Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8077151" data-attributes="member: 93670">Ammo tracking for mundane ammo is mostly a waste of time.  Weight allowances are so generous you can just go in with a silly amount of arrows & completely sidestep any possibility of running low on all but the most megadungeon forevertrek expeditions.  Arrows are  counted individually so they give the illusion of being important but mechanically are nearly irrelevant while numerically thwartingthe GM's ability to timeskip past uninteresting  parts of a dungeon crawl (or whatever) straight to the next interesting/meaningful choice with some resource burn that makes it look like some time has passed doing stuff.  A much better method is to use an ammunition die where  the player writes an ammo die rather than ammo count & rolls that die each time they shoot that weapon... if it's anything but a 1 the ammo die stays the same, get a 1 & it drops a size ie (d8>d6>d4>1>0).  It results in ranged characters having some uncertainty & risk of bad luck while still giving them a very reasonable amount of ammo to burn through.Ah - now this makes far more sense.  Up till now I was under the impression you wanted them to be able to switch "loadouts" (not sure I'm sold on that term) for free, whenever they wanted.I do too.  This kind of 3.5 table 8-2 stuff is critical for inclusion because it's trivial to just handwaive & ignore at your table if you want to ignore it for a campaign/session/encounter but extremely difficult to bolt on after the fact without playing "bob's system" or having it feel like calvinball.[spoiler="table 8-2 actions in combat"][ATTACH=full]125229[/ATTACH][spoiler="5e's disaster of an equivalent"][ATTACH=full]125230[/ATTACH]&[ATTACH=full]125231[/ATTACH][/spoiler][/spoiler]I get a little of the same feelingI disagree here though.  I would rather see a war  cleric using a particular type of focus that allows them to cast cleric spells & maybe even melee attack differently from what a summoner/healer type full caster-like cleric would be doing since it would allow more complexity within the focus items than a MC-bingo abusable class feature would allow while baking the glass/squishy aspect of squishy/glass cannon into something that can't be combined through MC & allow the magic  capabilities going with it to really shine.I don't know how I feel about the "switch loadout" name & agree that giving a potion to someone should be more of an investment than just drinking it yourself, but there's no reason there couldn't be an action type like switch loadout to go alongside "standard action", "move action", "full-round action", "free action", "swift action", and "immediate action" with drawing a weapon(or two for dual wielders), sheathing a weapon drinking a potion & giving a potion  being one of those ones that normally provoke an AoOAlso, keep in mind how much someone can do in 6 seconds.  In that time I could see sheathing a weapon and pulling out a potion; but getting it opened, drunk, and my weapon back in hand?  That's pushing it. (also, has the game ever really defined how much actual liquid is in a potion?  If a potion is shooter-size then drinking it quickly makes sense; I've always imagined them as somewhat bigger than that - volume maybe about halfway between a shooter and a can of beer - which means drinking one isn't going to be quite as fast unless one wants to risk choking on it)You don't need free hands to open a door provided your booted feet are available. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />1-per-round crossbow shots are another example of legacy rules brought forward for no good reason.  When rounds were longer, one shot per round made sense; with 6-second rounds 1 per round is way too fast.  But, it benefits the players, so in it stays.Also, keep in mind how much someone can do in 6 seconds.  In that time I could see sheathing a weapon and pulling out a potion; but getting it opened, drunk, and my weapon back in hand?  That's pushing it. (also, has the game ever really defined how much actual liquid is in a potion?  If a potion is shooter-size then drinking it quickly makes sense; I've always imagined them as somewhat bigger than that - volume maybe about halfway between a shooter and a can of beer - which means drinking one isn't going to be quite as fast unless one wants to risk choking on it)You don't need free hands to open a door provided your booted feet are available. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />1-per-round crossbow shots are another example of legacy rules brought forward for no good reason.  When rounds were longer, one shot per round made sense; with 6-second rounds 1 per round is way too fast.  But, it benefits the players, so in it stays.</blockquote>the old light crossbow burning a move action & heavy burning a full round action made them feel viscerally different from bows & make other lesser weapons like thrown knives & slings serve a meaningful purpose rather than a line on the weapons list that everyone ignores in play.  They brought it forward but removed the cost that made the others worth using.  Opening a door dtakes more tan a foot if it has a doorknob/latch though "<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />[/QUOTE]

Verification