Legends and Lore - What Can You Do?

[LurkAway]

Probably, in at least some form. As discussed up-thread, restricting characters to "one thing only" will vastly impact on the fun of melee types vs ranged types, since the former will need to spend rounds moving into position, while the latter can just get stuck in immediately.

Once the melee types are positioned, they can dish out more damage, whereas the ranged types have to deal with line of sight etc. It's a completely believable narrative that ranged attacks gets first shot (think longbow men and infantry in Braveheart) and engaging in melee is a tactical strategy in itself. I personally don't see a problem with this aspect. I also like the anticipation of the setup for melee -- like moving up your knight on the chessboard, not for immediate gratification, but in anticipation of your next move.

The problem with this is that they'll very quickly start adding in all manner of special combined actions to cover all the bases. Instead of having 3 different actions each with a small number of options, players will have to juggle a single action picked from a list of huge numbers of options.

They might, but they shouldn't. It can still be kept simple, especially in the modular 5E that everyone is theorizing about. Also, if one round = 1 action, there's a fluff time limit to consider -- you can't combine too many actions at once (but interesting consecutive effects are still possible). So it could still just be move or attack or sideswipe. I can't think of any others?

 

[Klaus]

The "attack every round!!!!!!" syndrome is more a matter of staging the combat than a side effect of the rules.

I've DMed encounters where the monsters were in a very defensible position, and the PCs had to retreat and lure the monsters out, or a single PC had to dart down a side corridor to try and attack the monsters from behind.

If all the monsters do is stand there and fight, all the PCs will do is stand there and fight. But if the DM makes the encounter dynamic -- by making the monsters act this way, or by introducing strategic possiblities into the battlefield -- then the PCs will see the value of other actions beyond "standard action = attack".

 

[Weregrognard]

It seems to me that D&D combat has slowly moved from abstract to concrete, but then waffled back and forth. Actions in combat are now very specific - from the three actions to individual powers in 4e, but we still have abstract things like hit points and AC.

I've been reading the Rules Cyclopedia (BECMI) over the Thanksgiving holiday and I'm amazed at all the little differences I'm seeing in the rules. I had completely forgotten how actions in a round went according to phases (first movement, then missile and melee followed by spells.) Cook makes no mention of this in his article, and I feel it might be important to the discussion.

 

[Mercurius]

I haven't read the article (yet), but based upon the responses I don't see why it has to be either/or: either three actions per round (plus possible interrupts) or just one. Why not two? Move and attack; or minor action and move (or attack)? Then you could throw in special powers and conditions that give a third action.

I think it is simply erroneous to say that the minor-move-standard format doesn't slow the game down. I like the tactical nature of it, but some players--and this probably goes for most groups--will really take their time figuring out what they want to do, and it is inevitable that oftentimes they won't figure it out before their turn. We've all heard: "Oh, its my turn? Let's see...do I want to use a daily or encounter?"

Why not combine the standard and move and say that all characters get one major and one minor action? Then there can be special powers or stunts--like charge or fey-step or, with my ranger, my favorite Attacks on the Run--that allow a character to move and attack as a major action.

In summary: Move AND Attack AND Minor seems like over-kill and slows things down. I think Move OR Attack AND Minor would work better, with the caveat that most characters would have special powers--probably encounters or dailies--that allow them to get around this, at least on occasion.

 

[vagabundo]

Really our primary issues with 4e combat are the reliance on movement based powers which all but necessitates minis (We prefer a mix of narrative and mini based combat depending on the scenario), and the sometimes overly gamist nature of the 4e powers system.

I want very little from 5e, but this is one thing they need to do. Mix with this the combining of powers by power source. I want to run some combats on the mat and others by the narrative. It should be easier to do both play styles.

But the 4e combat core and action economy is very nice. I don't want them to fiddle with it too much.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Personally all of the new players I've played with easily grasp the idea that they get one standard action and one move action to use in any order on their turn. Since those are easily grasped I don't think transitioning to one action is going to streamline things that much.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A decent topic for discussion. A single action per round could work fine depending on how it was structured. If one of those actions was CHARGE then the whole move/attack thing is covered.

