Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
"Interrupting with a Readied Action: Often a player wants his or her character to use a readied action to attack before an enemy does. In this situation, the action should be readied to respond to the enemy's movement. That way, if the enemy moves before attacking, the readied action will be triggered by a portion of that movement, allowing the character to interrupt it and attack first. Reading an action to be triggered by an enemy attack means that the readied action will occur as a reaction to the attack, so the character's attack happens only after the enemy attacks."
Bolded for emphasis. "Trigger: You are targeted by an attack" is being triggered by an attack. Because it's a Trigger line, and it says "by an attack." You can't get more explicit than that.
This is the fifth time you've accused me of lying.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
No, attacks are not divisible by reactions. The rules say this explicitly. That you choose to ignore that rule does not make you correct, it makes you incorrect.
This is completely false and actually irrelevant. The rules do not say that at all. You cannot quote the rule as it does not exist. The discussion is about how to resolve a reaction to a particular trigger. The particular trigger is targeted by an attack. Targeted by an attack != attack. Refer to the RC, PHB1, or Customer Service for clarity.
Ultimately the concept that people need to realise is that a component is not the whole. A step in a sequence is not the sequence. They are not equivalent in any sense.
"Interrupting with a Readied Action: Often a player wants his or her character to use a readied action to attack before an enemy does. In this situation, the action should be readied to respond to the enemy's movement. That way, if the enemy moves before attacking, the readied action will be triggered by a portion of that movement, allowing the character to interrupt it and attack first. Reading an action to be triggered by an enemy attack means that the readied action will occur as a reaction to the attack, so the character's attack happens only after the enemy attacks."
Bolded for emphasis. "Trigger: You are targeted by an attack" is being triggered by an attack. Because it's a Trigger line, and it says "by an attack." You can't get more explicit than that.
This is the fifth time you've accused me of lying.
Irrelevant and a bad debate tactic. You are switching definitions to try to prove your point. Notice your trigger in the above quote.
"triggered by an enemy attack" notice the trigger we been debating "triggered by targeting of an attack" notice the words are different and have different meanings. Notice you mention interrupt an attack. Notice how we have been debating reacting to a trigger. You cannot legitimately swap triggers like that and assert you are arguing the same point.
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2004
|
After 700-something posts, I thought I should weigh in my 2 cents worth on the matter. To begin, I shall refer to the first two sentences of the definition of "attack" in the RC glossary (pg. 308). I shall then expand from there as necessary. To start:
attack: An attack roll and its effects, including any damage rolls. The word "attack" is sometimes used as shorthand for "attack power."
Let's now pause. This tells us "attack" and "attack power" are sometimes interchangable. So let's try to do so, beginning with the glossary term itself. Can we have "attack power: An attack roll and its effects, including any damage rolls."? This is not logical. We know multiple things from other parts of the RC, including
(a) attack powers have other elements, including keywords (Weapon, Implement, Divine, Martial, Necrotic, Radiant, Healing, etc.) and targeting entries, etc.
(b) Many attack powers have multiple attacks. Twin Strike for a Ranger and the Elder Red Dragon's Claw attack are examples.
Thus, we know that "attack" and "attack power" are not always synonymous. Therefore, in the following, I shall use "attack" to refer specifically to "an attack roll and its effects, including any damage rolls", by definition, "attack power" to refer to the power itself, and "attack (power)" where the two can be interchanged without affecting anything.
Aside 1: For the second appearance of "attack" in the above, where it references "attack roll", one could potentially read this as "attack power roll" based on the glossary. However, the term "attack roll" is well covered by pp. 215-7 of the RC. Without quoting the full text, in a nutshell, it is a roll made when using an attack power (although it's not always required, e.g. Magic Missile), as part of an attack. One could theoretically call it an "attack power roll" with little consequence, so long as one keeps in mind many attack powers require multiple attack rolls.
So, by definition, an attack does not mention targeting. Thus, targeting is not part of an attack. Hence, targeting must only be part of the attack power, but not the attack. Targeting is also one step in the process of Making Attacks (RC pg. 214-15), specifically #2.
2. Choose targets. Each target must be within the power's range and must be within line of effect. See "Choosing Targets," page 105, for how to determine whether a creature can be targeted by a power.
The above quote gives further evidence that targeting is done by the attack power, but not (by definition) by the attack. From the above, it is not a large leap to conclude that triggers referring to being "targeted by an attack" must be shorthand for "targeted by an attack power". Between the two possible interpretations, one meaning "targeted by an attack", so the power never triggers, because attacks never target, and the shorthand interpretation, I postulate that the one that makes the power actually work is the most reasonable one.
I again emphasize the above point: "Targeted by an attack" is most reasonably interpreted as shorthand for "targeted by an attack power", and cannot be synonymous with "targeted by an attack" in this instance.
So, now we come to the question: Are the steps in the Making Attacks process divisible by a Reaction? By the elder dragon Claw example and the Imm. R. rules on RC 196, we cannot react in the middle of an attack. Does this mean in the middle of an attack power? No, because by the same example, one can react after the first attack has been made, but before the second. (The trigger for Veteran Gambit is "an enemy hits you with a melee attack".) Thus, by that example, we know directly that for an Imm. R., steps 3, 4, and 5 are not divisible, since they are all part of the attack. However, we also know steps 5 and 6 ARE divisible - this is exactly the point where Veteran Gambit can kick in.
