A new way to handle actions (3.X-compatable)

[Bihlbo]

Edit: To clarify, this is a concept. It's not fully fleshed-out and it's not meant to be a contained house rule you can stick into your 3.5 or Tome game.

In trying to solve a couple of problems from a game I recently played, I took another look at action economy. I came up with something I haven't tested but I kinda like. It turns out you folks like to talk about this stuff, so I thought I'd throw it on the wall and let you shoot it full of holes.

Characters get 10 Action Points per round

1. Standard human movement is 6' per AP (so 1 square per AP until you move 5, then you get +1 square)
2. Dwarfy movement is 4' per AP (so 1 square per AP until you move 3, then it costs 2 AP to move the next square)
3. Casting most spells costs 6 AP
4. Weapons have a speed quality. Standard is 5, faster and slower weapons vary by +/-1
5. Attacking costs a number of AP equal to your weapon's speed, and attacking multiple times during a round never results in an attack bonus penalty
6. TWF grants you an extra attack with the off-hand weapon at -2 AP cost for that attack, and you can only attack with the off-hand weapon after you've made a main-hand attack (so 2 dagger attacks is 6AP, the same as one greataxe attack)
7. Spells like haste give you bonus AP
8. Some feats increase the efficiency of weapon speed, and quicken spell reduces the AP cost of the affected spell
9. A 5' step is done more like the shift in 4e - it still costs 1AP but if it's your only movement it doesn't provoke
10. 1 AP = 2 initiative rank; You can spend leftover AP at the end of your turn to improve your initiative or you can lower your initiative to gain extra AP, both are up to 2 AP per round and you cannot drop your initiative to less than 0
11. Higher BAB only affects your attack bonus, not AP cost for attacks
12. Natural attacks follow exactly the same rules as weapons, no exceptions
13. A level 20 monk makes unarmed strikes at a cost of 1 AP per attack when flurrying (as a benchmark example)
14. Other "move" etc actions like drawing a weapon need to be defined

End results

• Casting spells makes you less mobile, with only 4AP left for movement.
• This system makes initiative more dynamic, which is a strong feature.
• Using big weapons is more difficult than using smaller weapons. You CAN make 2 attacks with a greataxe every round, but only by dropping 4 initiative points per round. This makes improved initiative even better, by granting effectively a +2 buffer to the total extra AP that can be gained by lowering your initiative. A downside to this is that if your enemies all get better initiative than you, there's little reason not to burn initiative to get extra AP - in fact the only reason not to is to position yourself in initiative such that if the enemy does this you go before him.
• Fighting with two weapons is viable even without the TWF feat - using a one-handed standard weapon with an off-hand faster weapon is possible if you don't move. Math time: longsword + dagger w/18 Str = 1d8+4+1d4+2=13 average (with 1 AP left over for movement). Greataxe w/18 Str = 1d12+6=12.5 average (with 4 AP left over for movement).
• Getting the same number of attacks normally allotted to a character with a very high BAB is only possible through stacking of spells, feats, and other tricks, which at high levels are probably very easy to get. The downside of this is that physical combatants aren't given as many options at high levels, but it does get rid of the "Full attack action or I suck" problem.
• The ease of getting 2 spells off in a round (by taking a -4 hit to initiative rank) is an unintended negative consequence. It may be worth limiting spells to 1 per round no matter what, allowing only quickened spells to bypass this. Quickened spells should probably be more flexible, costing an additional spell level for every 1 point of AP reduction (so if you want to spend all 10 AP for the round, cast a normal spell and a quickened spell with a +2 spell level adjustment).
• After coming up with this and talking to a friend he mentioned that it sounds similar to Exalted, so I played that (it's awesome, in its own way) and found that my fear that keeping track of AP would result in too much bean counting is probably unfounded. Also, this isn't complicated so it's easier to learn and use than 3.x's normal action system (noob is right, it's not easier to learn).

Thoughts?

[JonSetanta]

10? Jebus.. That's a lot to keep track of. How about 5?

[the_taken]

in before, "I'd have a computer handle initiative and action costs at this point."

[Bihlbo]

10? Jebus.. That's a lot to keep track of. How about 5?

Though as I said I haven't tested this, I have gone through a few mock rounds of combat, and 10 isn't much to keep track of once you go through about 3 rounds and get used to it. In part this is because you're burning chunks of AP at a time. When all but two of your spells cost 6 AP it takes no time at all to realize your possible actions each round are quite limited without having to do any math at all.

