Blog: Reacting to the Reaction

[UngeheuerLich]

I am really starting to think that they just can't accept that 4E brought good things into the game. The Reaction...action seems to be EXACTLY the same thing as the Immediate action from 4E. I really hate that they are getting rid of the Minor action. I could see leaving it in place, but limiting what actually can be done in that action. No more Minor Action attacks and whatnot.

Problem:

if there is a minor action, at some point there will be a minor action attack...

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Problem:

if there is a minor action, at some point there will be a minor action attack...

But there doesn't need to be. They are the ones designing the game. They can decide NOT to include one. Seriously, lay out like ten things you can do with a minor action, and call it a day. NEVER write new things.

But, I get what you are saying. Inevitably SOMEONE will try to include more and more into minor actions.

 

[pemerton]

if there is a minor action, at some point there will be a minor action attack...

You mean like the Spiritual Hammer spell in the playtest?

 

[KidSnide]

I am really starting to think that they just can't accept that 4E brought good things into the game. The Reaction...action seems to be EXACTLY the same thing as the Immediate action from 4E. I really hate that they are getting rid of the Minor action. I could see leaving it in place, but limiting what actually can be done in that action. No more Minor Action attacks and whatnot.

I disagree. First, WotC has included a number of good things that 4e brought into the game: encounter building, fast monster design, tactical options for martial characters, at-will attacks for spell casters. Those are all in D&DN.

I just don't include minor actions in that list. If the actions are truly "minor", then why do players have to spend time and brain energy accounting for them? Those actions are better thought of as either free or -- for OCD games -- part of the movement budget. Is the game really better if PCs move and attack while opening a door and drawing a weapon?

And, yes, a Reaction is just the same think as an Immediate Reaction. It's just easier to explain. "Reaction" is a better term than "Immediate" for "out-of-turn", and the game is easier to learn when there aren't two types.

-KS

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You mean like the Spiritual Hammer spell in the playtest?

I can´t see minor action anywhere... maybe i have missed it.

 

[Balesir]

I can´t see minor action anywhere... maybe i have missed it.

Well, they don't call it a minor action, obviously - but it walks like a duck and it swims like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so I'll call it a duck! How much stuff can you chuck on top of what is already an "action" before you admit that it's not really "an action" any more, it's a collection of several actions?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well, they don't call it a minor action, obviously - but it walks like a duck and it swims like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so I'll call it a duck! How much stuff can you chuck on top of what is already an "action" before you admit that it's not really "an action" any more, it's a collection of several actions?

a lot better than having to think about minor actions all the time...

 

[pemerton]

I can´t see minor action anywhere... maybe i have missed it.

Adding to [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s two posts upthread, what is the point of the objection to minor action attacks?

If the objection is to the existence of the label "minor action", then that's been done.
But there is no functional difference between a minor action attack in 4e, and an attack that you make "as part of your action", which is what the playtest Spiritual Hammer grants.

I thought the objection to minor action attacks was the objection to attacks which are additional to a PC's main attack, and therefore (i) clog the round with additional activity that the player has to think about, and (ii) create balance problems. With the Spiritual Hammer spell we see the emergence of both these issues. As soon as we get more spells, or themes/feats, or whatever that have analogous designs, one or both of these two issues will emerge.

And if you're confident that the designers won't introduce more powers/spells/abilities along these lines, why not trust them reintroduce the "minor action" category but not to extend it to attacks?

 

[Balesir]

a lot better than having to think about minor actions all the time...

I guess this is just one of those things I will never understand...

You have a collection of new actions that you have to think about in a mess of ways because they are not really defined as "actions" but add on to the actions that are already there in ways that are undefined (and heaven knows how they will interact with other effects that do similar things in the future), but this is "a lot better" because they don't have the term "Minor Actions" associated with them??? That's just bizarre!

 

[Balesir]

But there is no functional difference between a minor action attack in 4e, and an attack that you make "as part of your action", which is what the playtest Spiritual Hammer grants.

Actually, there is a functional (or, rather, "non-functional", but let's not be picky) difference. The new-old spellcasting regime presumably means that you could, potentially, get two Spiritual Hammers to cast in the same "day". And, if you cast them both, one after another, you presumably now get two extra actions-that-are-not-really-actions-but-are-"part of your action" (huh??) every turn.

All we need now is a few more spells (because gods forbid that non-spellcasters get such complex superpo- er, stuff) that do similar stuff and we'll be able to pimp up the "monstrous regiment of Father Theophilus"...

Oh, but wait - I have the perfect solution! You can only do one action-that-is-not-really-an-action-but-is-"part of your action" per turn - fixed!

Where is the "facepalm" smiley when you need it?