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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 9231932" data-attributes="member: 6685730">Funny, the movement of all racial modifiers to Bonus Only would also fall, then, under the category of "bad design."(It's about time someone else noticed.)I believe it's the handwaiving GMs that are missing the point, not the OP.  The OP recognizes that handwaiving (encumbrance, spell components) is happening, and seeks to remedy that.  Unfortunately, it looks like a solution for game designers, not GMs.The first thing that comes to mind from my favorite game is the active defense requirement.  A PC can attempt to dodge an attack and negate all damage from that attack.  But this costs an action - one that could be used as a counterattack to cause, effectively, simultaneous damage to the attacker.  So by choosing to defend, you're also choosing to do less damage than your opponent is.So where's the incentive to defend?  It's in teamwork: if you're defending (and being attacked), your ally can be safely causing damage instead.  It's in accessorizing: having a shield or applicable perk makes defending much more effective.  It's in timing: having the initiative over your opponent allows your damage to happen first, so if you wait for it by defending, you could defeat an opponent who might have simultaneously defeated you with a counterattack by virtue of having that edge of initiative.Would I like to flip the incentives of defense actions?  Say, by making a defense a free action, thereby removing the costs of choosing to defend?  Well, everything has consequences.  In this case, I think combat would take longer since every attack must be compared to a defense, and players would lose the option of making tactical considerations (how important is it that I take no damage right now, and how do I want to handle it?).</blockquote>

Verification