Legends and Lore: you get one action...

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

It buys clarity in the rules presentation, though of course a great deal of that will be the terminology. (And I'm sure that professionals could present it far more clearly than I've thrown out here off the cuff.)

Mainly, you don't have to trade actions across types or worry about which ones trade and how. Say that drinking a potion is an action. I don't worry about it being a move equivalent or minor or standard or whatever. It's not free, so it is an action. This is the main benefit of the "single action" economy idea, but preserved in a system that won't have all of those rough exceptions you mentioned.

Now admittedly, it does lead to some interesting situations with magic. Namely, you can cast or otherwise activate (magic items) defensive, healing, and utility magic and still attack, but you can't attack with a spell and a weapon same round. I see this as a feature, not a bug--at heart an extension of the 4E enhancement that healing is generally does not rob one of an attack. But it certainly would prompt a hard look at any non-attack magic for power level.

Edit: I sometimes think that the whole point of having different types of actions is to break the mindset that multiple, highly effective attacks make sense. 4E does a fairly decent job of that, though the sneaking in of attacks on moves and minors has muted it. People have this sense in their heads that having two weapons makes one twice as effective on offense, when the limit (in reality) has almost always been the coordination of brain/eye/hand/feet. What I proposed locks that down more firmly. And that is the main reason why there should not be exceptions for monsters, barring the rare multiple brain creature.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right. I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't be a good way to present it. It might make sense and perhaps you're correct and it would fall out that it would create a nice distinction between types of powers. Anyway, I don't really dislike the concept. It's an option that would be worth considering. The complexity might pop back up in other places but it is hard to say for sure.

In any case, removing basically ALL multi-attacking is a good idea, as is reducing dice rolling to a minimum.

I think removing things like 'high crit' and 'brutal' and other various fiddly and marginally useful things would be an excellent idea as well. If a weapon is really seriously nasty, just up the damage, etc.

 

[Scribble]

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.

I don't know if I agree here based solely on my own observations in the transition of my games from 3e to 4e.

In 3e since it was such a huge amount of time to get around the table people didn't waste actions at all. They sat and thought how they could use every single action to their best.

When 4e rolled out I started seeing people every so often just move extra or just move and wait in an effort to think longer, or get better positioning- they didn't care because it wasn't going to be that long until their next shot.

I've even done it myself as a player- so personally I think there's something to be said about speed of movement around the table effecting how willing you are to only have limited actions.

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.

This I definitely see as an implementation thing- remember he also talked about ideas like added rules elements that appear as needed.

Maybe a power for rogues allows you to move out attack then back into hiding all in one action.

(but probably if you didn't like that article you won't like this idea. )

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.

I just don't agree that it degrades the tactical element... I mean you only get one action at a time in chess... and there are a ton of books on chess tactics.

It just changes the tactics that's all.


In the end- like I said above I'd like to see it in action or more fleshed out before being able to weigh in fully on it... I think it's easy to imagine any number of nightmare scenarios for anything if all you want to do is think negatively about something.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Right. I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't be a good way to present it. It might make sense and perhaps you're correct and it would fall out that it would create a nice distinction between types of powers. Anyway, I don't really dislike the concept. It's an option that would be worth considering. The complexity might pop back up in other places but it is hard to say for sure.

In any case, removing basically ALL multi-attacking is a good idea, as is reducing dice rolling to a minimum.

I think removing things like 'high crit' and 'brutal' and other various fiddly and marginally useful things would be an excellent idea as well. If a weapon is really seriously nasty, just up the damage, etc.

No problem, I didn't see any negative implications in anything you said.

I agree with you entirely on those fiddly attack options. In one way, the 4E design has opened up space to take out those fiddly options, though the current linkage of each power to a single class has hid it a bit. One drawback of a simple action economy is that people have this visual idea of the flurry of dagger attacks or the big warrior swinging his greatsword and slashing multiple orcs. So there is a natural tendency to include multiple attacks to accommodate such.

However, with 4E-style powers, you can still limit it to a single attack, but build powers to handle those options. "Miss" effects help with the all or nothing problem of simply upping the damage on a nasty attack, though perhaps some "true miss" could replace "fumble" on the lower end of the d20 range, and maybe crit could be more graduated. I wouldn't want to get into different damage number for making or missing by 5, but something like this might be worth pursuing for these big attacks in a single roll:

• 1-2 - "true miss", no damage
• 3 to one less than target number - "minor hit", use a 4E-style "miss" effect but renamed
• Hit target number to 18 - "hit", standard
• 19-20 - "crit", enhanced damage

Use that for everything, but then use powers to further differentiate. For example, there are a lot of simple, early powers that have no "minor" hit or "crit" effect, and they work easily. ("Minor" hits bounce off armor.) Stronger and/or more complicated powers do more involved things in those categories.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't know if I agree here based solely on my own observations in the transition of my games from 3e to 4e.

