Immediate Interrupt and fixed bonuses

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hey there,

There are a number of powers that are Immediate Interrupts of the following flavor:

"When an enemy makes a succesfull attack against AC, you get +4 vs AC until the end of your next turn."

Basically, an enemy hits some defense and as an interrupt, you get to add some fixed amount to that defense for a VERY short period of time.

Does anyone know if the intention of these is that the player knows what the attack roll actually is so they know if they are going to successfully deflect that attack. Or is it a gamble, but hey, you get a bonus in case any ELSE attacks you this turn.

thanks, matt
Hey there,

There are a number of powers that are Immediate Interrupts of the following flavor:

"When an enemy makes a succesfull attack against AC, you get +4 vs AC until the end of your next turn."

Basically, an enemy hits some defense and as an interrupt, you get to add some fixed amount to that defense for a VERY short period of time.

Does anyone know if the intention of these is that the player knows what the attack roll actually is so they know if they are going to successfully deflect that attack. Or is it a gamble, but hey, you get a bonus in case any ELSE attacks you this turn.

thanks, matt

I think this is a matter of personal play style than anything else. As a DM, I always say the attack roll total aloud, asking if it beats their AC. This allows the wizard to know if using Shield is useful. Besides which, if it were meant for a wizard not to know if the shield would be effective, I think it becomes fairly useless. I don't think anyone would take it in that case
This debate appeared some timea go, and as I recall the rules are rather silent here. You basically have three options:

1.) DM rolls completely in secret. Makes Shield pretty useless.

2.) DM rolls openly, but doesn't share the attack bonus of monsters.

3.) DM rolls openly, and shares the final value of the roll.

Option 1 makes Shield and similar powers all but useless. If the DM can constantly fudge the rolls it also makes the PCs feel cheated - whether you fudge in their favor or against.

Option 2 is an okay halfway point - but a few rounds in the PCs will figure out what the monsters' attack bonuses are anyway. That's kind of metagaming, but it makes a certain amount of sense as well, since the PCs get to size up their opponents over the course of the encounter.

Option 3 is the simplest, and the one I generally endorse. It removes all the unecessary math and second-guessing. It can reduce some of the drama, however.

The final answer is the one that is most fun. Generally as a DM I roll openly for most encounters, and roll secretly for boss encounters, or encounters that I want to be able to fudge for one reason or another. In such cases I just roll the die and then declare the total value of the roll to be however good I want it to be.
I think it is fair to tell the player what AC was hit, and if they want to use such a power. The books don't seem to suggest hiding that kind of information, and I'm sure every table I have gamed at was run by a DM who called out the AC when determining if the player was hit.

Similarly DMs don't immediately give out monsters defenses, but they can be inferred by players via a similar method of calling out what number they rolled to hit.

Since 9 times out of 10 I will call out the AC the monster hit, I see no reason to make the player guess that one time I know I rolled high enough to hit.