Very true. People will happily take penalties on their action for movement and still move, if you want to do it that way, but if they can get 50% (or whatever %) more actions by standing still they will do exactly that.Ice9 wrote:Currently, this system incentivizes standing still and having a slugfest. One thing 4E got right - if you want people to move around in combat, you should not be able to trade the move action for anything that isn't movement. Because if you can trade movement for more attacks, people will do so, and movement will not happen.
Now if you want more standing still and less maneuvering, then there's no problem in that regard.
A new way to handle actions (3.X-compatable)
Moderator: Moderators
-
JonSetanta
- King
- Posts: 5580
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: interbutts
You'd have to give people a bonus for moving, like the 4e Warlock gets concealment or whatever is equivalent.Ice9 wrote:Currently, this system incentivizes standing still and having a slugfest. One thing 4E got right - if you want people to move around in combat, you should not be able to trade the move action for anything that isn't movement. Because if you can trade movement for more attacks, people will do so, and movement will not happen.
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pmNobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
Most AP-based games tend to limit the number of AP bonuses available to players (either in the form of AP cost discounts, or bonus APs to your pool). Have too many and people can break the Action Point Economy.
I would suggest no more than two stackable bonuses for every tier of play. So at most a 6 AP-base game can have 8AP characters if they really focus on it.
Ice9's post also has merit - he has pointed out something others have yet to touch on, but it has been a problem with other AP-based games.
To resolve Ice9's concerns, I would suggest upping the AP cost of spellcasting and ranged attacks. Spellcasters and archers can spend all of their AP on offense, whereas a meleer has to split his AP between moving and attacking.
I would suggest no more than two stackable bonuses for every tier of play. So at most a 6 AP-base game can have 8AP characters if they really focus on it.
Ice9's post also has merit - he has pointed out something others have yet to touch on, but it has been a problem with other AP-based games.
To resolve Ice9's concerns, I would suggest upping the AP cost of spellcasting and ranged attacks. Spellcasters and archers can spend all of their AP on offense, whereas a meleer has to split his AP between moving and attacking.
Well, testing proves that this concept does not solve the problems I had hoped it would solve. So, while I still think it would be interesting to see how it would play out with people who've never played a d20 game before and who therefore have no reason to think of this as a change, I don't think that would accomplish anything more than to satisfy my curiosity, and I'm just going to drop it.
Testing did prove that this did not slow down gameplay however. One of the testers said, "Oh, this is waaaay simpler than it seemed on paper."
Testing did prove that this did not slow down gameplay however. One of the testers said, "Oh, this is waaaay simpler than it seemed on paper."