Why not treat the action economy... like an economy?

[Neonchameleon]

One interesting thing you can do with this is represent really well a heftier weapon such as a greataxe and a light weapon such as a dagger.

Greataxe: This is always a standard action to swing. If you want to power attack with it, you may also have to spend a minor action with the major action. Wielding this sucker takes effort. The wielder when they have achieved a degree of strength and expertise might be able to perform an opportunity attack using a minor action but in reality, the thing is too hefty for the casual user for such antics.

Dagger: In comparison, the beauty of the dagger is how efficient the thing is to attack with. A proficient wielder can attack with it using a major action or also a minor action upon occasion (you might have triggers for this such as if a foe misses them, the wielder's major attack hits and so on). A more experienced dagger wielder though can perform opportunity attacks with just a swift action (kind of like the 3.x combat reflexes except that the opportunity attacks are neatly limited by the number of swift actions a character can perform).

Please don't. As [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] said, this is based on a misconception.

The bigger two handed weapons are actually faster than the dagger unless you're right in grappling range. If I merely roll my wrist with a properly balanced sword, the point of the sword has moved about six feet. In order to get the point of a dagger to move six feet, I need to move my entire body about three feet. Which is faster? Rolling my wrist or moving my body.

Sure you can do a lot of cuts to bleed the enemy out if you can get in with a dagger. But you need to control the distance by movingg your whole body. Daggers are ultimately slow weapons - polearms are fast ones.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Please don't. As [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] said, this is based on a misconception.

The bigger two handed weapons are actually faster than the dagger unless you're right in grappling range. If I merely roll my wrist with a properly balanced sword, the point of the sword has moved about six feet. In order to get the point of a dagger to move six feet, I need to move my entire body about three feet. Which is faster? Rolling my wrist or moving my body.

Sure you can do a lot of cuts to bleed the enemy out if you can get in with a dagger. But you need to control the distance by movingg your whole body. Daggers are ultimately slow weapons - polearms are fast ones.

This is very interesting and worth exploring a little further. However just to clarify, I was not talking about the speed of the weapon but the effort it takes to wield it (where a rounds worth of effort is broken up into Major, Minor and Swift chunks). To use your example, a well balanced sword in the hands of a proficient user is going to be a pretty lively and reactive affair. In comparison, how much effort is taken up wielding that massive greataxe? Again I can only imagine but surely there's a lot of momentum going on. The capacity to react with a greataxe and the effort taken to do that is reduced and increased respectively. A dagger in comparison would seem [again in the hands of a (highly?) proficient user] to offer greater capacity for reaction taking less effort; providing one has closed sufficiently with their opponent.

Now the action economy I suggest has nothing to do with speed, just effort. Speed on the other hand would seem to be a factor in terms of initiative. The other factor is proximity and where a weapons reach trumps a characters speed. That dagger wielder is going to have to close with the greataxe wielder and that is a dangerous process. However if the dagger-wielder's ally can suck that major action out of the greataxe dude, the dagger-wielder gets a good chance to close otherwise the greataxe wielder gets first strike before the dagger-guy gets to do diddly. Or so I would imagine.

The point is that the action economy I suggest is a measure of effort. Speed and reach are things I imagine being quite separate from this. Am I still flying with the fairies on this one or is this starting to look OK?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Sadras]

...this is based on a misconception.

The bigger two handed weapons are actually faster than the dagger unless you're right in grappling range. If I merely roll my wrist with a properly balanced sword, the point of the sword has moved about six feet. In order to get the point of a dagger to move six feet, I need to move my entire body about three feet. Which is faster? Rolling my wrist or moving my body.

Respecting what you and @Balesir have already said and not referring to intitiative speeds and the like (I've read that thread some weeks ago), I'm going to just explore some of your reasoning for my own curiosity:

- If one opponent swings a greataxe and has therefore considered making his attack, but his opponent with the dirk makes his, and considering you assume that now he is able to reach his target with a dirk, you realistically foresee that he is already within grapple range and could he not therefore attempt a further quick stab at his opponent? Unless perhaps you foresee he stabbed out to reach his target, as if he were using a sword, and was not within grapple range.

- Isn't more realistic that most full length weapons or two handed melee weapons require a decent swing and not just the movement of the wrist? Not everyone is carrying epèes or rapiers.

Let me add: That if we were to give a benefit to dirks/short blades in this manner that by all means reach weapons such as 2H-axes and long-blades, polearms and the like should have the opportunity of going first and perhaps some other benefits.

