Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How broken would it be to let people always spend a bonus action to make an off-hand attack, even if they didn't use an Attack action with a primary?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RangerWickett" data-source="post: 8118017" data-attributes="member: 63"><p>Okay, so nix that.</p><p></p><p>If I were designing a combat system from the ground up, 6 action points is too much cognitive load. There's only so much complexity a human brain can track at once, and I don't think that sort of action point scheme is the best place to use your neural RAM.</p><p></p><p>I even think PF2's 'three action' system is not as well designed as it could be. It lets you do too many things, and so in order to balance your options it has to levy all sorts of fiddly restrictions or caveats. You often aren't allowed to be good at things, because if you are able to do them too often it breaks the game.</p><p></p><p>I think 5e is <em>close</em>. I'd like to have two actions, plus free movement. (This is similar to 5e's action/bonus action.) However, you could never use more than one action to attack. The second action can only be used to modulate the conditions of the battle. Shove, trip, grab, disarm. Or defend an ally. Or treat a wound. Or throw a tanglefoot bag or smokestick. Or cast a non-damaging illusion. Or hide.</p><p></p><p>My favorite idea is attacks that require set-up on a prior turn. On turn 1 you use one action to attack for damage, then use the next to, say, bind your opponent's sword. Then on turn 2, you might have an attack that says that if your opponent started the turn with their sword bound, you can make them stab one of their allies, then attack the original enemy to as you release the bind. </p><p></p><p>The idea is to have a rhythm of threat-and-response, where you're posing dilemmas and giving the other side a chance to respond. The reason save or suck spells are no fun is because they have no counterplay. But if there was a spell that charms someone, and then once they're charmed you can cast sleep to take them down, the enemy has a window to respond. Maybe they flee to try to get out of range of your spell. Maybe they attack and hope to kill you. Maybe they disarm themselves so they're not as much of a threat to their team. Maybe they use some spell of their own to defend their mind.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RangerWickett, post: 8118017, member: 63"] Okay, so nix that. If I were designing a combat system from the ground up, 6 action points is too much cognitive load. There's only so much complexity a human brain can track at once, and I don't think that sort of action point scheme is the best place to use your neural RAM. I even think PF2's 'three action' system is not as well designed as it could be. It lets you do too many things, and so in order to balance your options it has to levy all sorts of fiddly restrictions or caveats. You often aren't allowed to be good at things, because if you are able to do them too often it breaks the game. I think 5e is [I]close[/I]. I'd like to have two actions, plus free movement. (This is similar to 5e's action/bonus action.) However, you could never use more than one action to attack. The second action can only be used to modulate the conditions of the battle. Shove, trip, grab, disarm. Or defend an ally. Or treat a wound. Or throw a tanglefoot bag or smokestick. Or cast a non-damaging illusion. Or hide. My favorite idea is attacks that require set-up on a prior turn. On turn 1 you use one action to attack for damage, then use the next to, say, bind your opponent's sword. Then on turn 2, you might have an attack that says that if your opponent started the turn with their sword bound, you can make them stab one of their allies, then attack the original enemy to as you release the bind. The idea is to have a rhythm of threat-and-response, where you're posing dilemmas and giving the other side a chance to respond. The reason save or suck spells are no fun is because they have no counterplay. But if there was a spell that charms someone, and then once they're charmed you can cast sleep to take them down, the enemy has a window to respond. Maybe they flee to try to get out of range of your spell. Maybe they attack and hope to kill you. Maybe they disarm themselves so they're not as much of a threat to their team. Maybe they use some spell of their own to defend their mind. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How broken would it be to let people always spend a bonus action to make an off-hand attack, even if they didn't use an Attack action with a primary?
Top