There's another, third / fourth way to do action economy that you didn't mention, and that's the one used in Savage Worlds ("SW"; I'll specifically be referring to Savage Worlds Adventure Edition, "SWADE"). In SW, you get movement and one action per turn, cause you can use your hands while running around. You can also run, in which case you get some more movement, but at the cost of a -2 penalty to all actions you take that turn. For SWADE, that's a pretty big penalty. Additionally, you can also take up to two more actions on your turn, but if you do, you'll get an extra -2 for each one to all your actions that turn. So, SWADE action economy is built on the idea that you can do more or fewer things on your turn, but if you do more, you'll be rushing and probably do worse. I definitely prefer that system to both action points and set actions, but that's really just personal preference. I really feel it comes down to this: When designing action economy (and most of everything in TTRPGs), there's three factors to balance (at least for this - for a whole TTRPG there are more). You can't have all three, but you can have any two out of Realism, Gameplay, and Balance. DnD 5e, if you ask me, is high in the Gameplay and Balance departments, but low on Realism. By contrast, action point systems tend to lean into Realism a bit more, and often focus on Balance - sometimes at the cost of gameplay. SWADE, if you ask me, focuses more heavily on Simulation and Gameplay, at the cost of balance. In SWADE, compared to DnD, some weapons and character choices are *just objectively more effective in combat*. But because SWADE combat and the objective of the game is totally different from DnD, it's still really fun and my favorite system.
That is great that you like SWADE! I think it honestly is another method of hybridizing Set Actions and Action Points, on a technicality. It's a Set Action system in that you always get to move and do an action, so not moving doesn't give you additional actions to spend. This means they aren't interchangeable and are thus "Set Actions". Conversely it is also sort of an Action Point system in that you get multiple actions to spend, but with the Multiple Action Penalty. I'll have to sit and chew on the idea you mentioned about the 3 factors with the limit being 2 of the 3. My initial gut reaction is that those three "areas of expertise" are not mutually exclusive to a set of 2, but I'll think on it more. Maybe it is more of a "you can weight any percentage of focus to any of the 3 areas" so more Realism means less Balance and Gameplay focus, but not either or of the other 2 areas?
Now that I've finished it, great thoughts! In my most recent game of D&D, one of my newer players to the system was upset that he didnt get anything out of not moving or using a bonus action and that he couldnt convert it to a bonus somewhere else.
That’s exactly the issue we sought to solve by making a hybrid of Set Actions and Action Points! If you position well and can go a round without moving, you can do extra actions! It makes tactical positioning important.
To give some criticism based on my initial thoughts: Isn't your concept that just a normal AP system with extra steps? I don't really see what the advantage is of just labeling something a "main" or "minor" action, if all it means is that it take 2 or 1 action respectively. Furthermore, I suspect that this is actually MORE complex, because on top of having to keep track of how many actions you used, you also need to track WHICH actions. Or you just don't track the latter, in which case, why not just use a normal AP system in the first place? I would also like to add, that as someone who brought his group over from 5e to pf2e (Some of them had a lot of experience in the system, some almost none), tracking actions just really never was a problem. The system has other complexities, but that just never was one of them. I sometimes as a GM forget that a player still had an action, if their action before that was a very impactful thing or took some time to resolve, but I am then immediately corrected by that player (And I suspect that thats a problem more unique to me and my ADHD, I also don't think it would be much better with a set action system). 3 is just a number that is very easy to keep track of. So I don't really see a problem there to solve in the first place, to be honest.
Criticism is always welcome here! The system we use is definitely mostly an AP system, with some minor differences that mostly are in naming convention and external interactions with the Action Types that become possible. With a few years of use in Playtesting and with our officially released Primer (you can download the PDF by joining our Newsletter and purchase a physical copy on DriveThruRPG) we've actually seen that it makes it easier to track, or makes no difference compared to something like Pathfinder 2e. Because instead of remembering how much AP a specific action costs, you just remember if its a Main or Minor Action (for most people general terms are easier to recall than a specific number), and that can inform you how much AP you spent. Mostly this is a tool for players with experience in Set Action systems, as Pathfinder players are used to counting the numbers. As for the points on the criticism of the pros and cons, I probably should have made it clearer that these statements were not my opinion,. but are the most commonly cited points made in discussions about the two Action Economy systems. Several commenters have thought I was bashing Pathfinder and saying that its hard so this system is better, or something to that affect, which isn't true. I really like Pathfinder, but I think every system (including ours) can be learned form and improved upon. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience!
@OdinsKeyGaming Ah okay, I see. I didn't interpret your idea as an attack on pf2e at all, though. I just personally didn't experience or see other people experience the problem you said you wanted to solve. To be fair though, 4 actions might just be past the breakpoint where it could become troublesome. And if your playtests confirm that, then fair enough. So, while I am critical of this idea in a 3 action system, with your playtest results in mind, I assume it's just very different in a 4 action system.
Glad you didn't see it as an attack, I still think I will need to have a sort of disclaimer in the video though as a lot of folks have seemed to think I am bashing on Pathfinder. I don't think the number being either 3 or 4 is what makes the difference. I think what makes it easier to grasp for players is that they don't have to remember a specific number for each Action, but they only have to know what a few terms mean: Main Action, Minor Action, Reaction. I know that in PF2e it is generally 1 or 2, so it is effectively the same numbers. But words/terms are usually easier to remember is all. I definitely agree that if we had 3 AP then this system wouldn't work the way it does.
Thank you! It’s been very well received by our players, and one of the biggest strengths is that it’s easy to learn for players that have experience in Set Action systems, and Action Point systems!
Nice breakdown! When I've played Pathfinder 2e, it's always weird talking about taking "an action", but it actually costs two actions. I like the idea of putting names to the action types and how many and having them take a certain number action points. Sounds slick!
Thank you Caleb! It is a seemingly minor change that does seem to help match expectations to the mechanics! We will have to try get you into a game sometime soon!
@@leonelegender Power Attack and Sudden Charge casting Cure Wounds with three actions, for example, are not activities, I don't think. The "Activities in Encounters" section defines activities differently. What's the correct way to refer to actions that are actually two or three actions in combat, though? I haven't been able to find the answer to that.
Are there other effects or rules that apply to this? The only one I know of is that if you don't have the Actions to complete an activity, then it goes unfinished and effectively wasted. I think to be honest that this does not have any real mechanical impact, am I missing something?
@@CalebWillden spellcasting is a activity. Any feat that gives you new things that use 2+actions can be considered activities even if they do not spell it out in their description
Hey, this was a really funny video for me to watch, since I myself had gone through making a hybrid-esque action economy! Also, I thought you were gonna talk about 4e’s almost hybrid approach of having set actions that can “trade down” to make more flexible turns. My hybrid system looked a lot like yours does with regard to movement actions, but to all action types (like Savage Worlds, from what I understand). Each action had its own way to decrease in effectiveness as you repeated the action type associated. Eventually I reframed it so that the first time you used an action type, you’d get some sort of bonus instead, to play into that player psychology. The point of doing this is not really that a player’s turn would be too powerful if they could attack three times at a full bonus, as a designer you set the scales of power and could easily adjust hit points or damage values to compensate. The bigger issue is that without a way for actions to “stale out”, there becomes a best action to just do all the time. I think PF2’s multiple attack penalty is to promote action variety, rather than a balancing issue.
That is super cool to hear! What a smart way to flip the script and change a penalty to a bonus. That’s definitely a good point about the MAP in PF2e, I think I’ve heard Mark Seifter talk about that as the real purpose behind the MAP. I think to a degree though it is partly because of “power” as without MAP the amount of damage dealt would increase greatly, and to match that massive Health pools for monsters would be needed. And PF2e has large Health pools as-is. But yes the MAP also incentivizes different actions. In Indominant the way we incentivize mixing actions is through other supporting mechanics. Our version of D&D 5e’s Advantage and Disadvantage is called Dominance & Weakness, and that system really incentivizes trying to stack up Dominance so that you can get a crit on a single big attack! There are other things such as a lot of powers that can empower an attack or improve your allies/hinder your enemies. Another aspect is just how attacks (really Powers) work in that there isn’t a basic Attack that you can do over and over that’s very powerful. Your resources for strong Powers are limited, and so it’s better to build up to a big effect rather than repeat a single action.