Also, part of the goal is for it to be possible to make 2 attacks in a round with most weapons. This requires that the total is an even number.

I started with 12 being the total, actually - in part because it made movement easiest (30' base speed is 5'/AP). Spells cost 7AP, most weapons have a speed of 6. The math was just too combersome because I think in base 10. Because of this, I found 10 to be the magic number. Besides, with a total of 12 I couldn't find a satisfactory way to limit "spellcasting plus..." options enough.

Also, the higher the number, the more options there are for tweaking a character's performance. At high levels you aught to have access to at least 3 easy ways for a fighter to speed up his attacks, maybe 5-6 total. If the number is much lower than 10, having more than 2 methods of tweaking attack speed raises more balance issues. Granted, if I were designing this for an E6 game, I think making the number lower for simplicity might be a great idea, but I don't like E6 very much.

[Bihlbo]

in before, "I'd have a computer handle initiative and action costs at this point."

Consider playing a character with a slam attack, a +11 BAB, and the TWF and PA feats. You have a lot of options, most of which change your attack bonus, and you have to keep track of this from one attack to another. I find this to be somewhat complicated - enough that I usually list out my various attack options and all bonuses affected by them so I don't have to do math when it's my turn.

Using this system your options aren't much different, but your attack bonuses can only be affected by PA, which is a binary choice. So instead of subtracting a fluctuating number before you add two numbers for each attack, you just make your attacks using your bonus listed on your sheet, subtracting from your AP total in chunks which are usually big enough that you only have a couple of actions anyway.

Granted, changing your initiative from one round to another might be a hassle depending on how your group tracks initiative. My group uses a metal-backed whiteboard with laminated magnetic tags, so it takes all of 3 seconds to change someone's initiative. If this is actually a burdon on the game, I say throw out the option to change initiative with AP - nothing else will be affected by it. In fact, it may be a good idea to consider changing your initiative with AP an optional rule. Balls, this kind of kills options for those who have large, slower weapons, who need to get extra AP to make more than one attack. So it does affect something.

[Juton]

I've contemplated a system like this, but not as rigorously as this. I'd really hesitate making things like Haste give extra APs, that could let casters get off two spells a round which is too much. This system also seems to cost higher level fighters more AP for them to do their Full Attack routine, which makes them weaker, which really isn't what they need. I'd say at higher levels reduce the AP costs of attacks, but to differing minimums, so wielding a great sword maybe costs 2 AP while using a dagger costs 1 AP.

One thing I'd like to see out of a system like this with dynamic initiative is that higher level spells have a bigger initiative cost to get off, because they will be fight enders anyways. Something like Timestop should take longer to cast because once it goes off the otherside has lost. Done right this could create a rock-paper-scissors effect where casters have to way the power of higher levels spells with the speed of lower level spells, but whose effects may not end the battle.

[ubernoob]

Having everyone power attack with darts/daggers/monk flurry is pretty much the way every single fucking weapon speed system works. Base dice doesn't matter much, so giving more attacks to lighter weapons just fucks the guy that wants to play a barbarian.

Plus, that much accounting is bad.

[Bihlbo]

Plus, that much accounting is bad.

Well, I guess you hate roleplaying games.

[Bihlbo]

This system also seems to cost higher level fighters more AP for them to do their Full Attack routine, which makes them weaker, which really isn't what they need.

Part of the intent behind the design is to get rid of the full attack action altogether, making it possible to attack and move in a more fluid manner. Note that this makes feats like Flyby Attack obsolete, as this would be a built-in feature.

One thing I was reluctant to do is to build in a progression of more powerful attack options based on BAB. If you leave it as a static system throughout all levels it opens the game up to multiple new options for things like spells, auras, feats, and magic item qualities that attempt to make it easier for a fighting guy to hack things a lot. This of course assumes that it's being built for a high-magic system - if I were building this for a Conan-like setting I would certainly agree that as your BAB increases you should automatically get better at hacking things.

One thing I'd like to see out of a system like this with dynamic initiative is that higher level spells have a bigger initiative cost to get off, because they will be fight enders anyways. Something like Timestop should take longer to cast because once it goes off the otherside has lost. Done right this could create a rock-paper-scissors effect where casters have to [weigh] the power of higher levels spells with the speed of lower level spells, but whose effects may not end the battle.

