New Edition: Actions

[K]

Here's an idea:

You only have two kinds of actions: one activates abilities, the other is for everything else

Activate: Can activate one power, or make a skill check. Powers and skills don't give free attacks or moves.

Action: Can make an attack(with weapon or activated power that might need a weapon) and move up to move rate, or can run, or can full attack.

Example:

Tommy the Mage and Kaz the Samurai encounter two goblins, and win initiative.

Tommy goes first, and he activates his Fireball and attacks with it, and moves behind some cover.

Kaz activates his Sense Motive skill to discover that these are weak willed gobbos with good physical stats and attacks with an arrow from his longbow, moving to block Tommy from the gobbos (he knows that Tommy has weak physical stats and good mental ones, so he is the best match for them).

Gobbo 1 activates Gobbo Strike and since he is next to Kaz he Full attacks with his Gobbo Strike.

Gobbo 2, having been hit with a Fireball and an arrow, activates his Gobbo Stealth and runs flat out.

-----------------------

Other ideas:
Full attack: Attacks have bonuses to hit, and you get defensive bonuses.

Attack: Can hit a number of targets based on level, regardless if its with a weapon or a spell. Some attacks are better and cap with fewer targets(for example Charms since they turn an attacker to your side, and Crippling Strikes since they take a attacker out of combat. AoE effects are based on level are cover a max area that could effect that number of targets).

Move: No AoOs on moves.

Run. Four times move rate, lowered defenses.

[Jacob_Orlove]

Do we really need full attacks? Trading your move action for more offense makes combat much less interesting, imo.

[K]

1197586566[/unixtime]]Do we really need full attacks? Trading your move action for more offense makes combat much less interesting, imo.

I think so. The ability to move means you can avoid attacks and concentrate on specific targets to drop them first, and thats a big ability.

But, people might be forced to stand still because of position in a room or because they want to protect an important person/object/position/thing, so making them generally more survivable is good since they have already traded off better attacks and better defenses by not moving.

[Jacob_Orlove]

Hmm. If full attacks boosted defense, I could see that working. Right now, though, it's boring when characters just stand next to each other and roll a bunch of attacks. Lower-level combat (where you don't give up anything by moving) feels much more interesting and dynamic.

The more I think about it, the more I like a defensive bonus, though. It's just when you basically have to give up your move action to get level appropriate attacks that is no fun.

[Username17]

I would like to divorce the idea of there being "attacks" and "special abilities" from the universe. There should just be "abilities" and some of them should be attacks.

Heck, it wouldn't be at all bad I think if every turn someone got a Maneuver, a Strike, and a Press (kudos if you catch that reference). You can trade in your Maneuver to "aim" if you want and get a bigger effect from your strikes. That seems a better use of actions than having a "Full Attack" mechanic.

-Username17

[K]

1197589421[/unixtime]]I would like to divorce the idea of there being "attacks" and "special abilities" from the universe. There should just be "abilities" and some of them should be attacks.

Heck, it wouldn't be at all bad I think if every turn someone got a Maneuver, a Strike, and a Press (kudos if you catch that reference). You can trade in your Maneuver to "aim" if you want and get a bigger effect from your strikes. That seems a better use of actions than having a "Full Attack" mechanic.

-Username17

Thats possible, but not much different from my idea. In the idea I'm proposing, the full attack only give a bonus to hit and defense, and is otherwise an attack.

The attack action, regardless of how you are using it, hits multiple targets as a default. Better powers reduce the targets on your attack.

(As for Press, I don't think Jyhad is too helpful here.)

[Username17]

As for Press, I don't think Jyhad is too helpful here.

I think it is. Imagine for the moment that you had the option every turn of imposing some kind of geas on your opponent in addition to trying to kill your enemy. So you can carry the battle forward, or you can try to put your opponent on the defensive or whatever. And then if your opponent doesn't move backwards or take a penalty on their strikes next turn or whatever, your strike gets a bonus.

