D&D 5E 5th edition design notes: Per Round powers and triggered actions

[CovertOps]

@CovertOps: You're not really changing anything, you're just switching labels. There really should be only one type of action for interrupt / reaction powers to avoid confusion. Even if you make the "immediate action - 1/round" explicit, you still have to deal with the difference of free, immediate and possibly opportunity actions.

I was trying to keep with your idea of "Triggered Actions" while also maintaining that SOME triggered actions still need that 1/round limit. Either that or you need to get rid of any attack other than OA that is triggered.

Perhaps a better idea is to model Triggered actions around OA. Limit ALL triggered actions to 1 (one) per opponents turn and then design them with this in mind. I simplifies the whole process and unifies it at the same time. I also like your suggestion that triggered actions can't trigger triggered actions, but that's a moot point I think if you use my above limitation of 1 per creature turn. About the problem with Sneak Attack I like the "No Action" idea as a special version of "triggered action". It also gets rid of that thing that really annoys me where (that I know of) Fighters can have both an OA and a CC attack vs. the same target from the same trigger (marked - standing next to the fighter - use a ranged or area power).

 

[CovertOps]

TBH, "charge ends your turn" is another rule that I would kick if I would write 5th edition. But that's part of a different set of revisions...

There needs to be some limitation on being able to take a full move and attack with a single standard action. That limitation is that your turn ends (barring spending an action point). Or do you want to break charge builds....
I charge....
I move away...
I charge again...

 

[mkill]

There needs to be some limitation on being able to take a full move and attack with a single standard action. That limitation is that your turn ends (barring spending an action point). Or do you want to break charge builds....
I charge....
I move away...
I charge again...

If you want to discuss charge make it a different thread, it's a new can of worms.

 

[Arlough]

<snip> One thing directly: The "per round" rule is mainly motivated by the current Sneak Attack text. Just look at it. It's bloody awful.
"Per encounter" and "per day" are self-explanatory (intuition: get it back after the encounter / the day ends). So why not "per round" (intuition: get it back after the round ends). Who came up with "at-will (special)" + "Special: Can be used once per round"? That's not clear and concise game design.

What about, instead of an additional power category, creating a keyword like Limited or Per Round?

<snip> Oh yes, I absolutely agree. The weird part is that 3rd edition with all its quirks, imbalances and splatbook mayhem still had very clear and concise core rules. If you compare just the PHB of 3rd and 4th edition and just the definitions of core terms and the combat rules, 3rd edition feels like a very finished, polished product. 4th edition feels like a rushed hackjob.

The PHB in particular has needlessly sloppy core rules text. It could easily be both comprehensible and MUCH more precise. Sure, its not a competitive game and there are plenty of things that can be left open ended, but when nobody can actually figure out what the word 'attack' means I don't exactly think they succeeded in writing quality rules text.

First - I disagree, in large part, to the statement that 4th Core was poorly written. Some updates were needed, but most of the updates that have happened are the result of expansions and splatbooks not being constrained to fit within the rules as is. The argument of "what is an attack" is a perfect example of this. The rules as to what qualified as an attack were fairly well laid out, until Magic Missile was changed to sell 4.5 edition (Essentials). But that is a discussion for a different thread.

Second - With the RPGA "this isn't a tournament" setup where you practically have to have a CB designed and approved character to play in a Wizard's designed adventure to get more RPGA approved cool stuff for your CB designed and approved character to play in the next Wizard's designed module... it is a competitive tournament. I don't think that you would have nearly as much discussion about DPR were it not. And also, if you are going to have a sanctioning body (RPGA) then they need clearly defined rules to sanction, because everybody thinks that they are the one who is right.

This does all tie back into the discussion of what to do about 5th edition. The rules need to be a simple and consistant framework, while the flexibility will be how each power or rule hangs within that frame. I like the ideas of reaction or interrupt (instant or interrupt) to simplify the system. As for the reactions and interrupts slowing down combat, I don't think that is the actual reason combat is slow, but I will have to analyze my game more to be certain.

This does lead me to my next question though.

Do we think the framework of the current system is a good basis or structure to base the next system on?​

I frequently hear people talking about how they have problems with combat going too long, or their wizard is too limited, etc. So, does the basis of the system work for you, or should the change go even deeper?

Personally, I like the At-will, Encounter, Daily approach, the Event/Encounter system, and the equalization of class advancement, but that may be because I haven't seen the better system yet.

 

[ZephyrTR]

Reading all this, its kinda come to my realization that Wizards has sorta forgotten what they learned from magic with Instants and Interrupts.

I think your system cleans up a lot of mess (worse than i thought actually) but why not just have them be called Immediates. You don't need "Reactions" and "Interrupts" because that ought to be explained in the trigger of the attack.

"You are targeted by a Melee attack" is an Interrupt. "You are damaged by a Melee attack" is a Reaction. There's no real need to have two labels.

The way I like to run my games is everyone has a Standard, Move and Minor AS WELL AS an Immediate. 1 (one) immediate they can take, which most often is an Opportunity Attack.

I totally agree with the thought behind your ruling to have triggered effects not be able to trigger other triggered effects, but that's crappy -- how often does XYZ happen so I can use that ability? It would be annoying if that scenario occurred but I couldn't use my triggered power because the enemy used a triggered power.

Just ensure that characters can only perform ONE action outside their turn per round, and then you're guaranteed that big chains will happen very infrequently.

BTW Mkill we should totally talk if you're trying to build out a 5th edition, cause that's... pretty much what i've been doing for the past 6 months. We may not always agree, but we can always swap notes *vulcan salute*

 

[mkill]

I think your system cleans up a lot of mess (worse than i thought actually) but why not just have them be called Immediates. You don't need "Reactions" and "Interrupts" because that ought to be explained in the trigger of the attack.

Strong veto. It's a very good idea to label "interrupt" and "reaction" as different, and as clearly as possible. I don't want to have to guess whether an immediate attack comes before or after from some badly written trigger text.

Maybe you remember the mess that was created by the Battlerager errata update, when suddenly the Battlerager gained temp hp by hitting with an attack, and RAW this immediately gave him the damage bonus for having temp hp.

(That was when we got a clarification to the errata...)

BTW Mkill we should totally talk if you're trying to build out a 5th edition, cause that's... pretty much what i've been doing for the past 6 months. We may not always agree, but we can always swap notes

I had a look at your stuff, but I didn't like it so much. Are you sure you want to hear my criticism? - Sorry, just being honest here.

 

[ZephyrTR]

As far as battlerager, that didn't really have to do with immediate actions. It had to do with immediate effects and the use of ambiguous words like 'when', instead of clearer words like 'while' or 'after'.

But you make a good point -- it's important that it's clear. However, your argument harps on that the trigger text is not spelled out clearly, which is the actual problem. Whether it's called one or the other, if the trigger text isn't clear, the power's unreadable. What you suggest is definitely arguably useful; I'd just rather not have two subcategories on one action category, when it's the trigger text that ought to explain how the power works clearly and succinctly.

And why do you have to ask if I'm sure I want your criticism? It makes it sound like you can't critique something constructively. I don't assume that's the case, so why the hesitation? PM me.

 

[mkill]

Sorry, bad experience with other people. Most RPG authors are very protective of their babies and don't consider anything less than heavenly praise "constructive".

 

[ZephyrTR]

Sorry, bad experience with other people. Most RPG authors are very protective of their babies and don't consider anything less than heavenly praise "constructive".

I promise anything you throw at me, my girlfriend's done 10x worse. And if she finds this post somehow, I mean that in the most loving way possible.

 

[Arlough]

Another thing that I have come to realize should be in 4th, but we can make it be in 5th.

Every class should either use their primary stat for opportunity attacks, or have an At-will that can be used as a basic melee.

I hate fixes that are released in the guise of feats. This includes +1 per tier attack bonus, melee training, etc.

Let's just fix them.