Immediate Reactions

[Skyscraper]

I won't list all of them because I shouldn't have to. [...]

There are 358 immediate interrupts and 296 immediate reactions in the compendium. You can sort through them and see if any of them will affect your game.

Friend, you have a clear understanding of a part of the game that I don't. What I was asking for was 1 or 2 examplary power combos that you've seen abused (or believe can be abused if this is theory), I have not asked that you "list them all". My puprose was to avoid "sorting through" the 296 immediate reactions and 358 immediate interrupts as you suggest that I do (how many time do you figure that will that take me, as opposed to your 30-second pointer to a power you presumably already know about?), just to understand a general principle that you are stating in non-specific terms.

It appears you do not wish to oblige me, so I will accept your decision to refuse this explanation and move on.

Peace,

Sky

 

[Matt James]

Immediate Vengeance comes to mind. As does Cross-body parry (Swordmage). But as I said, there are many.

Step 1: Draw an opportunity attack
Step 2: Use Immediate Vengeance on the target (immediate interrupt). Target is now weakened until the end of your next turn.
Step 3: Use standard action to [Insert Power] daze the target. (Stun would negate the whole reason for weakening them. Plus, powers that daze are more plentiful.
Step 4: Action Point: [Insert Power] to knock the target prone.

You have now allowed a player to gain an additional conditional effect on the target, which will last until the end of their next turn. If you are running monsters by the book, you will have a hard time challenging your players. If you are fudging them, you add extra bookkeeping on your part to help maintain the challenge level.

Invokers have a lot of contol-based immediate actions that could get nasty. I can't remember some of the power names off the top of my head.

None of this includes class features that work as interrupts.

 

[Skyscraper]

Immediate Vengeance comes to mind. As does Cross-body parry (Swordmage). But as I said, there are many.

Step 1: Draw an opportunity attack
Step 2: Use Immediate Vengeance on the target (immediate interrupt). Target is now weakened until the end of your next turn.
Step 3: Use standard action to [Insert Power] daze the target. (Stun would negate the whole reason for weakening them. Plus, powers that daze are more plentiful.
Step 4: Action Point: [Insert Power] to knock the target prone.

You have now allowed a player to gain an additional conditional effect on the target, which will last until the end of their next turn. If you are running monsters by the book, you will have a hard time challenging your players. If you are fudging them, you add extra bookkeeping on your part to help maintain the challenge level.

Invokers have a lot of contol-based immediate actions that could get nasty. I can't remember some of the power names off the top of my head.

None of this includes class features that work as interrupts.

Thanks for the reply.

What does it change that the weakened condition is applied to the target on the player's turn, as opposed to the target's tunr?

Also, since the target is prone and dazed anyway per standard and action-point actions, why add the weakened condition to the target? On its turn, if the target stands up from prone, it has no more actions left to attack anyway, no?

 

[Matt James]

Thanks for the reply.

What does it change that the weakened condition is applied to the target on the player's turn, as opposed to the target's tunr?

Also, since the target is prone and dazed anyway per standard and action-point actions, why add the weakened condition to the target? On its turn, if the target stands up from prone, it has no more actions left to attack anyway, no?

It resolves prior to landing any hits and inhibits any potential damage it would do (think solos or multi attack creatures). Weakened is one of many conditions, however. Forced movement can pose separate issues. As does the amount of time it takes for a single player to complete their turn. There are alot of senarios that someone might want to run through. I don't have much time to list them here. Suffice, parties of 6 can negate/marginalize any encounter if they chose to.

 

[Nichwee]

Thanks for the reply.

What does it change that the weakened condition is applied to the target on the player's turn, as opposed to the target's tunr?

Also, since the target is prone and dazed anyway per standard and action-point actions, why add the weakened condition to the target? On its turn, if the target stands up from prone, it has no more actions left to attack anyway, no?

The monster may very well not have attacked the player in question on its turn - if it was near a squishy, or bloodied, player as well - but as it was attacking with a "freebie" OA it would be silly not to take the chance (until it discovers it was screwed by doing so).

Preventing II's or IR's on your own turn stops the monsters having to decide not to take the "freebie" OA's for fear of side-effects. OA's are supposed to be a bonus to the attacker, not a chance to use your actions to spring traps on the monsters.

Another reason to stop II/IR's on your turn is to stop "until the end of this turn" bonuses being used an extra time. If you had a power bonus to attack and damage for this turn (often doable with AP effects and Leader buffs etc) you could use II/IR's to get three actions worth of attacks in to really rack up the effect of the bonuses.

 

[Skyscraper]

It resolves prior to landing any hits and inhibits any potential damage it would do (think solos or multi attack creatures).

I'm not sure I understand here. You're saying that the immediate interrupt (II) resolves before the OA, right? Then yes, of course, but considering that the OA wouldn't have occurred if the PC didn't try to land his II in the first place, it's pretty much an eye for an eye up to that point, no?

Weakened is one of many conditions, however. Forced movement can pose separate issues. As does the amount of time it takes for a single player to complete their turn. There are alot of senarios that someone might want to run through. I don't have much time to list them here. Suffice, parties of 6 can negate/marginalize any encounter if they chose to.

There you go again with general statements

I understand that in your mind there are specific combos that can be used to take advantage of the situation, it's just not very clear to me what they are. At least one clear example of what the player does with his II on his turn, then what that does to the monster, then how the monster is disabled on its own turn whereas he wouldn't have been thusly disabled were it not for the II specifically occuring on the player's turn, is what I'm looking for.

