Legends and Lore - What Can You Do?

[LurkAway]

Clearly, the problem is that everyone has different ideas of what a PC could do as an action(s) -- it seems there really is no one consensus.

This was touched upon briefly, but how about a single action economy with exception-based flexibility: pick a class (based on training/power source), pick some features, pick a combat build. Whereas the class defines what you can do overall, the combat role defines how you do it in combat.

Default is always 1 action per 1 round. It's an abstraction of what normal creatures can do in combat. Your chosen hero combat build tells you what are the exceptions for you, something like:
- tanks can move into melee + draw a weapon OR attack + 5 ft step
- high mobility melee builds can move + melee attack, maybe quaff a potion or draw a weapon as a free action
- ranged spellcasters can move + cast a spell, drawing an implement or scroll is a free action
- monsters are not heroes and often follow the default 1 move or 1 action, but some monsters will surprise you with their speed and ferocity

The system isn't forcing one paradigm of move + attack + minor action(s) + free action(s) on everyone, it's empowering player choice. The social contract is that those who pick mobile combat builds need to watch out for analysis paralysis. To offset multiple action types, class powers would be a little simplified, as people have often claimed is a good idea anyway.

If multiple actions type exceptions seem confusing, you are only responsible for knowing your own actions. It's only the DM's problem to remember what everyone's actions types are (if a player somehow can't be trusted to get it right).

From an immersion POV, if a player wants to keep track of everyone's action types, you're living up to roleplaying a tactical team-oriented combatant. If you can't remember or you don't care, you're roleplaying the lone wolf or lower wisdom type. If the DM forgets while strategizing monster actions, that's OK too -- monsters aren't typically aware of what the heroes can or cannot do.

As an aside, if an action is defined as what you're guaranteed to be able to do in 1 round, and not what you can do in 1 round, that could justify an optional rule of trying a 2nd action and succeeding to do both on a successful roll or fumbling both actions if you fail the die roll. I'm not sure if it's a good idea in practice.

Lastly, I agree it would be interesting to try out side initiatives again, and have that interesting rock-paper-scissors effect when you first announce your 1 action and then see how it interacts with the opponents' actions.

The game theories experts can tell me that I'm off my rocker now

 

[Naszir]

How about just building the movement into the powers? Just like Charge, you can include movement and attack into a single action. Many powers are built like that already.

 

[Umbran]

The game theories experts can tell me that I'm off my rocker now

I'll just say that you're making it more complicated than would seem attractive to me.

And what would happen if you multiclassed in that system, in such a way that you spanned roles? Messy.

 

[LurkAway]

And what would happen if you multiclassed in that system, in such a way that you spanned roles? Messy.

(shrug) I don't know, but even if you multi-classed, you'd still have only 1 combat build.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think there's some interesting design space to be explored in having only one action. It would certainly be different from the current paradigm, but I think whether it's better or worse would depend mostly on the implementation.


You could use class design to push play style even more (I realize that for some people that's undesirable).

-Frontline fighters might get a significant bonus to charge (or be the only ones capable of charging at all). This would push them to want to get into the enemy's face, which is what they typically should want to do anyway.

-Sneaky rogues, on the other hand, might gain a large "Size 'Em Up" bonus to their next attack if they take no offensive actions this round. It might represent their cautious engagement of their foe, waiting for an opportunity to take them out with a single shot). It would encourage them, mechanically, to wait for the fighter to mark a target before engaging it.

I realize that this might sound a bit like shrouds, but I think it could work. Firstly, the bonus should apply to the rogue, rather than being applied to an enemy.

Secondly, I expect players will find it worth it if you make the bonus worth it. Let's assume that the average monster takes 4 hits to kill. If you make the bonus equal to two average hits, then waiting 1 round in order to kill a creature 1 round sooner becomes a viable tactic.


Movement powers become more valuable in a system that restricts actions. If my choice is move OR attack, then powers like Wolf Pack Tactics, Footwork Lure, and Hit and Run become much more valuable, because they let me attack AND move. A potential direction might even be to make all attack powers like the monk's; every power has an attack and a movement associated with it.

It might open the way to make wizards a bit more "old-school". Powerful arcane spells wouldn't grant an associated movement, forcing a wizard to stand still and cast (hopefully while his allies cover him). He might still have a few quick and dirty weaker spells that grant a move, for situations where he can't reasonably stand still and cast.


