[3.51] Action Caps

[Doc Roc]

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:

Spoiler

Show

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:

1. Two full round actions Or Four full attacks
   
2. Three Standard actions
3. Three Move actions
4. Two Swift actions
5. Twenty Five Free actions
6. 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]

Immediate reaction: I'd prefer to see 2 Immediates count as 1 Swift for the cap; otherwise, I approve.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

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]

That is the problem... :: hums intently ::

[arguskos]

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]

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]

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]

I haven't heard that as the prevailing opinion in my time on 339. Could you explain?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

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]

They are now excepted from the rule, so it's moot. :)

[Myou]

I love it! Why did no-one think of it before?!

[Doc Roc]

It's not perfect, right yet, but it's a start. Sofawall came up with it. Literally bowled me over.