Legends and Lore - What Can You Do?

[I'm A Banana]

I am in big favor of moving to the "do one thing" model. If you need to move and attack, they call that a "charge."

Of course, if you're not tracking individual squares in a detailed simulation of the pseudo-reality of the game, movement becomes part of your assumed attacks, anyway. You don't track squares, you don't need detailed movement rules, you can move slightly as part of your attack, since the only movement that matters is between ranges (melee and ranged) and if there's any special battlefield elements to trigger (high ground or cover or flanking, forex). And that SHOULD use up your action to gain.

 

[dangerous jack]

Although the number of powers/choices per action definitely is a primary factor in lengthening the combat, I really think the number of actions compounds this. Especially when they're interchangeable (e.g. 3 minors). So it's not cognitively just 1 fewer action to think about when going from 3 to 2 actions, but more like going from 6 multiple choice decisions down to 3.

I'm not fully convinced going all the way to one action is necessary, because I worry that then there would just be a temptation to add movement related Effects to half the powers anyway, but I'm definitely extremely interested in seeing what they're thinking.

By increasing tactical positioning advantage (+4 for flanking?, +2 to attack & AC for higher ground?), I could see giving up attacks to move. Forget the move + minor to get a potion out and drink it. "I drink my healing potion" just becomes your action. There's a certain appeal to that.

 

[LurkAway]

Of course, if you're not tracking individual squares in a detailed simulation of the pseudo-reality of the game, movement becomes part of your assumed attacks, anyway. You don't track squares, you don't need detailed movement rules, you can move slightly as part of your attack, since the only movement that matters is between ranges (melee and ranged)

And that it doesn't have to be either-or. In the same game session, you could get hash out a quick combat on the fly with no minis, and then run the next major longer combat with minis.

 

[LurkAway]

In a modular 5E, what if the very definition of "1 action" was modular?

In a simple KISS game, 1 action = attack or move or drink potion or etc.

In a complex game, 1 action = attack + move + minor action(s) + free action(s)

Maybe in a gritty game, drawing a weapon is an action in itself. Maybe in an epic game, you can draw a weapon and jump kick all in 1 action.

Could the combat math work if the definition of an action and/or the length of a round was variable? (Sorry if this is a stupid question)

 

[Ainamacar]

I am in big favor of moving to the "do one thing" model. If you need to move and attack, they call that a "charge."

Of course, if you're not tracking individual squares in a detailed simulation of the pseudo-reality of the game, movement becomes part of your assumed attacks, anyway. You don't track squares, you don't need detailed movement rules, you can move slightly as part of your attack, since the only movement that matters is between ranges (melee and ranged) and if there's any special battlefield elements to trigger (high ground or cover or flanking, forex). And that SHOULD use up your action to gain.

I think the notion of the charge is useful when you start somewhere and need to end somewhere else to attack, but there are all sorts of attacks (especially if against multiple creatures) where this simple division isn't suitable. I'd rather divide actions into essentially parallel and sequential actions. I generally think of movement as something that can be performed in parallel with other actions during a turn, along with things like talking.

So I'd consider having standard and minor actions, and then parallel actions like movement or talking simply take place during the turn when necessary. This is the norm for mini-less combat, but I'd put a little extra on top to increase modularity for minis combat. Namely, certain standard or minor actions would specify whether or to what degree they are compatible with movement during the turn.

For example, maybe a sweeping attack that target all adjacent enemies has the "stationary" keyword, which prevents it from being used when taking tactical movement. Some might be "begin" or "end", which means they must take place before or after all movement has occurred. (Charge would be an example of the latter.) A normal attack might not specify anything, so the player can choose to take the action anywhere during the movement it is convenient. This would allow a smooth upgrade path for people who become skirmishers, for example. So the sweeping attack described earlier might be upgraded in such a way that it allows some movement before or after, and eventually to movement (perhaps half movement) anywhere during the attacks.

 

[MortonStromgal]

Id rather see something like you can do 3 actions, some spells and attacks may take multiple actions. Moving takes one of your actions but you could also attack 3 times if you wanted or draw, load your crossbow and fire.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

My first thought was: I run up to the bad guy and... stand there waiting for him to hit me. No thank you, very much. Of course, many have pointed out that a charge and attack could be considered one action. But why only a charage? Why can't I just walk up to him and hit him?

But mostly, as has been pointed out, the real problem is the number and complexity of options available. And how to fix that I have no idea, although there have been some very thought provoking ideas bandied about here.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I like where Monte is going here although it would be a huge shift to just a single action each round.

How about this as a compromise:

- Every character gets a single "Action" each round. This is the primary thing your character does in that round.

- In addition to this, characters have one or more "Reactions" they can perform in a round, that can be triggered off of other Actions or Reactions. For example: using a shield against an attack to buff your character's AC, making an opportunity attack, casting a cantrip when offered advantage against an adjacent foe, shifting a certain distance if an attack on your character misses and so on.

Because they are reactions, they force the players to:
- Pay attention when it is not their turn, thus keeping all players involved.
- Say what they are doing or lose the opportunity; you can't um and arrr over it because there is a severe limitation to the number of things you can do given a specific trigger and it is a reaction and expected to be done or not done quickly at the table.
The overall effect would seem to be a highly dynamic battlefield keeping all players on their toes for the duration.

The number of reactions a combatant can do in a round increases with level. A high level character might have up to 5 reactions in a round (you track your reactions perhaps by having a separate d20 represent each reaction). You now have an important currency aside from hit points that can be used and abused.

For example if a combatant is stunned, they lose the capacity to react until their next turn. A dazing blow can strip a reaction from a combatant. Using a light weapon allows for a lot of weapon based reactions such as opportunity attacks. Using a heavy weapon such as a greataxe though, does not allow for opportunity attacks quite as easily (perhaps you can burn "reactions" to augment your standard action for bigger power attacks though).

You could just leave this simply as a single action and multiple reactions for characters. If you wished to turn the complexity dial though, those reactions could be split up into:
- A single minor reaction (for more powerful reactions that you only want possible once a round)
- Martial reactions
- Mental or Inner reactions
By splitting Martial and Inner reactions, you are ensuring that the wizard with 3 wizardly reactions can't go spending those inner reactions on martial pursuits. Alternatively here, you could link reactions to a power source (martial, arcane, divine or primal).

Just some thoughts.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[KidSnide]

There are two critical features to save from 4e:

* Mobile Combat (e.g. Move without sacrificing attacks) - it doesn't matter whether characters get a move action distinct from the standard action, or whether characters can move a decent amount (whatever that is) for free, but it important that characters be able to move around without sacrificing attacks.

* Supplemental Healing (e.g. Heal without sacrificing attacks) - minor actions can go, but healers need to be able to use at least some of their healing abilities without sacrificing their ability to do something more interesting.

So long as these two rules aspects are preserved, I think it's a great idea to try simplifying the types of actions. The current rules on minor actions and immediate actions creates an odd sort of system where characters try to collect magic items and utility powers to allow them to fully exhaust their supply of minor and immediate actions. I like that immediate actions give players a reason to play attention outside their turn, but I think the game would be better if less time was allocated to "secondary" actions.

-KS

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

This was just what I was going to say.

I agree that a 'you can move and take one action' would be a preferred way of handling it for me. the whole sheathing/unsheathing weapons, opening doors and such could be nicely hand waved. The one action might include charge attack enabling a move + move & attack, or run to let someone dedicate a whole round to getting somewhere faster - but it doesn't require that kind of construct.