I'm geeking here, by the way. There was a question aksed at the start of the thread, and it got me thinking about why indeed would IIs and IRs be forbidden during a player's turn, so here I am now trying to figure out what would result from that. I'm not trying to be annoying or anything

 

[Skyscraper]

The monster may very well not have attacked the player in question on its turn - if it was near a squishy, or bloodied, player as well - but as it was attacking with a "freebie" OA it would be silly not to take the chance (until it discovers it was screwed by doing so).

Okay, so the PC might not have been able to use his II attack on his turn. This is a start of why an II on a player's turn can be abused. There is no abuse yet, but it opens the door to something advantageous for the player that would not be advantageous otherwise. That's pretty clear. But the PC pays for it by having an OA against him - although we agree that the OA might be less effective if the PC's attack is successful. Up to this point in the explanation, in my mind it's a draw: player gets a "freeby II" and monster gets a "freebie OA". If the II hits, the OA will be less effective. If the II doesn't hit, the OA might be full force.

My understanding is that the abuse comes afterwards, but I'm still waiting on a specific example

Preventing II's or IR's on your own turn stops the monsters having to decide not to take the "freebie" OA's for fear of side-effects. OA's are supposed to be a bonus to the attacker, not a chance to use your actions to spring traps on the monsters.

Let's simplify things and assume that the monsters don't even think about trying to avoid the II or IR by the PC. He bites into the bait. Than what? I'm still trying to figure that out.

Another reason to stop II/IR's on your turn is to stop "until the end of this turn" bonuses being used an extra time. If you had a power bonus to attack and damage for this turn (often doable with AP effects and Leader buffs etc) you could use II/IR's to get three actions worth of attacks in to really rack up the effect of the bonuses.

Okay... Let me get this straight, to make sure I understand you. Assuming you have a bonus to attack or damage going on until the end of your turn, using an II or an IR allows you to benefit from that bonus an extra time, right?

Wouldn't that be true if you manage to trigger the II or IR in-between your last turn (when the bonus-providing power was used) and this turn? I guess you can't be sure that the condition to trigger the II or IR will be met.

Okay, this appears like a player advantage. It seems like a marginal advantage, but one nonetheless.

I'm curious as to how other effects such as dazed, stunned etc... can be abused by using an II or IR during a player's turn as opposed to during the monster's turn, as suggested by Matt James. Those conditions are very crippling for a monster. Are there many II and IRs that give the dazed or stunned condition? If so, then the monster starts his turn dazed or stunned as opposed to becoming dazed or stunned during his turn. By starting his turn dazed or stunned, he possibly loses one or more actions that he could have used otherwise before becoming dazed or stunned (if the II had occurred on the monster's turn). This is a stronger player advantage IMO. Is this what people in this thread are referring to?

 

[Matt James]

Yeah, something for you to look up. I don't have the time. It sounds like this isn't a problem for you or your group. Best of luck.

 

[DracoSuave]

I thought it was obvious what the advantage is.

When you allow IIs and IRs and OAs on one's own turn, they turn from balanced reactions to other things that might not even occur, to planned actions that you can premeditate and cause to effect regardless of the opponent's tactics.

So if you have an II that attacks an enemy, allowing you to do it on your turn makes it so that it WILL happen, rather than it MIGHT happen.

That changes the balance of the off-turn action to something else entirely.

 

[MrMyth]

OK, I see that now. How about an example of an interrupt that invalidates the OA and is an attack?

There are various interrupt powers that prevent one being hit. Disruptive Strike, a ranger attack that applies a penalty to hit. Sudden Scales, a sorcerer utility that gives a large bonus to defenses. Wizard's Escape, a wizard utility that lets you teleport when hit.

Now, this doesn't make it too abusive to use this to negates OAs. They are designed to negate attacks - in this case, you are negating an attack on your turn instead of one at some other time. It adds some complexity to things, yeah, but is doable.

It does get tricky with some of these, that let you shift or teleport or the like - basically, by the enemy taking an OA on you, you can eke out some extra squares of free movement. That might bother some folks. Still, not the end of the world.

But it can get more complicated. This is actually an example from a game I'm in, and something one of our PCs wanted to do - but couldn't, because of the rules against immediates and OAs on your own turn.

He is a beastmaster ranger. He has the feat Beast Protector - if an enemy makes a melee attack against his companion, doing so provokes an opportunity attack from him.

So what he thought he could do was move both himself and his beast, and have his companion provoke from an enemy. When that enemy takes an OA on the beast, it provokes an attack from him.

Now, that might give him free attacks, but it may not be abusive - he wasn't really trying to break the system, just trying to make good use of his feat.

But what if we go a step further? Let's give him a hammer and the feat Hammering Iron - when he hits with an OA, he can push the target 1 square. Now, he not only gets to punish the enemy for hitting his companion, he gets to push them and prevent their OA from happening at all.

Still not game-breaking - the opponent can always choose to just not take the OA, of course. But still - this is the sort of thing you can set up, ways to make taking OAs (on either you, or allies, or companions) just a bad idea for them.

As others have said, if your group isn't going out of their way to abuse it, changing it can be fine. Just be aware that it does allow some potent combos, not to mention it could trigger some quite complicated scenarios.