Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why not treat the action economy... like an economy?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5956053" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>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.) </p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Make weapon speed choices based on some kind of realistic appreciation for weapons, not previous editions inflated encumbrance rules.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5956053, member: 54877"] 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: [LIST] [*]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. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why not treat the action economy... like an economy?
Top