Actions/Round Design Change Idea [Archive] - Wizards Community

Actions/Round Design Change Idea [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Soulsong
01-27-07, 01:51 PM I have been pondering several ideas lately and wanted to see if they encouraged any debate or any other better ideas.

I am not concerned too much with balance issues in general, except on the highest order. Most balance issues are IMHO related to player and DM play styles as opposed to RAW. I understand the concern to generally desire to balance possible tactics and abilities both between classes and between levels, but some of the below ideas below will not improve these issues and may actually degrade them.

In general I dislike how x/time abilities (this includes some feats, vancian spell mechanics, monster special abilities, many magic items, missile device rules, etc...) are implemented. This also includes the new x/encounter design theory.

Most of these (feats, vancian mechanics, special abilities, magic items) just seem arbitrary and to binary. Either you have it or you don't. They make the abilities to "charge" like for my tastes. I would feel better if they had some rationale within the game world (ie rituals that depend on natural time cycles aka time of day, moon phase, etc...), but this is difficult, and works best IMO if the use isn't arbitrarily available within a broad range, but rather tied to a specific time within that range.

Other abilities just do not fit with the reality. Using a bow to make 4 attacks in 6 seconds is not reasonable. I realize that this is done to balance different weapon types, but it just isn't ideal for my thinking.

There are other x/time issues that I am not mentioning here.

The recent trend toward always on or x/encounter uses and the reworking of fighter type abilities in Tome of Battle has gotten me thinking about a historical difference between casters and non-casters; the actions per round mechanic.

I have been thinking lately that perhaps it would be useful to expand this generically to all classes in a way it has not been.

With existing rules, a F20 will have 4 attacks per round (via the BAB advancement rules) and 0 spellcasting actions (via spellcasting advancement rules), whereas a W20 will have 2 attacks (via the BAB advancement rules) and 1 spellcasting action (via spellcasting advancement rules).

I am proposing the idea that their be a unified actions/round mechanic applied to level advancement, independant of class (this would be rationalized as generic efficiency of action as experience is gained and veterancy is achieved). This kind of mechanic would allow splitting actions across rounds as well.

For fighter types, this would be used to conduct multiple attacks actions (attack, disarm, feint, grapple, overbear, charge, sunder, grab, trip, cleave, full defense, partial defense, aim, etc...) /round or even across rounds depending on how many actions it would take to complete a maneuver (maybe disarm is a 2 action maneuver - a F1 may require 2 rounds to complete it, whereas a F20 might be able to do that as well as attack and start another disarm).

For caster types, this could be used to conduct multiple spell casting actions (multiple spell castings - given the inclusion of a new #actions casting time variety, applying metamagic effects, etc...).

This idea allows a new way of balancing actions.

Spells that used this new casting time could potentially require a higher level to cast completely in a single round or would potentially require multiple actions across multiple rounds to be cast at lower levels. This could be seen as more ritual-like casting, allowing the caster to feel like he is contributing to the action without needing to do something new every round. Not all spells would need to be changed to this type of casting time, but some could to help balance certain level or tactic balance issues. This might open up a more integrated approach to metamagic effects. Perhaps all metamagic effects are open to a caster at level 1, but they require additional actions (ritual extension) in order to be applied. It would become easier to do these wih higher levels, but at the expense of reducing other casting actions.

Weapons could also be reworked for action requirements. Ranged Missile weapons could require multiple actions to perform, but maybe have the threat range increased. Perhaps a Longbow requires 3 actions to use, but does 1d12 with a 17-20 x4 threat range. This makes its use more rational, but requires a significant trade off reagarding actions with other weapons. A F1 might potentially require 3 rounds to use the Bow (reflecting the time required to use a ranged missile device), but it would have a larger impact (reflecting precision). Maybe other weapons have similar trade offs (ala crossbows in the current edition). A heavy xbow might require 5 actions (5 rounds for F1, 1.25 rounds for F20). A two handed sword might require 2 actions for a F1. Same with special maneuvers (including many that are now feats unto themselves).

Perhaps actions could be rushed with penalties (wildly shooting an arrow at point blank range) or efficacy increased by adding additional actions (aiming a missile device, aiming or concentrating a spell).

Perhaps feats etc... could be taken to rduce actions required with a certain action (spell, school, weapon, maneuver, metamagic, etc...)

Any thoughts?
thanatos_lich
01-30-07, 07:32 AM Well its not bad but wouldnt that mean a level 20 wizard could cast three spells per round?
jaelis
01-30-07, 07:42 AM How would move actions fit into all this? I'm not sure "move + attack" should be treated on the same footing as "attack + attack".
Soulsong
02-04-07, 10:03 PM Well its not bad but wouldnt that mean a level 20 wizard could cast three spells per round?Only if all of those spells combined had casting times of 1 (new) action or less. All existing spells currently having a casting time of 1 action could be assumed to use all of the new actions. Then variants of some spells could be introduced or reworked to use this new mechanic. I would probably suggest a complete reworking of all spells and spell levels so that this mechanic could be used and so that spells would generally be less powerful so that the particular spells that a 20th level caster could cast 3 spells a round would not be of the Timestop/Wish type and would hopefully be more balanced relative to other actions or other spells with greater power and longer casting times.

