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

[Li Shenron]

Do you think the game absolutely needs to have actions that interrupt someone else's turn?

Or do you think the fights could be made to work without any interrupting action in the rules, so that everyone always only acts in his/her own turn?

I am just wondering about it because interrupting actions were among the things that complicated our 3e and (few) 4e battles most.

 

[Incenjucar]

RPGs already suffer from the artificial feeling that comes from being turn-based. Completely removing the ability to respond immediately would be like playing Rock'em Sock'em robots by taking turns.

 

[Lanefan]

I voted 'yes', but I'd like to explain.

First off, I'm not at all married to a fully turn-based system. I use segmented rounds, and most actions other than just swinging or shooting a weapon take time, measured in segments. During that time you can be interrupted if someone a) wants to, and b) has initiative during (or has held until) the time it takes to do what you're doing.

Some things should always be interruptable given the above:
- Casting almost any spell (and spells should take time to cast, none of this "I cast and resolve on my turn before anyone can do anything")
- Anyone using a scroll of anything
- Movement; either by being blocked, by being shot at, or by a spell effect

Some other things should sometimes be interruptable:
- Turning and fleeing when the foe is not surprised by the act
- Device (e.g. wand, potion) use, depending on situation and device

And some things should almost never be interruptable:
- Swinging a melee weapon ("full attack" in 3e terms)
- Parrying or full-out defending
- the DM, when she is speaking

Lanefan

 

[mkill]

Some 4E Defenders need interrupts to work, especially the PHB Fighter. If you can write a Fighter that defends well without interrupts, I'm fine.

Interrupt powers like my favorite Disruptive Strike can be in optional rules.

 

[trancejeremy]

No. But certain things (like casting most spells) should take more than one turn to complete, so they can be interrupted (possibly) on the opponents next turn.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I don't think they should be the norm, but it is necessary to have some mechanic for interruption. There always comes a situation where you want to shoot the bad guy if he moves to pull the lever or the bad guy wants to kill the hostage if you attack him. They are conditional statements though, and require you to miss your actual action, rather than something you get on top of everything else.

I would replace opportunity attacks and interrupts with automatic damage, advantage, or a movement penalty on the sufferer.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I kinda like interrupts. It leads to a more dynamic experience in combat, and keeps everyone engaged at all times, since everyone's turn is a chance for everyone to do something.
But it can also bog down gameplay if there are too many possible triggers and abilities that can be triggered.

Segments may be an alternative approach, but I am not sure it works good for the core. But then, maybe even triggers don't do so.

 

[tlantl]

No. But certain things (like casting most spells) should take more than one turn to complete, so they can be interrupted (possibly) on the opponents next turn.

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.

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.

A lot of the complaining I hear about unbalanced classes is actually a symptom of bad dming.

 

[Minigiant]

My definition of a character attacking once a turn is usually the character making a series of attacks and having one of them with decent probability of striking the target. John the Fighter swings his long sword three times but only one of them ever has a chance of striking the orc. The other two attacks were setup strikes or parried/blocked swings.

Because of my definition of weapons combat, anyone who is the target of weapon attacks who is not actively defending themselves again them should either take a penalty to their defenses or subject to additional attacks. So anyone casting spells, using devices, or otherwise leaving themselves open should get punished in some way.

It doesn't have to be interrupts but I'd prefer it that way.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Put a reaction in a stance. It could be free attack when opponent attacks friend, free attack when opponent casts spells, or free attack when opponent flees. -But just one.