That would be your "press". The thing you are doing to advance combat before you even roll your attack die so that people who keep rolling 2s and 3s are still playing the game.

-Username17

[K]

1197591086[/unixtime]]

As for Press, I don't think Jyhad is too helpful here.

I think it is. Imagine for the moment that you had the option every turn of imposing some kind of geas on your opponent in addition to trying to kill your enemy. So you can carry the battle forward, or you can try to put your opponent on the defensive or whatever. And then if your opponent doesn't move backwards or take a penalty on their strikes next turn or whatever, your strike gets a bonus.

That would be your "press". The thing you are doing to advance combat before you even roll your attack die so that people who keep rolling 2s and 3s are still playing the game.

-Username17

That doesn't sound fun at all. It just means that every turn you also say "and I press" automatically.

One more thing complicating every combat.

I don't know about you, but Classes like the Knight just make combat less fun for me. I just want to hit things and move my guy around the board. At worse, I want to put little chits under minis that say things like "Stunned" or "Charmed" or "Pain effect" or something.

I don't know what to do about 2s and 3s, but I'd think that keeping a good position is enough for most people, as long as you avoid negating the mechanic of position by doing BS like "and I tumble through the fighter's square to hit the mage in the back".

[Username17]

That doesn't sound fun at all. It just means that every turn you also say "and I press" automatically.

My idea is that some of your Presses are going to be pretty weird, and you'll definitely have the opion for more than one of them at a time.

For example, you might Press someone by making plants grow up around their feet (making the area they are in difficult terrain) and that would allow you to use your Strike to Vine Grapple someone. The Vine Grapple can inflict wounds or hit point loss or action delays, but it requires an attack roll. The Press has relatively minor (but possibly importantly tactical) effects but it just happens.

2s and 3s, and your actions still have meaning. The important part is to hit the sweet spot where you don'thave too many available presses such that it becomes hard to play a character, nor too few presses such that your character becomes predictable enough that the other players can auto-pilot your character.

But I think it is manageable.

-Username17

[Prak]

I actually rather like the idea of presses, possibly because I'm the guy that rolls shit, and sits around waiting for the game to move on...

[K]

1197592284[/unixtime]]

That doesn't sound fun at all. It just means that every turn you also say "and I press" automatically.

My idea is that some of your Presses are going to be pretty weird, and you'll definitely have the opion for more than one of them at a time.

For example, you might Press someone by making plants grow up around their feet (making the area they are in difficult terrain) and that would allow you to use your Strike to Vine Grapple someone. The Vine Grapple can inflict wounds or hit point loss or action delays, but it requires an attack roll. The Press has relatively minor (but possibly importantly tactical) effects but it just happens.

2s and 3s, and your actions still have meaning. The important part is to hit the sweet spot where you don'thave too many available presses such that it becomes hard to play a character, nor too few presses such that your character becomes predictable enough that the other players can auto-pilot your character.

But I think it is manageable.

-Username17

I think you can eliminate the idea altogether by making attacks more interesting.

I mean, you can have a Druid that has a Grow Vines attack that just automatically makes difficult terrain in enemy squares, but does actual damage on a successful hit. That ways people who feel cursed by bad rolls get some effect out of their character but still have to be at the table to roll.

The Killer Combo!!! idea can also be extended as long as its not Tekken juggle. Successful vine attacks may mean that you can then cast your Bloody Seeds power that makes vines bust out of a guy's chest.

The basic idea of a press is OK, bu making it a separate action type just means that you've complicated combat to no good effect.

[Username17]

I think you run the risk of too much strike proliferation that way. Consider the idea of "taunting" an opponent. It probably gives them the option of successfully hitting you with a strike on their turn or allowing you to get a bonus against them next turn. A fundamental building block of combat.

But do we seriously want a Strike of "Taunt and Lunge" and a Strike of "Taunt and Breath Fire?" to be listed separately? While it's instantaneously less ability entries than having a Taunt Press and a Lunge attack and a Breath Fire attack, it's no savings at all if add a second side effect like "push". And as soon as you have Taunt and Push while also having lunge and breath fire and fury swipes (or whatever your third attack is) then you're dealing with less entries by dividing them.

