8
\$\begingroup\$

This has come up several times and thus far our DM has ruled against it. The question is: can a player take an immediate action against another player's or creature's immediate action, so long as conditions are met, like not being on their own turn?

For example, if one of the other players moved in to flank a red dragon and the dragon decided to tail whip [Tail Strike (immediate reaction, when an enemy moves to a position where it flanks the red dragon, at-will)], could I then, as a Bard, use Arrow of Warning?

Immediate Interrupt

Trigger: An enemy within range makes an attack roll against an ally

Target: The triggering enemy

Hit: 3[W] + Charisma modifier damage. The ally who was attacked by the triggering enemy can make an at-will attack against that enemy as a free action. The ally gains a bonus to this attack roll equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1).

Our DM has said many times that you cannot take an immediate action against another immediate action. In the end, as a DM, it's his call anyway, but straight from the rules none of us can find a specific answer against it, so we would assume it is allowed.

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6
\$\begingroup\$

Basically You need to think of Immediate interrupt actions like items in a stack. Basically the initial action is interrupted then that action is interrupted. Now you start taking things off the stack last thing declared first.

I don't think there is a rule to prevent it so I would handle immediate interrupts in reverse order of declaration. When immediate reactions get thrown in its a bit harder, but they would happen immediately after the action in which they were in response to (not after the entire sequence). So I would place it into the stack after the first item.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Ya, I'm a long time MTG player and stack mechanics are well known to me haha. I'll try to explain it that way though and see if he still feels the same. \$\endgroup\$
    – Cliff Morgan
    Dec 18, 2011 at 1:07
5
\$\begingroup\$

Interesting!

I can find nothing in the rules to support the GM's assertion that a creature cannot take an immediate action against another immediate action.

The only significant limitations I can find are: a character can only take one immediate action per round, and cannot take an immediate action on its own turn. Your scenario certainly would not be affected by these limitations.

However, if the DM wants to houserule that away, it is his call.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ We all felt the same, there was nothing in the rulebook/compendium we could find to support his claim that "he had read it somewhere, he couldn't remember where but that it was very clearly written there were no immediate against immediates", so I was also curios if there was something to support it from an earlier edition (most of us came in for 4e about a year ago and have no experience with older editions). But he is a very fair GM, and has put up with a lot from us haha, so it honestly wouldn't be a game breaker if he houseruled it his way. \$\endgroup\$
    – Cliff Morgan
    Dec 18, 2011 at 1:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .