Immediate Reactions

[Skyscraper]

If a power has a conditional effect, the condition can be met if they ready the action and then use their action point to meet the requirement.

Can you provide a specific example?

 

[Saagael]

I always figured this rule made sense because taking immediate actions on your own turn requires some sort of precognition, as you'd have to know what the enemy is going to do before they do it in order to react to their reaction.

 

[Matt James]

Can you provide a specific example?

Any immediate action As an example, I had a player try to manipulate Disruptive Strike by drawing an opportunity attack during his own turn. There are more, but I'm not sure if you need them. This works with any immediate action attack power that triggers off of the monster doing something you can induce.

 

[Ryujin]

Before this rule was pointed out our Ranger would attempt to provoke attacks with his own actions, then interrupt or react to that action, giving him multiple attacks per round. After it was pointed out he would STILL try, but at least we could tell him why he couldn't

 

[fba827]

Does anyone know if the designer's reasoning for not allowing Immediate Actions on a character's turn is discussed in an article somewhere that I could read?

We had a couple issues come up related to the "no immediate action" on your turn rule that just seem strange.

1) All the PC powers / Item powers with immediate reactions triggered by melee attacks that can't be used when the PC is subject to an opportunity attack.

2) Immediate actions that trigger when taking damage and starting in a zone that causes damage.

We had PCs in both situations, and not being able to use an immediate reaction had a significant impact on the way things played out.

I have seen those situations come up before too.

It's a rule not discussed in detail anywhere I am aware of. Having said that, some benefits for not allowing immediates on your own turn that I can think of (mind you, i fully admit that none of these are insurmountable either)

1) not allowing immediate on your own turn does simply things ever so SLIGHTLY during your turn.
By that I mean, look at all the action types you can take on your turn (standard, move, minor, free, no, traits, auras, effects, etc). So taking immediate out of that list does simply things ever so slightly in terms of what you as a player have to consider.

2) The things you can do "off turn" is already short enough. If you used your immediate action on your own turn, you have a very limited set of no actions/free actions that can be used off turn (since an immediate can only be used once per round).
I don't know about you, but I know some players who have short attention spans. Knowing that they still have an immediate action they can take does keep them a little more focused on what's going on even when it's not their turn...otherwise, they end up not paying as much attention and then when their turn comes up again I'd have to explain things (or not explain things only to watch them do something "stupid" that they would have known had they paid more attention)


3) Not allowing it helps circumvent a couple very odd corner cases.
Example: You are charging, but provoke an OA during the charge. Suddenly you use an immediate interrupt vs the OA. But that immediate action has now just teleported/repositioned you. How does that interact with the remainder of your "charge" movement and targeting that you started earlier in your turn?


Having said all that, I recognize that there isn't a situation that couldn't be addressed as long as your group/table is all on board and is open to it. So I wouldn't see anything game breaking if you didn't use that rule.

Disclaimer: This is all just personal opinion based on what I have seen in my own experiences, yada yada yada...

 

[Skyscraper]

I still fail to see where the problem lies in house-ruling acceptance of immediate actions on the player's turn on the basis of the Disruptive Strike example. Sure, a player might get an extra action on his turn, but at what price? The ranger provokes an OA and if the OA hits, it's likely to deal more damage that his 1[W] attack because many monster basic attacks are relatively powerful, as opposed to PC basic attacks.

And there's a single immediate action allowed per round, so at most the ranger "abuses" this rule once per round, taking an OA to dish out an additional attack of his own on his turn. Doesn't it make more sense for the ranger to try to disrupt an attack by opponents during their own turn, since (a) the opponent won't get an extra attack and (b) the opponent's attack might be a much more powerful attack than a basic attack and (c) you can even do it at range if the ranger is a ranged PC?

 

[Ryujin]

Because it creates some nasty corner cases, that are ripe for abuse. I throw an attack, that provokes an OA. Opponent takes the OA. I use an interrupt, that invalidates the OA. I attack with the interrupt, then attack with the attack that triggered the OA. Opponent has already taken his OA on me, for that turn, so I get two in as freebies. It's cheesy.

And then you have the issue, that it simply adds another layer of complexity to single turn actions series.

 

[Redbadge]

Before this rule was pointed out our Ranger would attempt to provoke attacks with his own actions, then interrupt or react to that action, giving him multiple attacks per round. After it was pointed out he would STILL try, but at least we could tell him why he couldn't

I'm quoting this post, but others have made similar points with regards to interrupts to gain additional damage/actions.

Our ranger also tried this shortly after our rule was implemented. It didn't take him long to figure out he wasn't actually dealing any additional damage, because he still had only one immediate interrupt. In fact, he would frequently do less, or be less effective, because he wasted his standard action trying to do something clever (readying an action is always a standard action).

For example, using the Disruptive Strike example:

The ranger uses a standard action to twin strike, then tries to provoke so he can use Disruptive Strike. The enemy takes the bait and uses its MBA, which is negated by the penalty. The ranger deals bunch-o-damage x2.

vs.

The ranger uses a standard action to Twin Strike. On its turn, the moster attacks the ranger because he is the only nearby target (or moves away, provoking). The monster attack, probably more powerful than its MBA, is negated because of the penalty. The ranger deal bunch-o-damage x2.

Any scenario that involves readying an action that is not attack also loses to simply making a Twin Strike with that same action.

Some of the other points (keeping players engaged on other's turns, keeping in-turn actions simpler, etc.) are reasons that I might reinstitute the rule, however.

 

[Abraxas]

Because it creates some nasty corner cases, that are ripe for abuse. I throw an attack, that provokes an OA. Opponent takes the OA. I use an interrupt, that invalidates the OA. I attack with the interrupt, then attack with the attack that triggered the OA. Opponent has already taken his OA on me, for that turn, so I get two in as freebies. It's cheesy.

Can you give an example of an immediate reaction attack that invalidates the OA?

I'm asking because in the cases it came up - the reaction didn't invalidate the OA - it just meant that the character wasn't dropped below 0 hp.

 

[fba827]

Can you give an example of an immediate reaction attack that invalidates the OA?

I'm asking because in the cases it came up - the reaction didn't invalidate the OA - it just meant that the character wasn't dropped below 0 hp.

I can't think of a reaction that can invalidate an OA, but I think Ryujin said interrupt. Some interrupts that invalidate an OA would be ones that increase defenses or teleport you out of the way (arcane classes (particularly the wizard and swordmage) and divine classes having the most of these, as well as some items that let you teleport as an interrupt)