Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 9848608" data-attributes="member: 32164">I find it interesting that Pathfinder 2e, Nimble and a few other games have figured out the sweet spot for actions in a single round is 3, with a scaling discouragement for trying to just attack or spell cast repeatedly. I think DC20's 4 is too many, and I think it's important that you have viable options for doing other things in a round.Savage Worlds essentially does the same thing, although it says you can move  and attack, but choosing to take actions (other than moving) more than once means you take an escalating penalty to all actions. I rather like the "the first one is at full competency, and later actions incur an escalating penalty."More broadly, I'd say that complexity needs to be implemented in such a way that choices matter and you ideally want to avoid "false choices" - i.e. choices that are actually traps. As an example, if a character chooses to do something other than just attack in combat, there should be a meaningful benefit to doing so, commensurate with the risk they take. Choosing to forego damaging an opponent in favor of disarming them is only really a viable alternative if they can't quickly re-arm themselves at zero cost. This, by the way, goes to a whole rant I have about opportunity attacks based largely on my experience studying martial arts in general and swordplay specifically.</blockquote>