Essence20 uses a hybrid system and it works really well. They get a number of actions equal to their Speed: 1 Standard, 1 Move, the rest Quick. This works really well because it allows them to spread out how actions are assigned (stowing a large weapon is typically a Move action, for example), and it also allows them to play with how those actions are classified. One class may be able to perform a Standard action as a Quick action, while another class may get a bonus if they do something that’s normally a Move action as a Standard action instead. The system also allows you to convert Standard actions and Quick actions into movement, allowing more versatility and opening up your Move action to be used in some other way.
That is a really cool way to make a hybrid system! It is almost the opposite approach to ours, where it is mostly a Set Action system, but gives a feeling of AP by allowing the conversion! Thanks for sharing!
Thank you for your interest! We'd love to hear your feedback and answer questions you have during your reading or game sessions! You can join our Discord server here: discord.gg/vQ5wg4QV8m Or you can sign up for our Newsletter here: mailchi.mp/301fecef5301/indominant_newsletter_signup
Woah! Mind blown. Talk about great minds think alike. I am familiar with both kinds of systems. I like the Pathfinder way better. I think it is both flexible and easy to figure out. I don't have to worry about actions and bonus actions or whatever. When everything has a point value, it is streamlined and straightforward. I like that. I came up with my own version of the action point system. There are four action points in a turn. Then the turn ends with one melee attack, but only if there is an opponent nearby. Spells cost one action point. Movement and item use each cost one action point. I am amazed that this video has something so similar. That is a cool coincidence. It will take me time to figure out the details. I have a good foundation. Item use is tricky in DND. The new Player Handbook even changed the rules on how they work. In an action point system, I have item use only take one action point. That is fair. A player can easily use a big important spell and eat a meal on the same turn. That isn't too punishing. I have meals be the main item to heal characters. Well cooked meals provide buffs. The biggest difference between the two similar systems. I have a special action that is just for a melee attack. It is its own special thing. That is a way I bridge with the martial and caster gap. Casters are so much better. I love magicians because their flavor is so cool. I even made a whole class system where all classes are magicians. So all classes have spells and use mana. with these common mechanics, that does a lot to make things more balanced. It is also possible to make martials work like casters without changing the flavor. World of Warcraft, DC20 and even DND 4E do this. In my class system, all my classes have a melee attack ability. Magicians shoot sparkles and that hits a nearby opponent. It is different from spells because of the short range and the lack of mana use. I do have melee and range distinction. Some magicians, like mages and priest, can have their spells work on any character in the battlefield. That is range. other magician, like shaman and warlock, use their spells to boost performance in melee sparkles. These are melee classes. The warlock reduces melee damage with shield spells, so it is like a tanky warrior. The shaman uses spells to boost damage of melee sparkles, and so it is like a rouge. I wanted to make things fair for the melee magic users. So I added their own part of the action economy. Melee users get more damaged than ranged users, even without taking the difference of magic to account. Melee users are more exposed to damage because they fight up close. So I have them do one extra action to make up for that. That lets them do more damage. So melee turns into a more balanced state. It is an offensive one. Ranged is a more defensive state. Health can even be a hidden cost of melee. I make up for it. Melee attacks don't cost mana, but spells do. The lost health relaces mana cost in a way.
That’s really interesting! These kinds of systems are starting to get more popular for sure. In our Superhero game Indominant everyone also has “mana” but it’s called Drive and every character uses it to use their Powers. There are free Base Powers that don’t cost Drive, but other than that Drive is used for every Power.
Great stuff and insight, I think AP is certainly an interesting approach. I think one big issue with the standard action economy is games like 5e is that the Bonus Action is heavily under utilized. Its there really for the Monk and the Rogue and that's about it. I think adding more value to the BA is a great space to start, but I do think in general an AP system is an even better overhaul to the entire thing as it gives more flexibility. Love what you've done with Indominant's action economy, looking forward to trying it!
That is true they have greatly improved it. It still is something where not every character has a good option for Bonus Actions, and they aren't all created equally either. It's just something that players have to keep in mind and intentionally find ways to make use of them, however that is much easier in 5e24/5.5/etc.
What I use for my system is definitely AP style. We call it Initiative and its derived from your attribute scores, which means it isn't the same for everyone. There are also defensive actions that the target takes to avoid the attack but those don't cost any Initiative. Your first movement is free as well, with extra movement in the same turn costing Initiative. You can save initiative in order to interpret someone else's action and there are special things you can learn that allow you to react to specific situations too. There is also no penalty for attacking multiple times in a row.
@@OdinsKeyGaming It's not used for determining who goes first. We don't use those other ways of determining who goes first either. The system we use for deciding who goes first is a "whoever speaks up first" system.
That is always another good way of deciding turn order, a hard-coded system doesn't have to exist really. It makes sense to not worry about something else called "Initiative" since your AP system is called Initiative.
Something i learned from playing a Free League game, Dragonbane, is that sometimes less can be more. That system instead only has a move and a single action. Additionally, using your reaction uses up your entire turn for that round. So essentially, on every round you only ever get to do one single thing. And maaaaaan it really speeds up gameplay. Instead of sitting idly by for 20min and waiting for it to come back to your turn you can get through a whole round in like 5min. Which then makes it *feel* like you're doing more stuff. Players are always at the edge of their seats, the battlefield just moves around so quickly. Also seems to help with choice-paralysis.
That can definitely be true! Shadowdark is an example that does that as well. I think it really depends on the type of game and how other aspects of the game are designed as well. I’ve heard amazing things about Dragonbane, and I definitely want to try it! Their roll under mechanic for conflict resolution is really cool too.
Action economy works when action efficiency matters. It is the equivalent of having a deadline, like Rebels destroying Death Star before a certain number of actions take place before the rebel base is at reach for destruction.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you mean that having to work to end the combat fast so that you don’t end up losing? If so, I can see what you mean. It means being efficient with your Actions is important, but I think that’s something that impacts a lot more than just action economy.
@@OdinsKeyGaming Imagine you have 100 actions as Rebel force to destroy Death Star before it destroys Rebel base. It sets a deadline. Action efficiency is a way to set a deadline without using a chronometer with minutes. Space Invaders also has a limit of time before you lose. Missile Command also requires you to destroy incoming volleys within a time limit. Actions are the equivalent of doing things under pressure with a time limit. But unlike seconds, actions allow you to make decisions without using chronometer.
I'm a big fan of two actions, Move and Do A Thing, not necessarily in that order sometimes it's Do A Thing, and Move. I don't believe in gaining extra attacks that make you roll more dice. Multipliers to indicate multiple hits is simple and keeps the game moving quickly. Combat shouldn't take an hour or two unless you are up against a hoard of enemies that are coming in waves. After moving to a system that does the Move and D.A.T. I can do three to five combats in 3 hours as well as a bunch of exploration and talky talky. If players are taking more than a minute to figure out what they are doing, rolling dice and adding everything thing up, more than likely your system is at fault or they've never played a roleplaying game before. Variety may be the spice of life but as with all spices too much spoils the dish, same goes for too many actions on one turn. Having to make a choice between lighting a torch so the party can see or attacking to help clear out the herd is a good problem for the players to have. They need those types of issues in order to understand that they are a team and not just a bunch of people that happen to fight in the same room together. Allowing a player to do both in a turn decreases the team cooperation that you as a DM want to cultivate at your table, and can lead to creative solutions to complex problems. Fun and creativity is the heart of every RPG, it's important to make and reinforce systems that encourage your players to work together as a cohesive team.
Probably the most involved AP economy I've seen in a system would have been Twilight 2013… Action Points were called Ticks, you had about 15 or 20 of them and they were spent on actions in a similar way as the Jagged Alliance 2 computer game. There was an extensive table of costs and some actions (like looking in your pack for an item) had a variable cost in APs (D10 I think). It was an awesome looking system when it worked, it fell apart a bit though when you could make a character with twice or three times the Ticks as everyone else by cheesing the creation process.
That’s definitely interesting, I’ve heard of the game but don’t know too much about it. That sort of reminds me of how the Divinity Original Sin 2 video game works as well. I think something similar could work in a TTRPG, but it would require some heavy balance around AP costs and probably multiple other mechanics and systems.
The 'simplicity of set actions' - ! Action Points is so much simpler because the 'set action' is really like D&D4e's 'standard action' with numerous different types (attack, cast a spell, skill action etc). The problem with set actions - a PC that does not move gains no activity. The 3 AP of Pathfinder does not suck - it works (if you don't move at all, you gain at least 1 Action), Your Indominant 'hybrid' mechanism has 4 AP (that's more tracking) and adopts the inefficiency and 'complexity' of the set action economy - in my view.
