Too many action types in action economy

[Ferghis]

Actually, I think the thing that really needs fixing are durations.

I agree that durations could use a lot of simplification. Tracking effect durations is actually the biggest thing I keep looking for computers to do, but I haven't found any software that does the job well.

I think I'm a little confused at both your point and proposal. My confusion stems from the fact that you're combining concepts that shouldn't be combined. You shouldn't put Daily on the same bullet-level as Standard.

I know the two systems are categorized differently, but the overlap, in terms of game rules, is considerable. I probably should have used both the terms actions and powers, but the point is this: I spend a lot of time and work figuring out whether I can do a certain thing now or whether it would be better to save it for later. In principle, I'm very much in favor of this kind of resource management. In practice, there are too many moving parts to this system: often, the good moment for using a resource is neither now nor later, which makes it a pain in the neck to play the resource-management game. Eliminating the milestone/tier limitation on item daily powers is one good step towards simplifying. I'd like to see more such steps.

It may seem like an elaborate system, but the action types certainly have nothing to do with tracking.

But they do: most of combat centers around tracking your usage of actions and powers.

The latter can be troublesome, and 'Free' has had to been clarified quite a bit. I think we have a handle on it, now, but it can still cause trouble.

'Minor' and 'Immediate' could be concievably be taken out. Minor would be replaced with exception-based 'Free' actions that say "special: you can only take this action on your turn, and only once per turn unless you expend a move or standard action to do it again." Immediate would presumably be replaced with Opportunity, again with the occassional 'special' line...

Agreed on both quoted points.

FWIW, one easy thing to change: Get rid of the restriction of not doing OAs and Immediates on your turn. It only causes trouble -- you're already restricted from doing them more than once a turn, so this restriction does two things: 1. Cause people to accidentally violate it, and 2. Create holes in defensive abilities that players can exploit based on system mastery rather than abilities or clever plans.

But, it also creates a bulge in offensive abilities that players can exploit based on system mastery. I think it's right to disallow OA/Imm on your turn. The only alternative I would consider would be to completely rewrite all OA and Immediate actions in consideration of this bulge--the only suitable word I could think up as an antonym for hole. Either that or you need careful wording to disallow and immediate for a trigger that you instigate.

I agree with mneme, with the addendum that players can't cause the triggers. An NPC/monster's "free choice" must be involved. This would also fix the loophole created by, for example, readied charges that can move past the fighter without triggering OAs on the fighter's own turn. I2000, I'd love to hear if this wouldn't redress your concern, which I appreciate as legitimate.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But they do: most of combat centers around tracking your usage of actions and powers.

It seems like our disagreement then is more basic. Tracking daily vs. encounter vs. at-will is so trivial to me that I didn't even realize that was what you were talking about. Tracking durations, yes, but daily? No.

However, if instead your complaint is more along the lines of not liking a power that is daily-only, I can understand and appreciate it. Some of Essentials I thought was to resolve that complaint. But, the pure administrative effort of tracking them is trivial.

I agree with mneme, with the addendum that players can't cause the triggers. An NPC/monster's "free choice" must be involved. This would also fix the loophole created by, for example, readied charges that can move past the fighter without triggering OAs on the fighter's own turn. I2000, I'd love to hear if this wouldn't redress your concern, which I appreciate as legitimate.

In principle, yes, and is basically what I had said. In practice, though, I don't think it could be so easily worded. I guess it comes down to whether the effort of revising this rule would be worth the perceived reduction in complexity. I don't think so.

 

[Nikosandros]

In principle, yes, and is basically what I had said. In practice, though, I don't think it could be so easily worded. I guess it comes down to whether the effort of revising this rule would be worth the perceived reduction in complexity. I don't think so.

In my opinion the matter with OA and immediate actions during your turn isn't one of complexity, but rather of avoiding weird and undesirable situations, like the fighter's mark being violated with impunity by attacks/shofts that happen as immediate actions or by the above-mentioned readied charge.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In my opinion the matter with OA and immediate actions during your turn isn't one of complexity, but rather of avoiding weird and undesirable situations, like the fighter's mark being violated with impunity by attacks/shofts that happen as immediate actions or by the above-mentioned readied charge.

Is it really that wierd or undesireable that you can bide your time until an enemy commits to something else, then slip past his guard?

Consider that the Ready expends a Standard Action and might never happen. It's risky in the 'action econmy.' If you were intent on getting past an enemy's Immediate Interrupt, for instance, and Readied, and he then didn't trigger your Ready, or even Delayed, your turn would be wasted.

 

[mneme]

Tony: As someone who abuses this rule mercilessly...yeah, it is. It provides an "easy mode" to many tactical challenges, and if a monster delays to counter it, they're basicially giving up their standard action too.

Plus, the problems that it's intended to solve? In 4e, they're mostly solved. Only one immediate action per turn, so using it to get a bit of extra damage on your turn just means you get it then rather than on someone else's turn. Plus OAs already require voluntary enemy action, so not using them on your turn just means the hole exists--it doesn't close an extra damage option.

Useless rules deserve killing.

 

[Ferghis]

Is it really that wierd or undesireable that you can bide your time until an enemy commits to something else, then slip past his guard?