I 100% agree. In fact, it wouldn't be a bad idea to look at all spells for what AP cost they should have. Spells like bull's strength or goodberry should be faster-casting than spells like flaming sphere or entangle.

[JonSetanta]

Well, I guess you hate roleplaying games.

No, just excess math. Every turn. For every action.

[the_taken]

Well, I guess you hate roleplaying games.

No, just excess math. Every turn. For every action.

No dice. Math only. Final destination!

[Bihlbo]

Well, I guess you hate roleplaying games.

No, just excess math. Every turn. For every action.

Well, the statement "that much accounting is bad" seemed odd to me, because I haven't played an RPG without accounting.

And honestly, "subtraction from 10" is just about the easiest math. So to me it seems like less math than doing a full attack action at level 14. But I understand the complaint.

[ubernoob]

Plus, that much accounting is bad.

Well, I guess you hate roleplaying games.

Oh, go fuck yourself. People speed up decision making in games by chunking. This is the reason that starcraft players can handle hundreds of actions per minute. They just pick one of five divisions a couple times in order to mentally organize 120+ possible decisions. Having ten 'points' to be used for all actions ever gives you more points than you can count on one hand (bad because one hand will probably be rolling dice or moving pieces) so people will have trouble keeping track of how many points they have left and it also has the added benefit of being needlessly complicated. On top of that, it fucks over the newby player (seriously, when was the last time the 12 year old kid brother wanted to play something OTHER than Conan?).

So yeah, fuck you. If I can't count the number of decisions I have to make in a round on one hand, your rounds have too many actions. 3E has a maximum of three decisions (standard, move, swift) without some HARDCORE cheese. And if you're cheesing out extra actions, you're not the demographic we're worried about in the first place.

In case I wasn't clear, your system breaks up the chunking already present in the decision to cast a spell or attack. Or move versus attack. You have to make all your decisions in order and that's just going to slow the game down.

[Bihlbo]

In case I wasn't clear, your system breaks up the chunking already present in the decision to cast a spell or attack. Or move versus attack. You have to make all your decisions in order and that's just going to slow the game down.

No, in fact you weren't the least bit clear. You insinuated that what I presented here was more accounting than what normally goes into a D&D game, when in fact it doesn't even scratch the surface. Don't expect me to just take your word for it, mister faceless internet pseudo-identity that I don't have any reason to trust. This explanation of what you meant is far more clear, thank you very much.

So yeah, fuck you.

Classy. Seriously though, why take this so personal? It's a proposed idea - you're treating it like I'm expecting you to play a game using this idea. Get a grip.

If I can't count the number of decisions I have to make in a round on one hand, your rounds have too many actions.

I'm going to assume that you are not arguing that you need to use your hand to count.

In my experience, a round usually comes down to well over a dozen decisions, from magic items to tactical options to planning ahead for later rounds. And to throw another wrench into it, most of the time the people I play with are trying to think of some move that is especially awesome, rules be damned. The action restrictions, for which you did a great job of pointing out the benefits, are also restrictive and prevent some creativity that I crave in the game.

So your argument is basically, "I don't want to have to add to 10 to decide what to do." That's valid and I'm not going to tell you that you should, but it's a subjective argument about how you want to play. Adding to 10 or sutracting from 10 to determine actions is not going to slow me down and isn't going to be something I find to be difficult (or at any rate, less difficult than keeping track of ever-changing attack bonuses), so I don't share your preference.

[Juton]

Having everyone power attack with darts/daggers/monk flurry is pretty much the way every single fucking weapon speed system works. Base dice doesn't matter much, so giving more attacks to lighter weapons just fucks the guy that wants to play a barbarian.

Plus, that much accounting is bad.

You can't even power attack with light weapons. So a Barbarian in this system is still going to be using a greataxe, because he be a shock trooper. The advantage he'll get out of making 2x as many attacks with a light weapon won't make up for not being able to power attack.

@Bihlbo

Ok, thinking about it, if all your attacks are at full bonus then you don't need all of them to be at rough parity how a fighter performs in 3.5. You'd probably want around 2.5-3 attacks per round at levels 16+, maybe more advanced characters get more APs (if that's not over complicating things)?

[ubernoob]

@Bihlbo:

Well, I guess you hate roleplaying games.

If you can't take criticism, don't put up work on the den. Seriously. I'm not going to address the last post because you've done absolutely nothing to invalidate any part of my argument. You just seem angry because someone on the internet said fuck you. Get over it.

