Attack has occurred.

The Angry DM: D&D 4th Edition Advice with Attitude http://angrydm.com Follow me on Twitter @TheAngryDM "D&D is a world where you are a great champion, and the creator of the universe is frequently disorganized, highly distractable, and alarmingly vague on the rules of the universe he’s trying to run." -Shamus Young, Twenty Sided Tale (DM of the Rings)

I agree with you that the ruling is unfair, but I disagree on the language you used. What a Shift does is allow you to move without provoking an Opportunity Attack - that is the defining feature. The 1 square is mutable. We have seen powers (rogue Tumble, Shadar-Kai Dance of Death, wizard Expeditious Retreat) that allow you Shift more than 1 square. The common thread, though, is that no Opportunity Attacks are provoked.

4E is an exceptions based game. The rules are simplified, but every power or ability can break those rules somehow. The Fighter's Combat Superiority is an exception. As an Immediate Interrupt, he can make a Basic Attack against an opponent that Shifts. By the by, it must be an Immediate Interrupt because if it were an Immediate Reaction, the shifting creature would be out of the Fighter's reach before the attack went off (Reactions are resolved immediately following the resolution of the triggering action, Interrupts occur before the triggering action finishes).

Combat Superiority doesn't invalidate the Shift. The action still takes place. But the action triggers another action. Even if you want to go by a strict reading of the rules, the Shift prevents Opportunity Attacks. The Combat Superiority doesn't allow an Opportunity Attack, it allows a Basic Melee Attack. So, the Shift worked as intended. No Opportunity Attack has occurred.

Right, I agree with all that. It is an interrupt, and you do get hit when you shift, and it's not an opportunity attack. However, even if someone did have an ability that says "You can make opportunity attacks when someone shifts", that wouldn't imply that the person they're hitting can no longer shift. "Invalidating" something means that you change it so that it's no longer possible to do whatever it is you're trying to do. Shifting moves you 1 square without taking opportunity attacks. Even if one person takes an opportunity attack against you, that doesn't mean that suddenly everyone else can as well; there's nothing being "invalidated". Chopping off your legs would "invalidate" it because you can not actually move anymore. Another example: a fireball does damage to everyone in the blast radius. If one person in the blast radius has an ability that says "Interrupt: When you are hit by a fireball, you can make a save to take no damage.", that isn't "invalidating" the fireball; it doesn't stop it from occurring, and it doesn't help anyone else avoid the damage.
It's good to see that combat has been streamlined and simplified to make life easier for the DM! ;)

Now I just need to find an out of work air traffic controller to help me keep track of who's markin' who! :D
Okay, I'll try to do a (very poor) diagram

K= Kobold
F= Fighter
* = The area that can be traversed for whatever reason.
- = where the kobold has to get past or move into.
The kobold is marked by the fighter already and slowed by a ray of frost.

--
**
*F
K*



This is how the kobolds round starts. The kobold attacks the fighter, hoping to hit because the fighter is VERY close to being dropped (2hp club) The kobold, is limited by movement for being slowed so, the kobold shifts one square, which provokes the combat challenge ability allowing an immediate interrupt. This does not invalidate the move, unless it specifically says so. apparently. (Kobolds can shift as a minor action)

--
**
KF
**



The kobold then is still not close enough so he decides to use his move action to move two squares provoking an Opportunity attack.


K-
**
*F
**



The kobold is actually dropped with the opportunity attack, so he actually never moved to where he is shown on the above diagram. The diagram is to show where he wanted to move.

But it seems, that the fighter, can on a marked opponent and depending on the situation, make two free attacks on said opponent.

Lawolf, you are right that the wording where it mentions getting the immediate interrupt on a shifting opponent could imply that it is any shifting opponent, but since it is under the combat challenge power which talks about marking a specific opponent, I ruled in my game that the interrupt only works against the marked opponent.

If it works another way, I'd like to be sure, but it's hard to say - unless one of the WotC employees come on and tells us.
Okay, I'll try to do a (very poor) diagram.

Ah, okay. Yes, the Fighter does get two attacks against the Kobold in this hallway scenario because the Combat Superiority attack wouldn't use up the 1 OA/opponent/round.

As for marked vs. unmarked, looking over what we have I can convince myself either way, so I have to wait on the rule books for those.

