Legends and Lore - What Can You Do?

[Plane Sailing]

In my OGL game (may it see the light of day soon!) I went for a 'two actions every round' model, where a single action might be move, strike, parry, snapshot, get up. There were also 'double actions' which required you to take two actions together on the same round to make it happen - aimed shot, mighty blow, flying tackle, sprint. This has been working very well for me, there isn't an emphasis on breaking things down further, the simplicity of having nothing below 'action' keeps it pretty clean and simple. Someone in melee might choose to make two strikes, but he probably won't want to do that (or take a mighty blow) unless his foe is discombobulated for some reason, so there is a tendency towards caution...

 

[ExploderWizard]

There are two critical features to save from 4e:

* Mobile Combat (e.g. Move without sacrificing attacks) - it doesn't matter whether characters get a move action distinct from the standard action, or whether characters can move a decent amount (whatever that is) for free, but it important that characters be able to move around without sacrificing attacks.

I kind of understand this. Being mobile should provide more benefits than it was given in certain rulesets.

* Supplemental Healing (e.g. Heal without sacrificing attacks) - minor actions can go, but healers need to be able to use at least some of their healing abilities without sacrificing their ability to do something more interesting.

This is bewildering. Why is the removal of hit points put on such a high pedestal yet the restoration of this most precious resource regarded as such an unworthy undertaking?

If no one likes to heal then perhaps agonizing slow hit point attrition shouldn't be the only thing in a fight that matters.

 

[LurkAway]

My first thought was: I run up to the bad guy and... stand there waiting for him to hit me. No thank you, very much.

But, to me, this makes complete sense.

Imagine I'm on the street and a guy with his fists up is moving menacingly towards me. Depending on the distance, I have a couple seconds or so to react -- to withdraw, kick him, etc.

He knows that too, and will account for those possibilities. He moves in not exactly knowing how I'd counterreact.

If I was not paying attention or surprised (not in 'combat mode'), then feasibly, he could move into melee and then get his next action before I could react.

Ranged attacks ignore this complication but have different issues, thus making their combat tactics feel genuinely different, and not the same.

And this scenario gives fighters a reason to throw a spear before closing into melee, like they sometimes did in 1E (but have little mechanical reason to do so now).

Reach weapons also become tactically important.

Of course, many have pointed out that a charge and attack could be considered one action. But why only a charage? Why can't I just walk up to him and hit him?

So the charge maneuver is just a calculated risk -- to try to move in AND hit your opponent immediately. If you're unlucky, the opponent has time to react and defend (modelled using initiative? surprise?), using your own momentum against you to score a bonus to hit/damage if he hits.

 

[delericho]

* Supplemental Healing (e.g. Heal without sacrificing attacks) - minor actions can go, but healers need to be able to use at least some of their healing abilities without sacrificing their ability to do something more interesting.

Nah. Get rid of in-combat healing entirely (except Second Wind).

Give every character easy access to out-of-combat healing (via Surges, rituals, whatever). Let the Leaders buff characters, perhaps in a manner supplemental to their attack, but not heal (in-combat). And if that doesn't leave them enough to do (though it really should), eliminate the Leader role entirely.

(This would, of course, necessitate a significant re-balancing of combat. But if we're talking 5e here, that's not a problem since it would be done anyway.)

 

[steenan]

Why restrict oneself to only messing with available actions, leaving the whole round structure (with initiative rolls and taking actions in sequence) intact?

A simple and efficient approach would be to have everybody declare their actions, roll and resolve using the roll results for both effect and initiative.
It would require a slight redefinition of what an "action" is. There would be no "movement" action, because it does nothing by itself. You could flank, or escape - actions with concrete tactical effects.

It works well for a combat without a map. You don't have to know where exactly everybody is, just what actions they successfully took last time.

 

[KidSnide]

There are two critical features to save from 4e:

* Supplemental Healing (e.g. Heal without sacrificing attacks) - minor actions can go, but healers need to be able to use at least some of their healing abilities without sacrificing their ability to do something more interesting.

This is bewildering. Why is the removal of hit points put on such a high pedestal yet the restoration of this most precious resource regarded as such an unworthy undertaking?

