Declaring Immediate Interrupts

[Ryujin]

Unfortunately the way that a DM handles combat, alone, could invalidate maybe a third of the interrupt powers out there. If a DM knows the defence of every character and simply announces when a hit takes place, should that eliminate the "on attack" interrupts?

 

[Skallgrim]

The game depends on cooperation between the players and the DM. If someone is playing a Fighter, then the player has an obligation to pay attention to actions that might trigger his Combat Challenge. The DM has an obligation, when the marked enemy takes actions, to allow that player the opportunity to use his power correctly (and not simply announce a successful hit and damage).

If the DM's going to choose to run his game in such a way that an immediate interrupt will be useless, he needs to let his players know that before they generate characters, and also make sure not to use adversaries with immediate interrupt powers.

If a player is going to pick some immediate interrupt powers, he takes on an obligation to know how and when to use them.

We have a Stormwarden ranger, and I don't go back in time and apply his End of Turn damage if he forgets to do it. He chose the paragon path, and it is his responsibility to announce which (if any) opponent takes the damage. We also have a wizard with a Staff of Defense and a Halfling with Second Chance. I know (as the DM) that the characters have these Interrupts, so I deliberately give them a bit of a pause to use their powers at the appropriate interval.

It doesn't take that long to allow decision-making (or if it does, that's probably a problem with the player making decisions in general), and there's no contest to finish the game in the least amount of time.

 

[Nifft]

The way we play is: you can Interrupt an attack even if you know if the attack would hit (or not), for monsters and PCs alike.

This hasn't led to an imbalance regarding Interrupt vs. regular powers, in our experience.

Cheers, -- N

 

[sfedi]

Am I supposed to shout it out as the DM is rolling the dice? But what if he misses? Then the power is wasted. It's hard to argue my side because of powers like the Wizard's Shield that have the Trigger "You are hit by an enemy." How would you guys rule this? Is it overpowered the way I m using it? When should one declare immediate interrupts?

I rules these issues this way:

When you someone attacks, you have these diffrerent "phases":

Declare attack: Power used and target
- Triggers activated: When X attacks Y

Roll and determine hit or miss:
- Triggers activated: When hit by and attack, When missed by an attack, etc

Roll damage
- Triggers activated: When damaged by X, etc.

I usually roll and declare everything at the same time, but if someone has interrupt powers, then I go step by step and only move forward if my players tell me so.

 

[Saeviomagy]

...or you allow a player to react after the event (which these powers clearly aren't balanced for, making them massively over-powered)

Massively? I think you're exaggerating more than a little bit here.

 

[Max1mus]

WotC should really explain what they were thinking when they added these powers. They really need to do a step-by-step example, where they explain exactly how these powers were meant to be used in real gameplay.


The way WotC have snuck in the powers without a guide on how to use them means they contribute a net loss of fun, as I see it.

I agree.

The way we play is: you can Interrupt an attack even if you know if the attack would hit (or not), for monsters and PCs alike.

This hasn't led to an imbalance regarding Interrupt vs. regular powers, in our experience.

Cheers, -- N

That's good to hear. More dice less drama.

I still don't think it's overpowered when I only have about 50% chance to hit and disrupt the enemy's attack. I could miss and it would be a loss of an encounter power. I'm totally fine with that. What I am not fine with is declaring a usage of Disruptive Strike, the DM rolls a 1 and I totally wasted an encounter power. Thanks for everyone's input so far.

 

[Eldorian]

Since an attack is defined by an attack roll, wouldn't it make sense that an immediate action whose trigger is an attack be declared after an attack roll?

 

[Smeelbo]

Wait a second, I want to disrupt that...

What I've found in practice is that usually, I declare to the DM a circumstance in which my ranger will interrupt, most often, "The next monster to attack SoAndSo I will disrupt," along with the occasional, "Wait a second, I disrupt that."

So far it has worked acceptably well, in terms of both effectiveness and timeliness. I understand the issue, but in practice, it hasn't mattered much.

Smeelbo

 

[Diirk]

I agree.



That's good to hear. More dice less drama.

I still don't think it's overpowered when I only have about 50% chance to hit and disrupt the enemy's attack. I could miss and it would be a loss of an encounter power. I'm totally fine with that. What I am not fine with is declaring a usage of Disruptive Strike, the DM rolls a 1 and I totally wasted an encounter power. Thanks for everyone's input so far.

I disagree with this. Even if you use it when the DM rolls a natural 1, it still does a decent chunk of damage. So its not a waste. Less useful than if it was a hit, sure, but thats a different matter.
When I'm DMing I announce who I'm attacking with a monster, then roll the dice (in front of the players) then announce the result (ie hit/miss) before doing the damage. From the time I announce who I'm attacking, there's probably a good 5 seconds or so that players can pipe up they want to use an interrupt on the 'on attack' powers. I haven't found it slows down gameplay at all. I do, however, err slightly on the nice side and let them see the numerical result of the attack roll but still use 'on attack' triggered powers before I actually say hit/miss, so they can make educated guesses.

 

[sfedi]

Since an attack is defined by an attack roll, wouldn't it make sense that an immediate action whose trigger is an attack be declared after an attack roll?

I don't know what you mean by "an attack is defined by..."
Because the attack roll isn't a definition, it's a mechanic.

But it would make more sense to trigger a "when you are attacked" as soon as possible, and that is when the attack is declared, not after the first steps of its resolution are made.