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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5741429" data-attributes="member: 82106">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.You're prescient! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> 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 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 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification