How necessary it is to have interrupting actions in the game?

[Akaiku]

As a dm I like to target spell casters first and hold actions until the caster's turn. I never hear complaints from players that someone playing a certain class is overwhelmingly overpowered. I hear players complaining that my tactics are ruining their characters. the way I see it even the dumbest creature knows to attack the guy that's hurting them the most. Archers are second on the kill first list.

Focus fire on the character that can't take focus fire. If the tank exists, he is either up to the taunt requirement of avoiding it or the squishys die. It works well to disincentivize squishys from being remotely mortal.

This is good or bad depending on taste.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The Combat Reactions from TB are a great development. Give PCs the basic actions to dodge or block, base it on BAB to give a power boost to the non-casters, and then let other abilities develop off of them.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Posted elsewhere, but I voted for "work either way".

I personally like interrupts, as I come from wargaming roots and enjoy highly tactical play, which is what the current version of D&D best delivers. Interrupts and reactions are a huge part of that experience.

That said, I'd make those rules completely optional, and the core game should be designed to work without them, because without a complete master of that "combat module" interrupts and reactions really slow the game down. I don't think they should be forced on gaming groups who want a less complex, more narrative style of play.

Interrupts and reactions make for odd fun. If you have a power that depends on an interrupt or reaction, it's fun to get to use your power. However, if you're the player who loses a fun action due to an interrupt, interrupts can be decidedly less fun. Tough nut to crack, mechanically.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I voted yes, but I'm really between yes and they should be optional.

I believe that it's quite possible to have a game without them, but I also think that they are fun, and I'd be less inclined to play a game without them. If you include opportunity attacks (which I think it would) it would also be a quite different game than 4e or 3e.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There needs to be consequences for certain actions. Whether those are interrupts or not depends on how the action economy is set up. So for the question as written, I vote no.

For example, replace all opportunity attacks with, "If you do anything to provoke an opportunity attack according to the current rules, take a -2 to all attacks and defense until your next turn."

There would be some issues with that kind of system that would need to be worked out, and it is possible that -2 to is the wrong modifier. You'd need some supplemental stuff to handle 4E style marking, for example. But as long you can say that a person can try to ignore someone with a big axe threatening them, but potentially suffer from it, then you can get something that will work.

 

[Wormwood]

Last week I would have voted "Yes", but after 5 days of playing an ultra-stripped down retro-clone with my nephews?

Don't need them if you are able to narrate combat creatively (and collaboratively).

 

[Fanaelialae]

I voted for interrupts to be optional.

I think they ought to be less common than they are in 4e (where they're quite pervasive), but more common than late 3.5 (where some classes had quite a few while others had none at all). While I think that it should be possible to play a class without interrupts, I think they are an interesting option and shouldn't go away completely.

I do think that most interrupts should be limited but automatic. For example, a once-per-day interrupt that reduces 10 damage from an attack, or a once-per-encounter interrupt that deals 5 damage to your attacker. Rolls, such as for attack or damage, ought to be reserved for powers that might be otherwise unbalanced (such as the Swordmage's Dimensional Vortex).

 

[GSHamster]

I do think the base game needs some way of handling conditionals and determining if the conditional action is successful.

"If the enemy tries to do X, I try to do Y to stop him" is a very natural way of describing something that happens in a game a lot of the time. I mean, something as simple as having an arrow already notched and shooting someone if they reach for a weapon. You simply cannot do that without conditionals, unless you resort to DM fiat. And I think the situation is too common to expect DM fiat all the time instead of rules.

But outside of that conditional, "free" interrupts and the like, where you get to take your regular action AND make additional actions if certain conditions are met, are probably unnecessary and could be dropped or made optional.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is a good argument for returning casting times to the game. It might help make magic users less powerful. The balance of power was lost when spell casters no longer needed to conserve their spells or had to worry that they wouldn't actually work.

It may be a solution to the power problem, but - how much fun is it really to not do your thing because it gets constantly interrupted or you better not even try?

We see how 4E succeeded and failed at this goal. The "problem solver" spells - one part of the power problem - became rituals. They cost a lot of time and money to cast. This was more or less a failure, as people didn't end up using many rituals in the end, as it just wasn't worth the effort.
For combat spells, they reduced the power level of spells - no longer 10d6 fire damage Area Burst vs 1d8+10 single target weapon damage, but instead some at-will abilities that are as good as those single target weapon damage effects.

 

[DonTadow]

In the basic core rulebook, this should not be. It should be summoned up to an auto damage system. Interupting moves to me make no sense when cinematically we are all moving at the same time. And like i found out in magic, stacks can be confusing.