Ranger Action Flow Chart

[bargle0]

D&D suffers a little bit from overloading certain terms (ex: "attack"), but if there is to be any difference between the following triggers...
"When an enemy targets"
"When an enemy attacks"
"When an enemy hits or misses"
"When an enemy damages an ally with an attack"
"When an enemy bloodies an ally with an attack"

All of which are basically used in various ways by different powers...

Then yeah, you should decide a little sooner in the action. Now, a _lot_ of games don't slow things down enough to make that decision before you do "know too much" and really, I'm all for going with whatever plays best at that point.

I think it is telling that they differentiate "targets" from "attacks" and "hits" in triggers. It is very frustrating that they have conflated what they mean by "attack", but I think it's unambiguous in this case.

That being said, people should play Disruptive Strike however they want in private play. In public play, I think the rule is fairly clear. When I run across a DM that likes to do things like roll behind the screen and declare "he hits you!" without declaring an attack first, I try to let him know that I will be interrupting any attack made. I will also have my dice (attack & damage) in my hand with my conditional modifiers already added up to minimize game disruption when I use my immediate attacks.

 

[Delgar]

What I find interesting, is that a post that I made purely for humorous reasons, ended up in a rule debate.

In my game we run online using maptools and a framework. Turns take long enough as it is, so I roll the attack and damage all at once. And let players interrupt as necessary. Sure it may make the power slightly more useful, which makes the wizard happy when the ranger saves his bacon. As far as I'm concerned it's a win/win. YMMV.

 

[1of3]

Disruptive strike interrupts the attack, not the hit. Once the attack is resolved in to a hit or miss, the trigger condition for disruptive strike is no longer true.

So much for theory, but at least at my table people will announce what they roll immediately. Or maybe even "Hits you for 15 lightning", if the defense is known.

 

[Raikun]

"An immediate interrupt lets you jump in when a certain trigger condition arises, acting before the trigger resolves."

Disruptive strike interrupts the attack, not the hit. Once the attack is resolved in to a hit or miss, the trigger condition for disruptive strike is no longer true.

To play Devil's Advocate, in the Rules Compendium in the Glossary for "Attack" (Page 308), it says:

"attack: An attack roll and its effects, including any damage rolls."

So, even if you're rolling damage, you are still resolving that attack.

 

[keterys]

Ranger

While (not turn) do
 if (triggered AND available) immediate_action(available)
 wait
end

if (actions available) then
  if (called_shot)
    move(loc (prime shot)) 
else
    move (loc (safe)) 

  if (!quarry exists)
    quarry()

twinstrike()
ranger()

 

[SSquirrel]

There is no way to get to step 14 with this flowchart. 15 and 16 can infinitely loop unless you add a clause about if you have been at this step once already, instead move on to step 17.

Generally tho it's amusing.

Appears you have edited the flowchart to remove the loop and to allow 14 to be reached

 

[Delgar]

Yes I did a quick edit. My player through it together rather quickly so I'm not surprised there are loopholes. Besides what player doesn't love a loophole?

There is no way to get to step 14 with this flowchart. 15 and 16 can infinitely loop unless you add a clause about if you have been at this step once already, instead move on to step 17.

Generally tho it's amusing.

Appears you have edited the flowchart to remove the loop and to allow 14 to be reached

 

[bargle0]

Technically, there's absolutely no rules guidance on when you can no longer declare an interrupt. There is no wording at all that says something like "after step 3 in the attack sequence, you can no longer declare interrupts to steps 1 or 2." If you have a relevant FAQ entry or Customer Service response, then that's something I would be interested in reading.

To play Devil's Advocate, in the Rules Compendium in the Glossary for "Attack" (Page 308), it says:

"attack: An attack roll and its effects, including any damage rolls."

So, even if you're rolling damage, you are still resolving that attack.

So, after re-reading the rules and consulting with CustServ, I think you guys are right. I can't find any rules-based reason for denying the interrupt while the entire attack is still being resolved. This should be interesting the next time I hit the LFR table with my ranger.

 

[Christian]

19. Are you familiar with Twin Strike?
Yes. Good, because you'll be using it right now. Twin Strike the out of your target. Go to Step 20.
No. Look it up. Learn it, love it, and never leave it. Twin Strike the out of your target. Go to Step 20.

But wait! What if you didn't take the Twin Strike power as one of your At-Will powers? There needs to be a version of this for those rangers' players.

Oh, never mind--there aren't any.

(My lovely wife is playing a bow ranger in our family campaign. This seems pretty accurate to me ... I'm not entirely sure what attack powers she has besides Disruptive Strike and Twin Strike, honestly.)

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

What I find interesting, is that a post that I made purely for humorous reasons, ended up in a rule debate.

In my game we run online using maptools and a framework. Turns take long enough as it is, so I roll the attack and damage all at once. And let players interrupt as necessary. Sure it may make the power slightly more useful, which makes the wizard happy when the ranger saves his bacon. As far as I'm concerned it's a win/win. YMMV.

Yeah, it's fun when my defender can interrupt to prevent a critical hit on a spellcaster by stopping an enemy charging past.

Love that Maptools framework too, btw.