Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 NinjaUmbreon Feb 22, 2014 20:08:49	So are DM wants to add a Bravely Default combat style to combat. Were instead of normal action points you default to gain one more, and then 'brave' to take mutiple actions. That's a simple explation of it. Our DM seems to think that it'll make combat more exciting, but I think it'll just slow things down.  What do you guys think?
#2 baldhermit Feb 22, 2014 22:00:26	So you are saying in 4e, the PCs will gain one additional action each round, or one additional action point each encounter? Not entirely clear to me from your post.   I always warn against messing with underlying math in any system, since it generally has far reaching consequences.     In the particular case on gaining 2 APs each encounter, it will make the PCs quite a bit more effective in combat, particularly if there is a warlord around, or another leader with "when an ally spends an AP" features. To compensate for this the DM would have to bring more monsters, increase monster HP, or accept any combat between level +0, level +3 is gonna be an easy practice run for the PCs.   If your group is dropping Action Points altogether to gain an additional action each round, please note that feats and feature with trigger :"spend an AP" need to be looked at. Other than that there is not much difference with the 2 AP each fight, as combat will likely be shortened in number of rounds, but each PC turn might take slightly longer.  PCs will be gods, monsters poundcake, unless the DM adjusts.     In either case, to make combats interesting, the DM would have to adjust, defeating the entire purpose.   I see no benefit to this move as I understand it.
#3 NinjaUmbreon Feb 22, 2014 22:42:18	Nether do I, although his explation was a little lacking. However monsters can do it as well.  To make it more tatical as he put it. So I could see make battles take longer. As for ablilties that key off an ally spending an action point, I don't know if his though of that.    By using 'Default' or I guess full guard, for two turns you get two extra actions on the following turn.    He only has Heroes of the Fall Kingdom, the Monster Vault, and the DMG.
#4 baldhermit Feb 23, 2014 0:41:44	I am still not sure what exactly it is you mean. Do you ?   From your last post, I would gather that action points no longer exist, and action sequence becomes the following: Round 1: minor, move & standard action. As a free action (?) invoking the full guard stance, or default bravery, or whatever name. Round 2: minor, move and 2 standard actions.   Is that correct? Because all it does it make whomever win initiative win combat, there really should not be a round 3, or at least not one that matters.   Please, if you want us to work out the consequences of this proposal, you need to clarify what it is your DM intents.     EDIT: I know in final fantasy there was a system that you seem to be refering to, where you could take multiple actions this round, at the cost of not taking an action next round, or not take an action this round, and take two or more actions in a later round. This does not work in 4e!  Combat in 4e is highly prejudiced in favor of those who can deal a lot of damage early on, since monsters ability to deal damage is binary. Dead monsters deal no damage, monsters that can deal damage are just as dangerous at 1% health as they are at 100% health. So as a PC, you want to kill things early and quickly. What is to stop someone from taking four standard actions this round, annihilating anything that moves, and then sit on his ass for three rounds?
#5 NinjaUmbreon Feb 23, 2014 8:40:01	MY bad, I meant Total Deafnce witch is a standard action. So it would look like Round 1: minor, move & 'Default' or Total Deafense. Round 2: minor, move and 2 standard actions.   It seems like he played the game and tried to drop in 4e. But it works pretty much like in the game, from what I can work out.   It would be a max of three I think, but nothing. Well missing would stop that, but other then that not much.
#6 RedSiegfried Feb 23, 2014 9:45:03	If your DM doesn't think 4e is tactical enough, I don't know that any tweaking of the rules is going to fix that for him.  Battles are already notoriously long in 4e and 4e's detractors infamously describe it as more like a board game with RP tacked on.  I don't agree with that but there's no doubt that 4e is a game that focuses heavily on tactical combat encounters.  Maybe you two should have a more in-depth discussion on what he's really hoping to accomplish with this change ...  what he really wants more of in the game or less of in the game.   Maybe because he only has Essentials materials, he thinks that there aren't enough options in combat.  He should get a copy of the Rules Compendium, which I believe explains some options in greater detail that are not in those other books he has, and maybe get the Players Handbooks, where all the classes have many more options in combat to choose from than the Essentials-style characters do.  If you have all those materials, you will probably even find that (especially in Paragon tier) a lack of options is not a problem.  In fact, a lot of players have too many options to handle, leading to decision paralysis while they're playing.   I'm concerned that changing the action economy on such a fundamental level is just going to have consequences down the road that none of you can foresee and create a cascade of broken game elements.  I'd advise against it.   Furthermore, if you object to this rules change, it shouldn't be implemented.  The DM should get buy-in from everyone else at the table before any rules are changed.  Think of changing the rules as a situation where new ideas are welcome, but anyone who plays the game should have veto power of it, or at the very least, be allowed to opt-out on an individual basis.
#7 NinjaUmbreon Feb 23, 2014 9:49:47	I agree. I don't know about the other players, But I voiced my concerners about the idea. Since our DM feels that combat takes to long and he wants to speed it up, I don't see how add this system would do so and not just slow it down.
#8 baldhermit Feb 23, 2014 10:08:51	Combat generally should last 2-3 rounds, and no more than 4. If the DM wants to speed it up, what he can do is decrease monster defenses (slightly!) half monster HP, and increase monster damage output, but no higher than to around 1/3th of PC health.   Look at MM3 monster math to see what I mean.
#9 RedSiegfried Feb 23, 2014 20:46:16	Yeah, if he wants more tactical combat but also wants it to go faster, first he should make sure everyone else is on board with those goals.   If so, then look at the options and tactics in the Rules Compendium (all the rules, stuff you may or may not find in the other Essentials books, but don't quote me on that) and also the character build options in the Player's Handbooks 1,2 and 3, but also use baldhermit's advice on hacking the monsters a bit to speed things up.  He could also introduce alternate combat goals, goals other than simply killing all the monsters that take less time than a knockdown, dragout fight, but still require teamwork and good tactics to accomplish.  Maybe stopping an evil ritual within a certain amount of time or rescuing a prisoner before their are executed or escaping a room while everyone is destroyed.  Here are some examples:  http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/3521781#new   If, on the other hand, the DM is the only one in the group that feels there is a problem here, it's imperative for him to pursuade the rest of the group to make some changes that will lead to more fun for him (and everyone else too).  He can't mandate this; it's not his right to unilaterally change the rules.  And if he's a good DM and fun to play D&D with, he shouldn't have any problem making his case to the rest of the group and ya'll should at least try to meet him half way to help him get past certain situations (slower, less tactical combat) that he finds less fun.
#10 NinjaUmbreon Feb 24, 2014 18:58:32	Well, I just got an e-mail from my DM, and it looks like hes decided to drop the idea.