---

Now one thing I can certainly see is making some higher level abilities be a Strike and a Press. A big Fire attack, for example might set people on fire causing them to take more damage on later turns or spend actions putting themselves out. That would be the Strike (roll vs. an Armor Class to do a bunch of fire damage) and a Press (opponents lose actions or take damage).

But a lot of abilities should be usable with a 5' adjustment, a Taunt, a Push, or other lego-like remixable automatic and potentially enemy affecting tactical action.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

I like the sound of presses. I'm kinda with Jacob about full attacks, they make combat very static. A last resort bonus for if you're forced to stand still would be good but I wouldn't want to see combat being about standing perfectly still most of the time.

What about interrupts? I like foil from the tome fighter, using it correctly takes skill and can really turn a fight around. Also in Descent: Journeys in the Dark yelling interrupt whenever the overlord tries to do something is great fun. I can see this being the problem too. Four PCs and four NPCs is a lot of yelling interrupt. For a start mooks can't have interrupts.

[RandomCasualty]

Honestly I'm not worried about 2s and 3s sometimes just not doing anything. In a level based system, you need that. Sometimes a guy is of such high level that low levels can't affect him most of the time. If you have too many abilities that automatically work, regardless of a target's defenses, then it becomes similar to nWoD where it's just a numbers game.

I think people can live with sometimes not doing anything on a bad roll. Now there may be should be specific abilities that allow you to do stuff even if you miss, like a strike that does half damage even on a failed attack or something.

As far as actions, I generally prefer the D&D setup of having standard, move and swift/immediate. The addition of the immediate or swift action is good since it allows for little minor actions like boosts or counters during other people's turns. Without that mechanic, you have no real way to regulate how many out of turn actions people have, or you have to have none at all (which is somewhat boring).

[Jacob_Orlove]

In a turn-based system, having people act out of turn is awful. I'd much rather have a streamlined system where you can finish a whole round in a few minutes at most, than one where people are constantly jumping in with immediate actions. That should solve the "boring" problem.

Plus, the whole mechanic is broken. Get that nonsense out of the game.

[RandomCasualty]

1197663009[/unixtime]]In a turn-based system, having people act out of turn is awful. I'd much rather have a streamlined system where you can finish a whole round in a few minutes at most, than one where people are constantly jumping in with immediate actions. That should solve the "boring" problem.

Plus, the whole mechanic is broken. Get that nonsense out of the game.

Well, it's a nice way to handle counter moves. Otherwise, you basically can't stop anything your opponent does. Not when your foe can move out of your reach and take an action in the same round. Personally I like the idea of guys who jump out of the way of fireballs or toss daggers at wizards to disrupt their casting. And it sucks to force people to ready an action to do that shit, because then they won't be able to do it.

The broken mechanic is actually stuff like contingency which is interrupt actions uncontrolled by an action type. Effectively they cost you nothing and you can have as many of them as you please. Immediate actions don't fit this pattern because regardless, you get one, and using it costs you your next swift action.

The only thing that's really "broken" in the current D&D is that not all classes can actually use their swift action. If you design a game from the ground up with the swift action in mind, things will work out fine I think.

[Crissa]

Presses seem to give the advantage to engaging opponents rather than letting them do as they please.

I really would like a combat system where position and 'engaging' is vaguely important. Combat ala Warcraft where you just pile on willy-nilly and can just move around and through your opponents doesn't seem to really encourage tactics. I want a reason for Fighter to intercept the goblins before they surround him, and the minor benefit of flanking doesn't seem to do it to my mind. At least for NPCs.

I'd also like an option or Feat that allows mixing of moves and attacks. Like ride-by or whirling dervish; not to negate the value of engaging, but to encourage some characters to pull back from engagement.

-Crissa

[Username17]

The way I see it the biggest problem with the interrupt is players selecting their actions on other players' turns. That slows down the game.

What if people selected their defensive stance ahead of time? And when they were "provoked" their defensive stance would go off with a preset attack or other effect.

This coincidentally seems like it solves the running through crowds issue because non-combatants don't have a defensive stance and thus nothing happens when they are provoked by people running past them.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1197683192[/unixtime]]The way I see it the biggest problem with the interrupt is players selecting their actions on other players' turns. That slows down the game.

What if people selected their defensive stance ahead of time? And when they were "provoked" their defensive stance would go off with a preset attack or other effect.

This coincidentally seems like it solves the running through crowds issue because non-combatants don't have a defensive stance and thus nothing happens when they are provoked by people running past them.

-Username17

Yeah I thought about that. The only issue I think that might arise is that you can't have enough defensive stances to cover a lot of shit, and then the game becomes guessing the enemy's stance and trying to do something that doesn't provoke it.

Fighter/mages tend to win out there, because the enemy has to either use a spell interrupt stance or a sword defense, and he guesses wrong half the time. IF your defenses are even more specific, like "protect against fire", it gets even worse potentially.

The nice thing about immediate actions is that you can potentially cram a bunch of different defenses in a way that isn't unbalanced, because you can only use a single one each turn, but you also don't have to guess what your opponent is going to do. Because a guessing game means that a lot of the time your defense doesn't do anything.

[K]

1197621131[/unixtime]]I think you run the risk of too much strike proliferation that way. Consider the idea of "taunting" an opponent. It probably gives them the option of successfully hitting you with a strike on their turn or allowing you to get a bonus against them next turn. A fundamental building block of combat.

But do we seriously want a Strike of "Taunt and Lunge" and a Strike of "Taunt and Breath Fire?" to be listed separately? While it's instantaneously less ability entries than having a Taunt Press and a Lunge attack and a Breath Fire attack, it's no savings at all if add a second side effect like "push". And as soon as you have Taunt and Push while also having lunge and breath fire and fury swipes (or whatever your third attack is) then you're dealing with less entries by dividing them.

---

Now one thing I can certainly see is making some higher level abilities be a Strike and a Press. A big Fire attack, for example might set people on fire causing them to take more damage on later turns or spend actions putting themselves out. That would be the Strike (roll vs. an Armor Class to do a bunch of fire damage) and a Press (opponents lose actions or take damage).

But a lot of abilities should be usable with a 5' adjustment, a Taunt, a Push, or other lego-like remixable automatic and potentially enemy affecting tactical action.

-Username17

Uuuhh.

Seriously?

I don't want a Taunt that gives a bonus when someone attacks you. I don't want to try and remember which monster on the battlefield gets a bonus on who when three guys are Taunting for free every turn.

I especially don't want a Taunt combined with a Fire Breath. Thats just action inflation and more things to remember in the middle of combat.

Here's all the kinds of Taunt I'll accept:

Fighter uses Taunt. Monster gets "Enraged" condition and can't use special attacks.

Fighter uses Taunt. Monster get "Fear" condition, and must escape from combat on its turn.

Fighter uses Taunt. Monster gets "Stunned" condition and loses next action.



Now all of those are useful combat actions. You can do useful things in combat with one action and a move. I don't want Presses or Free actions or immediate action or anything of that crap. Simple and elegant.

More actions per turn means more decisions per player turn which means more confused newbies and more time for players not getting all those choices time to start playing the Wii.

When I want a system for master-level gamers who love tactics and strategy, I write that. For now, I want someone clean and efficient for dungeon delving and storytelling.



PS. I especially don't want AoOs or Defensive Stances going off.

"Hey, the Rogue just ran past six orcs, a troll, a golem, and a vampire. Sit back guys, i need to roll a bunch of dice and see if he gets hit and then he needs to roll a save for each one.

You might want to run down to the store...this will take a while."

[PhoneLobster]

Look I haven't spoken up much on this stuff since you guys have your own ideas where you are going and they are pretty divergent from my pet concepts.