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
who, squatting upon the ground,
held his heart in his hands, and ate of it.
I said, "is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter – bitter," he answered;
"but I like it,
"beacuase it is bitter,
"and because it is my heart."

My only (perceived) problem with not allowing the fighter to use his ability on unmarked opponents is that it slightly limits his ability as a defender. And yes the diagram you drew shows how the fighter could get two attacks against the kobold, but why wouldn't the kobold just shift twice, thus only being able to be attacked once. For that matter, how does the kobold get stuck in a dead end, ten foot wide corridor with a fighter staring down at him. Any monster stuck in that situation deserves to be killed. Especially because it would be much to his advantage to just attack instead of running by the warrior. If there are other monsters near by, wouldn't it be in the fighters best interest to go after them, using his abilities to protect the weaker party members from being attacked (by attacking anyone who attacks them) instead of hunting down a lone trapped kobold?
My only (perceived) problem with not allowing the fighter to use his ability on unmarked opponents is that it slightly limits his ability as a defender.

Well, that would depend on other abilities the fighter takes as a defender. The combat challenge seems to be more a way to try to keep one foe from attacking others or moving away from the fighter.
And yes the diagram you drew shows how the fighter could get two attacks against the kobold, but why wouldn't the kobold just shift twice, thus only being able to be attacked once.

Because the kobold would get another immediate interrupt attack on him, as opportunity actions and immediate actions, though similar in mechanics are different. You can only make one Opportunity action on the opponents turn, but the fighters mark/combat challenge allows for multiple interrupts.
For that matter, how does the kobold get stuck in a dead end, ten foot wide corridor with a fighter staring down at him.

I never said that the kobold was in a ten foot wide corridor with a dead end. What I showed was the only areas the kobold really could move to. The actual map would be more like this:

------
*********
***F*****
**K******
*********
*********



The ----- line represents an entrance to a kobold lair that activates another encounter if the kobold gets through, which would be extremely difficult as the party would then have to fight a level 6 encounter, that ordinarily would be broken into two waves, or charge in and not get a chance to regain their encounter powers.
Any monster stuck in that situation deserves to be killed. Especially because it would be much to his advantage to just attack instead of running by the warrior.

The kobold did attack, in the hope that he could drop the fighter (who only had 2 HP) the kobold missed, so he tried to move to the line, which would let him warn those inside, and activate a countdown for the divided wave encounter inside, making it much more deadly.
If there are other monsters near by, wouldn't it be in the fighters best interest to go after them, using his abilities to protect the weaker party members from being attacked (by attacking anyone who attacks them) instead of hunting down a lone trapped kobold?

As I said, the kobold the fighter was engaged with would warn others making the next encounter worse. The player playing the fighter ran to get in front of him, to prevent him from escaping. There were other opponents he could have engaged. There was a cleric and a wizard that were engaged with a kobold dragonsheild and slinger. The fighter figured the best option was to prevent reinforcements from coming/making another encounter tougher outweighed the cleric and wizard being in a tight spot with the other two kobolds.

Sometimes what you should do (be a defender and protect the other party members) isn't the best thing to do.

My group had lots of fun with this encounter, I just wanted to be clear with some of the rules.
Ok, well in this situation the fighter gets two attacks, as you have stated it its actually better for the kobold not to attack and just move twice, actually move or run would be his best bet. The new encounter would help vastly more than the damage he may or may not do to the fighter, but kobolds may not be the most tactically smart so this is ok. As for shifting twice, the fighter still only gets one immediate action per round. So while he may not get as far as he needs, it is still a better decision than shifting and moving. The fighter's ability does not say he can make more than one immediate action per round.

Edit: Also, in the diagram you drew, the kobold can shift one square diagonally forward away from the fighter, then be out of the fighters reach to walk/run to the ---- spaces. Thus allowing him to attack first and only provoke one attack. I think it would be hard to find a situation where the kobold sets himself up for an attack of opportunity and an immediate attack from the fighter without the constraint of a 10ft wide corridor or some other barrier.
Yeah, I'd say bad tactics by the kobold. For most monsters, shifting is a move action, so the fighter isn't typically going to get to attack twice since a creature would have to use its entire turn to shift and move. Kobolds are a special case.

