Do You Want Multiple Actions Per Turn or Not?

[Bobbum Man]

I say simplify actions into Half Actions or Full Actions and you can two Half actions or one full action.

Attacking would be a half action, so would moving.
The action for spells would be spell dependent.
Trip would be half.
Readying an action would be full.

Just examples of things I have thought of over the years that has simplified things for me.

Sure you could choose to attack twice and move just 5ft, or you could move twice, or Trip and Attack. Going with two Half or one Full Action per turn would greatly simplify things.

I'm a fan of this system.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh and for reactions, I think there could be a rule that makes things very clear:

You can never react to prevent the completion of a triggering action, such that the user loses that action.

Blech!

Often, the whole point *is* to prevent the triggering action from being completed - most common situation here is waiting for a caster to start casting and then interrupt the spell before it resolves; such that the spell is lost to no effect and - if the game allows for such - possibly generates a wild magic surge instead.

Now if they put actual casting times back in such that there is a window of time between start of spell and resolution during which a caster can be interrupted it's not quite as big a deal. But otherwise what you're suggesting makes casting uninterruptable except for full-round spells; and as one of the best ways of reeling in the power of casters is to make casting a non-guaranteed proposition, this doesn't help.

Note that this doesn't include movement, which can be stopped and lost. You can make the triggering action miss, or do less damage, or deflect it to someone else, but you can't teleport away when they say they're going to attack you and make them lose an action. If a teleport away power exists it should be triggered on approach, not attack, to avoid invoking the wrath of this principle.

Why? Again, the point of what the teleporter is doing is specifically to draw an attack away from elsewhere and then avoid it. If they have to teleport out on approach the attacker will just turn on someone else, making the teleport either pointless or very selfish.

Lanefan

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

Where does the 5 ft move in your system come from, action-wise?

Even 3.x had a free 5 ft square move that anybody could take. Got it from there.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I'm a fan of this system.

Thanks. Get rid of AoO's and it would be even better. IMO.

I hate AoO's...nothing but a combat extender.

 

[Serendipity]

Multiple actions per round for PCs? Yes. Multiple attacks per round for PCs? Only for fighters, honestly. None of this should apply to monsters who don't need to be built in a manner consistent with PC chargen.

 

[Oni]

I'd prefer to keep the decision points down, but that doesn't mean I think you should be able to do less stuff in a round.

What I don't want is something like this:
For my move action I vault over his head, then I use my minor action to draw a dagger, and then I use a standard action to attack him.

What I do want is something like this:
For my action I flip over his head drawing a knife as I go, attacking him on the way down.

The second is the same content, but you didn't have to decide what you could and couldn't do with each little subsection of your turn. There are less decisions and considerations and therefore it's faster and more fluid, and also it makes speech at the table more natural as you're injecting less jargon into what you're doing.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Blech!

Often, the whole point *is* to prevent the triggering action from being completed - most common situation here is waiting for a caster to start casting and then interrupt the spell before it resolves; such that the spell is lost to no effect and - if the game allows for such - possibly generates a wild magic surge instead.

Rather than preventing the action from completing, could it not force a check, or apply a penalty to any attack roll required (or bonus to any saving throw required?). I could understand wanting the style of spellcasting you describe, though I don't think that guaranteed non-casting is really a viable way of reigning in magic-users. If you make them all or nothing then every fight will consist of as many readied attacks on the caster as possible and then the entire combat rules have to be constructed around this dynamic of stopping the Wizard vs. protecting them.

Why? Again, the point of what the teleporter is doing is specifically to draw an attack away from elsewhere and then avoid it. If they have to teleport out on approach the attacker will just turn on someone else, making the teleport either pointless or very selfish.

I guess it depends if you see an attack as the only swing of a sword you get to make that round. I prefer to see it as a general 'we're in melee, let's see if I get a hit whilst we constantly parry, dodge and move around'. In which case you shouldn't waste your round attacking someone who isn't really there for most of it.

I just dislike that readied actions can be 'gotcha' moments. If I charge the wizard and they teleport away, I don't get my attack and it feels pretty crappy. Especially if, say, I have movement left and might be able to charge on to the next target, or there's someone right next to the Wizard I could attack.

 

[Pickles JG]

I am really not keen on multiple formal actions or attacks for either PCs or Monsters.
The idea that having two weapons or 2 claws & a bite gives you 2-3 times the offensive is a bizarre throwback to old wargame rules.

Lions grab with their claws then try to choke you (if you are an antelope) they do not jab with their claws then finish you off with a swift bite (or leap on you with all 5 weapons armed & ready). I would like beasts to have attack routines either a straightforward single attack or a triggered follow up like lions getting a bite if they claw you.
The only reason to have multiple attacks would be if these have to target multiple opponents.

Better monsters like the Dragons would need to have multiple attacks to threaten parties based on the solo reasoning of 4e. Even then I would probably give them 3-4 attacks & allow then to use 2 in a given round eg Breath Fire, Bite, Sweep tail about, Grab with Claw. These have to be qualitatively different or why not just make one bigger attack? So Breath is an AOE on a recharge/limited use, Bite is lots of damage, Claw grapples the target, Tail Sweep hits an area & batters people around.

As for 2 half actions/standard actions either of which can be moves or attacks then no thanks. The movement in 4e/5e is essentially free which encourages movement rather than waiting for thing to move up to you so that you can full attack them. While my reason for this is gamist it is also simulationist as waiting for someone to move up to you to attack you takes just as long as moving up!

Meanwhile Owlbears? What's the point? If they are just claw hug bite they are just feathered bears. They used to be CE & smarter than your average bear, but mechanically that just meant, well not a lot but their eyes glowed red. They need something owlbeary not just beary to make them hav a point but with 5e's reversion to old style boring monsters I don't hold out much hope.

The fighter surge mechanic seems like stealth AEDU well AD as E & U have disappeared. This flies in the face of the logic that "martial" classes are consistent while magical ones have a lower baseline but can turn it on when they need to. Well fighters get dailies too except rather than being something cool & different it's more of the same. Surge feels like an encounter power in a world without encounter powers. Cleave is a good power IMO as it is a free attack occasionally that does not require too much mental processing time. I have no idea how well it scales its useless against "bosses" but hey ho that's what reaper is for.

Two weapon fighting needs to be something other than double the number of attacks. However but single weapon styles are always the poor relation, which is realistic but stops the classic swashbuckler archetype dead in the water.

Anyway I like the simple action structure there is at the moment. I liked one minute turns in ADD as they let you do pretty much anything that was not an attack routine in addition to your move & attack. 5e has this as well. It could do with some reasonableness guidelines as swapping to bow from shield & sword instantly seems to improve the flow of the game while swapping back again makes it feel surreal.

 

[delericho]

Technical language good but its use should mirror natural language

(the quote above is from an XP comment)

I agree with this. I'm particularly fond of 5e's use of "advantage/disadvantage" and "challenge" terminology - it serves both as a technical term and feels natural when used in game.

 

[Oni]

Meanwhile Owlbears? What's the point? If they are just claw hug bite they are just feathered bears. They used to be CE & smarter than your average bear, but mechanically that just meant, well not a lot but their eyes glowed red. They need something owlbeary not just beary to make them hav a point but with 5e's reversion to old style boring monsters I don't hold out much hope.

Sometimes the point is the fluff, not the mechanics.