evildmguy
Explorer
Maybe. I think it would solve a lot and simplify actions in combat.
Level Up (A5E) Thoughts on A5E classes from your table(s)?
- Thread starter Distracted DM
- Start date
W'rkncacnter
Hero
i don't really know what else you'd want to solve here.
Hey, that's the glory of house ruling your own games! I try to be very careful before I start monkeying with core mechanics, trying to make sure I know how the system works and why-but everyone's journey's different.
Last edited:
evildmguy
Explorer
Can you elaborate on this? Why is it baffling?
I would simplify combat. A character gets an Action and a Move action. They have to finish the one before using the other. If they get a Bonus Action, same rule applies. Once a character starts a new action, the old action is done.
Of course, then many other things have to be clarified but it would be a start.
W'rkncacnter
Hero
well, we were talking about stunning assault, so i assumed you wanted to nerf stunning assault by completely changing how movement works. it seemed completely disproportionate to me.
but if you're going for something like this, it makes more sense. i don't entirely understand why you think it necessary, but you do you, i guess.
evildmguy
Explorer
In my experience, I had a player doing an action, the NPC did a reaction, and the activating player wanted to do another action. The rules as written probably supported the player doing that as there is no limit I know of on spending exertion points, except actions.
I also don't know why the system allows for reactions to be done on the characters turn. It's definition is an action done on someone else's turn. The system is breaking its own definitions.
Yes, I will do what my group finds fun. I thought that was a given. I talk about it in places to find other ideas, what people are doing, if they are experiencing what I'm experiencing, and what they did about it.
I also don't know why the system allows for reactions to be done on the characters turn. It's definition is an action done on someone else's turn. The system is breaking its own definitions.
Yes, I will do what my group finds fun. I thought that was a given. I talk about it in places to find other ideas, what people are doing, if they are experiencing what I'm experiencing, and what they did about it.
W'rkncacnter
Hero
actually, a5e specifies that reactions can happen "at any time", presumably including on your own turn. i couldn't find a definition much more specific then that.
Pedantic
Legend
I think you'd end up borrowing some of 3e's old problems. It's not quite so bad as full attack, but combat does get less dynamic if characters have to stick in place once they start swinging. In particular, you'd run into wasted actions if your fighter takes a target down and doesn't have anyone else in reach.
lichmaster
Hero
If we're considering drastic changes, I'm mentally toying with one set of such changes :
This change is meant to pretty much remove save vs suck effects and eventually turn saves into a dynamic recovery capability.
- Conditions don't get triggered by a failed save, but by exceeding a threshold.
- Every time you get targeted by an effect that imposes a condition, that effect builds up a meter by a certain amount, depending on the power of the effect/attack/whatever. Once the meter is above a threshold, the condition kicks in, and there is a separate mechanic for it to be removed (maybe the meter goes down by an amount depending on a roll, or a specific amount if there's some spell or other effect that specifically counters it, or it goes down by a marginal amount every round in any case).
- After being subject to a condition, the threshold to gain it again increases. This is meant to make stunlocking and similar tactics less reliable
- As an extention, one could have several thresholds for different severity levels of the condition.
This change is meant to pretty much remove save vs suck effects and eventually turn saves into a dynamic recovery capability.
evildmguy
Explorer
Ugh. Yep, that's RAW. I declare stupid.
What is the character reacting to on their turn?? I want to waste fighter actions, at least when it comes to SA. That's the reason I'm suggesting that.
I have more of a problem with the six second round. Bob World Builder, after practice, could barely finish drinking a four ounce potion in six seconds. He had no time to move, do a bonus action, or reaction in that time. I know that combat is probably faster in real life but I'm fine with slowing it down, and taking longer, for the drama and story telling aspect of it.
I do like that 4E introduced something like this. It does mean having conditions build on each other. For example, turn to stone becomes slowed -> restrained -> petrified. It might require needing more conditions to do this but that works for me.
As for doing this with Stun or other similar conditions, I like the idea that once a creature has been stunned, they are immune for some amount of time, which is common with other abilities. Further, I think the stunned character should get another save at the start of their turn to have a turn and then it ends at the end of their turn. That also seems to follow other patterns.
Thanks for the discussion!
Similar Threads
Level Up (A5E)
One of A5e best subtle changes: Legendary Resistance
