PDA

View Full Version : [3.51] Action Caps



Doc Roc
2009-09-10, 03:53 PM
I normally don't break things out to talk about them. But I consider this pretty important. We've added action caps in the Test of Spite, and will be extending them to the 3.5.X fix pack series. Unlike the other patches, which are in theory portable and modular, the action cap system is going to be a built in assumption with regards to the construction and balance of all future material. This means it's important enough that I want your opinions about them.

The post is reproduced below:


Thank you for bearing with me. Many of you trust me pretty extensively, rely indirectly on my judgment. Gentleman, a solution has been proposed to a large number of problems. A number of games do this, and it's so obviously crucial to their balance that I had forgotten it. The same way you might forget ball bearings.


So let's talk. Pull up a chair to my fire-side, and let's talk.


We're adding maximums to the number of actions you can get per round. I know, I know, sort of weird, but think about it. There are too many action excessions that are just too elegant for me to patch them all. Hell, something as simple as the familiar is a thing to invoke in a sane man dread. So what's a matchstick boy to do? Here I am, selling these Penny-Dreadfuls, trying to make it work. And so my bud Sofawall sez to me, Jake, Jake, why don't we cap this stuff? Lay in some proper maximums. And I sez, well that sounds ****ing righteous. And I wracked my brain trying to see what I was missing, why this wasn't there in the first place.

I got nothing guys.
Not a damn thing.

From this moment forward, let the following maximums apply, per character&round:

Two full round actions Or Four full attacks

Three Standard actions
Three Move actions
Two Swift actions
Twenty Five Free actions
Immediates count against your maximum of swifts.



Please post your very-very first reactions. If you want to add considered thoughts, I'd be grateful, but I want to know your knee-jerk reactions to such a change of this magnitude.

Amphetryon
2009-09-10, 04:01 PM
Immediate reaction: I'd prefer to see 2 Immediates count as 1 Swift for the cap; otherwise, I approve.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-10, 04:43 PM
Looks good to me, but one thing I think should be considered is whether it should only apply to actively-controlled NPCs. By "actively controlled" I mean NPCs whose actions a PC can directly control, where passively-controlled NPCs are DM-controlled or act on simple programs. If you have Joe Fighter Cohort and you're moving him around, choosing his targets, using his abilities, etc. you're limited to this set of actions; if you have Joe Raven Familiar and you're having him use wands, moving him around, the same applies. However, if before combat you just tell Joe Fighter "protect me in battle" and tell Joe Raven "scout around," they can go off and do whatever, letting you summon monsters, animate undead, etc. and have them actually function.

The reason for this is twofold: One, extra actions are really only problematic (at least so far as I've found) if they can be micromanaged--if a PC can play two wizards at once, it's much better than if the wizard ally will only chuck in a few fireballs where he thinks they'd help. Two, if you have an absolute cap on actions, that kills summoners, undead leaders, and such as valid archetypes...but if you only limit the actions for planar-bound heavy-hitters or undead lieutenants or the other cohort-ish ones, you can still have the dozens of imps or shambling hordes sit there, take up space, and hit anything that comes near without measurably powering-up the controller.

Doc Roc
2009-09-10, 04:47 PM
That is the problem... :: hums intently ::

arguskos
2009-09-10, 06:41 PM
Nvm, saw the bit about per players and rounds. Personally, the way I'd fix this is by saying that if a creature is unable to meaningfully contribute to the combat (ie. a horde of skeletons vs a level 10 fighter or some such), they don't count against the action cap.

That, or say that creatures of a certain CR under the encounter count as a lesser action (ie. a CR 2 minion in a EL 8 encounter might only count as a move action or less to take his whole round).

Doc Roc
2009-09-10, 10:24 PM
Right now, it's laid out for Actions/character/round, so it's not locking out minionmancers. We attack those from another angle right now, though Dice's suggestion is really clever.

DracoDei
2009-09-10, 10:32 PM
Gut reaction:
I don't like it.
For one thing, familiars are generally considered unusable, so anything that powers them UP is good.

Doc Roc
2009-09-10, 10:41 PM
I haven't heard that as the prevailing opinion in my time on 339. Could you explain?

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-10, 10:46 PM
I haven't heard that as the prevailing opinion in my time on 339. Could you explain?

From what I've seen, people don't like them because losing them means losing XP as well, and that's less of an acceptable loss than an animal companion or mount. My players tend to be evenly split between refusing to use their familiars in combat and buffing them to Baator and back, so I doubt you're going to get a clear consensus on them.

Doc Roc
2009-09-10, 11:00 PM
They are now excepted from the rule, so it's moot. :)

Myou
2009-09-11, 12:12 AM
I love it! Why did no-one think of it before?!

Doc Roc
2009-09-11, 01:15 AM
It's not perfect, right yet, but it's a start. Sofawall came up with it. Literally bowled me over.