Immediate Reactions

[Skyscraper]

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.

Sure. The point you make is of course very valid and already acknowledged in this thread. But then, to have the II or IR trigger at that selected moment on your turn, you need to provoke an OA from the opponent. So you pay a price to get that advantage. In the example of Disruptive Strike that was given above, the price is clearly not worth what you reap from the II, as opposed to using it at another time.

D&D4E is all about that kind of strategy: when to use your stuff and, also, when to pay a price to hopefully get the upper hand in a daring move. This price may be provoking and OA such as when your rogue moves around an opponent to get Combat Advantage against that opponent.

(Anecdote: there were lengthy discussions a while back about whether PCs could push opponents into a PC-created Wall spell (such as a Wall of Fire). People referred to the rule of being pushed into a pit to claim that pushing into a wall should allow a saving throw. If not for the saving throw, the majority of people saw that combo as an unbalanced advantage since all of a sudden you could force Wall damage on a creature multiple times (on casting the spell, on pushing it in, then at the start of its turn when it is in the area of the spell). But in the end, it ends up being clearly stated in the FAQ that you can push a creature into Wall spell, provided you satisfy all other conditions. This, to me, is a clear advantage and a powerful combo. The Disruptive Strike example from above doesn't even compare.)

Back to the instant case, the question is: why are IIs and IRs not allowed during a PC's turn. The answer from people here is: it will break the balance! My question is: how? I have not seen yet an example in this thread of a significant imbalance resulting from use of an II or IR during a PC's turn as opposed to using it during a monster's turn. Which doesn't mean that there are no such examples, people here seem like they know their stuff. I'm looking forward to someone providing such an example. I'm not talking about a marginal, corner case, you get +2 to hit for a round but suffer an OA example; I'm talking about something significant in which the price you pay (the OA) is clearly worthwhile, such as making the opponent lose a turn. Hopefully this example exists before level 25.

 

[DracoSuave]

A dracolich in that ruleset would be balls nasty.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Personally, I think the strongest argument against allowing immediate actions on your turn- and perhaps the reasoning behind the RAW here- is action economy.

I'm pretty sure this is why they did it. Allowing semi-hefty things to happen on minor actions, but then keep the action economy limited, appears to have been something they didn't often bend.

The cutting off of exploits, however serious, is more of a secondary effect, I think. Though it is true that systems with a lot of counters can easily have such exploits, often unrealized until lots of testing and practice have revealed them. So even if the rules don't allow significant exploits, the potential was always there, in a loose action economy. It is less, "this is a definite problem," and more of a, "now we don't even have to worry about it," thing.

Not very compelling by itself, but if you already had other reasons to sharply limit the action economy ...

 

[Skyscraper]

A dracolich in that ruleset would be balls nasty.

Yay, a relevant example!!!

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

question

"not only does disruptive strike have a large chance to invalidate a far more dangerous attack than an OA (and, across an encounter, nearly no chance of not being triggered), but baiting it and houseruling it to work on your own turn deals LESS damage, because hunter's quarry is once/turn."

Is this new? I thought HQ was 1/round, and only Warlock's Curse and Sneak Attack were errataed to 1/turn.

nevermind...I just re-read the power. HQ damage is 1/round, but the power is once per turn, which is kind of pointless to begin with.