|
3 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2010 - 2:16PM
#61
|
|
|
Sigh.
"The Trigger is not an enablers of action."
Yes, it bloody well is.
p.268 PHB. Top left.
"A trigger is an action, an event, or an effect that allows you to use a triggered action."
Take a seat.
T
Edit: Xeno, you are correct that the reading does specify that. However, the text you use there is, I agree, poorly worded. The wording (and the monster entries that support it) indicates that although the monster is executing a standard action, it is doing so to execute a double attack, which is typically entered as two other forms of standard action serially combined. I would read this as exception text because the standard action used to fire the double attack is itself something of an "extra" action. T
Edit 2: "No they don't. They complete destroy your point."
No, afraid not, they validate it.
"A trigger defines when a monster is able to use a power." == Without the trigger, the monster is unable to use the power. There is no command there in the trigger that the monster must use that power. Any such command will come from the power, not the trigger.
"Some powers come into effect only if a triggering event occurs." == The triggering effect must occur for the power to come into effect. Causality is not present in this statement, though I can see how you might arrive at the view that it could be implied.
"Trigger: Powers that are Immediate Actions (Interrupts or Reactions) or Opportunity Actions have a Trigger, which defineswhen you’re allowed to use the power." == You may not use the power until the trigger condition is satisfied. In the case of Immediate or Opportunity actions, as I have said previously, the nature of the action defines the "it must be used here", not the satisfaction of the trigger condition.
"Some Powers that are Free Actions, or that require No Action to use, have a Trigger as well." == Yes, they do. That grants them eligibility for use, it does not dictate that they must be used at exactly the point wherein the trigger is satisfied. Again, there is no causality in this statement.
A trigger allows you to use the triggered power. It tells you "You may use this." It does not dictate to you that you must use it at the point the trigger was satisfied. It does not say "Use this now."
T
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2010 - 2:22PM
#62
|
|
|
Actually the first sentence does not make a distinction between actions that contain multi-attack (or multi-anything) components. It clearly states that the opponent cannot take any further actions until the immediate reaction is resolved. And, as previously stated, since a free action counts as an action, it cannot happen before the immediate reaction. The first sentence does not depend on the second. The second sentence clarifies and expands upon the first.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2010 - 2:36PM
#63
|
|
|
You're right. So if combatant A takes an action, resolves it, and combatant B then performs an immediate reaction that disables A, A can take no further actions. You're on target regarding this and the free actions in order of precedence.
The exception in the text you quoted was the case of multiple attacks in one action, where it considers each attack in the multi-attack as a separate action that might be subject to reaction.
T
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2010 - 2:49PM
#64
|
|
|
But why draw the line at multi-action powers, when entirely separate actions gets a pass just because they happen to be free actions? I just don't read the example to fit only that specific situation, but hey, I suppose that could just be me.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2010 - 3:01PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
"A trigger defines when a monster is able to use a power." == Without the trigger, the monster is unable to use the power. There is no command there in the trigger that the monster must use that power. Any such command will come from the power, not the trigger.
Furthermore, if you have passed the point of the trigger, you can no longer use the power. You are only allowed to use it at the trigger, because that defines when you are able to use it.
"Some powers come into effect only if a triggering event occurs." == The triggering effect must occur for the power to come into effect. Causality is not present in this statement, though I can see how you might arrive at the view that it could be implied.
If the triggering event is not currently occuring, the power may not come into effect.
"Trigger: Powers that are Immediate Actions (Interrupts or Reactions) or Opportunity Actions have a Trigger, which defineswhen you’re allowed to use the power." == You may not use the power until the trigger condition is satisfied. In the case of Immediate or Opportunity actions, as I have said previously, the nature of the action defines the "it must be used here", not the satisfaction of the trigger condition.
You may also not use the power if the trigger has finished occuring. You use the powert when the trigger occurs, or not at all.
Since the trigger is in the middle of an action, and that is when you may use the power (or choose not to use the power), if the power resolves when it is used it must resolve in the middle of another action.
Edit: The key rule phrase here is "which defines when you’re allowed to use the power." You are allowed to use the power at only one point: the trigger. If that is in the middle of an action, that is when you must use the power. When it actually resolves depends: interrupt before the trigger resolves, reaction after the triggering action has completely resolved (with 2 specific exceptions), and free action undefined.
All we can do now is argue about the undefined free action resolution. I am of the (now clearly) *opinion* that when you use a power, the default is you resolve it immediately. But that's just an opinion, although one I feel makes the most sense.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2010 - 3:45PM
#66
|
|
|
"Furthermore, if you have passed the point of the trigger, you can no longer use the power. You are only allowed to use it at the trigger, because that defines when you are able to use it."
Show me where it says that in the RAW. You are reading into it a requirement that is simply not there. The remainder of the argument you make is predicated on the one assumption you have made here - that if the trigger is not actually occurring, the power cannot be used.
I call bullshit. Show that rule to me.
T
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2010 - 3:47PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
Here is the rule:
Trigger: Powers that are Immediate Actions (Interrupts or Reactions) or Opportunity Actions have a Trigger, which defines when you’re allowed to use the power. Some Powers that are Free Actions, or that require No Action to use, have a Trigger as well.
You are allowed to use the power when you are at a trigger, by definition. Not before the trigger, not after the trigger. You either use it at the trigger point, or you have missed your opportunity to use it at all, because by definition the trigger is when you are allowed to use it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2010 - 3:59PM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
Actually the first sentence does not make a distinction between actions that contain multi-attack (or multi-anything) components. It clearly states that the opponent cannot take any further actions until the immediate reaction is resolved. And, as previously stated, since a free action counts as an action, it cannot happen before the immediate reaction. The first sentence does not depend on the second. The second sentence clarifies and expands upon the first.
I'd have to see the entire quote to comment. Given it starts with "for example", I strongly suspect there is a context here that would cause reading just one sentence at a time and interpreting in a vacuum to result in a misinterpretation. (Certainly I've been guilty of that mistake in the past, so I'm a little more leery of it nowadays.)
Edit: In other words, I agree with your interpretation of the sentence by itself, but I think it's expounding on a previous rule. And the quote isn't in the compendium (that I can find).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2010 - 4:14PM
#69
|
|
|
This is the text concerning immediate reactions in its entirety: "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."
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2010 - 4:24PM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2004
|
So, just to clarify: An elf wizard attacks a group of gnomes with fireball. The first gnome gets hit, and declares that he will use his fade away power. The second gnome is missed, and the elf decides to use elven accuracy to reroll.
xeno, what you are saying sounds like you think the elf would be unable to use elven accuracy, because the first gnome's fade away power doesn't occur until the entire attack is resolved. I guess I'd have a hard time with that.
Or do you think a reaction can happen in the middle of an attack against multiple targets? So if the first gnome had the Fade Ally feat, he could let the second gnome turn invisible before the wizard rolled his second attack roll? That doesn't sound entirely right to me either, it's hard to see how the wizard's attack is completely resolved at that point.
|
|
|