At the risk of circularity, I'm confused by your bewilderment.

It's not a matter of putting healing on a pedestal. It's just that playing a healing character is more fun when you get to do more than just heal (a common complaint from mid/high-level play in 3.x). Allowing healing characters to actively participate in the fight beyond their healing contribution was a major advance of 4e and I wouldn't want to see it go away in an effort to speed up combat.

Nah. Get rid of in-combat healing entirely (except Second Wind).

Give every character easy access to out-of-combat healing (via Surges, rituals, whatever). Let the Leaders buff characters, perhaps in a manner supplemental to their attack, but not heal (in-combat). And if that doesn't leave them enough to do (though it really should), eliminate the Leader role entirely.

I'll revise my comment to include the limitation "to the extent in-combat healing remains a major part of the game."

That said, I think in-combat healing is an important part of the game. One of the things that makes combat exciting is that the PCs are more resilient than they appear. Characters can start going down (giving the appearance that the PCs are losing), but in-combat healing lets the PCs keep fighting. This dynamic emphasizes the feeling of danger while maintaining the likelihood of PC success. In 90+% of games, that's a very good thing.

-KS

 

[Szatany]

First L&L that I feel like I need comment on.
There are many many ways of breaking down individual character's turn into actions/blocks/steps. Giving a player one action to do each turn (and this is not the same as doing one thing) isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as A) the player still has a good amount of choices to make and B) all play styles are still covered. B means that the round should be structured in such a way that doesn't punish either skirmishers, nor melee types or ranged types. We have that right now with 3e/4e turn structure. We can also have that with a single action per turn. I can think of at least two ways to do this:
1. You have one action per turn and you choose it from a list. Each choice incorporates both activity and movement in varying capacity. For example you have full move action (move up to your speed), skirmish action (move up to half you speed and attack), charge (move up to your speed in straight line and attack), focused attack (move up to 1 square and attack with +2 bonus to hit), etc. Pros - one action means rounds will flow smoothly and swiftly. Cons - you need a large amount of actions and browsing through them might take inexperienced players some time.
2. You have one action per turn and actions govern the "big stuff" you do - attacks, spellcasting etc. Movement is not covered by actions but has its own devoted mini-system. Under this option, your speed grants you speed points (say, speed of 30 ft. means you have 6 SP). Each turn you can spend those points to move, to stand up, crawl jump etc. but they are generally independent of main action you take. For example, you could spend 2 SP to jump onto a table, then cast a spell with your action, then spend another 4 points to move 4 squares somewhere.

 

[Szatany]

nah. Get rid of in-combat healing entirely (except second wind).

Give every character easy access to out-of-combat healing (via surges, rituals, whatever). Let the leaders buff characters, perhaps in a manner supplemental to their attack, but not heal (in-combat). And if that doesn't leave them enough to do (though it really should), eliminate the leader role entirely.

(this would, of course, necessitate a significant re-balancing of combat. But if we're talking 5e here, that's not a problem since it would be done anyway.)

couldn't
agree
moar

!

 

[LurkAway]

That said, I think in-combat healing is an important part of the game. One of the things that makes combat exciting is that the PCs are more resilient than they appear. Characters can start going down (giving the appearance that the PCs are losing), but in-combat healing lets the PCs keep fighting. This dynamic emphasizes the feeling of danger while maintaining the likelihood of PC success. In 90+% of games, that's a very good thing.

OTOH, don't monsters have tons of hit points, and combats are longer?

 

[KidSnide]

OTOH, don't monsters have tons of hit points, and combats are longer?

That's a different question. There are two issues here:

1) How many hit points can PCs and monsters absorb over the course of a combat relative to the amount of damage they do?

2) Of the damage that PCs can absorb, how much should be in the hp they start the battle with, and how much should be in healing they receive during the battle.

The first question determines the length (and, to a certain extent, the swinginess of a battle). The second question determines whether the PCs tend to go down (and come back up) during the course of the battle.

My assertion is that combat is more exciting if a decent portion of the PCs damage absorbing capabilities are in the form of in-combat healing.

(I am also in favor of adjusting #1 to make combat shorter and swingier, but that's another issue.)

-KS