In the first example, where it looks like a corridor, you're right, the kobold's going to have trouble getting past the fighter. In the second example though, the kobold can just shift northwest one space (and be attacked by Combat Superiority) and then just move N, NE to get into the cave without getting attacked again.
Combat Challenge: Everytime you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a creature is marked, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls if its attack doesn't include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes the old mark.
"In addition", whenever an enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes na attack that doesnt include u as a target, you can make a melee basic attack agaisnt the enemy as an immediate interrupt.

So heres the deal, You can mark enemies that are not adjacent to you with a ranged attack since it doesn't specifically say that you can't. You can only make the immediate intterupt againt the target that is marked (thats easy to discern since its in the Combat Challenge stat block), and finally, an immediate intterupt is just that an INTERRUPT, if the attack hits, the target does not shift (if that was the action), or attack (if that was the action). Its action was interrupted and it does not get another, unless it uses an action point.
Yeah, I'd say bad tactics by the kobold. For most monsters, shifting is a move action, so the fighter isn't typically going to get to attack twice since a creature would have to use its entire turn to shift and move. Kobolds are a special case.

I am aware, that is why I specifically cited kobolds, though there are other monsters such as goblins, who have goblin tactics that allow shifts. So, there is more than one monster where, depending on the right circumstances could cause a similar situation to occur.

In the first example, where it looks like a corridor, you're right, the kobold's going to have trouble getting past the fighter. In the second example though, the kobold can just shift northwest one space (and be attacked by Combat Superiority) and then just move N, NE to get into the cave without getting attacked again.
It may be possible that the kobold could have move NE after moving N. This may be an error I made running the encounter, because there is a solid wall beside where he would need to shift to. Now 4e may be different, but I know in rules of the Minis game, you can't move diagonally around a corner, which the kobold would have had to do. That is another issue I guess.

As to the kobold shifting twice, that is correct the fighter could not get a second immediate action. However, the kobold would be dead sooner as the initiative would have brought all the PCs to attack again. So, I still think the kobold trying to, first get a lucky shot on the PC, was okay, that could have solved the whole problem, that missed. So, the kobold decided to move as fast as he could for a total of 3 squares, shift and move. He was dead either way, but he could have warned his allies. Lucky for the party he did not.
Combat Challenge: Everytime you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a creature is marked, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls if its attack doesn't include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes the old mark.
"In addition", whenever an enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes na attack that doesnt include u as a target, you can make a melee basic attack agaisnt the enemy as an immediate interrupt.

So heres the deal, You can mark enemies that are not adjacent to you with a ranged attack since it doesn't specifically say that you can't. You can only make the immediate intterupt againt the target that is marked (thats easy to discern since its in the Combat Challenge stat block), and finally, an immediate intterupt is just that an INTERRUPT, if the attack hits, the target does not shift (if that was the action), or attack (if that was the action). Its action was interrupted and it does not get another, unless it uses an action point.

Now, this is where we need things to be cleared up. I hope the PHB does that.

What does an interrupt invalidate? Is it only if specifically says so, or by the nature of the interrupt does it invalidate an action simply because it's an interrupt? Stupid, 4e not coming out for 20 days (as of this post)
Interrputs, like counterspells, counter an action preventing it from happening. Im not sure where i heard it, it may have been from awhile ago or one of the interviews, but anything that has the keyword interrupt, interrupts an action that its stat block specifies. And yes, damn them for not letting us have the books today.
Combat Challenge: Everytime you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a creature is marked, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls if its attack doesn't include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes the old mark.
"In addition", whenever an enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes na attack that doesnt include u as a target, you can make a melee basic attack agaisnt the enemy as an immediate interrupt.

So heres the deal, You can mark enemies that are not adjacent to you with a ranged attack since it doesn't specifically say that you can't. You can only make the immediate intterupt againt the target that is marked (thats easy to discern since its in the Combat Challenge stat block), and finally, an immediate intterupt is just that an INTERRUPT, if the attack hits, the target does not shift (if that was the action), or attack (if that was the action). Its action was interrupted and it does not get another, unless it uses an action point.

Yes, it does sound like you can mark an enemy at range.

There's nothing to suggest that you can only interrupt marked targets. That section is "in addition" to the section on marking.