@Juton:
Oversized TWF is still better in every way. Especially considering that the system was explicitly going to let you reduce your weapon speed or whatever the fuck at higher levels. Fuck, the system isn't even backwards compatible with the charge action.

[Bihlbo]

I'm not going to address the last post because you've done absolutely nothing to invalidate any part of my argument. You just seem angry because someone on the internet said fuck you.

I wasn't trying to invalidate anything. The fact is, you stated you don't want to do math to determine actions, and I pointed out that this is valid - but this doesn't touch on how viable an option it is for a game, just on how much you want to use it. And I'm not angry about what you said, just dissappointed you can't do better than that.

[BearsAreBrown]

I agree with ubernoob about this much accounting being tedious and stupid.

But I will still humor your system.

1 AP = 2 initiative rank; You can spend leftover AP at the end of your turn to improve your initiative or you can lower your initiative to gain extra AP, both are up to 2 AP per round and you cannot drop your initiative to less than 0

If my initiative result is 20 I can skip a turn to act twice? A smart player would emphasize initiative and nova the fuck out of the first turn. Is this intentional?

[Bihlbo]

Ok, thinking about it, if all your attacks are at full bonus then you don't need all of them to be at rough parity how a fighter performs in 3.5. You'd probably want around 2.5-3 attacks per round at levels 16+, maybe more advanced characters get more APs (if that's not over complicating things)?

That's exactly what I was thinking.

For the same reasons why I switched from 12 AP to 10 AP, I think boosting a character's per-round AP should be rare (like, only through the haste spell, something like that). Keeps things more simple that way.

One of the reasons I looked for an alternative to the D&D system is to avoid the sudden jumps every 5 levels when you get iteratives. For that reason I'd like to find a different way to reward a high BAB than to pick a bonus and ascribe a benefit to it.

[Bihlbo]

I agree with ubernoob about this much accounting being tedious and stupid.
But I will still humor your system.

Awesome!

1 AP = 2 initiative rank; You can spend leftover AP at the end of your turn to improve your initiative or you can lower your initiative to gain extra AP, both are up to 2 AP per round and you cannot drop your initiative to less than 0

If my initiative result is 20 I can skip a turn to act twice? A smart player would emphasize initiative and nova the fuck out of the first turn. Is this intentional?

Good thought, but as you see there, "up to 2 AP per round" so you can gain 2 AP by dropping your init to 16, or move your init to 24 by spending 2 AP, but that's the limit.

Edit: What do you think of this?

[Juton]

I've played quite a bit of Battletech, in that you have to add up your attack modifiers to make an attack. That's about 4-5 individual numbers, usually totaling between 5 and 15. After a few turns players figure it out and it's not a burden and it doesn't slow down game play. So I think a system where you add up to 10 every round wouldn't ruin everyone's fun.

Oversized TWF is still better in every way. Especially considering that the system was explicitly going to let you reduce your weapon speed or whatever the fuck at higher levels. Fuck, the system isn't even backwards compatible with the charge action.

I'm assuming using TWF will cost a minimum of 2 points (1 per attack) versus 2 AP for a greatsword. If you use Oversized TWF with two longswords, you could get the same amount of power attack damage, a little more damage from weapon die with both attacks at a -2 and by blowing two feats. That doesn't seem better than using a greatsword to me.

[Bihlbo]

Based on what I've written so far, fighting with two weapons is not going to suffer any sort of restriction against using large weapons, natural weapons, or anything else. Basically, if you can hit someone with it, just spend the AP to hit. The TWF feat basically says, "Designate a weapon as off-hand and one as primary. When you attack with the primary, the next attack you make with the off-hand is made at -2 AP cost."

Therefore if you're using two scimitars and have the TWF feat, the primary attack costs 5 AP and the off-hand costs 3 AP. No penalties to your attack roll.

The weapon speed, again, determines the AP cost when making attacks. Most light weapons have a speed of 4, most one-handed weapons have a speed of 5, and most two-handed weapons have a speed of 6. This may require taking a more critical look at weapon stats.

In my OP here I have a line about the monk's flurry being 1 AP per attack at level 20 as a benchmark. Basically, no one ever gets to attack that fast but monks. But you have brought up a good point that a minimum should be designated.

I know we're all pretty used to a high level fighter's tactics being "Do whatever I can to get in a full attack so I can roll as many attacks as possible." From what I've seen instead of this being awesome, it plays out more like, "hit, disarm, crap, figures, these dice hate me." I'm trying to get away from that with this system. It should be hard, with one weapon, to get more than 4 attacks in a round. I'm almost thinking that a reduction of -2 AP for the TWF feat is too much.

