Legends and Lore: A Different Way to Slice the Pie

[LurkAway]

1) Ditch the minor action - trivial things like drawing a weapon etc would simply become free actions. This gets rid of a whole slew of very unclear rules about switching and drawing weapons. It also removes the temptation to create minor action attacks, which are a whole other problematic aspect of the game.

OTOH, rules like drawing a weapon = minor action were born, I think, because of questions at the table about whether your PC should be able to move and draw a weapon at the same time, etc. So by 'ditch', maybe just make it an optional rule.

Theoretically and interestingly contrary to Monte's article, I think that if such a rule had to exist, it might actually feel like it belongs more at the low-level tier than the high level tier. That is, in gritty D&D, a low level PC is more likely to fumble while drawing a weapon while dodging, moving, etc. or fumbling the immediate followup attack. Whereas the epic warrior could do it without a sweat. So the low level combat rules could actually be more complex if it's trying to model combat limitations like that.

P.S. Why are there 2 versions of this thread, here and on the General RPG subforum? Is this one more 4E-ish than the other?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm relatively confident that combat can be made 30-50% simpler along these lines and cut at least a quarter and maybe a half of the time spent on most encounters without any drastic reduction in overall quality of combat.

Very nice post, and I need to spread XP. My criticisms of the columns' direction I have already made in the General copy of this topic. Suffice it to say, that whatever else you can say about the idea, in the end it won't work. Trying it, they will either be consistent or not. If they are, then players will eventually derive the consistency (which will have been maintained in a WotC internal document somewhere to manage it), and we'll be back to written rules that players will learn. OTOH, if they aren't consistent, that is its own set of problems.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OTOH, rules like drawing a weapon = minor action were born, I think, because of questions at the table about whether your PC should be able to move and draw a weapon at the same time, etc. So by 'ditch', maybe just make it an optional rule.

Theoretically and interestingly contrary to Monte's article, I think that if such a rule had to exist, it might actually feel like it belongs more at the low-level tier than the high level tier. That is, in gritty D&D, a low level PC is more likely to fumble while drawing a weapon while dodging, moving, etc. or fumbling the immediate followup attack. Whereas the epic warrior could do it without a sweat. So the low level combat rules could actually be more complex if it's trying to model combat limitations like that.

P.S. Why are there 2 versions of this thread, here and on the General RPG subforum? Is this one more 4E-ish than the other?

Yeah, I know what you mean. OTOH I think the game will still work fine with just a "you can get what you need into your hands once a round" and right now there really is a lot of ugliness with different permutations of Quick Draw, various weapon enchantments, the rules for ammo, and other misc items and class/theme features. A lot of rules ugliness and fiddly silliness would suddenly go away and the only cost would be getting rid of the necessity for players to try to parse a very obscure corner of the rules to make certain concepts work. I suppose there might be a loss of 'gritty feel' for some low level PCs, but most of them just have to expend some resource to negate the whole issue now anyway, so it isn't like it often comes up except as a tax on certain builds. If it only comes up for someone once in a blue moon anyway then the difference is too small to be significant one way or the other IMHO.

[MENTION=93625]CJ[/MENTION] Yeah, basically we're on the same wavelength. I don't think what was proposed in the article is even worth much debate, it is clearly a horrible idea from a rules organization and maintainability standpoint. I can't even understand how an experienced game designer proposed it. I'd have to assume he didn't articulate himself very well.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

P.S. Why are there 2 versions of this thread, here and on the General RPG subforum? Is this one more 4E-ish than the other?

Several previous Legends and Lore columns had generated threads in the 4e Discussion forum, and since I didn't see one active yet, I decided to open one up to discuss it. I never thought to check the General RPG to see if someone had set one up though.

Another example is the condition index. While it may not be totally confortable to look conditions up, and you may disagree on the numbers of conditions, you can have feats and spells that effect them in a standardized manner. You just know what a feat does without kowing every spell.