Glad to hear your thoughts! I really don’t think Action Points suck, I think they rock. It’s a bit of a clickbait-y thumbnail, but that’s why I have it say “not really” in small text as well. Personally I agree with you that Set Actions aren’t much more simple, but I wanted to use the more commonly used points made about each system within the TTRPG space instead of my personal view on the topic. I agree with your points on what makes an AP system great!
3AP of Pathfinder are not... Very flexible in real games. Lots of plays looks like "Move attack rise shield" or "Attack, reload, reload" or "Move, cast spell" etc.There is common issue of "lack of impactful non-damaging actions" combined with making any intresting activity 2 or 3 action point so you can do only one thing at turn. Dark Heresy/Shadowrun economy is more diverse with 2 half-action and free movement, wile AP system should also explore more diverse AP structure. Like using 10 AP instead of 3 that allow to more flexible pricing of each action.
I have heard this before, something that I think Taking20 said as well. I think this issue comes more from wanting to use the "most optimal" series of actions, rather than wanting to use "efficient/optimal, but not the most optimal" actions. It also really depends on the Feats chosen as if you shoehorn yourself into having one really good Action, then that is going to feel like the only thing (or combo) you "should" do on a turn. I think something that is related to this is the way that there are prerequisites in the Pathfinder 2e Feat design. Needing to be a specific subclass to get certain Feats makes sense, but being forced to take a specific line of Feats that are all related to get the higher Level subclass specific Feats is very limiting imo. I think this contributes to the problem as if you want a high level Feat that is only available to your subclass, you have to take multiple other Feats with no choice leading to that Level, and they generally all affect the same thing as well, causing this issue of "this is the best thing for me to do every turn". But I still think the problem can be solved by not wanting to extract the most out of every turn/action as possible.
@@OdinsKeyGaming often there is just no choices for feats. For example, if you play as archer you can pick 1 usefull feat, as two weapon fighter there is 2 feats where one is just cleary superior to other etc. that leads to situation where choice is super limited, and at least 1-6 levels gameplay are... Repetitive. Game like Icon give more choice but being crunchy and not famous game system make it hard to get party of players that ready to tactical combat
I would agree that this is a fair criticism of Pathfinder, which doesn't have to mean it is "bad". It would be very cool if you checked out Indominant, we give a lot of choice for actions and character customization and have very tactical, teamwork-oriented combat! You can join our Discord server (link in description) to get your free PDF of our Game System Primer, or find the PDF and Physical versions on Drive Thru RPG!
Never been on this channel before, I just wanna throw out my thoughts for my home game before I get into the video: I like points, but I don't want to make every action type freely usable multiple times per turn. So I use a mix of named actions (which is getting an overhaul in 5.5e) and action points. The Attack action will have multiple components: main attack, enhancement, bonus action. The main attack will cost 1 AP and can be your primary attack, a special attack, or an exploit (a weapon technique). Enhancements are things that can be used to enhance the main attack: sneak attack, smite, and maneuvers from DnD fit this. Only one enhancement per main attack, so you can't use all of them at the same time when you crit. The bonus attack is either your offhand weapon, another bonus granted by a class feature, or simply an unarmed strike, like throwing a kick after a sword strike. The bonus attack costs 1 AP, so a fully utilized Attack action could cost 2AP spread across multiple rolls. The reason the bonus attack still exists is because it is subject to the same benefits or penalties as the main attack from the same Attack action. The Attack action can be used again but gets the disadvantage penalty. There is also cleaving, where killing an enemy with the Attack action refunds an AP. So even at early levels you can attack multiple times but it has diminishing returns. The Magic action covers the vast majority of other combat actions. Any given magic action has a once per turn limit. I have spells that work sinilarly to PF where you pump more AP to use them, but most other magic actions cost only 1 AP. Magic can also have an enhancement for 0 AP, like using metamagic. It's self limiting in the same way, only one enhancement per action. In theory every action could have some sort of enhancement applied, and since the mechanic prevents feature stacking unlike DnD, and actions are less repeatable like in PF, I want to build on this to make powerful magic items. I think it's also just codifying concepts that these games already sometimes spell out in individual cases, with clauses like "Once per turn, you can do X." Movement is also not an action, you have movement automatically, but you spend movement for special movement actions. Jump, mount or dismount, etc. The Dash action does cost 1 AP and only works once per turn. I also have standby actions, which cost 1 AP but if you do them at the start of your tuen before anything else, they cost 0. Like minor object interactions or going into a Rage. Finally I have a battle escalation mechanic. You start with 1 AP, and it recovers at the end of your turn, but at the top of each round every combatant gains 1 AP for a total of 2. This happens again and again, to a maximum of 4 (the DM can change the escalation limit too). By the time we reach 3-4 rounds, everyone is using their best moves, but at the beginning, some moves aren't even possible. This makes lower AP abilities important to keep and not replace. The biggest thing is making sure that all the possible actions are communicated intuitively, so I have been working with my tables to find succinct ways to describe this system without it being overly mechanical.
That’s a really cool system! In a framework like Pathfinder 2e or D&D 5e it definitely makes sense not to allow multiple uses of the same type of action, those games (and by extensions ones built off of them, or modifications of them) aren’t built with that happening as an expectation. We designed our game with a different baseline expectation, and so that’s why we allow multiple uses of the same Action Type, and why Movement costs 1AP. In Indominant Movement is very powerful because Ranges aren’t that much longer in distance than Movement. Ranges are 4-12 Units and Movement is general 6 (+/- 1 or 2). So Movement has to cost something as it is very powerful. This is definitely a super cool modification (or super awesome if you are making your own system too) to use at your tables! Thanks for taking the time to explain it!
@OdinsKeyGaming thanks! Yeah it's gonna take a lot of testing to prove workable. It's fun conceptually and it plays well at my table with us modifying classes to fit so far, but the point of AP is typically for the player to have the freedom to spend it all. With a limit on actions, it could lead to a scenario where players have points but nothing to spend them on except penalized Attack actions, which some classes are not gonna enjoy at all. I have to make sure there is value in the escalation mechanic. I will be building up a new system around this and other house rules.
That is an impressive feat to modify classes to fit this new system! I agree that I think penalizing repeated actions will result in "feels bad" scenarios, but if there are plentiful options on a turn, or ways to mitigate those penalties like in Pathfinder 2e then I think it would be okay. I actually think the escalation system seems like a really cool addition if I am understanding correctly. Essentially every character gets more AP as rounds go on, right? I think that is a really cool system actually and will build up tension and excitement as a fight continues. You just have to make sure that combat doesn't also get slowed down too much by the fact that there are more actions to resolve for every turn. I am not sure if a system like D&D 5e works with that to be honest, because it isn't designed to work that way and turns turn out quite slow often times as-is (generally this only becomes an issue closer to Level 10+).
@OdinsKeyGaming you have that right. More action points per round as combat continues. I think an action point system that starts low and gathers momentum works best BUT it must cap somewhere. We have been playing with 4, but that's with movement being free, and PF2 uses 3 with movement having a cost. I may cap at 3. Each time I make a pass at it, I try also to trim down complications. This is the beauty of what DnD offers and I'm essentially rejecting it to make things complicated. It may not be worth the additional explanation, and if so I have to rethink my decisions. Which is okay. It's been a fun process.
@@JamCliche I mean, does there need to be a cap? Do the Monsters also gain AP with the escalation? It is a self limiting factor in that there is like a "critical mass" state where the combat WILL END. Idk seems like that could be fun, but not on the skeleton of D&D 5e tbh.
I rewatched it like 3 times and still fail to see how is this different than any other action point system, you just have 4 ap instead of PFs 3, and a different cost distribution. But this is not a hybrid system, this is regular old APs. Which is great but you made no innovation to it
I’m glad you watched it so much, truly! Technically you are correct, it mechanically functions in use just as any other Action Point system would. However the difference is how it’s perceived by the “user” and how in giving each AP cost a name, we can easily reference those types of actions with other mechanics that might show up in our content above level 5 (everything up to Level 5 is FREE in our Game System Primer PDF!).
