Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoutonRustique" data-source="post: 6764755" data-attributes="member: 22362">I'm pretty sure this is one of those cases where either side can be "right". There are many different triggers used for both interrupts and reactions - all of which (as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said) "dissect" what we would usually call an "action" into a whole bunch of different "concepts" (I'm running out of words to use here...)Personally, I view rules in this lens: if monsters and players have access to this new strategy, is it good enough that it merits being used on a regular basis?If it is - then I reject the rule : it would change to many things, be a hassle and an all around PITA.The one your player is proposing falls straight into that concept - having the option to "preemptively counter-attack" open to anyone (no need for a power), will offer massive headaches. And not just to you - think of all the skirmisher-type foes that get to move on a hit. Those become auto-negate-melee-attack powers. And the strategy is such a good one, only an idiot would not use it.Also you could very easily get in the situation where two foes with access to those kinds of powers adopt the same strategy : they both ready and stare each other down. Which can be cool in some situations - but usually, it's just stupid.On the other hand, it can dramatically alter the strategies based upon the type of opponent (based upon their having hit-and-move powers or not) which can open up a whole new paradigm of play. Which can be awesome or, you know, suck egg. Which it is depends upon the playstyle you and your table are looking for.IMO - of course.tl;dr : don't do it bro. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification