Community

Apr 25, 2012 -- 5:44PM, Balesir wrote:

There are things that the character will want to do that are "not actions" according to this schema; drawing and sheathing weapons, getting potions out of packs, opening and closing doors, checking the immediate environment for traps, activating items like flaming swords, and so on and so on. My question is "can a creature do an unlimited number of these "non-actions" in a turn, or is there a limit? If there is a limit, how is that limit enforced/decided?

Ah.  DM fiat should work fine for these sots of actions.  Just as the DM in 4e has control over how many free actions you get to do in your turn.

Apr 25, 2012 -- 9:53AM, wrecan wrote:

So they "attack" an empty space and just do the healing? Is that what you're saying? Sucks if you want a missile-using cleric, or a spell-using one (apart from healing).

Gah!!!  I'm not giving an example of a real spell.  I'm not on the design team!  I'm giving an example of spells that could allow a person to heal and attack without making full actions.  Geez, Balesir.  I'm out of the discussion.  You have fun.

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:45AM, Balesir wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 1:41AM, Kaldric wrote:

Personally, I hope that the core system is simple group action declaration followed by binary initiative followed by rolling to resolve all the actions.

If you are going to remove tactics to that extent, I would sooner simplify further still. Have the descriptions of aims and general approach up front (to establish the "stakes" for the combat) and then a single roll per side. Maybe add on the option to expend resources (daily spells, hit point "packets") to win despite a bad roll, but with a cost. Done.

As I see it, the point of having multiple rolls and actions is to allow player decisions to influence the flow of the battle between winning (cheaply) and losing (or winning expensively). If these decisions are just to be handwaved into a narrative, I would cut the mechanics down to the minimum needed to generate a narrative - which seems to me to be one roll. Not surprisingly, this is how Indie "Narrativist" games frequently handle things.

well 2nd had the sequence :
Dm decides what actions monsters and nPC's take
players indicate what actions they will take
initiative is rolled
atacks are made in order of initiative
this changed in 3.X where you decided on what you where going to do on your turn.

I might like to see a combat round sequence more like white wolf
roll initiative
actions are declared, from lowest to higest initiative so faster characters canreact to actions declared by the slower ones.
actions are taken from high to low initiative.
if your turn comes up and the action you wanted to take is no longer valid due to actions taken by characters faster then you you lose your action.
( maybe this would be the new use for action point allouwing to change your action if it became invalid)
initiative is rolled every round

would also reduce the need for imidiate actions as you can already react to what a monster or npc is doing if your initiative was better then that monster or npc

Apr 26, 2012 -- 9:51AM, Balesir wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 9:27AM, edwin_su wrote:

well 2nd had the sequence :
Dm decides what actions monsters and nPC's take
players indicate what actions they will take
initiative is rolled
atacks are made in order of initiative
this changed in 3.X where you decided on what you where going to do on your turn.

I might like to see a combat round sequence more like white wolf
roll initiative
actions are declared, from lowest to higest initiative so faster characters canreact to actions declared by the slower ones.
actions are taken from high to low initiative.
if your turn comes up and the action you wanted to take is no longer valid due to actions taken by characters faster then you you lose your action.
( maybe this would be the new use for action point allouwing to change your action if it became invalid)
initiative is rolled every round

would also reduce the need for imidiate actions as you can already react to what a monster or npc is doing if your initiative was better then that monster or npc

That's another version that makes initiative more important than other combat abilities, and more important than tactics. That being so, I don't see the need to prolong combat - just have it decided in one round.

I suppose you could make a mini-game out of gaining initiative, but that's not really where D&D combat tactics have ever been relevant (to the extent that they have been relevant, which is mostly, but not entirely, in the last two editions).

Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with a game where combat is not a focus of the game. I just think that, if it's not going to be an interesting thing in its own right, then it should be dealt with as quickly and as simply as possible. Otherwise, it just becomes a boring die-rolling interlude in whatever the game is focussing on.

ofcourse it is also dependent on how initiative works.
in white wolfs in normal games your limited to a initiative bonus of +5 an realy high power elder games the maximum initiative bomus you can obtain is +10 initiative is rolled with a d10.
so the dice roll always remains a very important part of initiative especialy in normal games where the roll is 66% of your initiative when you invest heavely in high initiative.