@@OdinsKeyGaming Something that kept bothering me in the background about the AP+Naming system is that, at first, the two layers of the system does not seem to carry different information. I do not know the system, or how it will behave beyond level 5, and I see the pros of having action naming, specially for players that are introduced to the game and you can tell them "You could do a main, a quick and a move actions in your turn" and they get to play straight away, but I feel like the abstraction does not give more to the system beyond that first abstraction that helps new-comers or people that would need adaptations for numbers (like people with arithmophobia), both cases that you would have to/could handle in session or outside of the game itself. With the action naming and the action points implemented in the game, you could give actions categories that inform deeper mechanics of the game. As an example, Pathfinder 2e with the MAP system gets the tag Strike and manages the experience of combat through that. So far, what I see is a translation of points to names, that for some people could be helpful, for some people could be enforcing of behaviours and for some people would be more complicated. If instead the names have information that relates to other mechanics, that would be a completely different story. Having Movement Actions that cost 2 Points that are categorized as Sprint, therefore it is a Move Action that could be powered up by a feat that lets you use two Sprint Actions in a row without a penalty, or stating a difference between combat actions, like Strike, Maneuver and Trick, where Tricks could cost less and prepare for follow up Strikes/Powers, that cost more, and Maneuvers, cost 1, could be chained. In that way, a flurry of basic strikes and the main powers of the heroes could be categorized as Strike or Power, and it means something beyond the cost, and you have enriched the action system with meaning instead of number management.
You have sort of struck the nail on the head. We don't have mechanics that use this sort of interaction in the first 5 Levels of play that are available in our Game System Primer, but we will have some interactions just like this that interact with Action Types in content above level 5. Technically you could do this with a system that only uses numbers as well, but those mechanics then have a lot more potential interactions because if you instead say, "When you use an Action that costs 1 AP, you can do X." well now you have to consider the possibility of how that interacts with everything that costs 1 AP especially if there are ways to reduce AP costs, vs with our named Action Types we contain the interactions there.
@@OdinsKeyGaming I see how the Action Naming facilitates readability through the game, and how it lightens the mental load of the player, but I think that, as it seems to be with the little I have seen of the systems, the tagging and the mechanics that link to it could work enforce sameness on player's turns (I am only concerned right now about economy rather than flavour). What I have in mind of your system is that, so far, we have three tags, Main Action, Minor Action and Move Action, that fuel the mechanics linked to tags. As far as I understand, if a player chooses to use a Minor Action to benefit from a "When you use Minor Action, you can do X", the player would opt into that behaviour more often, as it provides with a better economy, so the game revolves around gimmicks that look like templates of rounds. The list of gimmicks could be super long, giving the sensation of choice (I like this, because at the end of the day we do not need 9000 different ways of doing something for it to be fun) but as a system it would restrict the development of the game into three hard-coded options for the development of new mechanics, and as a player, my turn would always be of a type of template (main-main, main-minor-move, minor-minor-minor-minor...). This type of system of soft (as in soft vs hard mechanics) templates feel to me as an easy entry for players into funneling their interaction with the game (that is not wrong, but a behaviour to take into account in the design). No matter how much customization someone could get from a character design if their interaction with the simulated world is structured as a set of templates. I think that the system that you propose for Indominant is an explicit iteration of what games like Pathfinder 2e do implicitly with the Action Points+Tagging design, and it can have its pros and cons, as well as their design paths and dead-ends. I think that the AP+Action Categories could be a great design choice, if it is a conscious part of the design, but if it is not, it could become a dead-end trying to create newer options in the long run. Another thing that contributes to my worries of the AP+Naming system is that the 4 points-system established by the naming removes part of its flexibility. As far as I have seen, the system have 2-Point (Main) Action and 1-Point (Minor & Move) Action. That seems to restrict the number of combinations that therefore would restrict the number of gimmick templates soft-applied in the system. Would the system have 3-Point or 4-Point Actions? And if so, how would that affect the Action Categories that have been established? My point with all of this is that, if Action Categories are defined by the number of points invested into doing the action, both the design tools and the variations in game experience are constricted from the start, and in the case that you decide to have more flexibility on the points invested in actions, tying the categories to the cost loses event more importance/meaning in the game. And all of that is not a bad choice by itself, but it has to be a conscious choice or later iterations of the game (like a 2e version or complementary handbooks) could be affected gravely by it. As a side note, I think people have tied the critics to Pathfinder 2e to a personal view because of the thumbnail/screen of the video, as it gives a way more negative and personal tone to say that somethings sucks than to set the conversation as a comparison, though I get that saying such things can bring more people into the video, as it was my case. So, the attitude of the people was too harsh, in my opinion, but it had a root into the content of the video as a whole.
These are all great points. I would really love it if you joined our Discord server (link in the description) to discuss this more, and see the game system for yourself too! The Game System Primer PDF is completely free! So I kept it vague intentionally as we haven't settled on specific interactions of "When you use a Minor Action you can do X." But to further discuss it I will clarify something. Those types of interactions would not be permanently applicable things, and would instead be limited to possibly even 1 use per combat, or be a lot more specific of an effect so that it is not universally applicable to every situation. I am a huge proponent of game balance and freedom of choice, so every aspect of the game was designed with those ideas as the goals. So the AP system we use was designed to facilitate such a gameplay feel. Turns do not end up being samey or repetitive, as you called it a "template of actions". We also do have a system for customized Signature Powers which require 3 AP to use, and are called a "Signature Action", but that is just not in our Primer as it "comes online" after Level 5 (the max level of content in the Primer).
Dued, duder, dudingham...Indominant doesn't have a hybrid action economy. It has a SET action economy with more bookkeeping attached. The problem with action point systems is they purport to be more flexible than set action economies, but the designers still want a player's turn in their game to BEHAVE mostly like a D&D turn, so they try to design around the 1st level barbarian just standing still and taking 4 swings with their weapon. That's why PF2E has the multi-attack penalty and DC20 gives you disadvantage on multiple attacks. In essence, these are also just set action economies with more bookkeeping attached.
I’d love for you to download a free Primer of the Indominant Rules! I think you’d see that it isn’t a Set Action economy in disguise. There are no penalties for repeated actions in Indominant. You can use 2 Main Actions on your turn and there is no penalty, even if they are both Attacks, or even 3 to 4 of the same Minor Action! I can see what you mean about Pathfinder though the Multiple Attack Penalty does make it seem like you aren’t supposed to do multiple attacks, but I can’t really assume what their reasoning for that is. My guess is that enemies would die too easily without the Multiple Attack Penalty. Having played DC20 I’d disagree that it “wants” you to do a D&D-like turn. Turns in DC20 felt very different than D&D for sure.
“Counting 3 action points in Pathfinder is hard! To fix this, I created a game with 4 action points!” /sigh You don’t have to tear others down to build yourself up.
This isn’t my opinion on either system, but the commonly cited pros and cons of them both. I don’t think counting 3 AP is hard, considering that we have 4 AP in our game. But that’s not the same for everyone. Pathfinder is actually a huge inspiration for some part of the game and our design philosophy too!
@@eustacebhagg2808 thankfully we can all have an opinion 😊 including you. While my opinion likely colors my view, I think I kept the pros and cons quite objective and in line with what most people would agree is true. I didn’t say which system is best, as that’s purely subjective. Thanks for the response!
SWADE is just better in all respects, you can take up to 3 actions every turn, taking multiple actions applies a penalty to all of them. Its risk vs reward, which is what a LUCL BASED DICE GAME should encourage, TTRPGS should encourage.
I agree that risk vs reward is a big part of what makes TTRPGs fun! But I also think there are other ways to create that, without applying penalties. Something that’s different about Indominant, being a Superhero TTRPG, is that a basic attack isn’t one of your strongest options for dealing damage. For that you have to use your stronger Powers which you can’t do infinitely because of our Drive system. We will have a video about that next week! Thanks for sharing!
@@OdinsKeyGaming "without applying penalties" SWADE allows you to create whatever character you want. The MAP does not heavily affect people who have speccd heavily into their skills. A PC with a d8 fighting can risk the -2 penalty for two attacks, but someone with a d10 or d12 wont suffer as much. theres also called/aimed attacks at limbs and more for a penalty to hit as well for a bigger benefit, like an attack at someone's head or their weapon. Which is sticking to a single action that turn vs trying to get multiple actions off in one turn. SWADE is just better, even if you want the super hero fantasy, its got far more to it than jsut basic attacks, but basic attacks are also very valuable. You can test foes, support allies, distract and make foes vulnerable. Magic spells in the system are simple to understand and have modifiers for more versatility. Plenty of actions and methods are available, its not all combat. You can play a pacifist and still be useful even in combat. The issue you brought up with the penalties is simply because you havent experienced/seen the system I feel.
