zlefin
2012-01-02, 03:08 AM
I'm pondering the use of alternate systems for handling actions in combat; instead of the standard/move/swift paradigm.
(aside - I hate that they used action points for something in UE, despite it being not that related to actions, thus using up what would be the correct word for this for something which has dozens of alternate words, like hero points)
So i'm trying out various point based systems to see what they do; all quite troublesome i'm afraid; and most would only truly work in combination with other rebalancing to the system.
The first system i considered was 5 movement points a turn.
Standard actions cost 2; moves cost 2; swift actions cost 1.
Given that a standard action can be used as a move action, it makes a lot of sense to have them use the same number of points.
It also makes sense that you can forgo standard and move actions to do a bunch of swift actions.
This gives the same amount of base actions/turn; but it also allows two standard actions a turn, which leads to a lot of problems.
Two spells a turn is too much; changing spells from a standard action to costing 3-5 movement points would work; though it would change how they interact with action economy; i'm not sure anyone really minds.
It also changes how attacks work a fair bit.
However it does also suggest an alternate paradigm: having the full attack/one attack system has oddities of its own. With full attack offering no benefit until you're higher levelled and/or have multiple weapons; and with iterative attacks feeilng a bit cumbersome by some;
one could instead use a system wherein an attack costs 2 movement points; so you can get two a turn if you don't move, or one if you do; and remove iterative attacks; this would make more sense; but it would require a number of tweaks to other areas of the game for balance. Improving damage at the higher levels wouldn't be hard to do; the hard part is figuring how to make low level combat work under such a system. Low level combat is already very death-prone;
On another note; for action economy purposes; it may be good to add a new swift action (which would be 1 movement point); that gives an attack at -10 or some other substantial penalty; and that attack is unable to crit. This represents less careful swinging that might be done either simply to use the extra movement points; or to represent attacking foes that aren't worth using proper attacks on (like when fighting large numbers of much lower level monsters).
While 5 is the lowest number that allows the above movement point system to maintain standard/move/swift; consideration must be given to two other points:
6, since each round is supposed to represent 6 seconds, having 6 movement points has a great deal of elegance; while fitting standard/move/swift is harder under this, the value of the elegance and ease of use of it must be considered; especially when used with APPENDIX A below.
The other point value would be variable; starting at something in the 4-6 range, and slowly increasing as players level; this would help address the low level survival issue; though it would create some very large jumps in power level whenever extra movement pionts become available; Such a system might give out extra movement points to fighter types more readily than caster types; thus allowing fighters some resemblance to the iterative attack growth.
APPENDIX A
one other issue is that of optional granularity -
many movement point systems still keep the 10 rounds/minute system; and cannot be easily shifted from that.
However if players get one movement point per sec, and all values are normalized against that; it allows play groups to choose whether they want lots of small turns, or smaller numbers of big turns.
They could have turns be just 3 movement points, or be 10, or 12; and the system could easily support that;
How many groups would actually choose to have turns represent different amounts of time? I ask because I really don't know and would like input on that. Perhaps the time used for a round is already at such a sweet spot that enabling alternatives isn't necessary, as so few would actually use them.
(aside - I hate that they used action points for something in UE, despite it being not that related to actions, thus using up what would be the correct word for this for something which has dozens of alternate words, like hero points)
So i'm trying out various point based systems to see what they do; all quite troublesome i'm afraid; and most would only truly work in combination with other rebalancing to the system.
The first system i considered was 5 movement points a turn.
Standard actions cost 2; moves cost 2; swift actions cost 1.
Given that a standard action can be used as a move action, it makes a lot of sense to have them use the same number of points.
It also makes sense that you can forgo standard and move actions to do a bunch of swift actions.
This gives the same amount of base actions/turn; but it also allows two standard actions a turn, which leads to a lot of problems.
Two spells a turn is too much; changing spells from a standard action to costing 3-5 movement points would work; though it would change how they interact with action economy; i'm not sure anyone really minds.
It also changes how attacks work a fair bit.
However it does also suggest an alternate paradigm: having the full attack/one attack system has oddities of its own. With full attack offering no benefit until you're higher levelled and/or have multiple weapons; and with iterative attacks feeilng a bit cumbersome by some;
one could instead use a system wherein an attack costs 2 movement points; so you can get two a turn if you don't move, or one if you do; and remove iterative attacks; this would make more sense; but it would require a number of tweaks to other areas of the game for balance. Improving damage at the higher levels wouldn't be hard to do; the hard part is figuring how to make low level combat work under such a system. Low level combat is already very death-prone;
On another note; for action economy purposes; it may be good to add a new swift action (which would be 1 movement point); that gives an attack at -10 or some other substantial penalty; and that attack is unable to crit. This represents less careful swinging that might be done either simply to use the extra movement points; or to represent attacking foes that aren't worth using proper attacks on (like when fighting large numbers of much lower level monsters).
While 5 is the lowest number that allows the above movement point system to maintain standard/move/swift; consideration must be given to two other points:
6, since each round is supposed to represent 6 seconds, having 6 movement points has a great deal of elegance; while fitting standard/move/swift is harder under this, the value of the elegance and ease of use of it must be considered; especially when used with APPENDIX A below.
The other point value would be variable; starting at something in the 4-6 range, and slowly increasing as players level; this would help address the low level survival issue; though it would create some very large jumps in power level whenever extra movement pionts become available; Such a system might give out extra movement points to fighter types more readily than caster types; thus allowing fighters some resemblance to the iterative attack growth.
APPENDIX A
one other issue is that of optional granularity -
many movement point systems still keep the 10 rounds/minute system; and cannot be easily shifted from that.
However if players get one movement point per sec, and all values are normalized against that; it allows play groups to choose whether they want lots of small turns, or smaller numbers of big turns.
They could have turns be just 3 movement points, or be 10, or 12; and the system could easily support that;
How many groups would actually choose to have turns represent different amounts of time? I ask because I really don't know and would like input on that. Perhaps the time used for a round is already at such a sweet spot that enabling alternatives isn't necessary, as so few would actually use them.