Movement can also be treated as assumed along with whatever else the character is doing without having to be a separate entity. You could still have major and minor type actions with the amount of move taken determining which is available. Thus:

Up to half move+ major action
Up to full move + minor action
Double move

Charging doesn't have to be as retarded as it is now. Characters are not rail cars and there are no tracks on the battlefield. Establish a minimum distance to gain momentum (10 feet or so) and max distance is the move rate of the attacker. Done. Forget about straight lines, and hindering terrain will reduce distance.

The best thing by far that can be done to speed up combat is ditch the whole individual turn thing. Return to a simple die roll per side. The My turn/Your turn model is not only slower but tends to reduce engagement with the situation as a whole. Yeah you can pay attention when its not your turn but just knowing that there are maybe six other people who have to move, do an action, do a minor action and one of those is the DM and he/she has to go through this for 12 bad guys! .

As much as I hate the thought of it, its easy to see why the turn system contributes to the board game mentality and why some players would whip out angry birds while waiting for a turn.

Letting players perform thier actions freeform as a group combined with each player doing a single action can really speed things up. No more having to wait and see what Bob does on his turn to find out what options you have. Everyone does something on group initiative then the DM does likewise for the opponents.

All the time and energy spent on tracking initiative and managing the batting order can be better spent moving the action along. Its easier to stay focused on the battle when you and your teammates are all acting more or less together as a unit.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Letting players perform thier actions freeform as a group combined with each player doing a single action can really speed things up. No more having to wait and see what Bob does on his turn to find out what options you have. Everyone does something on group initiative then the DM does likewise for the opponents.

I wonder how much time it will really save. If all of the PCs act at the same time before the enemies act I don't have to worry about the enemies moving out of position between Bob's turn and mine. But I'll still need to wait and see how successful Bob's action is before I decide how to act. And if there the players discuss which party member is going to act first in each of their rounds, that'll slow things down as well.

 

[billd91]

The best thing by far that can be done to speed up combat is ditch the whole individual turn thing. Return to a simple die roll per side. The My turn/Your turn model is not only slower but tends to reduce engagement with the situation as a whole. Yeah you can pay attention when its not your turn but just knowing that there are maybe six other people who have to move, do an action, do a minor action and one of those is the DM and he/she has to go through this for 12 bad guys! .

As much as I hate the thought of it, its easy to see why the turn system contributes to the board game mentality and why some players would whip out angry birds while waiting for a turn.

Letting players perform thier actions freeform as a group combined with each player doing a single action can really speed things up. No more having to wait and see what Bob does on his turn to find out what options you have. Everyone does something on group initiative then the DM does likewise for the opponents.

All the time and energy spent on tracking initiative and managing the batting order can be better spent moving the action along. Its easier to stay focused on the battle when you and your teammates are all acting more or less together as a unit.

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I'm actually kind of moving in that direction myself, albeit not completely there yet. I've been treating the NPC initiative as a DC for players to beat with an initiative check. All PCs who beat it can go in any order they choose among themselves, then the NPCs go, then everbody else/restart the order. The effect is generally that high initiative characters go and then we go into side vs side initiative.

I confess that I like the idea of characters being able to invest in ways to improve their initiative. I would want to include that in side-vs-side initiative. Perhaps use an average initiative bonus for each side? Improved init would not be quite as good but it would still improve the whole group score a little. Or apply the +4 as long as someone on the side has it, maybe.

 

[Umbran]

"It also resulted in likely more realistic total combat lengths, with typical fights lasting a few minutes as opposed to a few seconds."

I think Mr. Cook has confused cinema with reality, here. When people fight with deadly earnest, with deadly melee weapons, fights probably don't take minutes unless there are tens or hundreds of people involved.

I think the bogging down starts when you have three different actions types, and you can start to trade them for one-another, trying to squeak the last ounce of utility out. Each choice you make takes time, after all. I think it would be sufficient to have, "You can move and you can take an action on your turn," And not split so many hairs on what kind of actions you can take.

Classic Deadlands does this interestingly - the initiative system tells you how many actions you get in a turn. You get to take one action (like attack) per action. You may move a fixed distance on your turn, spread over your actions, however you want. If you move too far on any one action, you are "running" and take penalties.

The system sometimes bogs down because it is designed to let gun-bunnies get a whole lot of actions, to fill the air with lead, not because each action take a long time to resolve.