You are welcome to your opinion that SWADE does it better! I don't think applying a MAP is an "issue" but that doesn't mean there might be a better way to manage/limit things in a game system. "without applying penalties" was said because Multiple Action Penalty has it in the name, it is a penalty. I just think there can be improvements to pretty much everything all the time, including to our system!
@OdinsKeyGaming why is a penalty to it a bad thing? You haven't elaborated in that at all, JUST that you don't like it. There are many methods in the core roles to help alleviate that in many way for multiple combat styles. Rerolls, bonuses specifically to the combat style, etc. this supports a true risk vs reward system BECAUSE of THE PENALTIES VS REWARDS. Compared to pf2e where you only, ONLY, get a penalty for successive attempts, meaning it's not rush can reward but rather "might as well" like health potions being a bonus action "well I haven't used my bonus action yet, might as well drink a portion line every other turn I can" You're acting like the modern player were you see ANY penalties and consider it problem. Do not insult the system with such nonsense, you haven't even made a proper argument about it while you ACT like you enjoy risk vs reward. There is RISK in RISK VS REWARD
I am not sure if you are reading my responses or not. I specifically said that I do **not** think it is a "problem/issue" but that doesn't mean that there isn't a better way to handle it. Something does not have to be bad to have room for improvement. I am not insulting SWADE's system at all either. All I am saying is that there are other, possibly better, ways to have Risk vs Reward without directly (or numerically) penalizing players for doing something. Having to spend a limited resource on something that is not guaranteed for example is a way to have risk vs reward without directly "punishing" a player for their actions. Another aspect of this is the chance of failure, that inherently adds risk vs reward as doing something unlikely (or without making it more likely) is a chance (or risk) that you are taking.
It is hard for some that play TTRPGs, which should be valid. But you are also welcome to have your opinion. See my response to your other comment for the rest of my thoughts! 👍
@ Also, I want to apologize for my tone... you're out there in the gaming sphere making things, I have no right to grumble against it. I am glad you're doing something! Please forgive me for my negative tone. As a Pathfinder player, I get tired of people bemoaning "Mathfinder" as if adding +2 to a number were difficult... it grates on me. But I wish you well, and I look forward to seeing what you've created! Peace to you!
No worries! No hard feelings here. Of course everyone ahs their right to comment and say that they think, I don't have an issue there friend. I do agree there is some unjust hate on Pathfinder for the whole "Mathfinder" thing, but I was just citing common pros cons, as I mentioned before. I hope to see your thoughts on future videos we put out!
It is definitely similar in that it is an AP system. But there are some key differences, such as no MAP, and the fact that every action has a specific term rather than its own cost allows us to have mechanics that easily interact with certain types of actions. Pathfinder could have interactions with actions based on AP cost but that could have some odd potential interactions. Thanks for watching!
FOR THE ALGORITHM!!!
Thank you for the love August!
There's another, third / fourth way to do action economy that you didn't mention, and that's the one used in Savage Worlds ("SW"; I'll specifically be referring to Savage Worlds Adventure Edition, "SWADE").
In SW, you get movement and one action per turn, cause you can use your hands while running around. You can also run, in which case you get some more movement, but at the cost of a -2 penalty to all actions you take that turn. For SWADE, that's a pretty big penalty. Additionally, you can also take up to two more actions on your turn, but if you do, you'll get an extra -2 for each one to all your actions that turn. So, SWADE action economy is built on the idea that you can do more or fewer things on your turn, but if you do more, you'll be rushing and probably do worse.
I definitely prefer that system to both action points and set actions, but that's really just personal preference.
I really feel it comes down to this: When designing action economy (and most of everything in TTRPGs), there's three factors to balance (at least for this - for a whole TTRPG there are more). You can't have all three, but you can have any two out of Realism, Gameplay, and Balance. DnD 5e, if you ask me, is high in the Gameplay and Balance departments, but low on Realism. By contrast, action point systems tend to lean into Realism a bit more, and often focus on Balance - sometimes at the cost of gameplay. SWADE, if you ask me, focuses more heavily on Simulation and Gameplay, at the cost of balance. In SWADE, compared to DnD, some weapons and character choices are *just objectively more effective in combat*. But because SWADE combat and the objective of the game is totally different from DnD, it's still really fun and my favorite system.
That is great that you like SWADE! I think it honestly is another method of hybridizing Set Actions and Action Points, on a technicality. It's a Set Action system in that you always get to move and do an action, so not moving doesn't give you additional actions to spend. This means they aren't interchangeable and are thus "Set Actions". Conversely it is also sort of an Action Point system in that you get multiple actions to spend, but with the Multiple Action Penalty.
I'll have to sit and chew on the idea you mentioned about the 3 factors with the limit being 2 of the 3. My initial gut reaction is that those three "areas of expertise" are not mutually exclusive to a set of 2, but I'll think on it more. Maybe it is more of a "you can weight any percentage of focus to any of the 3 areas" so more Realism means less Balance and Gameplay focus, but not either or of the other 2 areas?
Love the iteration on the AP systems! There's a lot of space to still explore within the AP space, and Indominant's looks solid! 🤠
Thank you! It creates a new sort of variation that mixes the strengths of both!
Now that I've finished it, great thoughts! In my most recent game of D&D, one of my newer players to the system was upset that he didnt get anything out of not moving or using a bonus action and that he couldnt convert it to a bonus somewhere else.
That’s exactly the issue we sought to solve by making a hybrid of Set Actions and Action Points! If you position well and can go a round without moving, you can do extra actions! It makes tactical positioning important.
To give some criticism based on my initial thoughts: Isn't your concept that just a normal AP system with extra steps? I don't really see what the advantage is of just labeling something a "main" or "minor" action, if all it means is that it take 2 or 1 action respectively.
Furthermore, I suspect that this is actually MORE complex, because on top of having to keep track of how many actions you used, you also need to track WHICH actions. Or you just don't track the latter, in which case, why not just use a normal AP system in the first place?
I would also like to add, that as someone who brought his group over from 5e to pf2e (Some of them had a lot of experience in the system, some almost none), tracking actions just really never was a problem. The system has other complexities, but that just never was one of them. I sometimes as a GM forget that a player still had an action, if their action before that was a very impactful thing or took some time to resolve, but I am then immediately corrected by that player (And I suspect that thats a problem more unique to me and my ADHD, I also don't think it would be much better with a set action system). 3 is just a number that is very easy to keep track of. So I don't really see a problem there to solve in the first place, to be honest.
Criticism is always welcome here! The system we use is definitely mostly an AP system, with some minor differences that mostly are in naming convention and external interactions with the Action Types that become possible.
With a few years of use in Playtesting and with our officially released Primer (you can download the PDF by joining our Newsletter and purchase a physical copy on DriveThruRPG) we've actually seen that it makes it easier to track, or makes no difference compared to something like Pathfinder 2e. Because instead of remembering how much AP a specific action costs, you just remember if its a Main or Minor Action (for most people general terms are easier to recall than a specific number), and that can inform you how much AP you spent. Mostly this is a tool for players with experience in Set Action systems, as Pathfinder players are used to counting the numbers.
As for the points on the criticism of the pros and cons, I probably should have made it clearer that these statements were not my opinion,. but are the most commonly cited points made in discussions about the two Action Economy systems. Several commenters have thought I was bashing Pathfinder and saying that its hard so this system is better, or something to that affect, which isn't true. I really like Pathfinder, but I think every system (including ours) can be learned form and improved upon.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience!
@OdinsKeyGaming Ah okay, I see. I didn't interpret your idea as an attack on pf2e at all, though. I just personally didn't experience or see other people experience the problem you said you wanted to solve. To be fair though, 4 actions might just be past the breakpoint where it could become troublesome. And if your playtests confirm that, then fair enough. So, while I am critical of this idea in a 3 action system, with your playtest results in mind, I assume it's just very different in a 4 action system.
Glad you didn't see it as an attack, I still think I will need to have a sort of disclaimer in the video though as a lot of folks have seemed to think I am bashing on Pathfinder.
I don't think the number being either 3 or 4 is what makes the difference. I think what makes it easier to grasp for players is that they don't have to remember a specific number for each Action, but they only have to know what a few terms mean: Main Action, Minor Action, Reaction. I know that in PF2e it is generally 1 or 2, so it is effectively the same numbers. But words/terms are usually easier to remember is all. I definitely agree that if we had 3 AP then this system wouldn't work the way it does.
I actually just stumbled across the idea of a hybrid action system by accident recently. Nice breakdown.
Thank you! It’s been very well received by our players, and one of the biggest strengths is that it’s easy to learn for players that have experience in Set Action systems, and Action Point systems!
Nice breakdown! When I've played Pathfinder 2e, it's always weird talking about taking "an action", but it actually costs two actions. I like the idea of putting names to the action types and how many and having them take a certain number action points. Sounds slick!
Thank you Caleb! It is a seemingly minor change that does seem to help match expectations to the mechanics! We will have to try get you into a game sometime soon!
Anything that takes 2 or more actions is named and called a "activity" in pf2e, read your rulebooks people
@@leonelegender Power Attack and Sudden Charge casting Cure Wounds with three actions, for example, are not activities, I don't think. The "Activities in Encounters" section defines activities differently. What's the correct way to refer to actions that are actually two or three actions in combat, though? I haven't been able to find the answer to that.
Are there other effects or rules that apply to this? The only one I know of is that if you don't have the Actions to complete an activity, then it goes unfinished and effectively wasted. I think to be honest that this does not have any real mechanical impact, am I missing something?
@@CalebWillden spellcasting is a activity. Any feat that gives you new things that use 2+actions can be considered activities even if they do not spell it out in their description
Hey, this was a really funny video for me to watch, since I myself had gone through making a hybrid-esque action economy! Also, I thought you were gonna talk about 4e’s almost hybrid approach of having set actions that can “trade down” to make more flexible turns.
My hybrid system looked a lot like yours does with regard to movement actions, but to all action types (like Savage Worlds, from what I understand). Each action had its own way to decrease in effectiveness as you repeated the action type associated. Eventually I reframed it so that the first time you used an action type, you’d get some sort of bonus instead, to play into that player psychology.
The point of doing this is not really that a player’s turn would be too powerful if they could attack three times at a full bonus, as a designer you set the scales of power and could easily adjust hit points or damage values to compensate. The bigger issue is that without a way for actions to “stale out”, there becomes a best action to just do all the time. I think PF2’s multiple attack penalty is to promote action variety, rather than a balancing issue.
That is super cool to hear! What a smart way to flip the script and change a penalty to a bonus.
That’s definitely a good point about the MAP in PF2e, I think I’ve heard Mark Seifter talk about that as the real purpose behind the MAP. I think to a degree though it is partly because of “power” as without MAP the amount of damage dealt would increase greatly, and to match that massive Health pools for monsters would be needed. And PF2e has large Health pools as-is. But yes the MAP also incentivizes different actions.
In Indominant the way we incentivize mixing actions is through other supporting mechanics. Our version of D&D 5e’s Advantage and Disadvantage is called Dominance & Weakness, and that system really incentivizes trying to stack up Dominance so that you can get a crit on a single big attack! There are other things such as a lot of powers that can empower an attack or improve your allies/hinder your enemies. Another aspect is just how attacks (really Powers) work in that there isn’t a basic Attack that you can do over and over that’s very powerful. Your resources for strong Powers are limited, and so it’s better to build up to a big effect rather than repeat a single action.
Essence20 uses a hybrid system and it works really well. They get a number of actions equal to their Speed: 1 Standard, 1 Move, the rest Quick.
This works really well because it allows them to spread out how actions are assigned (stowing a large weapon is typically a Move action, for example), and it also allows them to play with how those actions are classified. One class may be able to perform a Standard action as a Quick action, while another class may get a bonus if they do something that’s normally a Move action as a Standard action instead. The system also allows you to convert Standard actions and Quick actions into movement, allowing more versatility and opening up your Move action to be used in some other way.
That is a really cool way to make a hybrid system! It is almost the opposite approach to ours, where it is mostly a Set Action system, but gives a feeling of AP by allowing the conversion! Thanks for sharing!
Where can I download the free primer?
Thank you for your interest! We'd love to hear your feedback and answer questions you have during your reading or game sessions!
You can join our Discord server here: discord.gg/vQ5wg4QV8m
Or you can sign up for our Newsletter here: mailchi.mp/301fecef5301/indominant_newsletter_signup
Woah! Mind blown. Talk about great minds think alike. I am familiar with both kinds of systems. I like the Pathfinder way better. I think it is both flexible and easy to figure out. I don't have to worry about actions and bonus actions or whatever. When everything has a point value, it is streamlined and straightforward. I like that.
I came up with my own version of the action point system. There are four action points in a turn. Then the turn ends with one melee attack, but only if there is an opponent nearby. Spells cost one action point. Movement and item use each cost one action point. I am amazed that this video has something so similar. That is a cool coincidence. It will take me time to figure out the details. I have a good foundation. Item use is tricky in DND. The new Player Handbook even changed the rules on how they work. In an action point system, I have item use only take one action point. That is fair. A player can easily use a big important spell and eat a meal on the same turn. That isn't too punishing. I have meals be the main item to heal characters. Well cooked meals provide buffs.
The biggest difference between the two similar systems. I have a special action that is just for a melee attack. It is its own special thing. That is a way I bridge with the martial and caster gap. Casters are so much better. I love magicians because their flavor is so cool. I even made a whole class system where all classes are magicians. So all classes have spells and use mana. with these common mechanics, that does a lot to make things more balanced. It is also possible to make martials work like casters without changing the flavor. World of Warcraft, DC20 and even DND 4E do this. In my class system, all my classes have a melee attack ability. Magicians shoot sparkles and that hits a nearby opponent. It is different from spells because of the short range and the lack of mana use. I do have melee and range distinction. Some magicians, like mages and priest, can have their spells work on any character in the battlefield. That is range. other magician, like shaman and warlock, use their spells to boost performance in melee sparkles. These are melee classes. The warlock reduces melee damage with shield spells, so it is like a tanky warrior. The shaman uses spells to boost damage of melee sparkles, and so it is like a rouge. I wanted to make things fair for the melee magic users. So I added their own part of the action economy. Melee users get more damaged than ranged users, even without taking the difference of magic to account. Melee users are more exposed to damage because they fight up close. So I have them do one extra action to make up for that. That lets them do more damage. So melee turns into a more balanced state. It is an offensive one. Ranged is a more defensive state. Health can even be a hidden cost of melee. I make up for it. Melee attacks don't cost mana, but spells do. The lost health relaces mana cost in a way.
That’s really interesting! These kinds of systems are starting to get more popular for sure. In our Superhero game Indominant everyone also has “mana” but it’s called Drive and every character uses it to use their Powers. There are free Base Powers that don’t cost Drive, but other than that Drive is used for every Power.
Great stuff and insight, I think AP is certainly an interesting approach. I think one big issue with the standard action economy is games like 5e is that the Bonus Action is heavily under utilized. Its there really for the Monk and the Rogue and that's about it. I think adding more value to the BA is a great space to start, but I do think in general an AP system is an even better overhaul to the entire thing as it gives more flexibility.
Love what you've done with Indominant's action economy, looking forward to trying it!
Thank you! We tried to get the best of both systems as they both have their strengths and weaknesses!
A lot of changes in D&D 5.5 were around moving actions around and making better use of bonus actions.
That is true they have greatly improved it. It still is something where not every character has a good option for Bonus Actions, and they aren't all created equally either. It's just something that players have to keep in mind and intentionally find ways to make use of them, however that is much easier in 5e24/5.5/etc.
What I use for my system is definitely AP style. We call it Initiative and its derived from your attribute scores, which means it isn't the same for everyone. There are also defensive actions that the target takes to avoid the attack but those don't cost any Initiative. Your first movement is free as well, with extra movement in the same turn costing Initiative. You can save initiative in order to interpret someone else's action and there are special things you can learn that allow you to react to specific situations too. There is also no penalty for attacking multiple times in a row.
That’s interesting! Does it function as a way to determine turn order (initiative) as well? Or do you use side initiative or zipper initiative?
@@OdinsKeyGaming It's not used for determining who goes first. We don't use those other ways of determining who goes first either. The system we use for deciding who goes first is a "whoever speaks up first" system.
That is always another good way of deciding turn order, a hard-coded system doesn't have to exist really. It makes sense to not worry about something else called "Initiative" since your AP system is called Initiative.
Nice Drakkenheim map - did you actually run it? Looking at these Action Point systems like the new Nimble rules hack used to simplify the 5.5e combat.
