Standard/Move/Minor?

[Stormonu]

I predict static fights where everyone just stands in place and whacks the nearest enemy. No thanks.

I dunno, just with standard + move there's often just a lot of standing around and whacking the enemy. Worked for at least 3 editions with no complaints for me and mine.

I feel that Standard + Move would be the minimum, but I do like the Standard + Move + Minor/Swift.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think the standard/move/minor break down works well

Agreed.

 

[delericho]

Yep, Standard/Move/Minor for me, too. One of the very best points of 4e.

I would also keep Action Points as-is, though I might give adjust the rate at which these are gained: every character has 1 AP per encounter, and you can't 'bank' them for later use.

What I would look to clean up, and actually cut back, are the number of out-of-turn actions and effects of various sorts. These seem to be one of the major causes of complexity and slow-down in 4e combat. They seem to have gotten out of hand.

 

[LurkAway]

My pet theory: One action per round by default core ruleset. But...

A tactical battle defines "1 action" as "attack/move/minor".

A simulationist battle defines "1 action" as attack or move or any 2 things that you can do at the same time ie., melee while moving.

Edit: So with every combat, the DM can ask the players "Do you want to simulate-roleplay this battle, or do you want to go to abstracted combat grid?" If minis with combat grid, then probably attack/move/minor, very methodical and tactical. If simulated, probably no minis, no grid, probably side initiative, and 1 action or simultaneous actions per round.

 

[Felon]

The one I don't like is the idea of the "medium" being limited to something movement-related. In 4e, it's kind of odd that you can have attacks that are standard actions, and some classes can have attacks that are minor actions, but the move action itself is sacrosanct--unless, of course, you convert that move action into a minor action.

I like the idea that just about any action can be attempted as a major, medium, or minor action. You can make an attack ranges amywhere from a a sunday punch to a little swat. You can sprint all-out, or you can just take a couple of steps. Or something in between.

 

[Dragonblade]

The 4e action system is perfect. Standard/Move/Minor for me all the way.

I even like the interrupts and reactions. I've never felt like they slow things down in combat. Remember you only get one immediate action per turn.

The number one thing that slows down combat in 4e is players who wait until their turn comes up and then decide they need to review every one of their powers before making a decision.

Basically its the same problem that EVERY edition has had with combat. We had the same issue in our Pathfinder games.

Even our old 1e/2e battles were dragged out because there is that one player that wants to do 5 things on their turn and has to argue with the DM about it.

I don't like in game solutions to out of game problems. If one player can't deal with options, the solution isn't to get rid of options. Its to help that player be a better player. In my 4e games, no player takes longer than 30 seconds to take their turn.

We do this by requiring everyone to pay attention, and know their character and its abilities. When you turn comes up, you should already know what you are going to do. They do it, they roll attacks and damage together and announce they are done and the next player goes.

 

[Rabbitbait]

Did you playtest this idea?

I predict static fights where everyone just stands in place and whacks the nearest enemy. No thanks.

No play testing done, but I think it would define characters better. For instances, rogues would get a move a part of their action but fighters would not, But fighters would get the higher damage and maybe greater abilities with opportunity attacks.

It would all need to be playtested of course, but I'm just thinking out loud.

 

[Halivar]

The problem I have with one action per turn is that it will not move combat any faster; I believe it will slow it down.

There is a "time tax" when you switch from one player to another (someone went to the bathroom; someone is reading up on their class ability; someone is chewing a bunch of potato chips; someone is still counting their lost hitpoints). We do everything we can to minimize it, but it will always be there. Getting a player to resolve several actions at once before moving on to the next player reduces the number of "player switches," and thus reduces the cumulative time tax of doing so.

 

[Traken]

There's a time tax associated with switching players but limiting the actions to one a round can keep the game moving faster. By reducing the time between rounds, you don't lose as much time by players having to re-acclimate to the situation.

In addition, there's no longer the possibility of a person having more actions. You don't have to keep asking "are you done?" A person states their action and the GM resolves it. After that, the next player should immediately be stating what they do. They should need no prodding from the GM or another player.

 

[fjw70]

I would go with standard + move. Things like drinking a potion and sustaining a zone should have a more significant opportunity cost IMO.

Maybe add an extra action at high tiers.