In 3e since it was such a huge amount of time to get around the table people didn't waste actions at all. They sat and thought how they could use every single action to their best.

When 4e rolled out I started seeing people every so often just move extra or just move and wait in an effort to think longer, or get better positioning- they didn't care because it wasn't going to be that long until their next shot.

I've even done it myself as a player- so personally I think there's something to be said about speed of movement around the table effecting how willing you are to only have limited actions.

Uhhhhh, any player who wastes a standard action is SERIOUSLY gimping themselves. You win by attacking (in 99% of situations). No attack, no motion in the direction of victory. Clearly there are situations where you simply HAVE to move, but no player with even the faintest quantity of tactical sense will ever forgo an available attack option. I certainly can't speak to what you've seen at your table, but even the least tactically adept players I've played with have a pretty firm grasp of this, and the entire history of 3.x and the 'everyone stands and multi-attacks' issue that has been noted by pretty much everyone that has ever commented on 3.x action economy tells me I am not even remotely close to alone in this. I feel utterly confident in saying that 99% of all players will move quite a bit less often if it means sacrificing a round of attacks.

This I definitely see as an implementation thing- remember he also talked about ideas like added rules elements that appear as needed.

Maybe a power for rogues allows you to move out attack then back into hiding all in one action.

(but probably if you didn't like that article you won't like this idea. )

You're prescient! This is exactly what I was referring to. You will simply have to graft move-and-attack back into the game in more awkward and limited ways. Why should only one specific class be able to do it, and why would they have to train in a special technique (IE take a specific power) etc. It is at best HIGHLY gamist and given the huge action economy benefit it gives I'd consider something like that neigh impossible to balance against other powers (in 4e as it is now such powers are often pretty handy, but the don't grant you something you wouldn't have at all otherwise).

I just don't agree that it degrades the tactical element... I mean you only get one action at a time in chess... and there are a ton of books on chess tactics.

I disagree, a 'move' in chess consists of translating a piece from one location on the board to another and then capturing whatever currently occupies that square.

It just changes the tactics that's all.

I agree, but what it changes it into is a tactical situation that hugely favors standing constantly in one place and making attack after attack. This is clear as day to me. With anything like the math that 4e has now you'd VERY rarely even be advised to shift for say flanking or anything like that as whatever attack you can do RIGHT NOW is going to be more valuable than some problematic possibility that you MIGHT do something more effective next round.

Chess is also quite different in that it is completely deterministic. There is very little doubt as to what the overall board situation will be when your next move comes up. You can plan 8-12 moves deep, sometimes up to 20 moves deep.

In the end- like I said above I'd like to see it in action or more fleshed out before being able to weigh in fully on it... I think it's easy to imagine any number of nightmare scenarios for anything if all you want to do is think negatively about something.

I'm not thinking 'nightmare scenarios' at all. I'm outlining the INEVITABLE consequences of ANY such system. Unless you want to make huge changes to the game such that it is practically unrecognizable, in which case we've got so little information that any discussion at all is meaningless and Monte might as well not have bothered to post in the first place.

For instance if the game were to work like chess where each SIDE moves one piece per round and can move any one of them each round, that would be an entirely different situation. It would also not make much sense for a multi-player RPG. Likewise if you completely scrap 4e in essence and make some kind of pure narrative combat system with completely abstract movement then I have no opinion, but clearly any discussion of 'actions' in such a system is so remote from 4e that it isn't meaningful to even use the same terminology.

 

[Scribble]

Uhhhhh, any player who wastes a standard action is SERIOUSLY gimping themselves. You win by attacking (in 99% of situations). No attack, no motion in the direction of victory. Clearly there are situations where you simply HAVE to move, but no player with even the faintest quantity of tactical sense will ever forgo an available attack option. I certainly can't speak to what you've seen at your table, but even the least tactically adept players I've played with have a pretty firm grasp of this, and the entire history of 3.x and the 'everyone stands and multi-attacks' issue that has been noted by pretty much everyone that has ever commented on 3.x action economy tells me I am not even remotely close to alone in this. I feel utterly confident in saying that 99% of all players will move quite a bit less often if it means sacrificing a round of attacks.

Maybe, All I can say is that I've seen people skip attacking since waitinf for their next turn isn't too long. Maybe I play at less hardcore tables then you. My point being that there is something to the less time to wait means less idea of "wasted" action.

