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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SuperTD" data-source="post: 7388140" data-attributes="member: 6776899">So on <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/246267086" target="_blank"> Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour stream </a> on Tuesday, he mentioned his thoughts on Action Economy briefly."If this phrase comes up as part of the design process, we have probably done something wrong. If we're thinking of actions as an economic resource that are being spent, I think we've made the game too complicated." This is interesting to me, though perhaps not surprising given we know Mike's distaste for bonus actions. To me, action economy is something that pretty much cannot be avoided. Even if you only have one type of action - lets call it, for example, an "Action" - you still have to weigh up what you do with it, since now everything uses that resource. What you do with your action is your decision point during the turn. If perhaps you're looking at action economy in relation to groups of creatures, it's also still relevant. A part of 4 players vs 4 orcs means each team has the same number of actions, but a party of 4 players vs 10 orcs, even if still balanced (higher level characters for example), means you have to consider the number of things the orcs can do on their turn. When there are only 4 orcs, maybe the best thing they can do is attack. But with 10, you can spare a couple to spend there actions grappling the fighters while the remaining orcs skirt them and run for the back line. I've always considered it an important feature of asymmetrical games which is a good idea to consider, especially for important battles. We all know what happens when you stick a party up against a higher CR creature that doesn't have legendary actions - parties will frequently stomp all over what should theoretically be a hard or balanced fight due to the amount of stuff they can do.I'm interested to hear other people's take on this, especially people who might agree with Mike on this stance. Why does thinking about Action Economy mean the design team have failed?</blockquote>

Verification