If there was a more interesting mechanic to simulate what you're saying, it wouldn't be. But, as things stand, it's just a gaping loophole, at least in my opinion. A malicious DM can basically ignore defender marks and even many OAs with this trick.

Consider that the Ready expends a Standard Action and might never happen. It's risky in the 'action econmy.' If you were intent on getting past an enemy's Immediate Interrupt, for instance, and Readied, and he then didn't trigger your Ready, or even Delayed, your turn would be wasted.

In this case, however, the trigger is guaranteed to happen, so it's no gamble at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If there was a more interesting mechanic to simulate what you're saying, it wouldn't be. But, as things stand, it's just a gaping loophole, at least in my opinion. A malicious DM can basically ignore defender marks and even many OAs with this trick.

In this case, however, the trigger is guaranteed to happen, so it's no gamble at all.

No trigger is guaranteed to happen. No legitimate triggger, anyway. 'When he starts his turn' or 'when he does anything' and the like not being valid triggers.

 

[Zuche]

Perhaps it would be easier to change the mechanics so that an opportunity action could be triggered by a readied action as though it was the turn of the creature with the readied action, rather than the turn of the creature making the opportunity action. Since that's effectively what happens after the readied action is resolved, that's consistent with the general way in which opportunity actions resolve.

As it stands now, two creatures standing toe-to-toe with a defender and striker designed to prefer ranged combat would each draw an opportunity attack from the striker when they charged, as they are still considered to be taking separate turns. All the fighter gets is the satisfaction of knowing that whichever of the creatures got marked last turn now has a -1 penalty to hit the target being charged. Eventually, the party might create a situation in which the enemies never have the option of charging another target, but they'll always be left with a situation in which defenders only get immediate reaction attacks when an ally provokes one or more opportunity attacks, and never gets opportunity attacks at all in the case of pre-Essentials defenders. Doesn't the battlemind have enough problems?

How often can defenders establish conditions that would grant them opportunity actions or immediate reactions if it wasn't their turn anyway? If the answer is, "Rarely," then it seems reasonable to change the rule. If the answer is, "Frequently," then I'd recommend adjusting only the rules for readied actions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As it stands now, two creatures standing toe-to-toe with a defender and striker designed to prefer ranged combat would each draw an opportunity attack from the striker when they charged, as they are still considered to be taking separate turns. All the fighter gets is the satisfaction of knowing that whichever of the creatures got marked last turn now has a -1 penalty to hit the target being charged.

I'm sorry, under what scenario is this happening, again? Because I can't think of one under which all that happens... well, unless the Fighter is Dazed or something... Also, who is designed to prefer ranged combat, and why does that matter?

Given the topic at hand, I'm going to assume that you have these two monsters readying a charge they hope will be triggered on the Fighter's turn. If that is the case, and the Ready is triggered, then, after the triggering action, they both charge, on the Fighter's turn. So, the striker in question gets one OA, not two. That is, if it's triggered. That depends on what the trigger is, and if they're still able to take the action after the trigger is resolved. For instance, if they Ready to react to the fighter moving, and he stays in the same square, their actions are wasted. If they ready in response to his attack, and he second winds, delays, or, himself, Readies, their actions are wasted.

Playing metagames with initiative actions /can/ work, and it can even make sense from a non-metagame perspecitve, but doing so systematically can become predictable, and end up costing a lot in the action economy.

 

[Zuche]

I'm sorry, under what scenario is this happening, again?

Sorry, as you note, that should be when they've readied an action to charge at the start of the defender's next turn.

The reason for the other character to prefer ranged combat, regardless of general preferences (what, no one ever exploits Sling Expertise for all it's worth?), only goes to present a case in which two enemies can ignore two members of your party with little risk...when it's one party member's turn.

So, the striker in question gets one OA, not two.

So, by readying an action, these two enemies reduce the total number of opportunity actions available to the party from four to one? That's not so bad if they're losing out on a really good attack they can't perform on a charge (though this tends to hurt monsters less than player characters), but they could always just focus fire on the non-defender with their best attacks instead. Is the -2 penalty on their attack rolls enough compensation to the defender who can't attack because it's his turn?

How about artillery or controllers that can gleefully ignore the guy standing right beside them to target people anywhere else on the battlefield? It's enough to make a defender player join the ranks of those that only play strikers.

Playing metagames with initiative actions /can/ work, and it can even make sense from a non-metagame perspecitve, but doing so systematically can become predictable, and end up costing a lot in the action economy.

Maybe, but if it can consistently shut down a defender's best options, rather than those of the creatures the defender is trying to contain, who suffers the most?

Consider the generic fighter. This sort of stunt completely negates the option to use combat superiority against an opponent that opts to charge away from you. It means they can attack the guy standing right next to you without any fear of you hitting them back, even though that's supposed to be one of your tricks. The warden and generic paladin do a bit better; the battlemind and swordmage a lot worse, and anyone with a defender aura active is left wondering why they bother.

Again, if this strategy for opponents only applied in borderline cases, it might not be so bad, but a DM can reliably utilize this strategy against defenders as the rule, rather than the exception.