Per the definition of an interrupt, "If the interrupt invalidates the triggering action, that action is lost." If my interrupt attack were to stun the target, then the target wouldn't get to shift, because stunned creatures can't shift. It's an "invalid" option. If my interrupt attack just damages the target, then the target finishes his shift, because damaged creatures can still shift. It's still "valid".
Because the kobold would get another immediate interrupt attack on him, as opportunity actions and immediate actions, though similar in mechanics are different. You can only make one Opportunity action on the opponents turn, but the fighters mark/combat challenge allows for multiple interrupts.

IIRC, you can only take one Immediate Action per round. So the Kobold should be able to triple-shift and take only one attack from the Fighter's Interrupt...
IIRC, you can only take one Immediate Action per round. So the Kobold should be able to triple-shift and take only one attack from the Fighter's Interrupt...

If you are indeed limited to one Immediate Action a round, a fighter surrounded by kobolds can only attack one when they all shift around him.

While if Opportunity Attacks are limited to one per turn, a fighter would get to attack each kobold that moved past him.
Now, this is where we need things to be cleared up. I hope the PHB does that.

What does an interrupt invalidate? Is it only if specifically says so, or by the nature of the interrupt does it invalidate an action simply because it's an interrupt? Stupid, 4e not coming out for 20 days (as of this post)

I would say by use of their word "invalidate", it means that it only stops an action if in your new state, you would be incapable of taking that action. For example, "attacking with your sword" requires:

1) That you are holding your sword.
2) That you are alive.
3) That you can move your arm.

and probably a few other things. If an interrupt puts you in a state where normally a DM would say "you can't attack with your sword", for isntance, it leaves you not holding your sword, or dead, or paralyzed, then it has invalidated the action and it doesn't happen. If it does anything else to you (silences you, makes you drop your shield, slows you, etc.), that leaves you in a state where you'd still normally be able to attack with your sword, it does not invalidate it, and the action still happens.

Invalidation should usually be pretty straightforward. You just let the interrupt happen, and then look at the battle map as everything is right then, and decide what you would say as a DM if the player just now said he wanted to do the action. So if an interrupt pushes the character 2 squares away from his target when he was trying to make a melee attack, first push him those 2 squares away, and then pretend that he's just now saying "I want to attack that dragon". Your correct response would be "You can't, he's 2 squares away and you need to be right next to him". It's the same thing here, thus the action has been invalidated. If instead, he's just been knocked prone or blinded, and he said "I want to attack the dragon", you would let him (though he'd suffer the penalties for being prone or blinded), thus, it's not invalidated.
makeshiftwings, I agree that what you are saying makes sense. Your interpretation seems very likely. However:
From Dictionary.com

1. to cause or make a break in the continuity or uniformity of (a course, process, condition, etc.).
2. to break off or cause to cease, as in the middle of something: He interrupted his work to answer the bell.
3. to stop (a person) in the midst of doing or saying something, esp. by an interjected remark: May I interrupt you to comment on your last remark?
–verb (used without object)
4. to cause a break or discontinuance; interfere with action or speech, esp. by interjecting a remark: Please don't interrupt.


The nature of the word interrupt seems to mean that it invalidates an action, and while I agree your explanation is most likely the correct one, there is still a possibility for how I interpret it. That an interrupt cancels the action. It is a possibility until we all get access to a PHB and see. Both our arguments are feasible. This is a situation similar to the 'is the glass half-empty or is it half-full?' It's all how your mind views it.
*snip*

This has less to do with the dictionary definition than the MTG definition of an interrupt. An interrupt is an action that occurs before the action that triggers it. There is no rule saying that an interrupt cancels whatever it interrupt, except in the case of such a rule being present from another rule.

For example, there's a feat (rule) that states if you do damage to someone while they are moving, they stop moving. This has nothing to do with the fighter using an immediate interrupt to deal the damage.
We can not really Kots is clearly advertised as having bit missing.
May be the generic AoO rules will say that it stops the action that caused them?
Or may be this will be the generic rule for interrupts
May be the terminology has changed between xp and kots?