 

[jrowland]

I posted a similar idea on the WotC forums, so I get where the OP is going. In my version I simply started with the 4e Baseline and gave those actions points:

Minor = 1 point
Move = 2 Points
Standard = 3 points.

You get 6 points per round.

So, in the core game, you are simply using minor, move, and standard. In a module, you would use the points. Points eliminate the "many attacks per round" except in the case where you forgo a move and a minor and do 2 standard action attacks. Personally, I am ok with this. 4E combat was slower in part because people were looking for "something" to do with that pesky minor. Here, the clear choice is fold it into move and attack again. More attacks on a turn = faster monster death. Attacks are relatively easy to resolve since they are a known quantity. Besides, in this module a 3 point attack is a "Basic" attack.

Here's where it gets interesting:

Special attacks like "Power Attack" would cost 1-3 points, with each point being a plus to hit and damage.

There could be an "off-hand" strike that does Min [W] damage for 2 points

You could have a 1 point move, 2 point move, 3 point move, etc. Each point allowing 1/4 your speed

Spellcasters could use metamagic like "Maximize" for an additional 3 points

Spellcasters could layer metamagic Like Maximize (3), Enlarge (2), Fireball (3) and have to spend 8 points for the cast: 6 for this turn and continue casting until next turn before finishing the cast and it goes off: Opening them up for meaningful cast-interrupts.

That be a lot of granularity for some people, so it would have to be a module. DMs would likely also have to "price" things carefully, since they likely would not be priced in core nor in the module itself (a very big list). And since this "price list" would likely be large, would slow the game during combat, even if players focused only those prices they might use (fighters would care about metamagic, e.g.)

P.S. I think Fighters would benefit greatly from this design. I would like to see the lion share of 1-2 point actions be either maneuvers or riders to fighter maneuvers or rogue maneuvers. A few metamagic for spellcasters, and few "defensive" reactions for all: Such as "Block" being a shield-wielding reaction available to all using a shield, or "Dodge" being a 1 or 2 point reaction.

Feat requirements for many of these make sense as well, to limit the list to a manageable size per character.

The best part: Those players sticking with minor/move/standard fit right in. With the playtest "one round to rule them all" it is really just 6 "minor" actions rolled into one. For DMs having a hard time adjudicating the playtest action economy, I suggest mentally tallying up the actions as I've described: hit 6 and the character is done. For Example: Character moves (1 point) about 1/4 speed to monster and draws weapon (1 point), attacks the monster (3 points), moves back behind the fighter (1 point) for a total of 6 points. Or character moves (2 points), Draws Weapon (1 point), attacks (3 points). Or character gets a potion and drinks it (2 points), casts a spell (3 points), then moves behind a wall (1 point).

Having a granular module does not remove the "one action to rule them all", but a 6 point action economy allows for 3 action economies to work together: The 6 point economy, the Minor/move/standard economy (or partially bundled points if you will), and the one action economy (fully bundled points)

 

[Empath Negative]

You guys did notice that in every case combatants could swing a weapon... any single weapon precisely twice,right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Goonalan]

I posted a similar idea on the WotC forums, so I get where the OP is going. In my version I simply started with the 4e Baseline and gave those actions points:

Minor = 1 point
Move = 2 Points
Standard = 3 points.

You get 6 points per round.

So, in the core game, you are simply using minor, move, and standard. In a module, you would use the points. Points eliminate the "many attacks per round" except in the case where you forgo a move and a minor and do 2 standard action attacks. Personally, I am ok with this. 4E combat was slower in part because people were looking for "something" to do with that pesky minor. Here, the clear choice is fold it into move and attack again. More attacks on a turn = faster monster death. Attacks are relatively easy to resolve since they are a known quantity. Besides, in this module a 3 point attack is a "Basic" attack.

Here's where it gets interesting:

Special attacks like "Power Attack" would cost 1-3 points, with each point being a plus to hit and damage.

There could be an "off-hand" strike that does Min [W] damage for 2 points

You could have a 1 point move, 2 point move, 3 point move, etc. Each point allowing 1/4 your speed

Spellcasters could use metamagic like "Maximize" for an additional 3 points

Spellcasters could layer metamagic Like Maximize (3), Enlarge (2), Fireball (3) and have to spend 8 points for the cast: 6 for this turn and continue casting until next turn before finishing the cast and it goes off: Opening them up for meaningful cast-interrupts.

That be a lot of granularity for some people, so it would have to be a module. DMs would likely also have to "price" things carefully, since they likely would not be priced in core nor in the module itself (a very big list). And since this "price list" would likely be large, would slow the game during combat, even if players focused only those prices they might use (fighters would care about metamagic, e.g.)

