[3.5] Downgrading actions?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

[3.5] Downgrading actions?

Post by virgil »

Are you able to downgrade your actions? For example, you have a pair of quickened fireballs, along with a normal fireball. Can you use your standard, move, & swift actions to cast all three?
Last edited by virgil on Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
IGTN
Knight-Baron
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:13 am

Post by IGTN »

I don't think there's anything in the rules that says you can.

I wouldn't allow a Move to become Swift. Standard to Swift should be fine, though.
"No, you can't burn the inn down. It's made of solid fire."
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

I assumed it was default. Rules were unspecific and it made sense to do so.

I mean, we can blink without any effort at all, but if one wishes to... they can blink veeeerrrrryyy ssssslllllooooowwwwllllyyyyyy.
User avatar
Ice9
Duke
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ice9 »

A standard should be downgradable to a swift action (although this is not technically stated in the rules). But a move action can't be converted to a swift action - it doesn't encompass the same things.

4E:
Standard > Move > Minor

3E:
Standard > Move
Standard > Swift
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Making Standard -> Move -> Minor action equivalency was one of the best ideas that 4E had. So was creating Opportunity, Immediate Reactions and Immediate Interrupts.

It doesn't work in 3rd Edition because Swift Actions were obviously built on the assumption that you wouldn't use more than one a round--hence the nature of Immediate Actions.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Post by Crissa »

You may downgrade actions; you can use your 'action' for a move, but generally 'swift' actions can only be swift actions, in other words, things blow up if you can do some of them more than once...

-Crissa
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

With downgrade actions, why not go all the way and do turn-based Action Points?

4e (5ap pool)
• Minor 0ap to 1ap, unsure
• Move 2ap
• Standard 3ap

3e (5ap pool)
• Immediate 0ap
• Swift 0ap (limit 1?)
• Move 2ap
• Standard 3ap

The math doesn't quite work out, or perhaps larger numbers are required.
For instance a Standard > Move in all instances; 2 Moves can make a turn, but one can't perform 2 Standards. 1 Move and 1 Standard is possible.
Therefore, in a pool of 10ap:
• Standard 6ap
• Move 4ap
• 2ap leftover (Minor/Swift)

IMO one could have a balanced system of increased AP with level gain and static ability purchase but NOT attached to stats, buff, or item.
Abilities of all kinds would become more frequent each turn, or alternatively one might discount specific categories of powers such as Melee, Ranged, Spells, or Move.
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: [3.5] Downgrading actions?

Post by hogarth »

virgileso wrote:Are you able to downgrade your actions? For example, you have a pair of quickened fireballs, along with a normal fireball. Can you use your standard, move, & swift actions to cast all three?
Quicken Spell wrote:You may cast only one quickened spell per round.
So no.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

And for natural abilities that happen to be swift actions to activate?
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

virgileso wrote:And for natural abilities that happen to be swift actions to activate?
What abilities specifically are you thinking about?
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

virgileso wrote:And for natural abilities that happen to be swift actions to activate?
The 3.5 rules don't allow it. Would it be unbalanced? Probably not.
User avatar
TOZ
Duke
Posts: 1160
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:19 pm

Post by TOZ »

I've always understood that you get a standard and a move, and can convert your standard to a move. Then they added swift actions but never specified that you could convert to those.
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

TOZ wrote:I've always understood that you get a standard and a move, and can convert your standard to a move. Then they added swift actions but never specified that you could convert to those.
Correct. They explicitly state that you can swap a standard for a move. When they later came out with swift actions, they didn't say anything.

per the SRD:
SRD wrote:You can take a move action in place of a standard action.
I can see where the OP thinks it's implied, but I think Ice9 summed it up best:
Ice9 wrote:4E:
Standard > Move > Minor

3E:
Standard > Move
Standard > Swift
Clearly, the standard action is the best of the three, but swift actions and move actions are kind of like apples and oranges here. And while a swift might be "quicker" in terms of how much time it takes to execute, you're limited to one per round for balance reasons.
Last edited by RobbyPants on Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

hogarth wrote: The 3.5 rules don't allow it. Would it be unbalanced? Probably not.
We'll never know until tried.
I agree, probably fine.

Player1: "I use my first round to chug an armload of buff potions."
DM: "I'll allow it. 50 points for Gryffindor."
Player2: "That's not fair, he should have to waste his turn on moving and attacking like I am!"
Player1: "You're just jealous that you don't have any potions. Like I do. Correction, did."
User avatar
tzor
Prince
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by tzor »

It is things like this that make me long for the days of the old 1E "potion miscibility table."
User avatar
CatharzGodfoot
King
Posts: 5668
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by CatharzGodfoot »

tzor wrote:It is things like this that make me long for the days of the old 1E "potion miscibility table."
Even a Witcher-like 'toxin bar' might be enough, but really three potions at the start of combat isn't unreasonable.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France

Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.

-Josh Kablack

Quantumboost
Knight-Baron
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Quantumboost »

CatharzGodfoot wrote:a Witcher-like 'toxin bar'
Resource mechanic for BoG perhaps? :D
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

tzor wrote:It is things like this that make me long for the days of the old 1E "potion miscibility table."
That was in AD&D as well. I don't miss it at all.

I wouldn't stop at three potions, though. It would be as many Swifts a PC can scrape out of their downgraded action points each turn.

"You drank the entire cartload in a minute?!?"
schpeelah
Knight-Baron
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:38 pm

Post by schpeelah »

Maybe make them use up BoG item slots, providing level-appropriate though situational bonuses (Energy Resistance, Spell Resistance, Ghost Touch, anything that comes up or not depending on who you are fighting). And scaling healing potions. Can't have a fantasy RPG without healing potions.
User avatar
Meikle641
Duke
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by Meikle641 »

I'm of the opinion that potions should heal the max amount of the spell. None of this 1d8+1 or 2d8+3 bullshit. Know how many times I've rolled snake eyes on healing potions? Too damn many. If they're going to cost so much, they should do something worth the expense.
Official Discord: https://discord.gg/ZUc77F7
Twitter: @HrtBrkrPress
FB Page: htttp://facebook.com/HrtBrkrPress
My store page: https://heartbreaker-press.myshopify.co ... ctions/all
Book store: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/ ... aker-Press
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

Meikle641 wrote:I'm of the opinion that potions should heal the max amount of the spell. None of this 1d8+1 or 2d8+3 bullshit. Know how many times I've rolled snake eyes on healing potions? Too damn many. If they're going to cost so much, they should do something worth the expense.
That's what wands are for. Less than a third of the cost per use. ;)
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

Meikle641 wrote:I'm of the opinion that potions should heal the max amount of the spell. None of this 1d8+1 or 2d8+3 bullshit. Know how many times I've rolled snake eyes on healing potions? Too damn many. If they're going to cost so much, they should do something worth the expense.
I think that's another matter entirely, but yes. Rolling for heal is shit.
Damage should usually be random (even though most 'dice' of spells could stand for a solid value with a little random on top) while the healing should always be maximized, just like a PC's HP.
Post Reply