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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5741362" data-attributes="member: 54877">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.</blockquote>

Verification