Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Redbadge" data-source="post: 5598360" data-attributes="member: 61463">I'm quoting this post, but others have made similar points with regards to interrupts to gain additional damage/actions.Our ranger also tried this shortly after our rule was implemented. It didn't take him long to figure out he wasn't actually dealing any additional damage, because he still had only one immediate interrupt. In fact, he would frequently do less, or be less effective, because he wasted his standard action trying to do something clever (readying an action is always a standard action).For example, using the Disruptive Strike example:The ranger uses a standard action to twin strike, then tries to provoke so he can use Disruptive Strike. The enemy takes the bait and uses its MBA, which is negated by the penalty. The ranger deals bunch-o-damage x2.vs.The ranger uses a standard action to Twin Strike. On its turn, the moster attacks the ranger because he is the only nearby target (or moves away, provoking). The monster attack, probably more powerful than its MBA, is negated because of the penalty. The ranger deal bunch-o-damage x2.Any scenario that involves readying an action that is not attack also loses to simply making a Twin Strike with that same action.Some of the other points (keeping players engaged on other's turns, keeping in-turn actions simpler, etc.) are reasons that I might reinstitute the rule, however.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Redbadge, post: 5598360, member: 61463"] I'm quoting this post, but others have made similar points with regards to interrupts to gain additional damage/actions. Our ranger also tried this shortly after our rule was implemented. It didn't take him long to figure out he wasn't actually dealing any additional damage, because he still had only one immediate interrupt. In fact, he would frequently do less, or be less effective, because he wasted his standard action trying to do something clever (readying an action is always a standard action). For example, using the Disruptive Strike example: The ranger uses a standard action to twin strike, then tries to provoke so he can use Disruptive Strike. The enemy takes the bait and uses its MBA, which is negated by the penalty. The ranger deals bunch-o-damage x2. vs. The ranger uses a standard action to Twin Strike. On its turn, the moster attacks the ranger because he is the only nearby target (or moves away, provoking). The monster attack, probably more powerful than its MBA, is negated because of the penalty. The ranger deal bunch-o-damage x2. Any scenario that involves readying an action that is not attack also loses to simply making a Twin Strike with that same action. Some of the other points (keeping players engaged on other's turns, keeping in-turn actions simpler, etc.) are reasons that I might reinstitute the rule, however. [/QUOTE]

Verification