I’m glad someone noticed! I haven’t had the chance to run it yet actually!
Action Point systems are definitely becoming more popular lately.
Something i learned from playing a Free League game, Dragonbane, is that sometimes less can be more. That system instead only has a move and a single action. Additionally, using your reaction uses up your entire turn for that round. So essentially, on every round you only ever get to do one single thing. And maaaaaan it really speeds up gameplay. Instead of sitting idly by for 20min and waiting for it to come back to your turn you can get through a whole round in like 5min. Which then makes it *feel* like you're doing more stuff. Players are always at the edge of their seats, the battlefield just moves around so quickly. Also seems to help with choice-paralysis.
That can definitely be true! Shadowdark is an example that does that as well. I think it really depends on the type of game and how other aspects of the game are designed as well. I’ve heard amazing things about Dragonbane, and I definitely want to try it! Their roll under mechanic for conflict resolution is really cool too.
Action economy works when action efficiency matters. It is the equivalent of having a deadline, like Rebels destroying Death Star before a certain number of actions take place before the rebel base is at reach for destruction.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you mean that having to work to end the combat fast so that you don’t end up losing? If so, I can see what you mean. It means being efficient with your Actions is important, but I think that’s something that impacts a lot more than just action economy.
@@OdinsKeyGaming Imagine you have 100 actions as Rebel force to destroy Death Star before it destroys Rebel base. It sets a deadline. Action efficiency is a way to set a deadline without using a chronometer with minutes.
Space Invaders also has a limit of time before you lose. Missile Command also requires you to destroy incoming volleys within a time limit.
Actions are the equivalent of doing things under pressure with a time limit. But unlike seconds, actions allow you to make decisions without using chronometer.
Ah, that makes a lot more sense now, thanks for clarifying!
I'm a big fan of two actions, Move and Do A Thing, not necessarily in that order sometimes it's Do A Thing, and Move. I don't believe in gaining extra attacks that make you roll more dice. Multipliers to indicate multiple hits is simple and keeps the game moving quickly. Combat shouldn't take an hour or two unless you are up against a hoard of enemies that are coming in waves. After moving to a system that does the Move and D.A.T. I can do three to five combats in 3 hours as well as a bunch of exploration and talky talky. If players are taking more than a minute to figure out what they are doing, rolling dice and adding everything thing up, more than likely your system is at fault or they've never played a roleplaying game before. Variety may be the spice of life but as with all spices too much spoils the dish, same goes for too many actions on one turn. Having to make a choice between lighting a torch so the party can see or attacking to help clear out the herd is a good problem for the players to have. They need those types of issues in order to understand that they are a team and not just a bunch of people that happen to fight in the same room together. Allowing a player to do both in a turn decreases the team cooperation that you as a DM want to cultivate at your table, and can lead to creative solutions to complex problems. Fun and creativity is the heart of every RPG, it's important to make and reinforce systems that encourage your players to work together as a cohesive team.
Probably the most involved AP economy I've seen in a system would have been Twilight 2013… Action Points were called Ticks, you had about 15 or 20 of them and they were spent on actions in a similar way as the Jagged Alliance 2 computer game. There was an extensive table of costs and some actions (like looking in your pack for an item) had a variable cost in APs (D10 I think).
It was an awesome looking system when it worked, it fell apart a bit though when you could make a character with twice or three times the Ticks as everyone else by cheesing the creation process.
That’s definitely interesting, I’ve heard of the game but don’t know too much about it. That sort of reminds me of how the Divinity Original Sin 2 video game works as well. I think something similar could work in a TTRPG, but it would require some heavy balance around AP costs and probably multiple other mechanics and systems.
The 'simplicity of set actions' - ! Action Points is so much simpler because the 'set action' is really like D&D4e's 'standard action' with numerous different types (attack, cast a spell, skill action etc). The problem with set actions - a PC that does not move gains no activity. The 3 AP of Pathfinder does not suck - it works (if you don't move at all, you gain at least 1 Action), Your Indominant 'hybrid' mechanism has 4 AP (that's more tracking) and adopts the inefficiency and 'complexity' of the set action economy - in my view.
Glad to hear your thoughts! I really don’t think Action Points suck, I think they rock. It’s a bit of a clickbait-y thumbnail, but that’s why I have it say “not really” in small text as well.
Personally I agree with you that Set Actions aren’t much more simple, but I wanted to use the more commonly used points made about each system within the TTRPG space instead of my personal view on the topic. I agree with your points on what makes an AP system great!
3AP of Pathfinder are not... Very flexible in real games. Lots of plays looks like "Move attack rise shield" or "Attack, reload, reload" or "Move, cast spell" etc.There is common issue of "lack of impactful non-damaging actions" combined with making any intresting activity 2 or 3 action point so you can do only one thing at turn. Dark Heresy/Shadowrun economy is more diverse with 2 half-action and free movement, wile AP system should also explore more diverse AP structure. Like using 10 AP instead of 3 that allow to more flexible pricing of each action.
I have heard this before, something that I think Taking20 said as well. I think this issue comes more from wanting to use the "most optimal" series of actions, rather than wanting to use "efficient/optimal, but not the most optimal" actions. It also really depends on the Feats chosen as if you shoehorn yourself into having one really good Action, then that is going to feel like the only thing (or combo) you "should" do on a turn.
I think something that is related to this is the way that there are prerequisites in the Pathfinder 2e Feat design. Needing to be a specific subclass to get certain Feats makes sense, but being forced to take a specific line of Feats that are all related to get the higher Level subclass specific Feats is very limiting imo. I think this contributes to the problem as if you want a high level Feat that is only available to your subclass, you have to take multiple other Feats with no choice leading to that Level, and they generally all affect the same thing as well, causing this issue of "this is the best thing for me to do every turn". But I still think the problem can be solved by not wanting to extract the most out of every turn/action as possible.
@@OdinsKeyGaming often there is just no choices for feats. For example, if you play as archer you can pick 1 usefull feat, as two weapon fighter there is 2 feats where one is just cleary superior to other etc. that leads to situation where choice is super limited, and at least 1-6 levels gameplay are... Repetitive. Game like Icon give more choice but being crunchy and not famous game system make it hard to get party of players that ready to tactical combat
I would agree that this is a fair criticism of Pathfinder, which doesn't have to mean it is "bad". It would be very cool if you checked out Indominant, we give a lot of choice for actions and character customization and have very tactical, teamwork-oriented combat! You can join our Discord server (link in description) to get your free PDF of our Game System Primer, or find the PDF and Physical versions on Drive Thru RPG!
Never been on this channel before, I just wanna throw out my thoughts for my home game before I get into the video:
I like points, but I don't want to make every action type freely usable multiple times per turn. So I use a mix of named actions (which is getting an overhaul in 5.5e) and action points. The Attack action will have multiple components: main attack, enhancement, bonus action. The main attack will cost 1 AP and can be your primary attack, a special attack, or an exploit (a weapon technique). Enhancements are things that can be used to enhance the main attack: sneak attack, smite, and maneuvers from DnD fit this. Only one enhancement per main attack, so you can't use all of them at the same time when you crit. The bonus attack is either your offhand weapon, another bonus granted by a class feature, or simply an unarmed strike, like throwing a kick after a sword strike. The bonus attack costs 1 AP, so a fully utilized Attack action could cost 2AP spread across multiple rolls. The reason the bonus attack still exists is because it is subject to the same benefits or penalties as the main attack from the same Attack action.
The Attack action can be used again but gets the disadvantage penalty. There is also cleaving, where killing an enemy with the Attack action refunds an AP. So even at early levels you can attack multiple times but it has diminishing returns.
The Magic action covers the vast majority of other combat actions. Any given magic action has a once per turn limit. I have spells that work sinilarly to PF where you pump more AP to use them, but most other magic actions cost only 1 AP. Magic can also have an enhancement for 0 AP, like using metamagic. It's self limiting in the same way, only one enhancement per action.
In theory every action could have some sort of enhancement applied, and since the mechanic prevents feature stacking unlike DnD, and actions are less repeatable like in PF, I want to build on this to make powerful magic items. I think it's also just codifying concepts that these games already sometimes spell out in individual cases, with clauses like "Once per turn, you can do X."
Movement is also not an action, you have movement automatically, but you spend movement for special movement actions. Jump, mount or dismount, etc. The Dash action does cost 1 AP and only works once per turn.
I also have standby actions, which cost 1 AP but if you do them at the start of your tuen before anything else, they cost 0. Like minor object interactions or going into a Rage.
