Boiling d20 "possibilities" down to "actions"

[codeGlaze]

A few years ago I built an Op'd character for a player that wanted, essentially, a swashbuckling pirate.

I pulled from here, minmax and gitp I think... that's probably irrelevant.

In any case, I wrote out the steps in "actions" she wanted to generally use in any battle, in proper sequence. She had maybe 3 "rotations" to keep in mind and it ended up working very well. She finally felt like she was contributing.

Fast forward a couple years and a new group of players starts with 4e. I join the game and bitch about 4e, then have a veteran GM run 3e for them. This group maintains their silliness across both versions and we have fun in both. But they still prefer 4e.

The main reason being that in 4e they feel like they can do something every round. Especially melee characters, who generally seem boring in 3e. (ie "round 1: I swing my sword. round 2: Am I dead? No? I swing my sword.)

So I was thinking, could the group-think here put together a relatively simple chart/list of "actions" to take each round that could maybe act as a springboard for more imaginative play per round for inexperienced players?

Even just a better organization or presentation of basic actions in the game. Trip/Grapple/etc that seem to be under utilized because people don't understand them, or even fully comprehend how those things might actually help them in battle.

[Dean]

Is playing Tome of Battle off the table because it seems like exactly what you want

[codeGlaze]

Is playing Tome of Battle off the table because it seems like exactly what you want

Ha, yes/no.
I have run into a lot of people with a complete mental block when it comes to making interesting actions during a play session.

A LOT of people seriously never bother using basic actions that aren't feats. So I was thinking that maybe some o' you gaiz would be willing to help boil some things down to "stupidly simple". So people can run through a list real quick and get a gist of what they can do in just about any round, without needing a spell or feat.

Maybe shit like...

---

[Move Actions]
Tumble past opponent (DC 15 for one enemy)
* This counts as PART of a move action, not (necessarily) the whole distance

Do you have points in it? Is your opponent slow and stupid?! THEN TUMBLE, BITCH!

---

[Standard Actions]
[... stuff ...]

[TheFlatline]

Yeah are you sure that the preference for 4e wasn't that there was a macro bar- err I mean a set of powers that they had that they could look at and choose from?

When we played 3e back in the day and was getting started we had cheat sheet packets that condensed the PHB down to maybe 5 or 6 pages of references. One of those pages had a shitload of standard manuvers/actions you could take without feats. They were used pretty frequently because they were easy to spot and always something that could be done.

[codeGlaze]

Yeah are you sure that the preference for 4e wasn't that there was a macro bar- err I mean a set of powers that they had that they could look at and choose from?

When we played 3e back in the day and was getting started we had cheat sheet packets that condensed the PHB down to maybe 5 or 6 pages of references. One of those pages had a shitload of standard manuvers/actions you could take without feats. They were used pretty frequently because they were easy to spot and always something that could be done.

That sounds like pretty much exactly what I'm attempting to get across.

Do you have a source for that? I think it'd really help loosen people up to the possibilities allowed in 3.X vs 4e.

If not, suggestions on remaking it or remaking it better?

[RobbyPants]

The main reason being that in 4e they feel like they can do something every round. Especially melee characters, who generally seem boring in 3e. (ie "round 1: I swing my sword. round 2: Am I dead? No? I swing my sword.)

I have run into a lot of people with a complete mental block when it comes to making interesting actions during a play session.

If you're talking about the same people in these two statements, it seems like you cannot please them because they want contradictory things. If you're talking about different people, have the people who want interesting things use ToB.

The few times I rolled a martial adept at a table-top game, I used note cards for the maneuvers. It was handy to have them right in front with jotted notes on the rules for resolving it. It's their macro bar and their interesting things all in one.

[Roog]

I have seen combat actions written up in the style of 4e powers somewhere online, but I can't recall where.

However SORD also includes them

www.rpgnow.com/product/56883/Sord

[shinimasu]

If you're trying to draw comparisons between the two editions in terms of "what martials (and others) can do in battle" then it might just be helpful to outline 4e powers in 3.5 terms since they probably like specifically what 4e lets fighters do in combat as opposed to just lacking options in 3.5

In a nutshell what fighters can do in 4e with the powers system:
- Trip, push, or otherwise forcibly shove enemies around if they get within melee range.
- Block attacks meant for other party members or make hitting them more difficult (usually -2 to hit or something like that).
- Interrupt enemy attacks with op attacks.