[JonSetanta]

I like the tiered aspect of weapon speeds you have and it might be manageable at low levels, but that's a lot of counting down your remaining points each round once warriors get up to 5+ attacks.

I'd try it but expect serious game lag.

[Bihlbo]

I like the tiered aspect of weapon speeds you have and it might be manageable at low levels, but that's a lot of counting down your remaining points each round once warriors get up to 5+ attacks.

I'd try it but expect serious game lag.

Well, maybe I should re-state what I've said about numbers. I don't think it would slo me down, but I understand other people think differently than I do. I'd really like the opportunity to test it out with other people in the room - I may try to do that this weekend.

Just for fun, here's an example combat:

Adam is playing the character Geb, a level 12 half-orc wizard. He is fighting against an eeeeevil elf barbarian.

Round 1
Adam: "Geb moves here, that's 5, 10, 15 (20 for the diagonal), 30 feet. That's 5 AP. He pulled his scimitar during the move. Okay I can still cast a spell if I change my initiative right?"
DM: "Yes, dropping 2 initiative."
Adam: "Okay I'll do that to cast mage armor."
DM: "The elf moves around this tree to attack you. That's 1, 2, and 3 squares before he gets to the underbrush, then 4 and 5, 6 and 7, then 8 squares to get to you. The 5th square didn't cost any AP because of his fast movement, so that's 7 AP spent on movement."
Adam: "Why aren't you using distances? We aren't playing some 4th edition board game."
DM: "Give me a break, counting squares is simpler math. Anyway, the elf can't attack his round, so he gains 4 initiative with 1 AP left over."

Round 2
Adam: "Ouch, we only have a spread of 3 initiative between us. Okay I'll take a step back and cast eyebite."
DM: "Is that Geb's only movement this round or do I get to AoO the fool?"
Adam: "Uh, only movement. So that's 7AP and I'm going to burn two more to gain 4 initiative."
DM: "The BARBARIAN easily makes his FORT save. Duh."
Adam: "Crap, what was I thinking?"
DM: "The elf rages and swings his greatsword twice."
Adam: "He has to drop his initiative right? That's 12 AP!"
DM: "Actually, he has a feat which allows him to make the second attack in a round with the same weapon at -1 AP cost while raging, so it's only 11 AP, but yes he drops 2 initative. And... it looks like the mage armor saved you from the second attack, barely. Take 25 damage."
Adam: "Bastard barbarians."

Round 3
Adam: "Okay I need to get some distance. Geb moves 10 feet, take your opportunity."
DM: ""It's a miss."
Adam: "Geb casts greater invisibility and, let's see, that was rough terrain there right?"
DM: "Yes it was, so it cost you another square. With the 6 from the spell, that's 9 AP total."
Adam: "I know. I'll move here, maybe I can stay in the cleared area."
DM: "Good thing! The barbarian attacks the last place you were and misses."
Adam: "How many AP does that cost?"
DM: "Does it matter? Okay fine, 6 for the attack, 3 to move there. You know what? Just for that he gains 2 initiative."

Round 4
Adam: "Okay I'll move in, attack with my scimitar, and move back. 2 AP for the first movement, 5 for the attack, 3 to move away."
DM: "I can't believe a wizard just cut into a barbarian. Good hit, you almost took away half the hp he gained from raging."
Adam: "You're a jerk sometimes."
DM: "Go tell Roy, you big baby. Okay the elf flails around some more and gains another 2 initiative."

Round 5
Adam: "I cast slow!"
DM: "Ah nuts. I only had 5 initiative to go before I double-tapped you."
Adam: "So let me see Bihlbo's notes here... it says here that the elf takes a –1 penalty on attack rolls, AC, and Reflex saves, can only spend 6 AP per round, loses 1 initiative per round, and cannot use AP for initiative changes. Okay now I move next to him."
DM: "The elf randomly attacks here, where Geb isn't, and loses 1 initiative. Crap, slow is nasty."

Round 5
Adam: "I attack twice! Both are hits! Awesome, take 13 damage! 5 AP each, I'm done."
DM: "You're the dumbest wizard ever, you know that?"
Adam: "What? This is a +2 scimitar! It's magic!"

[JonSetanta]

Eyebite is shit! Don't cast that.