For a game stands point it makes sense to have on type of attack that does stops what the opposition does and one that does not.
So that the guy doing the action that will be interrupted get the choice of playing it safe so that even if Aoo/interrupt hits he can continue.
Or having a possibility to be stopped completely having a bigger reward if not stopped

So I like the d&dxp interrupt on shift and AoO that stops if move.
It is true that in English Aoo makes more sense if it does not stop the action and if the interrupt does but it is semantics
An interrupt lets you act before the triggering action is resolved. If the interrupt invalidates the triggering action, that action is lost.

I believe an interrupt is called just that because you interrupt your opponents action. You do not invalidate it. It just means that your action goes off before the triggering action Also, why throw in the If in the rules at all if all interrupts cancel actions.
I believe an interrupt is called just that because you interrupt your opponents action. You do not invalidate it. It just means that your action goes off before the triggering action Also, why throw in the If in the rules at all if all interrupts cancel actions.

As I said above, I do believe that this is the most likely solution. An interrupt does not stop what you are doing. I'm just saying that the wording as in the limited rules can cause some confusion - especially with the meaning of interrupt and as to the 'if', well that can be a matter of perception. Someone is trying to move away from me, I get to hit him causing him to stumble back.

I'm jsut saying that I think both definitions are correct. One in terms of intent (towards D&D), and one in terms of actual meaning. If you read my posts, I've pretty much conceded the point, but I still would like it to be put more clearly in the PHB.
As I said above, I do believe that this is the most likely solution. An interrupt does not stop what you are doing. I'm just saying that the wording as in the limited rules can cause some confusion - especially with the meaning of interrupt and as to the 'if', well that can be a matter of perception. Someone is trying to move away from me, I get to hit him causing him to stumble back.

I'm jsut saying that I think both definitions are correct. One in terms of intent (towards D&D), and one in terms of actual meaning. If you read my posts, I've pretty much conceded the point, but I still would like it to be put more clearly in the PHB.

Given the new edition's heavy use of Keywords, and the pride the Designers have shown in such, I would anticipate the combat section having a breakdown of all applicable keywords and action types: Standard, Move, Minor, Free, Immediate Reaction, and Immediate Interrupt.

Immediate Actions - Immediate actions are actions that your character can take during another PC or Monster's turn. All Immediate Actions have a Trigger that defines when they can be used, such as "after an attack misses" or "when an adjacent ally is targeted". There are two kinds of Immediate Actions: Reactions and Interrupts. Reactions are resolved after the triggering action is resolved. Interrupts are resolved before the triggering action.
As an example Krystle, the Halfling Rogue, is fighting Gaoul the Dragonborn Fighter. Krystle attempts to Move away from Gaoul provoking an Opportunity Attack. Gaoul's Opportunity Attacks end the target's movement, if movement provoked the OA (as in this case.) Gaoul rolls his OA and hits Krystle, ending her movement, but before the attack is resolved Krystle uses Second Chance, her Halfling Racial power, an Immediate Interrupt. Gaoul re-rolls his attack and misses, invalidating the previous hit ending her movement, allowing Krystle to move freely and unharmed.


If they don't have something like that I would be both surprised and a little disappointed.

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
who, squatting upon the ground,
held his heart in his hands, and ate of it.
I said, "is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter – bitter," he answered;
"but I like it,
"beacuase it is bitter,
"and because it is my heart."

As I said above, I do believe that this is the most likely solution. An interrupt does not stop what you are doing. I'm just saying that the wording as in the limited rules can cause some confusion - especially with the meaning of interrupt and as to the 'if', well that can be a matter of perception. Someone is trying to move away from me, I get to hit him causing him to stumble back.

I'm jsut saying that I think both definitions are correct. One in terms of intent (towards D&D), and one in terms of actual meaning. If you read my posts, I've pretty much conceded the point, but I still would like it to be put more clearly in the PHB.

Well, I'd say unless the rules specifically say that something does something, you can't assume it does just because of the definition of the word. The terms "feat", "exploit", etc. have very little to do with their meanings in real life. I think it can be implied that an Interrupt does nothing except what it says it does. If it canceled every action all the time, there'd be no reason for some interrupts to say "Stops the target's movement": every interrupt would always stop all movement.

In addition, this is how it worked in 3e (though it wasn't clarified until later). I don't think they'd change it to make every Interrupt cancel every action. That would make Interrupts hugely powerful, which does not seem to be their intention.
Sign In to post comments