Let's say I move through a threatened square and provoke an opportunity attack. The monster I provoke from has an ability that dazes me (save ends) on an OA.

Or, I ready an ability that dazes (save ends) to interrupt a monster's movement.

I see the following ways to handle the situation:

1. The target is immediately dazed and ends it's turn since it has already used at least one action to move.

Drawbacks: If the target has already used it's Standard and Minor actions before moving, and saves at the end of it's turn, the daze has effectively done nothing at all.

2. The daze does not take effect until the end of the target's turn. Therefore it does not get a save until the end of it's next turn, but can continue to take a Standard and Minor action on the turn it was dazed if it hasn't done so already.

The first one makes sense to me, and is probably correct, but my party has a house rule of thumb that any power that imposes a condition on it's target must affect the target for at least one round. This also makes sense to me, as it seems unfair that a simple mechanic (provoking the OA/readied action once your other actions are exhausted for the round) can effectively nullify the use of a potentially expensive (daily or encounter) power.

My party uses #2 since it adheres to our house rule. However, it doesn't really make sense. An enemy can daze you then you can still take two more actions.

Is there a more elegant solution (official or house rule) that doesn't make the daze completely ineffective while still making logical sense?

  • \$\begingroup\$ With respect to the "unfairness" of losing out on the Daze effect of a daily/encounter power, I would argue that the player (or the DM) made a decision to sacrifice some potential benefit from the power in exchange for some tactical advantage. You don't want to lose the daze effect? Ready (or OA with) a different power. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 8, 2011 at 14:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ I get that (and honestly I agree with you). However, the majority of my party feels differently and I am trying to find a logical compromise. \$\endgroup\$
    – dpatchery
    Mar 8, 2011 at 14:24

1 Answer 1


Option one is the one supported by the rules. That is, all other effects (damage, status effects, etc.) of a power happen at the time that the power is used and there is no rules text that makes a special case for daze.

Yes, this does mean that sometimes a readied daze will be less powerful than anticipated.

Regarding house rules... I don't really think they're necessary in this case. I would consider the occasional ineffective daze to be no more of a penalty than readying an attack only to find the opponent has turned invisible in response.

If you ARE going to house rule it, your option two is really the only reasonable alternative that I can think of.

You basically have the two extremes: either the daze takes place immediately, or the daze takes place at the next turn. There are only two alternatives I can think of between these two extremes:

  • Conditionally toggle between the two, based on whether or not the victim has any actions left. This probably isn't going to satisfy the other players in your group, because the daze will often destroy move or minor actions that were going to be wasted anyway (and then potentially be saved against).

  • Have daze last for the remainder of the turn it's inflicted, AND the entirety of the next turn. This makes daze quite a bit more powerful.

Making the daze take effect at the beginning of the next turn is simply the cleanest implementation that lasts a minimum of one full turn. It's biggest drawback is that it removes the tactical considerations from the ability, and turns the daze into nothing more than a convenient bonus.

Out of curiosity, how does your group handle characters who save at the beginning of their turns, get an immediate save, or are allowed to make a save before the start of their turn by an ally's power/ability?

  • \$\begingroup\$ I see your point. However readying an attack only to have it not trigger is a little less punishing than expending a power and having it do next to nothing. \$\endgroup\$
    – dpatchery
    Mar 8, 2011 at 12:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @dpatch Well, it sort of comes down to what you're trying to do with the readied daze. If you're trying to stop a monster from attacking a specific target by readying after they move, your readied action always "works:" either they waste their attack before moving on a different target (which may not be possible), or the daze ends their turn. I find that to be an interesting tactical choice. And even if you ready when you aren't in a position to maximize the daze, you still get secondary power effects. BUT, house rules are very much a YMMV situation. Your option 2 isn't unreasonable. \$\endgroup\$
    – AceCalhoon
    Mar 8, 2011 at 14:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @dpatch I've updated my answer to (hopefully) be a little more targeted towards your actual question. \$\endgroup\$
    – AceCalhoon
    Mar 8, 2011 at 15:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for the update and analysis of other options. Regarding your question, we treat those situations normally because they are intended to negate conditions before they take effect, as opposed to the situation I described where it's a simple tactical decision that can negate the effect. \$\endgroup\$
    – dpatchery
    Mar 8, 2011 at 15:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ @dpatch One last thing worth noting... Remember that readied actions and opportunity attacks are optional in 4e. If you ready a daze, but the daze won't have the impact you want it to, you can choose not to act (which is similar to the case of readying a melee attack, and then never having a monster approach you). It's still kind of a let-down, though. \$\endgroup\$
    – AceCalhoon
    Mar 8, 2011 at 15:58

You must log in to answer this question.

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