Legends and Lore: you get one action...

[keterys]

Okay, if my goal were to take a serious axe to the system and chop off the cumbersome parts and streamline things, I'd still want to make sure that folks could move. Now, it's very possible that when he says you choose to Attack or Move, he means "Attack and move half your speed" or "Move your speed", which is close to what we have now and I'd be fine with it.

Anyhow, action-wise:
I'm willing to drop Minors entirely at this point, or to do some serious surgery on what you're allowed to do with them (eg, not attacks) and/or their repercussions (maybe using a minor eats your ability to use an immediate)
I think Immediates and Opportunities should be severely streamlined or tossed.

I'd toss Delayed init for sure. I'd monkey with Readied to partially toss it. Make sure hostage negotiation still works (it _doesn't_ now) and make sure readying to maximize buffs or shed debuffs doesn't (they _do_, boo)

 

[keterys]

Just for fun, some examples of ways you could streamline things on the action side (conditions are thornier)...

Roll Once: You're attacking three targets? Roll once. Apply.
Attack Once: You're Twin Striking the target? Great, roll once, deal 1W (Primary) + 1W (Off-Hand) if you hit.
Remove Extraneous Rolls: Rolling is fun, but too much rolling just bogs the game down. If it's not a standard action, it probably doesn't need a damage roll. Ex: Zones, Auras, defender punishment, healing words, etc.
Condense Rolls: Your 7W attack could do 14d6 brutal 2. Or it could do 2d6 brutal 2 *times 7*.
Kill Rerolls: Okay, not all rerolls are bad... occasional rerolling a failed save, missed attack, those can be fine. But Brutal? Out back, shoot it. If you want that, just change the die mechanic (ex: 1d10+2 instead of 1d12 brutal 2) or make brutal _set_ the min damage. 1d12 brutal 4. Any 1, 2, 3 you roll... now it's a 4.

Instead of OAs, just have some people threaten and they automatically deal damage when you do bad things around them.

Defender's Aura
(Free) If an enemy makes an attack that does not include you or leaves the aura, it takes Str modifier damage.

Healing Word
(Free) When you take a standard action on your turn, one ally in 5 can spend a healing surge.

*checks watch* Damn, still not time to leave work

 

[TerraDave]

My issue with this, as I noted in the other thread, is that many players seem to take a certain amount of time no matter how much or little they do. Cutting actions could actually slow things down overall.

The other is the action economy. Basically, the current system makes movement relatively cheap (minors could probably be ditched, and that stuff handled in other ways).

 

[keterys]

Yeah, I definitely thumbs down any plan that removes movement.

If you can generally move half your speed, and attack, but you couldn't turn your move action into a minor action that you use to (attack, second wind, put up a buff, activate a teleport, command a summon, etc, etc). Well, sure. I think there are ways you could get rid of minor actions, with some serious housekeeping, but don't kill movement. Making you choose to attack or move won't make your turn faster. It'll make you move less. Boo.

 

[Mengu]

Putting a leash on the off-turn dice rolling would definitely be a big plus.

But what I really want to see is a quicker resolution of the d20 roll. I think a lot of time is wasted adding attack bonuses and comparing them to defense values, particularly while the DM is taking his turn. While we're talking hypotheticals, here is one...

PC vs Monsters: PC's need to roll 6+ to hit grunts, 8+ to hit most normal enemies, 10+ to hit boss creatures (TBD by DM, grunts can be low level skirmishers or minions, boss can be a "high level" leader or whatever).

Monster vs PC's: Monsters need an 8+ to hit most PC's, 10+ to hit defenders.

Reduce the target number by 2 for combat advantage, increase by two for concealment, etc. This method would eliminate the trip to the character sheet/monster block for referencing attack and defense. Looking at the miniature that's attacking/being attacked, and the number on the die will suffice to determine a hit or miss. It works regardless of level. I realize it becomes a different game, a different system altogether, but I did say hypothetical.

 

[Walking Dad]

I really hope they take all of Monte's ideas and make that an own game. The could call it Arcana Revolved or Reloaded (see his own imprint core books). But let this please not be the next official D&D...

 

[Scribble]

I'd like to see more about what they would do, and maybe see it in action before reserving any final judgement...

Seems like a lot of people are thinking about it in terms of, take 4e as is, and lop off multiple actions... Remember he also said they'd make other changes too... Like more stuff becoming essentially "free" actions.