You're prescient! This is exactly what I was referring to. You will simply have to graft move-and-attack back into the game in more awkward and limited ways. Why should only one specific class be able to do it, and why would they have to train in a special technique (IE take a specific power) etc. It is at best HIGHLY gamist and given the huge action economy benefit it gives I'd consider something like that neigh impossible to balance against other powers (in 4e as it is now such powers are often pretty handy, but the don't grant you something you wouldn't have at all otherwise).

It's just more of the same for 4e. There are powers and options only certain people can take, and only certain people can do if you have the power/option.

Again I think you're also thinking in it's 4e but with actions lopped off.

Who knows if when doing this they also change the powers so there are "universal" powers that anyone can choose.

I disagree, a 'move' in chess consists of translating a piece from one location on the board to another and then capturing whatever currently occupies that square.

I think you're being a little too specific here. The idea is the basic idea that chess gives you one thing each turn. You can't decide to jump over someone without "attacking" for instance so in my eyes it's one thing.

This can translate to like charge... it's one action but you move/attack.

I agree, but what it changes it into is a tactical situation that hugely favors standing constantly in one place and making attack after attack. This is clear as day to me. With anything like the math that 4e has now you'd VERY rarely even be advised to shift for say flanking or anything like that as whatever attack you can do RIGHT NOW is going to be more valuable than some problematic possibility that you MIGHT do something more effective next round.

Again depends on powers and such in my opinion. There are a bunch of different ways they could change this... forced movement, powers that grant bonuses when you move on the previous round, charges, your foe just moved away, etc.

Chess is also quite different in that it is completely deterministic. There is very little doubt as to what the overall board situation will be when your next move comes up. You can plan 8-12 moves deep, sometimes up to 20 moves deep.

Yeah again D&D and chess aren't equal, but my point was there is still tactics desoite only having 1 basic move at a time.

I'm not thinking 'nightmare scenarios' at all. I'm outlining the INEVITABLE consequences of ANY such system.

I don't believe they're inevitable... I also don't think you can determine the inevitability based on this article.

So in my eyes you're looking at the negatives and assuming they will be the true scenarios.

Unless you want to make huge changes to the game such that it is practically unrecognizable, in which case we've got so little information that any discussion at all is meaningless and Monte might as well not have bothered to post in the first place.

I don't think it's meaningless, or that you'd have to make as many changes as you seem to think.

I like discussing hypoteticals- I just don't like it when those hypocriticals are immediately shot down by someone unwilling to think of anything but negatives as the ONLY possibility.

 

[Hazard_53188]

My personal experience hasn't shown that the number of actions available per turn really slows the game down that much. Rather, it is the number of choices available to a player on his turn. This is especially true when you have a player or two that is susceptible to analysis paralysis or can't think ahead or something happens that changes the battlefield just before his turn.

The combat turns seem to flow quite well in the low to mid heroic tiers but the new powers keep getting loaded on as you level and gain magic items and the number of choices continues to grow and grow.

I think the start of swap out powers happens too late.

Also, I'd ditch daily powers altogether and replace them with encounter powers. I see some players really agonize on daily power usage to make sure they get the maximum possible usage.

Players also have a tendency to horde daily powers and encounter that are well in hand can drag; the players don't want to use them because the battle is going fine but with encounter powers players are quicker on pulling the trigger and the players always want to use as many as possible.


On a different note, some classes are more fiddly than others and eat up more of the turn. The Ruin Priest seems to be the worst in my experience. Striker turns have a tendency to be much quicker than controllers and leaders as well. Strikers just seem to have less fiddly bits.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Would it be 'thinking of the negatives only' if you wanted to jump off the 5th floor balcony and fly to the ground? lol. Some things are just plain, and in this case it is QUITE plain to me and most other people I've discussed it with in any detail.

The analogy to chess really is irrelevant, I agree, but not for the reason you seem to be implying. It is irrelevant because chess is 2 sides that each make whatever move is available to them. Each side is much more equivalent to one character with a variety of options than to 2 parties fighting each other. In a one-on-one fight clearly the guy that makes the most attacks in a system like D&D has an advantage.

You can discuss hypotheticals, but in order to find a hypothetical that will improve on what we have now you have to go far outside anything like the basic framework of 4e combat. That's fine, but there are such a vast number of possibilities once you've dispensed with anything remotely like the existing game that it is no different from a general discussion of game design.

 

[keterys]

Yeah... these articles are pretty much just idea churning basic game design discussions. All theoretical, all the time.

 

[Moorcrys]

Move, standard, and minor actions are fine with me. I have issues with immediate interrupts in particular, as well as immediate reactions that grant a player basically a full attack turn after their own turn is completed.
Immediate interrupts in particular are disruptive to me... they destroy any kind of narrative flow in a combat and interrupt, heh, any momentum built in a round. In addition, they are particularly difficult for new players to grasp. I think if they had stuck to minor, move, and standard we would have been much better off.