So just take the above and translate it into 3.5 jargon instead of 4e jargon. Or just use tome. Whichever is simpler.

[momothefiddler]

I have seen combat actions written up in the style of 4e powers somewhere online, but I can't recall where.

However SORD also includes them

www.rpgnow.com/product/56883/Sord

Holy shit this is beautiful. My PF game is four new players (one of whom is The Expert because he's played like two 3.5 games) and this is going to be very useful thank you.

[Roog]

If it's for PF, be aware that that SORD was updated several times as the PF rules changed (IIRC).

[OgreBattle]

The main reason being that in 4e they feel like they can do something every round. Especially melee characters, who generally seem boring in 3e. (ie "round 1: I swing my sword. round 2: Am I dead? No? I swing my sword.)

So I was thinking, could the group-think here put together a relatively simple chart/list of "actions" to take each round that could maybe act as a springboard for more imaginative play per round for inexperienced players?

Even just a better organization or presentation of basic actions in the game. Trip/Grapple/etc that seem to be under utilized because people don't understand them, or even fully comprehend how those things might actually help them in battle.

In a game like D&D combat is broken down into 3 very broad actions

1) Attacking enemies
-The most basic action of this is "I attack"

2) Supporting allies
-The most basic action of this is "Aid another"

3) Defending yourself
-The most basic action of this is "defensive action"

As long as you can give players MEANINGFUL ways to carry out those three actions they'll feel like they can contribute with variety in a 3-6 turn encounter. Sometimes an action does more than one thing (ex: a defender aura that lets you hits someone trying to hit your allies is both attacking enemies and supporting allies)

I figure what you can do is have your player say what he wants to do, then have that action carried out with the broad action that best fits. So your swashbuckler has his basic 'stab a dude' action, but also has something better than aid another to aid others, and has his fancy riposte maneuver for when he needs to back away from overwhelmin

[hogarth]

The main reason being that in 4e they feel like they can do something every round. Especially melee characters, who generally seem boring in 3e. (ie "round 1: I swing my sword. round 2: Am I dead? No? I swing my sword.)

In 3E, a low-level fighter has perhaps a dozen interesting things he could potentially do, but in most fights he'll only use one or two of those options.

In 4E, a low-level fighter has perhaps three or four interesting things he could do, and in most fights he'll use at least three of them.

They're both interesting in their own way (or dull, depending on how you look at it).

[souran]

If you're trying to draw comparisons between the two editions in terms of "what martials (and others) can do in battle" then it might just be helpful to outline 4e powers in 3.5 terms since they probably like specifically what 4e lets fighters do in combat as opposed to just lacking options in 3.5

In a nutshell what fighters can do in 4e with the powers system:
- Trip, push, or otherwise forcibly shove enemies around if they get within melee range.
- Block attacks meant for other party members or make hitting them more difficult (usually -2 to hit or something like that).
- Interrupt enemy attacks with op attacks.

So just take the above and translate it into 3.5 jargon instead of 4e jargon. Or just use tome. Whichever is simpler.

While its true that a 3E fighter can do everything a 4E fighter can do, the power of those results varies widly.

A simply example is things that push/pull people 1 or more squares. In 4E these are actually massively important abilties. They allow you to push baddies together to get hit by AOEs, they let you push or pull baddies away from allies effectively ending their turn or preventing them from attacking your allies, they let you move your foes into and out of line of site or into difficult trerrain or otherwise change their tactical outlook. Finally, and this is the big one, THESE MOVES OCCUR JUST FOR FUCKING USING THE ABILITY. No opposed strength checks, no size restrictions, half the time you dont' even have to hit.

Now, a 3E fighter can be designed to be a bull rush master. A 3.X bullrush master can do a number of things that push/pull/slide abilities are by rule not allowed to do such as force people off ledges. You can get your size increased and then start trampling humanoids. Also, you are finished contributing by level 7-8. Getting good at bullrushing is basically all your selectable character advanement and it leaves you able to do only 1 thing while the 4E person will have some moves that push/pull and others that do other things.

There are prices that are paid for this, and there are clearly more people that DO NOT like the "tactical" version of D&D than do like it. However, I jsut don't see it ever really working to try and recast 3E actions as 4E powers. The players will see instantly that everybody can do all of them, and that they are just not as effective as their 4E counter-parts. You can rename every spell and ability in Final Fantasy using the style of Fire Emblem but nobody who prefers Fire Emblem will suddenly decide that Final Fantasy is better.