|
8 months ago ::
Nov 01, 2012 - 9:55PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2003
|
The question of whether free actions interrupt attacks is not what this discussion is about. Let me be very clear about this.
Actually, that is exactly what the OP was asking. Can this power/ability interrupt an attack. Can you choose to use it after the attack roll, after the damage roll, but before damage is implemented. Since an Attack includes the roll and it's effects, in this case damage, the OP is asking if this Artificer free action can be used as an interrupt to interrupt an attack.
So yes, this is about the question of whether free actions can interrupt attacks.
There are rules in place for interrupting actions. Rules for Free Actions say they can be taken out of turn. The rules don't say they can be taken as Immediate Interrupts.
There are some specific situations that specifically say free actions can interrupt things to work, catching a magically returning thrown weapon to use again with a multi-attack power, but that's SvG, and the situations that don't specify this aren't broken.
"Five million Cybermen, easy. One Doctor? NOW you're scared!" - Rose Tyler
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 02, 2012 - 12:35AM
#32
|
|
|
So yes, this is about the question of whether free actions can interrupt attacks.
No, it isn't. And saying so just proves you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 02, 2012 - 3:01AM
#33
|
|
|
If all actions would say they can be taken during other actions or interrupt unless they say they don't, you'd have a point since free actions doesn't specifically say they can't
Munchkin fallacy.
Hah, have you even listened to your own argument? You keep saying that the rules say Free Actions can be used at any time and that the rules would need to tell you when you can't use them; not only does that first rule not exist, but "the rules don't say I can't" is the basis of your ability to take Free Actions mid-action.
I mean, there's no rule demonstrating that you can't, say, start a Move Action, and then halfway through take a Standard Action. You're following all the rules for taking actions, except for the pesky rules for Triggered Actions being the only place where taking actions in the middle of another action is even mentioned. Occams Razor.
Oh, and talking about how Devs aren't infallible when also using the FAQ (much less any given rule book) to back your answer is hilariously hypocritical.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection. My Guides
Show
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 02, 2012 - 7:32AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2003
|
So yes, this is about the question of whether free actions can interrupt attacks.
No, it isn't. And saying so just proves you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules.
Say a character has the Artificer "Resistive Formula Infusion" on him:
"The target can end the [Infusion] as a free action to gain temporary hit points..."
Say that character is attacked, the attacker rolls to hit, hits and then rolls for damage against the character.
What is the latest point in that sequence that the character can end the infusion so that the temp hit points abosorb some or all the damage taken from that attack?
Can I wait until after the damage roll?
For example:
DM: The troll hits you.
DM: The troll rolls 27 damage.
Player: I end my infusion getting 20 temporary hit points so I only took 7 hit points of damage.
Can I do that?
From the italicized and bolded portions of the OP, I understand exactly what he was asking, and it does kind of boil down to Free Actions interrupting attacks and their effects.
In order to wait until after damage is rolled, and use a Free Action ability to take effect before damage is applied means interrupting the attack (and it's effects).
As in Fighter power Iron Defiance. Immediate Interrupt, Trigger: You take damage. Effect, you take only half of the triggering damage.
It's similar to how you can't Ready an Action to move when you are charged and attacked. Once the attack happens, only interrupting the attack will let you move and avoid being hit/damaged, thus you have to Ready to react to the last step of movement.
"Five million Cybermen, easy. One Doctor? NOW you're scared!" - Rose Tyler
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 02, 2012 - 8:46AM
#35
|
|
|
Again, you don't understand the rules. Interrupts invalidate the entire action if they they invalidate their trigger. That isn't happening here, even if you allow the free action to resolve between steps of an attack.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 02, 2012 - 9:40AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Alcestis, they're using the 'common' meaning of the word interrupt, which is the source of the discrepancy. If you do something that makes an attack in progress not happen, it's not unreasonable to call that 'interrupting the attack.' It may be imprecise, but it is reasonable.
And Agonar, I realize that if you look just at the context of this thread, it certainly does look like the topic at hand is whether free actions can resolve within an attack, but my comments toward Plaguescarred were due to him repeating erroneous conclusions reached in other threads. So you're not seeing the other context of the past few weeks of discussion on this subject. Not your fault, it's mine for not being clear.
Plague may have the correct result, but his reasoning is wrong.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 02, 2012 - 10:43AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Interrupt jumps in when an action occurs, taking place before it finishes, among other things.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
