A Time Limit On Multiple Actions Per Turn!

[ren1999]

We just discovered a really fun dynamic for multiple actions per turn or 1 reaction out of turn.

If the DM announces an attack on the character, the player must shout his or her reaction to stop the DM immediately after the attack, or damage or event. If the player doesn't react fast enough, the DM may deny the reaction.

At the start of the player's turn, if the player does not announce all the actions in sequence right away, the player only gets one action. For example, if a 5th level character has two attacks and the player does not say, shield bash the goblin on the right and slash the goblin on the left, then the player only gets to slash.

This should keep the momentum going and avoid all delays with multiple actions per turn. This also forces the player to keep participating out of turn and watch the change of the scene to determine just how he or she will act next.

Of course 1st through 4th level characters will only get 1 reaction when attacked or 1 action per turn. So they'll have longer to consider what they would do when they reach 5th and higher levels in combination.

This could open a whole new level of play. Immediate declaration of actions or you only get one.

My Dungeons & Dragons Hybrid Game for Firefox and Chrome kira3696.tripod.com/CombatTracker.rar

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I really like this idea, mainly because it's something to keep players engaged when it's not their turn. I have a feeling you're going to get mixed reactions, though. I've seen posts on similar mechanics by players who hate real-time reactions having an effect on the game.

 

[ren1999]

I really like this idea, mainly because it's something to keep players engaged when it's not their turn. I have a feeling you're going to get mixed reactions, though. I've seen posts on similar mechanics by players who hate real-time reactions having an effect on the game.

I hated real-time reactions in Final Fantasy X-2. But at least with a table-top game the players will have time to think about it until the beginning of their turn. It doesn't seem like too much pressure.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Hm, I don't think you're onto a winner here. It's all very well trying to engage the players when it isn't their turn, but realistically it's the sort of time you spend checking your character sheet, getting a drink/snack or talking tactics. Not to mention, the idea of having to interrupt the DM before they make an attack on you to be allowed to react sounds like a rather childish game of shouting.

Planning your whole turn out and declaring it so that you don't lose actions will surely *not* speed up the game either, since you must consider all the options in advance - you will suffer from choice paralysis. Yes, sometimes it will straightforward, but if there's a chance you down an enemy you have to consider what the probability of that is before deciding how to use your second attack.

I know you *really* like the idea of players gaining more actions as they increase in level, but there is no way in which it cannot lead to longer and more complex combat.

 

[delericho]

We do something similar, but not as draconian - when your turn arrives, you are expected to declare your first action of the round promptly or you lose your turn. (And that is "lose your turn" - it doesn't default to a delayed action. Of course, declaring "delay" is a valid choice.)

The thing is, the situation in combat can change quite quickly, and some actions can be contingent on the results of previous actions. So it's not reasonable to expect players to declare everything at the outset IMO.

We don't have a lot of reactions/interrupts in our 3.5e game, but where they do apply, players are again expected to declare them promptly - once the action causing the interrupt is resolved, it's too late to go back and interrupt it.

The truth is as Chris_Nightwing says - if you allow multiple actions then you inevitably introduce slowdown. All you can do is try to mitigate that slowdown.

However, for me multiple actions have never been a cause of great slowdown - the issue has generally been either indecisive players failing to pick an action or, more commonly, those particular types of action that just take a long time to resolve - dispels, polymorphs, and the like.

As such, I'm actually happy with the 3e action economy (though 4e generally gets it better); where I want work done on those specific difficult areas. (And for 5e, I'm not terribly happy with what they've done with actions, as I think it's a step back. But I'm willing to live with it.)

 

[Li Shenron]

Oh no... I played with a DM that tried that approach and frankly I hated it with a passion. It's definitely not for me

If you're having fun, go for it. My word of warning is just to keep it under check, and be open to dropping/suspending it eventually, because my own experience was that even those who were having fun with it on the first evening, they were soon bothered by it on subsequent sessions. There are always times when the combat gets more complicated and needs more careful thinking, and it would be a pity to give that up just to enforce the established rule.

 

[Agamon]

Not my cup'o'tea, either, as a DM. And I can see this being a big turn-off for certain player types, as well. But if it works well for a group, then it's certainly a good idea.