Yep, it's very easy to just bookmark that list of conditions in either the PHB or the new Rules Compendium. Any time there's a condition question ("Does Restrained make you grant CA?", "Does Immobilize mean I can't teleport?", etc...) I just flip to the condition table and look it up. Easy peasy. Yes, if it were in the power itself it would be faster, but there would be soooooooooo much more text, and errata would take forever to come out. Think of how long it took them to fix teleports and forced movement cheese? It took so long because they had to implement the fixes system wide in multiple powers from multiple books... That's what it would be like if they had to update rules that were included on each power card.

However, agree with Monte cook, that complexity should go up with level. Not rules complexity (D&D 4e is fairly simple in most regards), but option complexity. A first level character should not be forced to browse through 33132414 feats.
Organizing them by category and alowing each character to pick from certain feat (categories) at a certain levels seems reasonable.
For a first level character it should be sufficient to pick a class and one or two weapon category/Implement feats (expertise feats) and be done with it.

Powers at first levels could be reduced, combat options could be reduced... why does a fighter need a bonus to opportunity attacks at 1st level. 3rd level would be enough... why does he need a daily there?
Why does the mage need encounter powers at first level? Why not give them their first power word at 2nd level and make it an improved version of an at will, or a reduced version of a daily?

(the above are just examples and you could find a lot of arguments against it, but for a beginner, or someone trying a new class, you really can´t decide if something works in actual play as you believe it to work on paper. I don´t want a single daily at 1st level for wizards back, but having 1-3 startup levels for any class seems reasonable to me. Add in a rule to start at level 3 or 4 and noone should be sad)

This I kind of agree on... For the feats, yes, it can be a bit intimidating to see the whole Heroic tier that's available when you're creating a character. A nice "cheat sheet" that went more in-depth on sample builds would be good. The samples in the PHB's and others are just too one-dimensional, and not always practical. The feat choice will almost invariably be something that's a class feat, often with a suggestion of Action Surge as the additional feat for a Human (at least in the PHB anyway...). Something updated and with multiple options might be good.

Or, as you said, simply a more limited list for the first few levels. Perhaps at level 4 you get access to the entire Heroic Tier list of feats, but until then you get a more limited subset that includes Expertise, Armor and Weapon Proficiencies, basic Class and Racial feats, and then a few other simple ones.

As for the power thing though, that's already in the system to an extent. Many of the Essentials classes have a very simplified power progression. The Scout that I made awhile back, for example, only got a choice of his two At-Will Stances. His Encounter power was just Power Strike by default, with more uses being gained as he leveled up. There were no Daily Attack powers, just a Daily Utility at level 2. Several others follow the same basic progression style. These are your "simple" classes that allow for new players to get a grasp of the game without being overwhelmed.

That simplicity was achieved solely through the power selection and usage mechanic though, rather than removing rules from the game. I think that's the better long term solution because a player that rolled up a Scout and is ready to pick a more "advanced" class still knows all of the necessary rules of the game, he just has more powers to pick from.

As an aside, that's why the Psionic classes such as the Ardent can be a lot of fun. They're like really advanced classes, because they end up with so many more options due the nature of the augments. They have a lot more versatility in play, but you really have to be on the lookout for situations that allow you to use your powers to their fullest.

 

[Balesir]

1) Ditch the minor action - trivial things like drawing a weapon etc would simply become free actions. This gets rid of a whole slew of very unclear rules about switching and drawing weapons. It also removes the temptation to create minor action attacks, which are a whole other problematic aspect of the game. Sustaining of powers can simply be automatic.

The limitations "only on own turn" and "only once per round" I think are useful - but mix this up with stuff like "only one Free Action that is an attack per turn" as it is now, and I think you could have a broader, more useful "Free Action" system that is a development of this, sure.

2) Immediate Reaction - simply get rid of it. Anything that is now handled by immediate reaction can be handled as an interrupt. This will necessitate some adjustments to other mechanics, but nothing that the game can do now will be impossible to implement as an interrupt. This eliminates an entire class of action, simplifying the rules.

