Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5042902" data-attributes="member: 2011">Not so much.There are a lot of immediate interrupts (and immediate reactions) that a player might not even think of until the situation occurs. On top of that, a player might not want to use a specific II or IR in a given situation. Many situations are unique. For example, I might not want to protect the defender PC with an II as a general rule, but in a specific case, I do want to protect the defender PC and I won't know until the situation happens whether I want to or not.But, IIs often specifically occur after a to hit roll is made, but before damage is rolled (or some other point in time). Without the ability to segregate game time to the point in time where the II can be used, it makes playing the game a lot more difficult in this area in PBP.So having IIs specified within the action block would tend (at least for me) to be the exception instead of the rule. I might sometimes do that as a player, but most of the time I would prefer to have my options available.For example, an attack hits and stuns a PC. The fact that the PC will be stunned motivates me as a player to use my II. If it was hits and dazes, or hits and knocks prone, I might not be as motivated. I won't know what is happening until the DM relates the required information to make the decision. If the DM does not tell me that the attack will stun my ally, again, I will make a decision based on what I know. But, I don't want to "waste" an II based on what is written in an action block and/or having to put a lot of conditional information into an action block so that an II will or will not be wasted is also difficult.I think the only good solution is for the DM to pause and allow the player to make a reasonable decision. Unfortunately, PBP does not lend itself well to this like tabletop gaming does without proactive posting by the DM and the players.Another possibility is to have the player do the II (or IR) after the fact. But, this would force the DM to go back a bit and change the outcome based on the results of the II. Doable, but not preferable since it could also result in IIs based on information that the player should not have had at the time of the interrupt.</blockquote>

Verification