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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kevtar" data-source="post: 5879789" data-attributes="member: 27098">I recently changed from a 4th edition campaign with a group of 4-5 players to playing 1st edition with my family (my wife, son and daughter). My daughter played D&D periodically through 3.5 and 4e. My sons (only one lives at home now), started playing D&D when 3.5 was introduced. This is my wife's first foray into D&D since her inaugural approach when we were dating in 1990 (she played a gnome acrobat for one session and decided it wasn't for her.However, we are, as a family playing D&D together. I'm DMing a group with a well-versed player (my son), a somewhat familiar player (my daughter), and a new-comer (my wife). We decided to play 1st edition because my son wanted to see D&D "from my eyes" - he wasn't that "classic" D&D experience - as if playing 1st edition would give him some of the magic I felt playing the game "back in the day." That assumption is the topic for another post, because what I wanted to focus on was what players do in the game.In 4e, we had two broad categories of actions: (a) actions on your turn Standard, Move, Minor and Free Actions(b) actions on someone else's turnImmediate interrupts, opportunity actions, and immediate reactionsHowever, in 1st edition, actions are much less defined. In our 1st edition game experience, our game play is "fast and light" - combat happens quickly, players cycle through their turns easily and there isn't a lot of tactical thinking going on (yes, we do use minis). This has it's pros and cons.ProsCombat is resolved before it becomes boring, players are "on their toes" because there is less "down time" between plays, and it's easy for a new comer to absorb - "I attack with my sword" or "I cast a spell"ConsCombat can be repetitive - which means it can sometimes feel monotonous, combat is simple - which means it can be less compelling, things can be a little "fuzzy" - "can I do this on my turn" or "how does this work?"One more aspect of this kind of play is that I describe as both/neither a pro/con is that it can place the DM in a larger role as the adjudicator. She/he decides whether an action is possible, legal, fair, etc... Some DMs like this, others would prefer that this level of specificity be handled by the rules.How should actions be handled in 5e? Personally, I would like to see the core rule set have the following actions as the core actions for the game: Standard, Move, Minor, and Free. Everything else, IMO, should be optional. My reasoning is simply this:1) New players to the game can better manage a short list of actions in the game2) It keeps the pace of combat quick3) It keeps things simple enough to understand, but allows for some tactical complexity as well4) The range of actions can accommodate most actions a PC needs in combatAnything above and beyond these kinds of actions should be optional. In essence, actions that occur on someone else's turn (apart from free actions), should be optional and taken at the players' level of comfort with the game. For instance, I like opportunity attacks, and I would most likely add them in my game if that was an option - but some people might not want them. However, I'm not crazy about immediate interrupts and immediate reactions. In my experience, that slows down combat due to either players taking the time to complete the actions, or begging me to allow them one turn later because they forgot they had that particular power, lol.In any case, I'm wondering how people here feel about what kinds of actions should be included as core and if any should be included as optional. If so, what are the ramifications of having some actions optional? For instance, if a monster is designed with the core assumption of their only be standard, move, minor, and free actions - does the monster become less of a threat when immediate interrupts, opportunity actions, and immediate reactions are introduced?</blockquote>

Verification