3) Opportunity Action - Just get rid of this as distinct from immediate interrupt. You can take an OA but you only get one per round. This also eliminates another type of action. It will limit the effectiveness of OAs somewhat, but not a whole lot and is no more or less 'realistic' than a character being able to make limitless OAs in a round. It tends to open up tactics a bit as well. Defenders can still have special mechanics to allow more effective stickiness if desired, which is no more complex than what we have now.

I see problems with making OAs once per round - with running through gaps created by pushes, for example - that could lead to real silliness. I would do it the other way around, I think - have "Immediate" actions granted as new ways to get an OA instead of having such a thing as "Immediate" actions at all.

4) Ready Action - simply combine this with delay. There's no overwhelmingly compelling reason for needing both. Anything you can do with readied actions you can basically pull off with a properly designed delay.

Again, I'm not sure that simpler wouldn't be to keep the Readied Action (without the Initiative change) and remove "Delay". Keeping the place in the Init order would save all the hassle with ending effects.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

...I suppose there might be a loss of 'gritty feel' for some low level PCs, but most of them just have to expend some resource to negate the whole issue now anyway, so it isn't like it often comes up except as a tax on certain builds. If it only comes up for someone once in a blue moon anyway then the difference is too small to be significant one way or the other IMHO.

My specific answer to that is that if you are going to have grit, have grit.

If the majority of games are best served by eliminating minor actions, get rid of them. Then if you want a game where drawing a weapon is a major decision, make it hurt. Require a move action to do it. In that scenario, let "quick draw" mean that you can move and draw, but not draw for free (which is fine, if you specifically want to include detail for grit--presumably valuable in this case for the stated aim). If you want to keep the "sustain" idea (which has its place), you might need some other way to handle that. But is hardly as if having "minor actions" are the only way to handle that aspect in games.

That's what gets me about overly fiddly things in D&D. Either X matters or it doesn't. If it matters sometimes and not others, that is still true. When it matters, make it really matter. (See also encumbrance systems that are fiddly but overly generous on weight.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, I like the draw one weapon per turn rule...
not beeing able to switch weapons easily is just annoying... older editions worked well without minor actions...
and with free action attacks only once per turn, you could make all minor action attacks free attacks, that can only be used on your turn... and it would make them just a little bit less effective (and as you said, designers will think twice about adding them to the power mix)

 

[LurkAway]

Then if you want a game where drawing a weapon is a major decision, make it hurt. Require a move action to do it. In that scenario, let "quick draw" mean that you can move and draw, but not draw for free (which is fine, if you specifically want to include detail for grit--presumably valuable in this case for the stated aim).

Or, swinging with the out-of-bounds article, anything is possible. That is, a character can *always* try to quick-draw a weapon. In a complex game, perhaps if he's used up his move actions, then there's an AoO, lose a turn, or other penalty. That models the hero who tries to pull out his weapon in desperation and gets whacked on the head for his efforts. It's just the difference between "no, it's against the rules" and "yes, but...". The former keeps it simple and insulated, the latter opens up more tactical options and weighing of risks.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The limitations "only on own turn" and "only once per round" I think are useful - but mix this up with stuff like "only one Free Action that is an attack per turn" as it is now, and I think you could have a broader, more useful "Free Action" system that is a development of this, sure.

Personally I would prefer to see attacks relegated entirely to either standard actions or some sort of OA/interrupt mechanism. I don't know of anything good that ever came out of minor action attacks. The few cases where it works OK like dragonborn's breath can either just be a free action on your turn or in a few cases might be best as an 'OA'. In fact one might even question if db breath even needs an 'on your turn' restriction, though it probably does keep things simpler. The goal is to minimize the number of special cases and such. I think anything that is an attack that can happen as a free action can simply state "only on your turn" if that's appropriate.

I see problems with making OAs once per round - with running through gaps created by pushes, for example - that could lead to real silliness. I would do it the other way around, I think - have "Immediate" actions granted as new ways to get an OA instead of having such a thing as "Immediate" actions at all.

