What I mean by 'interrupts' are player actions that interrupt the actions of other players or, interactions between other players and the DM. For example, some characters have specific types of reaction actions they can interject in a way that is out of order (like the warding flare class ability of Light Domain clerics).

I have noticed that a number of 5e replacements have tried to incorporate changes that try to significantly reduce the amount of time / effort it takes to resolve actions. However I have been thinking about how interrupts themselves could be streamlined.

I think what makes them bad (reaction mechanics that is) is that they halt the flow of game, now for one or two abilities that key off a reaction is one thing, but so many things in 5th edition can use a reaction it's kind of nuts.

As for streamline, do you mean streamlining interrupts as a whole? or just or reaction as an action? for the former I have an answer but the latter would need some consideration.

As for how I handle "interrupts" as treating them like declared overwatch, if you've ever played a video game like XCOM, during your turn before the aliens can make a move you can put a soldier in overwatch, which foregoes any primary actions for your soldier, but if any aliens make a shot or try to move within line of sight of this soldier the soldier does something, typically attacking.

In this sense overwatch is an action which is declared at the start of the players turn and is conditional, so instead of counter-spell being a reaction, counter-spell in this instance is a spell a wizard readies and goes into overwatch with it. "If the lich or his minions cast a spell, that triggers my overwatch" everyone at the table knows ahead of time this conditional interrupt might happen.

Though I admit I don't know if this is more streamlined in total, this type of mechanic shows up more in OSR games where reaction actions aren't assumed but some sort of declarative response makes sense.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 11, 2025, 12:27:19 PMIn this sense overwatch is an action which is declared at the start of the players turn and is conditional, so instead of counter-spell being a reaction, counter-spell in this instance is a spell a wizard readies and goes into overwatch with it. "If the lich or his minions cast a spell, that triggers my overwatch" everyone at the table knows ahead of time this conditional interrupt might happen.

This sounds like 5e's "Ready an Action" action. It also appears in other games, sometimes using different names. My players will use it from time to time but, as you mentioned, it's mostly used for attacks. Prepping a Counterspell is far riskier, since you can't anticipate them even casting a spell, but you can anticipate them getting close enough to attack. And, in 5e, at least, readying the spell means burning the slot if you don't use it (unless you prep a cantrip).

Quote from: Shteve on February 11, 2025, 03:52:29 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 11, 2025, 12:27:19 PMIn this sense overwatch is an action which is declared at the start of the players turn and is conditional, so instead of counter-spell being a reaction, counter-spell in this instance is a spell a wizard readies and goes into overwatch with it. "If the lich or his minions cast a spell, that triggers my overwatch" everyone at the table knows ahead of time this conditional interrupt might happen.

This sounds like 5e's "Ready an Action" action. It also appears in other games, sometimes using different names. My players will use it from time to time but, as you mentioned, it's mostly used for attacks. Prepping a Counterspell is far riskier, since you can't anticipate them even casting a spell, but you can anticipate them getting close enough to attack. And, in 5e, at least, readying the spell means burning the slot if you don't use it (unless you prep a cantrip).

In contrast however reactions are never risky, in fact if you're not using a reaction at least every round your sub-optimal in the action economy as far as 5th edition is concerned. if that's the kind of game you like, all the power to you, but  at that point just do what pathfinder 2e does and give everyone three actions.

I don't know if I would say that using a reaction in 5e is risky but there is an opportunity cost to it.  You only get one per round.  Counterspelling can be very useful but there's a cost to it and sometimes a risk.  It takes your one reaction.  It costs at least a level 3 spell slot.  It may not be successful depending on the spell the character is trying to counter.  Positioning to even try to counterspell might involve some risk too.  The caster may have to be up some place they really don't want to be to be in range to even try.

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 11, 2025, 08:03:18 PMI don't know if I would say that using a reaction in 5e is risky but there is an opportunity cost to it.  You only get one per round.  Counterspelling can be very useful but there's a cost to it and sometimes a risk.  It takes your one reaction.  It costs at least a level 3 spell slot.  It may not be successful depending on the spell the character is trying to counter.  Positioning to even try to counterspell might involve some risk too.  The caster may have to be up some place they really don't want to be to be in range to even try.

I have reasons to disagree as to that and your argument is just sort of looking at counterspell in a vacuum, as opposed to the reaction mechanic as a whole, for the martial classes reactions are more or less an extra attack based on the subclass we're talking about here.

Actually to be frank I'm not really interested in debating the merits or reaction or not, I don't care, I don't play 5th edition anymore and I hate theory crafting for it anyway, I will point out that the odds of you commenting on this thread would have been lower had I not said something you found disagreeable which I find funny.

That said now that you're drawn into this thread, how, if at all would you personally streamline or make a reaction mechanic if we were working from a blank slate? as that is more the topic at hand.

This all reminds me of my favorite initiative system in a TTRPG, at least in theory, Neoclassical Geek Revival. In that, everyone rolls a die for their initiative, sized based on their Agility (think Dex) score. Then the person with the lowest initiative would declare their action, and anyone with a higher init could declare their action as an interrupt, then higher and so forth, until no more actions are to be declared, then actions resolve from highest initiative to lowest. Then the next lowest init who still has an action declare, and so on until everyone has used their actions. It is definitely a bit slow, but it is crazy tactical, and gives those with the ability to roll high init a serious command over the battlefield. It's also tempered by the high lethality of the system, so extended fights aren't common.

I say in theory because I haven't gotten a proper game in with the system, and I can only hope that it holds up to my expectations in practice.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 11, 2025, 12:27:19 PMIn this sense overwatch is an action which is declared at the start of the players turn and is conditional, so instead of counter-spell being a reaction, counter-spell in this instance is a spell a wizard readies and goes into overwatch with it. "If the lich or his minions cast a spell, that triggers my overwatch" everyone at the table knows ahead of time this conditional interrupt might happen.

Though I admit I don't know if this is more streamlined in total, this type of mechanic shows up more in OSR games where reaction actions aren't assumed but some sort of declarative response makes sense.

Certainly a conditional alerts the DM to know that something might happen. Would players feel cheated though if the condition doesn't occur and they could do nothing else in the round?