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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5889627" data-attributes="member: 58197">I like the look of this. "Act and move" is a good paradigm for the game's action economy. I just hope we don't end up with the minor action sneaking in through the back door, the way swift actions did in 3.5. I'm not a fan of minor actions, but better to have them built into the system from the start than bolted on later.[Edit: Okay, so it's "one action and one move, in any order." I'm actually a little disappointed. I was just getting interested to see how the act-then-move dynamic played out.]I do wonder if Rodney literally means "one action, then move" (i.e., you have to do it in that order every time), or if he just means you get one action and one move each round. The latter is what I would have expected based on 3E and 4E. The former is... interesting. Haven't thought through all the the ramifications, but it does do a nice job of bringing back the wizard's dread of melee combat. In 3E, when you were a wizard with a bad guy in your face, you could just five-foot step and cast. In 4E, you could shift and cast, essentially the same thing. But if you have to cast first, you're stuck eating the OA and potentially losing the spell. As Firelance points out, it vastly increases the importance of the tactical situation at the start of your turn.It's a little counterintuitive though. If I were going to order the two based on my instinctive sense of how these things work, I would put the move first, action second. Typically you're moving someplace with the intent of doing something when you get there, so it's weird to do the moving on turn 1 and the doing something on turn 2.</blockquote>

Verification