| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
"the bad guy attempts to do X"
"I take an immediate action to do Y and thwart X."
Works?
Timing?
For instance, take the Spell Shield magus arcana. Gives you a bonus AC as an immediate action for a round. Since its an immediate action, its clearly intended to be used in response to an enemy attack. Does it work like this:
"The bad guy swings at you."
"I use spell shield, my new AC is this."
"He misses."
Or does it work like this:
"The bad guy swings and hits you."
"I use spell shield, does he still hit with my higher AC?"
"No, he misses."
There are other immediate actions where this timing issue crops up as well.
|
Typically, immediate actions are used in response to other enemy action. Retroactively adding AC seems legit to me, so 2nd option is what I believe is true.
In Spell Shield case, most likely any hostile action, whether attack or hit is sufficient to bump your AC up. Note that, nowhere in Spell Shield does it state that it's done in response to any action.
This is my interpretation of rules. I am kind of eager to find out the real answer myself.
it is supposed to work like option A.... I can see option B as a legitimate use if the DM or player attacking gets a head of him/her self though as in Coridan case of many rolls behind a screen or something... or I have a player who had a bad habit of making his rolls before actually announcing his actions... it took a while to break him of it, but he is better now.
It somewhat depends on the immediate action. For example, Snake Style allows you to spend an immediate action when targeted by a melee or ranged attack to make a sense motive check and to use the result as your AC if you choose. The key is that it needs to be used between the time the attack is declared (targeted) and the time the attack is resolved. You can't wait to see if the attack will hit before electing to use the immediate action to attempt the AC boost.
Other immediate actions are triggered by actually taking damage. Obviously those cannot be used if you're not actually hit and have to wait until the attack is resolved.
Resurrected and recommended for addition to FAQ.
At our table, the dialogue would go like this,
"The bad guy swings at you, hitting AC XX."
"I use spell shield, my new AC is this, so miss."
(Players rarely actually provide the GM with their ACs. High level of trust.)
The key is that it needs to be used between the time the attack is declared (targeted) and the time the attack is resolved.
I kind of agree. Still I find in practice that the time separating the declaration and resolution is most often non-existent. (We try to keep comat fast-paced, also rolling damage dice together with the d20, disregarding them if miss.) This might be at the core of the problem, but our way of doing it saves a fair bit of combat time, and this is more or less the only downside to our method we have encountered.
According to this, in most cases, the immediate action would not work as a M:tG interrupt spell after all (going by the "last declared, first resolved" rule), because in order to be valid, they must be declared before the roll of the die anyway. I see a potential time/flow issue here, allowing for enough time for people to declare any immediate actions before every die roll. I'd actually prefer allowing ex post facto application of an immediate action in this case.
In the interest of keeping combat with immediate actions flowing as smoothly as possible, what would be the best way of handling them?
The way I believe it's supposed to be played is the GM (or player) declares their intention to attack an NPC/monster/player etc. If the attacked can do something as an immeadiate action they should do so before any result of a die is revealed. The outcome of the die results represents what has happened, allowing them to know the result of the roll first means they can choose to selectively use it when they know it is only of benefit to them to do so, never potentially using a spell before they need it.
However, many players and GMs are in the habbit of declaring and rolling in quick fashion and not use to such actions being able to interupt or change what may happen with the rolls so it can be hard to do this properly.
Still it should be declare attack, immeadiate (if desired by attacked person), then roll and reveal result.
As to how to deal with the problem of declaration and rolling happening too quickly...I would suggest a snooze you lose policy. You give the defender a couple seconds to say if he wants to do something (a player should be familiar with what options he is capable of) and if he says nothing then he is out of luck till next time.
Since there are a number of abilities that specify that they must be used before the result of the roll is revealed, and this does not include that text, I believe by RAW you should be able to use it after the attack roll is made and stated, but before damage is rolled or stated.
Which requires some reasonable policy for rolling back resolution if the group generally glosses over declaration and resolution to speed up gameplay. But that's something a group should be able to work out amongst themselves--basically, when the group should slow down and be clear about action-consequence separation.
This happens in a lot of games with reaction mechanics. Ask a M:TG player sometime about declaring an attack vs. declaring attackers.
Since there are a number of abilities that specify that they must be used before the result of the roll is revealed, and this does not include that text, I believe by RAW you should be able to use it after the attack roll is made and stated, but before damage is rolled or stated.
The thing is though that once the attack roll has been made (and more importantly revealed) the event has already happened whether it is a hit or miss has already been determined. Using the ability after the fact changes what has already happened and does specify that such is the intention. I do recognize that some abilities specify it must be used before, but the way I see it is you can use it after the attack roll has been revealed, but it wont apply against that attack. It's already done, it will however apply against all subsequent attacks until its duration or effect is otherwise ended. I feel like it's more likely that if it had been intended to be able to be used after the fact they would have noted that somehow, such as "You can use this ability after an attack roll has been revealed".
A roll-changer that works "before the result of the roll has been revealed" has been clarified to mean "after you see the number on the die, but before you know the ramifications of rolling that number". For this reason, it's best not to do things like tell your players the AC or DC they're trying to hit. Yes, they'll figure it out anyway if they pay attention, but it's the only way to make those abilities work.
This gets much more annoying if the GM is rolling for the PC (e.g., Stealth vs. Perception or Bluff vs. Sense Motive). The best advice I've seen on that one is to tell the GM ahead of time. For example, Schmorrikel the Oracle's player might ask the GM to automatically use their Rewind Time ability if they roll less than 10 on a Perception check. It's not perfect, but neither is the concept of a reroll ability.
A few such abilities (e.g., mythic surge) say "after the results have been revealed". Those can be used even after the GM says "you miss the orc". In those cases, you really are basically rewriting history. But those abilities are few and far between.
The spell Timely Inspiration comes to mind. You need to know that the attack roll or skill check has failed to cast the spell.