How would move actions fit into all this? I'm not sure "move + attack" should be treated on the same footing as "attack + attack".I could maybe that total base movement be allowed to be divided up by newly earned movement actions (based on veterancy) and treated separately (perhaps move actions could also be substituted for 5 foot steps in this system). I think a couple of different types of actions could be defined (ie Movement, Combat, Casting, Skill) and then progressions for these could be outlined. Different classes could obviously focus on different progressions to greater or lesser extents.
Ranger REG
02-05-07, 05:45 PM Any thoughts?
Good luck making this into a near-reality sim game. ;)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Soulsong 01-27-07, 01:51 PM	I have been pondering several ideas lately and wanted to see if they encouraged any debate or any other better ideas. I am not concerned too much with balance issues in general, except on the highest order. Most balance issues are IMHO related to player and DM play styles as opposed to RAW. I understand the concern to generally desire to balance possible tactics and abilities both between classes and between levels, but some of the below ideas below will not improve these issues and may actually degrade them. In general I dislike how x/time abilities (this includes some feats, vancian spell mechanics, monster special abilities, many magic items, missile device rules, etc...) are implemented. This also includes the new x/encounter design theory. Most of these (feats, vancian mechanics, special abilities, magic items) just seem arbitrary and to binary. Either you have it or you don't. They make the abilities to "charge" like for my tastes. I would feel better if they had some rationale within the game world (ie rituals that depend on natural time cycles aka time of day, moon phase, etc...), but this is difficult, and works best IMO if the use isn't arbitrarily available within a broad range, but rather tied to a specific time within that range. Other abilities just do not fit with the reality. Using a bow to make 4 attacks in 6 seconds is not reasonable. I realize that this is done to balance different weapon types, but it just isn't ideal for my thinking. There are other x/time issues that I am not mentioning here. The recent trend toward always on or x/encounter uses and the reworking of fighter type abilities in Tome of Battle has gotten me thinking about a historical difference between casters and non-casters; the actions per round mechanic. I have been thinking lately that perhaps it would be useful to expand this generically to all classes in a way it has not been. With existing rules, a F20 will have 4 attacks per round (via the BAB advancement rules) and 0 spellcasting actions (via spellcasting advancement rules), whereas a W20 will have 2 attacks (via the BAB advancement rules) and 1 spellcasting action (via spellcasting advancement rules). I am proposing the idea that their be a unified actions/round mechanic applied to level advancement, independant of class (this would be rationalized as generic efficiency of action as experience is gained and veterancy is achieved). This kind of mechanic would allow splitting actions across rounds as well. For fighter types, this would be used to conduct multiple attacks actions (attack, disarm, feint, grapple, overbear, charge, sunder, grab, trip, cleave, full defense, partial defense, aim, etc...) /round or even across rounds depending on how many actions it would take to complete a maneuver (maybe disarm is a 2 action maneuver - a F1 may require 2 rounds to complete it, whereas a F20 might be able to do that as well as attack and start another disarm). For caster types, this could be used to conduct multiple spell casting actions (multiple spell castings - given the inclusion of a new #actions casting time variety, applying metamagic effects, etc...). This idea allows a new way of balancing actions. Spells that used this new casting time could potentially require a higher level to cast completely in a single round or would potentially require multiple actions across multiple rounds to be cast at lower levels. This could be seen as more ritual-like casting, allowing the caster to feel like he is contributing to the action without needing to do something new every round. Not all spells would need to be changed to this type of casting time, but some could to help balance certain level or tactic balance issues. This might open up a more integrated approach to metamagic effects. Perhaps all metamagic effects are open to a caster at level 1, but they require additional actions (ritual extension) in order to be applied. It would become easier to do these wih higher levels, but at the expense of reducing other casting actions. Weapons could also be reworked for action requirements. Ranged Missile weapons could require multiple actions to perform, but maybe have the threat range increased. Perhaps a Longbow requires 3 actions to use, but does 1d12 with a 17-20 x4 threat range. This makes its use more rational, but requires a significant trade off reagarding actions with other weapons. A F1 might potentially require 3 rounds to use the Bow (reflecting the time required to use a ranged missile device), but it would have a larger impact (reflecting precision). Maybe other weapons have similar trade offs (ala crossbows in the current edition). A heavy xbow might require 5 actions (5 rounds for F1, 1.25 rounds for F20). A two handed sword might require 2 actions for a F1. Same with special maneuvers (including many that are now feats unto themselves). Perhaps actions could be rushed with penalties (wildly shooting an arrow at point blank range) or efficacy increased by adding additional actions (aiming a missile device, aiming or concentrating a spell). Perhaps feats etc... could be taken to rduce actions required with a certain action (spell, school, weapon, maneuver, metamagic, etc...) Any thoughts?
thanatos_lich 01-30-07, 07:32 AM	Well its not bad but wouldnt that mean a level 20 wizard could cast three spells per round?
jaelis 01-30-07, 07:42 AM	How would move actions fit into all this? I'm not sure "move + attack" should be treated on the same footing as "attack + attack".
Soulsong 02-04-07, 10:03 PM	Well its not bad but wouldnt that mean a level 20 wizard could cast three spells per round?Only if all of those spells combined had casting times of 1 (new) action or less. All existing spells currently having a casting time of 1 action could be assumed to use all of the new actions. Then variants of some spells could be introduced or reworked to use this new mechanic. I would probably suggest a complete reworking of all spells and spell levels so that this mechanic could be used and so that spells would generally be less powerful so that the particular spells that a 20th level caster could cast 3 spells a round would not be of the Timestop/Wish type and would hopefully be more balanced relative to other actions or other spells with greater power and longer casting times. How would move actions fit into all this? I'm not sure "move + attack" should be treated on the same footing as "attack + attack".I could maybe that total base movement be allowed to be divided up by newly earned movement actions (based on veterancy) and treated separately (perhaps move actions could also be substituted for 5 foot steps in this system). I think a couple of different types of actions could be defined (ie Movement, Combat, Casting, Skill) and then progressions for these could be outlined. Different classes could obviously focus on different progressions to greater or lesser extents.
Ranger REG 02-05-07, 05:45 PM	Any thoughts? Good luck making this into a near-reality sim game. ;)