Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LurkAway" data-source="post: 5741786" data-attributes="member: 6685059">Clearly, the problem is that everyone has different ideas of what a PC could do as an action(s) -- it seems there really is no one consensus.This was touched upon briefly, but how about a single action economy with exception-based flexibility: pick a class (based on training/power source), pick some features, pick a combat build. Whereas the class defines what you can do overall, the combat role defines how you do it in combat.Default is always 1 action per 1 round. It's an abstraction of what normal creatures can do in combat. Your chosen hero combat build tells you what are the exceptions for you, something like:- tanks can move into melee + draw a weapon OR attack + 5 ft step- high mobility melee builds can move + melee attack, maybe quaff a potion or draw a weapon as a free action- ranged spellcasters can move + cast a spell, drawing an implement or scroll is a free action- monsters are not heroes and often follow the default 1 move or 1 action, but some monsters will surprise you with their speed and ferocityThe system isn't forcing one paradigm of move + attack + minor action(s) + free action(s) on everyone, it's empowering player choice. The social contract is that those who pick mobile combat builds need to watch out for analysis paralysis. To offset multiple action types, class powers would be a little simplified, as people have often claimed is a good idea anyway.If multiple actions type exceptions seem confusing, you are only responsible for knowing your own actions. It's only the DM's problem to remember what everyone's actions types are (if a player somehow can't be trusted to get it right).From an immersion POV, if a player wants to keep track of everyone's action types, you're living up to roleplaying a tactical team-oriented combatant. If you can't remember or you don't care, you're roleplaying the lone wolf or lower wisdom type. If the DM forgets while strategizing monster actions, that's OK too -- monsters aren't typically aware of what the heroes can or cannot do.As an aside, if an action is defined as what you're guaranteed to be able to do in 1 round, and not what you can do in 1 round, that could justify an optional rule of trying a 2nd action and succeeding to do both on a successful roll or fumbling both actions if you fail the die roll. I'm not sure if it's a good idea in practice.Lastly, I agree it would be interesting to try out side initiatives again, and have that interesting rock-paper-scissors effect when you first announce your 1 action and then see how it interacts with the opponents' actions.The game theories experts can tell me that I'm off my rocker now <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification