Caedrus wrote:ubernoob wrote:Having exactly 1/3 of your abilities ruled out on any given round is actually pretty good of a way to prevent spamming.
Not really.
1: If we're looking at something like D&D where combats last maybe 3 rounds that matter, and you're randomly determining which 1/3 of your abilities are ruled out, There's actually a good chance that you can spam the same ability for all 3 rounds. If the tactical incentive to spam is still there, people will still do it until the very moment that that 1/3 chance to cut it out comes up. Half the time it's not actually preventing actions at all.
2: Things like "I can't fire that arrow this round" is a bad dissociative mechanic. You know, the thing we don't like 4e for. It's very artificial and it will cause the same kind of feeling that people get when they run into a glitch into a videogame. It pulls them out of that "trance" where they think they're Conan the Barbarian and makes them think "Oh yeah, I'm in a game." The arguments given by others in the thread reinforce this.
3: It's seriously not terribly impossible to create a system that discourages spamming through tactical or strategic viability of choices on a changing battlefield (or restricting choices as a result of things actually happening in the game). I can draw tons of examples from videogames. Say, Soul Calibur. Against any player who actually knows how to play, you will get screwed over
hard if you try to spam moves. Spamming generally arises from a lack of tactically competitive options and a lack of dynamic gameplay.
Winds of Fate feels like Super Smash Brothers Brawl's "
random tripping" to me. Rather than actually introduce dynamic tactical elements into the game, it just seems you want to roll the dice to determine what action you should take. And don't say "without random determination of options there is only one best option so people will always pick that same one." By that argument Chess would be a crap game.
1: [Defensive Tree] OR [Reckless Tree] this round
2: [Reckless Tree] OR [Precise Tree] this round
3: [Precise Tree] OR [Defensive Tree] this round
4: [Defensive Tree] OR [Reckless Tree] this round
5: [Reckless Tree] or [Precise Tree] this round
6: [Defensive Tree] OR [Precise Tree] this round
Opening Assault [Reckless] (None)
Full Round Action
You charge and attack the enemy. You gain +2 to hit and damage over a normal charge, but have -4 to AC in addition to the normal penalties. You may full attack at the end of this charge.
Parry [Defensive] (none)
Immediate Action
When attacked, make an attack roll at your highest melee to hit. If this attack roll beats your opponent's attack roll, the attack misses even if it would normally hit you. The opponent must make a save or else become afraid of your bad assery and take a -3 penalty to rolls against you.
Brutal Chop [Reckless] (Defensive 1)
Standard action
You make a single attack at a +4 to hit bonus. This does double damage. If you hit, the target is stunned (save negates) for one round.
If you miss, your balance falters and you lose your next move action (this round if applicable) and take a -4 penalty to AC.
Head shot [Precise] (Reckless 2)
Standard action
You make a single attack at a +10 to hit. If this hits, the target dies.
the [] is the tag for that ability, and the () is what that enemy must have been hit with this encounter already to use that specific ability against them. As you take more hits, the enemies get to use more and more lethal combat actions agianst you, but won't be able to necessarily time when Head Shot is open (they have only a 4/9 chance to get two reckless in the first round and then a 2/3 to get precise, so the odds of that specific killer move being open is 8/27).
But yeah, I think it could be workable for a dynamic system that doesn't automatically lead to magic style four move wins or RLT from the getgo.