What remains is the question is if the remaining steps in the Making Attacks process are also divisible by a Reaction. Unfortunately, we do not appear to have anything directly is the rules that says one way or the other. What we do have is the text for Reactions on RC 196:
An immediate reaction lets a creature act in response to a trigger. The triggering action or event is completely resolved before before the reaction takes place.
An immediate reaction waits for its trigger to finish, not necessarily for the action that contains the trigger to finish.
We have several Imm. R. powers with the trigger "targeted by an attack", or words to that effect (e.g. by a specific type of attack). By the above, this is most reasonably interpreted as "targeted by an attack power". So by the reaction rules, the power will take place immediately after what is contained in the trigger has resolved. This is being targeted, i.e., at the end of Step 2 of Making Attacks? Is there anything saying it cannot happen here? By my interpretation, no. We are not violating any rules about reacting during an attack, because the attack has not started yet. An attack does not start until we begin Steps 3-5, which we have not done yet. The trigger (being targeted) has completely finished and resolved at the end of Step 2. Hence, it appears, by the lack of anything to the contrary, that the Reaction should occur immediately after being targeted, but before the attack.
This lastly takes us to the Ready An Action rules. Nothing I have stated thus far violates any of those rules. As Mand12 has already quoted, but repeated here for ease of reference:
"Interrupting with a Readied Action: Often a player wants his or her character to use a readied action to attack before an enemy does. In this situation, the action should be readied to respond to the enemy's movement. That way, if the enemy moves before attacking, the readied action will be triggered by a portion of that movement, allowing the character to interrupt it and attack first. Reading an action to be triggered by an enemy attack means that the readied action will occur as a reaction to the attack, so the character's attack happens only after the enemy attacks."
Again by the Claw example, something triggering of an attack, being hit by an attack, etc. logically means you are reacting to the attack, not the attack power, as one attack power may consist of multiple attacks. So, when readying an action, you do set you trigger to be the enemy attack, the most reasonable interpretation by RAW, in my opinion, is that you react to the attack, i.e. your trigger is finished resolving after step 5. (This also depends on the wording of the trigger.) Note that this is a separate and, in my opinion, independent trigger from being "targeted by an attack power". Readied actions are the player saying, "As soon as x happens, my character does y." What this means is that a player could theoretically make their trigger being targeted by an attack (meaning targeted by an attack power) instead of being attacked, and have their trigger resolve at the end of step 2, without technically violating the rules. However, as a DM, I would not allow this, and not just because it's an attempt to rule-cheese. By this forum's FAQs, the trigger for a readied action should be something that's observable by the character in-game. While being targeted makes for a perfectly valid meta-game power trigger (e.g. Instinctive Darkness can be explained fluff-wise as the character acting on instinct), being targeted by an attack power is not in my opinion a sufficiently observable condition for the character that would make it a valid readied action trigger.
This more or less wraps up my argument. It is not necessarily the only valid interpretation, but it is IMO a very reasonable one, possibly the most reasonable. It is also not an arbitrary interpretation of the use of attack vs. attack power when reading the text. Arbitrary implies that it is purely at someone's discretion or subject solely to their whims. Rather, I have tried to provide a rational explanation why each choice of interpretation of of attack vs. attack power seems the best as opposed to the opposite / other interpretation(s). If anyone sees any holes or inconsistencies in the above, please feel free to refute my argument on those points.
tl;dr version:
1) attack is defined in the RC glossary, and in this instance is not synonymous with attack power. 2) attack as defined equates to steps 3-5 of Making Attacks. Being targeted (step 2) is not part of that definition, but is part of an attack power.
3) Since we react after attacks (possibly multiple ones in one attack power), triggering off an attack resolves after being attacked, i.e. step 5. Reactions to being attacked, hit, etc. by RAW can only happen here, but before step 6.
4) A trigger of being targeted by an attack is most reasonably is interpreted as shorthand for "targeted by an attack power", since attacks by definition do not target, only attack powers do.
5) After step 2, the trigger of the type in 4) has resolved, and since the attack itself has not yet started, the reaction can (and IMO should) occur between steps 2 and 3 of Making Attacks without violating RAW.
Edit: Typo fixed.
|
|
|
What this means is that a player could theoretically make their trigger being targeted by an attack (meaning targeted by an attack power) instead of being attacked, and have their trigger resolve at the end of step 2, without technically violating the rules.
Except that if that *were* possible or intended to be possible, Ready An Action would be worded completely differently and would, without any possible shadow of a doubt, not tell you that reacting to targeting is impossible.
To steal your own colouration: Right now, it tells you that you MUST react to a pre-attack power event in order for your Reaction to resolve before any attacks, and that once the attack power begins, it's too late, you have to wait for the first attack or step of movement to finish before your reaction happens.
Which tells us? That "targeting" is not a distinct reactable event, and that the rules for reactions work exactly the way they say they do: Reactions go after ACTIONS[1], with two exceptions. Those exceptions are steps of movement and individual attacks.
[1]: Or events that are not part of any action. Which Targeting *also* is not.
|