But K is raising some stuff which does touch on my personal preferred action resolution methods so hurrah!

Presses, eh whatever, I can do without. Complexity yes, definitely do without. Multiple DIFFERENT attacks in a single turn, I can do without. And AoOs really piss me.

I always felt that the whole traditional "a move AND a different action" per turn mechanic was in part at fault and d20's addition to make that a move, an action, and an AoO and sometimes a mini move, a bigger action, and an AoO (and also free and immediate actions) made it worse.

So I've long since decided the elegant solution to what do people do while the rogue tumbles past the six orcs was to shorten actions and do something about initiative.

If everyone gets less actions per turn and everyone's actions are resolved simultaneously (or if not truly resolved simultaneously at least a little more so) then the question of what the orcs, troll, vampire and ogre did while the rogue ran past does not require a special AoO mechanic.

No, the rogue took an action to run past and they all got an action on the same turn that could have been used to attack the rogue at any point in his move or do whatever else is normally done with actions.

The whole reason AoOs exist is because of needlessly long otherwise uninterruptible complex turns. Its an issue of a clunky initiative system with far too many actions before it ticks over to the next guy.

I would like to see discussion of initiative and turn resolution, an end to multiple types of actions (move action, standard action, full round action, etc... they can suck my balls) and a system that delivers all the mobile character screwing of AoOs without the tacked on feel.

[Crissa]

I meant 'engaged' as in, 'Joe the Fighter engages the Goblins' and then the goblins cannot pass him. 'Joe the Fighter engages the Troll' and now the Troll's movement and attacks are limited in choice.

Some reason or benefit for attacking every enemy unit instead of piling upon one - which would be your preference. An enemy that is engaged does less damage in the battle than one who is not.

A reason for the Goblins to have a benefit from having a numerical superiority. But this reason means that the Troll or Fighter, who is capable of taking on many foes at once, isn't completely floored simply by being outnumbered.

I don't want a phased or simultaneous execution of turns, that's just really tedious and complex, and has a place in Mechwarrior or Champions, and I don't need that detail in D&D.

-Crissa

[Username17]

The only issue I think that might arise is that you can't have enough defensive stances to cover a lot of shit, and then the game becomes guessing the enemy's stance and trying to do something that doesn't provoke it.

Provocation should never have to do with what stance they have, only on what action you took. If an action says "Provoke: Yes" then it causes the Defensive Stance of your opponents to "go off" if you are in their threatened area.

but I'd think that keeping a good position is enough for most people, as long as you avoid negating the mechanic of position by doing BS like "and I tumble through the fighter's square to hit the mage in the back".

I especially don't want AoOs or Defensive Stances going off.

"Hey, the Rogue just ran past six orcs, a troll, a golem, and a vampire. Sit back guys, i need to roll a bunch of dice and see if he gets hit and then he needs to roll a save for each one.

Tough shit, you've got to have one problem or the other. There's a Mage in the back who is dumping fearfully good area artillery but he's relatively weak to melee combat (for whatever reason). So you decide to move up to the Mage to go smack him. And?

Either the six orcs, the golem, the troll, and the vampire get to do something about this or they don't. If they don't, then it's the first problem where position doesn't matter. If they do, then it's going to take some amount of time to resolve.

But god damnit, the Rogue chose to go past all those monsters in order to smack the Mage. If it takes a while to resolve that, it is his own damn fault. What needs to not happen is characters getting defensive stances which change what does and does not provoke them. That becomes a guessing and questioning game. "I just moved up to the spearman, did that provoke their stance?" That's something you never ever want to say. Ever.

Also I don't think we're doing Attack + Save mechanics for attacks so much as Attack + Effect Roll. It's less active for the character being attacked, but it is faster to resolve.
---

I don't want a Taunt that gives a bonus when someone attacks you.

My suggestion was a taunt which gave a bonus if they didn't attack you. Every time you inflict an automatic condition on your opponent they should have some sort of choice about it where if you personally are small enough they can just "not give a damn" about you and take no penalties themselves.