Whether the move action stays or goes, I don't think it would be a bad idea to get rid of both minor and opportunity actions. I think they add a needless layer of complexity. While it's an interesting choice, I think decisions like "Should I use Kip Up or Healing Word this turn?" waste time. Make them free actions usable once per round and I think you'll see some increase in play speed. I'm willing to sacrifice some interesting choices if it means faster rounds. Eliminating OAs ensures that, at most, characters will act once per round outside their turn. That's a lot more reasonable IMO.


I'm interested in seeing where this goes (if anywhere).

 

[Balesir]

How about just building the movement into the powers? Just like Charge, you can include movement and attack into a single action. Many powers are built like that already.

I think it gets messy fast.

Suppose you are prone. Does your "move plus attack" action let you get up instead of moving? Or do you have to do a "move" action to get up? Or is it a "Free" action?

With the first option, you effectively now have an attack that is a "move equivalent plus attack" - effectively two choices - two actions. With the second option, getting tripped/pushed prone sucks rocks - you miss a turn, effectively. With the third option, knocking/pushing/tripping creatures prone is essentially worthless.

This is just one example - I really think separate Move and Standard actions represent the minimum for interesting, dynamic combat. Allowing a mixture and calling it "one action" just adds confusion to complexity, once there are choices within the "action".

 

[LurkAway]

With the second option, getting tripped/pushed prone sucks rocks - you miss a turn, effectively.

Just on this point, if 1 action = 1 round, recovering from prone is 1 round by default. Yes, that sucks rocks, but maybe it should suck. It isn't that fast to get up, especially in armour. In my proposal, a mobile fighter gets an extra move action that they could use to get up; only an ordinary person or a tank would lose an entire turn (but it should be more difficult to bring tanks down). Secondly, when rounds are quicker, missing a turn means less.

I'm all for non-messy solutions, and if any OP-related concept is too messy, then forget it. But I just don't have immediate sympathy for complaints that "it sucks" to lose a turn. I know we all like different things, but I think the instant gratification of being useful constantly every round of every encounter is overrated.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One of the reasons that I prefer hybrid solutions to the extreme versions (e.g. "single-action", highly simplified side vs side, lots of actions divided into discrete categories) is what it does to action denial. If the actions are very tight, then action denial becomes inordinately valuable compared to the thing being modeled (however "realistic" or not). On the other side of the scale, you can get the opposite problem, but are more likely to get issues with particular spots being tight, and thus exploitable.

Now, if the game is really more about the clever way you escape after getting conked on the head (losing all actions for an entire confict, effectively), then maybe really tight action economy and serious action denial is ok. But in that hypothetical game, I'd say if it is well designed, then combat is not the most important part of it.

How often people fail when they get to act is inevitably tied into it, as well. People are a whole lot more willing to spend an occasional action moving if they can be otherwise effective with 85% of their attacks, than they are with 55% effectiveness.

So regardless of ones' view of where the line goes on when "losing a turn sucks," there is no doubt that drawing the line at any particular spot has substantial ramifications in the rest of the game.

 

[delericho]

I think it gets messy fast.

Suppose you are prone. Does your "move plus attack" action let you get up instead of moving? Or do you have to do a "move" action to get up? Or is it a "Free" action?

Yep. You can certainly design a "one action" system, and could certainly do one that bakes in the various move options. But as you say, it gets messy fast. A much better solution would be to... well, have two different action types (one for standard actions and another for moving) and allow people to combine those in the various combinations.

A bit like now, really.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Reading through Monte's article again, he really is looking to separate movement from other actions such as attacking or casting spells. It seems everyone is still looking to jam movement back in, not wanting to fundamentally let go of the current structure. And I don't think Monte necessarily "does" want to change that but he's pondering how the game would change and what would be needed for it to work if there was a choice between moving and attacking. I think all Monte is looking for here is for his reader's to genuinely think about how the game would work with just one main thing your character does (such as move or attack or cast) so that the supplementary stuff (picking something up or down, opening a door etc.) can be hand-waived. He's not saying that this is the way it should go, he's just asking us to think about the ramifications.

In this regard, I think there might be a neat way of framing this:

Imagine that a round is 3 seconds long.

Now at the moment, it would seem that attacking trumps moving every time. What could be done to "moving" so that the choice between movement and attacking is a little more balanced? How would you make this work?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise