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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 9739022" data-attributes="member: 83242">I agree the flexibility was a good thing. Those extra actions often also often gave an option to remove a condition if you couldn't act at that initiative count. Which was helped, though lose your action, but not better than what I have seen people do with legendary monsters.I guess it is not explicit, but I give legendary monsters their legendary actions even if their action is knocked out. So that was superior to me. Also, like I previously mentioned: most 4e solos did not have that design. Yes, I also forget about AP. I almost always forgot to use them too. That is my big complaint about them.  I admit they could be a good flexible solution. I need to think about what to do so I don't forget them. Maybe if they took up more real estate on the stat block IDK.I think simplicity is a good selling point. But again your are advocating for design that was not the norm. So I guess I consider it a 4e experiment, but not a 4e design.5e24 did standardize LA to all cost 1 action. The thing is LA and IA (4e instinctive actions - see monster vault dragons) are very similar. The difference is you only had one IA, it often doubles also as a LR, and it has a set initiative count. I think the 5e method is superior, but that is personal taste. I think the best option might be combining them.  <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Combine LA and LR so using a LR cost a LA. This gets rid of the HP cost in CR building and gives PCs a benefit for inflicting a condition or effect and allows the monster to free up its action.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Make all LA the same cost for simplicity (already a 5e24 thing)</li> </ol>I have more options, but I would only make the two above standard to leave room for some design flexibility.</blockquote>

Verification