Fighter uses Taunt. Monster gets "Enraged" condition and can't use special attacks.

Not just no, hell no! "Giant Stinger Attack" is a special ability attack. Everything is a special ability. Having a whole separate ability attacks vs. special attacks dichotomy is bullshit and there's no reason for it.

More actions per turn means more decisions per player turn which means more confused newbies and more time for players not getting all those choices time to start playing the Wii.

This is true. And it's why things like enforcing your zone of control need to be formalized ahead of time rather than giving people interrupt abilities which function on other peoples' turns. Creating a defensive stance mechanic is more action types, but it's less time consuming than choosing whether you are going to grapple/trip/stab/disarm/whatever when an opponent provokes an attack of opportnity.

And simply removing the attacks of opportunity puts us in Star Wars Saga land where seriously having positions on the battle map is a waste of time altogether and you might as well Magical Teaparty it for all the difference it makes. All enemies in the combat can attack you if they feel like it and anyone can just double move out of the combat and escape whenever they want - so essentially it just comes down to the enemies attacking you until you or the GM decide that it's time to retreat and then there's essentially no pursuit. You might as well be playing Final Fantasy VII.

I would like to see discussion of initiative and turn resolution

Real Time Roleplaying doesn't really work for any of a number of reasons. Moving units around i a continuous fashion is simply too much effort. At a certain point you have to say "I move and shoot!"

an end to multiple types of actions

We can get rid of lots of types of actions. But the fact is that if your character wants to say "Haha! Now you die!" that had better be a free action or combat gets really boring and impersonal.

Lots of action types are superfluous. I genuinely don't see the need for:

• The Full Round Action If you want an action to take more time, specifiy a number of other actions you have a spend.
  
  
• The Attack Action The whole multiple attacks thing is a shit idea in a one-blow system and it needs to go away double quick.

a system that delivers all the mobile character screwing of AoOs without the tacked on feel.

Good luck with that. The best I can offer you right now is the idea of a defensive stance where you announce ahead of time what will happen if an enemy attempts to run past you (for example: "The motherfucka will get stabbed") so that the conseqences of running past the tanks are well established before this is actually done.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Some Actions take an amount of time greater than 'action' to complete. That's what a full-round action is, and should just have a time period attached to it.

I don't want to see 'this takes six actions' I want 'This takes thirty seconds, which is six rounds'.

Do we need AoO as a limited resource, or merely something which does or does not stop the Rogue? I'd rather the AoOs be an attempt to grapple, trip, or stand in the way instead of merely throwing some damage around. Effects, not damage.

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

Good luck with that.

I'll try to better explain my preferred solution it's a bit hard because hey, I lack the eloquence, its been conceived in the context of my other eccentric "solutions" and I'm trying to cut the needless details but...

Everyone determines initiative and resolves their (relatively small and simple) actions for the turn.

None of this multiple attack full round junk, there's a set of things defined as an "action" and they choose one.

But the system creates some pretence to simultaneous resolution by making the resolved results of these actions, like hit point damage, only take effect between rounds.

So if you grab some one successfully one you aren't counted as grabbing them until the beginning of the next round.

If you take a wound (or even die) you don't die until next round.

If you just plain move elsewhere you don't actually get to count as not being where you used to be until next round.

So the rogue moves, but since he hasn't left the building quiet yet the vampire stabs him to death and the ogre grapples him.

At the beginning of the next round everyone's action results arrive in the mail and the rogue arrives at his destination, dragging an ogre in crash tackle and falls down dead from vampire stabs.

It has its potential complications, sure. But I'd contend they are exploitable in good ways for further development (I've been nothing but pleased with the ongoing secondary implications of using this sort of mechanic) and are probably smaller than the complications of an entirely separate and additional action set of AoOs with its own rules to govern it.

Its like actions and AoOs are the exact same thing. And I think any sane system should find SOME way of doing that.