I don't see it as a problem. In fact I think it is a tactical opportunity kind of thing. There's nothing unrealistic about it, and in point of fact plenty of characters can accomplish it anyway with various items or powers right now. It would CHANGE tactics slightly, but so what? As long as the tactics are engaging and fun it doesn't matter exactly what the details are if they're within the acceptable range of what will seem sensible to players.

I think the actual implementation could be done a couple different ways, that would certainly be amongst the things to figure out in development. Again I think the important consideration is to eliminate and consolidate existing rules. Another goal is to cut back on the flood of out-of-turn action taking without removing it from the game. It is also of course always possible for a specific game element to use 'free action with some use limit' to specifically add a new capability. It should be quite rare and thus not really something that requires a general rule.

One more consideration here is that developers tend to look at the 'list of goodies' they have available and use them, and then use them some more, and then even more, until they're overused. You can see this with the ranger, where a character having ONE minor and/or immediate action attack power isn't too big a deal, but the developers had that tool in their arsenal and just kept pumping them out. No one individual power of that sort is bad, but the net result is preposterous where your average knowledgeable player running an archer ranger can set up a character that can unleash 8-10 attacks in round 1 trivially at high heroic. Given that supplements WILL be added to the game the better approach is not to even have that avenue open as a standard part of the rules. Then if a developer REALLY still wants to do it they have to spell it out in the power, which at least makes it very plain that they're doing something extraordinary.

Again, I'm not sure that simpler wouldn't be to keep the Readied Action (without the Initiative change) and remove "Delay". Keeping the place in the Init order would save all the hassle with ending effects.

Yeah, again there are probably various ways to actually accomplish the simplification, and I don't even know that all my ideas would make the cut. You could be right, and there IS some distinction between the two rules that was clearly intended to provide answers to different situations (IE being set with weapon ready to unleash an attack vs a character simply needing to wait because of the turn structure).

My specific answer to that is that if you are going to have grit, have grit.

If the majority of games are best served by eliminating minor actions, get rid of them. Then if you want a game where drawing a weapon is a major decision, make it hurt. Require a move action to do it. In that scenario, let "quick draw" mean that you can move and draw, but not draw for free (which is fine, if you specifically want to include detail for grit--presumably valuable in this case for the stated aim). If you want to keep the "sustain" idea (which has its place), you might need some other way to handle that. But is hardly as if having "minor actions" are the only way to handle that aspect in games.

That's what gets me about overly fiddly things in D&D. Either X matters or it doesn't. If it matters sometimes and not others, that is still true. When it matters, make it really matter. (See also encumbrance systems that are fiddly but overly generous on weight.)

Right. I think in a lot of these cases what you'll find is that things matter because they exist and people have designed within that framework, but that if you go back to clean slate and look at it from the high level perspective of the whole combat system in a lot of cases an entire feature of the rules could go away and its function can be taken up by other elements, possibly with a bit of generalization or restriction. The result can be slightly different but overall it is 6 of one and half-a-dozen of another.

Gritty things like encumbrance, weapon drawing mechanics, etc could simply be optional rules I suspect. Or you have the general and very high level rule like the existing one and if someone wants to make formal rules for detailed encumbrance it can be optional.

 

[Balesir]

I don't see it as a problem. In fact I think it is a tactical opportunity kind of thing. There's nothing unrealistic about it, and in point of fact plenty of characters can accomplish it anyway with various items or powers right now. It would CHANGE tactics slightly, but so what? As long as the tactics are engaging and fun it doesn't matter exactly what the details are if they're within the acceptable range of what will seem sensible to players.

I'm thinking of effects like Combat Superiority/Combat challenge - which make sense in any system. One OA per round gives a conversation like:

Orc 1: I'll push the little guy out the way - I won't get through by myself - the guys either side are fighters, but if we dogpile the li'l gap one of us is sure to get through.
Orc 2: WTF? Really??

Just make CS and CC a fighter ability that lets you take an OA if a marked, adjacent enemy shifts or makes an attack not including the fighter as a target and one that means fighter OAs that hit stop moves (but not shifts). Job done.