I think it could add a little more "real time" ness to the whole thing.

I'm not so sure it would remove tactics, or make them harder... It would definitely change them.

I could see it adding a little more to the team play aspect, since you'd definitely have to get your friends to back to to keep things in the positions you need...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here's the problem as I see it though, and this is really not going to be affected by details of implementation:

1) ANY action economy that forces you to choose between attacking and other actions is going to heavily discourage other actions. Even 'move half speed and attack' puts a pretty hefty crimp on players ability and desire to move around and achieve meaningful tactics. Nor would anything short of 'attack OR do something else' have any meaningful impact on game speed at the table. In fact it simply forces the player to balance even more factors. In many cases even a straight up choice between move and attack will require a GREATER amount of deliberation than simply being able to do both.

2) It puts a giant crimp in a lot of reasonable action sequences. By separating a character's ability to move and attack you automatically create an opportunity for the enemy to react to any tactics which involve moving and attacking. No more moving out of a concealed position, flying by, attacking and withdrawing, or moving into a flanking position and gaining advantage, etc. It has a huge impact on tactics and forces the game designers to create numerous workarounds for reasonable courses of action that SHOULD work. This is simply adding complexity and making the game more awkward and clunky. Again, this means players will have to spend time and energy working around limitations instead of just doing what they want to do.

I just don't see where it speeds the game up in any likely situation and it creates any number of awkwardnesses, degrades the tactical element of the game etc. Frankly I think the entire concept can be dismissed out of hand as any alternative I can come up with is simply worse.

As others have said (and I've said it many times in other places too) there are a number of action types that are fiddly and could be consolidated or just removed. That would have a bigger impact on table speed with lower cost to the game than any more limiting approach. Clearly if Monte has some revolution in game design in mind then he needs to put the suggestion forth because whatever it is it is currently not known to the wargaming community AFAIK and I've been playing wargames for a LONG time, so I think I'd know.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

About as simple as I can see it every getting, while avoiding most of those issues in Abdul's #2 point above, is go to a "dual action" economy:

1. You can do any two different actions per turn.

2. All activities are either free or cost an action. (e.g. Saying a few words is free. Conversing while you do something else takes one of those actions.) That is, each activitiy is either significiant enough to count against the action economy, or it isn't.

3. This restriction is very strict, but is applied per mind. That is, if you want to break it for certain solo monsters or whatever (e.g. Ettin with two heads) then you only do so when the monster has multiple brains. For things like dragons getting more options, combine the claw/claw/bite routine into a single roll (again, per Abdul) with lots of damage narrated as claw/claw/bite and/or add a handful of reactive options (e.g. tail sweep). So a single "attack" from dual wielding or flurries of attacks may be narratively multiple strikes, but if you can do it in one action, it gets one attack roll.

4. If it isn't perfectly clear from the above, you never get multiple "attacks" in a round, even if you pass on using your second action. You only get that second action because heroes can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. They don't chew faster when they stand still.

5. For most other corner cases, define an alternate "action" in the mechanics that keeps the above rules clean in letter, even if poking around the spirit. (This is more or less what claw/claw/bite as a single attack does.) For example, there is a "move" action where you can move your speed. Then there is a "burst" action where you can move your speed +2. Finally, there is a "shift" action where you can move 10 feet. (Shifts provoke no interrupts, move provoke a handful of simple interrupts, and bursts provoke any possible interrupt.) To do nothing but move in a round, pick any two that suit you.

6. The slow condition costs the victim one action per turn. The haste condition adds one action per turn. All above rules still apply, notably the requirement that each action be different. Thus, slow and haste naturally cancel out while both are running on the same target, but if they have different durations, this is accounted for.

7. Ready/Delay is itself an action (probably a combined one). You don't have to state what you are doing when you "delay" but being "ready" to do something later costs you an action besides the thing you intend to do.

Edit: This things extrapolates naturally. I may be on to something here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, OK, so we've basically done away with the TERMINOLOGY of having 2 different types of actions (move and standard) and retained the actuality of it in effect. That's OK, though I'm not sure what it buys you on its own.

The 'it is always one attack' thing is fine. I think that for PCs that is especially valuable. Honestly I don't even know that monsters generally need this kind of restriction, but it is probably easier to keep things consistent.