P.S. I think Fighters would benefit greatly from this design. I would like to see the lion share of 1-2 point actions be either maneuvers or riders to fighter maneuvers or rogue maneuvers. A few metamagic for spellcasters, and few "defensive" reactions for all: Such as "Block" being a shield-wielding reaction available to all using a shield, or "Dodge" being a 1 or 2 point reaction.

Feat requirements for many of these make sense as well, to limit the list to a manageable size per character.

The best part: Those players sticking with minor/move/standard fit right in.

I like this idea but I'd probably restrict it to two Basic Melee or Ranged attacks... We're having no problems with grind (due to house rules) getting the players dishing up a pair of Encounter Powers would tilt the game heavily to the PCs.

Cheers PDR

 

[Dragoslav]

It would slow down play.

That was my first thought upon reading the title, and I think it's right. People already agonize enough over how to spend their 3 points (Move, Minor, Standard), so just imagine how increasing the number of action points and reducing the limitations on how to use them would exacerbate the problem. Now instead of having 3 points to deal with, players have 6 or 8, AND they want to maximize their output with all 6-8 of them. More strategizing = more time.

Besides, the 4e action economy basically IS the idea that OP is suggesting, just more streamlined. Instead of "I have 7 points, I can't attack anyone for 4 points right now, so I'll just move once for 3 points and move again with another 3" it's "well, I can't attack anyone right now, so I'll just use my Move action to move and move again for my Standard action."

 

[Balesir]

OK, try a few carefully selected videos - not all are great, but they give some basic ideas:

1

2

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVBTRFQqKGA&feature=related"]3[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTVC25hYJaY&feature=related"]4[/ame](This one shows what daggers are for - low "damage" my rear end!)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8myj3zgoCg&feature=related"]5[/ame](This one is not "live action", but is nicely done animation).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv-Vut0xb9Y&feature=related"]6[/ame]

That'll do for now.

Oh - the [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCzrZ9optXw&feature=related"]College of Combat[/ame] looks intriguing; see the drop down for 48 of their videos up the top of the page.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The closest I've seen a game get to making something like this work is the MRQ II/Legends system with its "combat actions" system. The very first thing they do is treat the actions as "things you can do over a whole round," not on your turn. The second thing they do is mostly strip out movement from the CAs. (After your fairly generous movement allowance is used up, you can burn CAs for modest movement, at GM discretion. This part of MRQ II is rather vague.)

Everyone still gets only one attack on their "turn," but the CAs determine how well they defend, and potentially riposte, as others attack them during their turn. Finally, no doubt derived from the earlier RQ "rank" initiative system, a round lasts until everyone is out of CAs. So you keep going through the initiative order, using one CA each time you get a chance on your turn, and then others to react to attacks against you. If you are pressed by three opponents, you'll run out quickly, and need someone to interfere with your opponents.

Something like this might have a place in a Next tactical module (either the main tactical module or an alternate). I'd see these necessary characteristics to make it work in D&D:

• You actions are used to defend as well as attack, encouraging you to save some. In D&D terms, maybe everyone gets Dex bonus to AC all the time, but only by spending an action, which represents highly defensive movement. Heavy armor is now valuable as an "action saver". Ditto choosing to get the bonus from a shield (which means that magic shields can now easily go past +2 to AC as before).
• There has to be some kind of multiple pass through the initiative order in a round, with each pass only allowing one "proactive" choice. This is critical for both handling speed, but also if you are going to have such a "tactical" module mean something, allowing response.
• Make weapon speed choices based on some kind of realistic appreciation for weapons, not previous editions inflated encumbrance rules.
• Movement must largely be parallel to attack and defense. It can be segmented and rationed (similar to MRQ II), allowed to be freely split across the round within that ration (ala Next so far), but whatever else it does, it occurs in tandem with actions.
• Powerful spells must take multiple actions to get off, from start to finish, whether you charge some kind of "overhead" cost for preparing them, or simply make the casting take that long. Alternately, allow them to happen in one "action," but put a limit of one spell per the larger round (until all actions are used), with some kind of flavor text that there is a brief amount of time required to "recover" from casting before one can cast again.

 

[the Jester]

I don't want anything that encourages in-combat micromanaging that results in combats as long as those in 4e or high-level 3e, and that's exactly what we'd see with this.

"How can I get the most out of my action points? Let me mull this over for twenty minutes..."

That said, something like this would be okay as an optional module.