Finally I have a battle escalation mechanic. You start with 1 AP, and it recovers at the end of your turn, but at the top of each round every combatant gains 1 AP for a total of 2. This happens again and again, to a maximum of 4 (the DM can change the escalation limit too). By the time we reach 3-4 rounds, everyone is using their best moves, but at the beginning, some moves aren't even possible. This makes lower AP abilities important to keep and not replace.
The biggest thing is making sure that all the possible actions are communicated intuitively, so I have been working with my tables to find succinct ways to describe this system without it being overly mechanical.
That’s a really cool system! In a framework like Pathfinder 2e or D&D 5e it definitely makes sense not to allow multiple uses of the same type of action, those games (and by extensions ones built off of them, or modifications of them) aren’t built with that happening as an expectation. We designed our game with a different baseline expectation, and so that’s why we allow multiple uses of the same Action Type, and why Movement costs 1AP. In Indominant Movement is very powerful because Ranges aren’t that much longer in distance than Movement. Ranges are 4-12 Units and Movement is general 6 (+/- 1 or 2). So Movement has to cost something as it is very powerful.
This is definitely a super cool modification (or super awesome if you are making your own system too) to use at your tables! Thanks for taking the time to explain it!
@OdinsKeyGaming thanks! Yeah it's gonna take a lot of testing to prove workable. It's fun conceptually and it plays well at my table with us modifying classes to fit so far, but the point of AP is typically for the player to have the freedom to spend it all. With a limit on actions, it could lead to a scenario where players have points but nothing to spend them on except penalized Attack actions, which some classes are not gonna enjoy at all. I have to make sure there is value in the escalation mechanic. I will be building up a new system around this and other house rules.
That is an impressive feat to modify classes to fit this new system! I agree that I think penalizing repeated actions will result in "feels bad" scenarios, but if there are plentiful options on a turn, or ways to mitigate those penalties like in Pathfinder 2e then I think it would be okay.
I actually think the escalation system seems like a really cool addition if I am understanding correctly. Essentially every character gets more AP as rounds go on, right? I think that is a really cool system actually and will build up tension and excitement as a fight continues. You just have to make sure that combat doesn't also get slowed down too much by the fact that there are more actions to resolve for every turn. I am not sure if a system like D&D 5e works with that to be honest, because it isn't designed to work that way and turns turn out quite slow often times as-is (generally this only becomes an issue closer to Level 10+).
@OdinsKeyGaming you have that right. More action points per round as combat continues. I think an action point system that starts low and gathers momentum works best BUT it must cap somewhere. We have been playing with 4, but that's with movement being free, and PF2 uses 3 with movement having a cost. I may cap at 3.
Each time I make a pass at it, I try also to trim down complications. This is the beauty of what DnD offers and I'm essentially rejecting it to make things complicated. It may not be worth the additional explanation, and if so I have to rethink my decisions. Which is okay. It's been a fun process.
@@JamCliche I mean, does there need to be a cap? Do the Monsters also gain AP with the escalation? It is a self limiting factor in that there is like a "critical mass" state where the combat WILL END. Idk seems like that could be fun, but not on the skeleton of D&D 5e tbh.
I rewatched it like 3 times and still fail to see how is this different than any other action point system, you just have 4 ap instead of PFs 3, and a different cost distribution. But this is not a hybrid system, this is regular old APs. Which is great but you made no innovation to it
I’m glad you watched it so much, truly! Technically you are correct, it mechanically functions in use just as any other Action Point system would. However the difference is how it’s perceived by the “user” and how in giving each AP cost a name, we can easily reference those types of actions with other mechanics that might show up in our content above level 5 (everything up to Level 5 is FREE in our Game System Primer PDF!).
@@OdinsKeyGaming Something that kept bothering me in the background about the AP+Naming system is that, at first, the two layers of the system does not seem to carry different information. I do not know the system, or how it will behave beyond level 5, and I see the pros of having action naming, specially for players that are introduced to the game and you can tell them "You could do a main, a quick and a move actions in your turn" and they get to play straight away, but I feel like the abstraction does not give more to the system beyond that first abstraction that helps new-comers or people that would need adaptations for numbers (like people with arithmophobia), both cases that you would have to/could handle in session or outside of the game itself.
With the action naming and the action points implemented in the game, you could give actions categories that inform deeper mechanics of the game. As an example, Pathfinder 2e with the MAP system gets the tag Strike and manages the experience of combat through that. So far, what I see is a translation of points to names, that for some people could be helpful, for some people could be enforcing of behaviours and for some people would be more complicated. If instead the names have information that relates to other mechanics, that would be a completely different story. Having Movement Actions that cost 2 Points that are categorized as Sprint, therefore it is a Move Action that could be powered up by a feat that lets you use two Sprint Actions in a row without a penalty, or stating a difference between combat actions, like Strike, Maneuver and Trick, where Tricks could cost less and prepare for follow up Strikes/Powers, that cost more, and Maneuvers, cost 1, could be chained. In that way, a flurry of basic strikes and the main powers of the heroes could be categorized as Strike or Power, and it means something beyond the cost, and you have enriched the action system with meaning instead of number management.
You have sort of struck the nail on the head. We don't have mechanics that use this sort of interaction in the first 5 Levels of play that are available in our Game System Primer, but we will have some interactions just like this that interact with Action Types in content above level 5. Technically you could do this with a system that only uses numbers as well, but those mechanics then have a lot more potential interactions because if you instead say, "When you use an Action that costs 1 AP, you can do X." well now you have to consider the possibility of how that interacts with everything that costs 1 AP especially if there are ways to reduce AP costs, vs with our named Action Types we contain the interactions there.
@@OdinsKeyGaming I see how the Action Naming facilitates readability through the game, and how it lightens the mental load of the player, but I think that, as it seems to be with the little I have seen of the systems, the tagging and the mechanics that link to it could work enforce sameness on player's turns (I am only concerned right now about economy rather than flavour). What I have in mind of your system is that, so far, we have three tags, Main Action, Minor Action and Move Action, that fuel the mechanics linked to tags. As far as I understand, if a player chooses to use a Minor Action to benefit from a "When you use Minor Action, you can do X", the player would opt into that behaviour more often, as it provides with a better economy, so the game revolves around gimmicks that look like templates of rounds. The list of gimmicks could be super long, giving the sensation of choice (I like this, because at the end of the day we do not need 9000 different ways of doing something for it to be fun) but as a system it would restrict the development of the game into three hard-coded options for the development of new mechanics, and as a player, my turn would always be of a type of template (main-main, main-minor-move, minor-minor-minor-minor...). This type of system of soft (as in soft vs hard mechanics) templates feel to me as an easy entry for players into funneling their interaction with the game (that is not wrong, but a behaviour to take into account in the design). No matter how much customization someone could get from a character design if their interaction with the simulated world is structured as a set of templates.
I think that the system that you propose for Indominant is an explicit iteration of what games like Pathfinder 2e do implicitly with the Action Points+Tagging design, and it can have its pros and cons, as well as their design paths and dead-ends. I think that the AP+Action Categories could be a great design choice, if it is a conscious part of the design, but if it is not, it could become a dead-end trying to create newer options in the long run.
Another thing that contributes to my worries of the AP+Naming system is that the 4 points-system established by the naming removes part of its flexibility. As far as I have seen, the system have 2-Point (Main) Action and 1-Point (Minor & Move) Action. That seems to restrict the number of combinations that therefore would restrict the number of gimmick templates soft-applied in the system. Would the system have 3-Point or 4-Point Actions? And if so, how would that affect the Action Categories that have been established?
My point with all of this is that, if Action Categories are defined by the number of points invested into doing the action, both the design tools and the variations in game experience are constricted from the start, and in the case that you decide to have more flexibility on the points invested in actions, tying the categories to the cost loses event more importance/meaning in the game. And all of that is not a bad choice by itself, but it has to be a conscious choice or later iterations of the game (like a 2e version or complementary handbooks) could be affected gravely by it.
As a side note, I think people have tied the critics to Pathfinder 2e to a personal view because of the thumbnail/screen of the video, as it gives a way more negative and personal tone to say that somethings sucks than to set the conversation as a comparison, though I get that saying such things can bring more people into the video, as it was my case. So, the attitude of the people was too harsh, in my opinion, but it had a root into the content of the video as a whole.
These are all great points. I would really love it if you joined our Discord server (link in the description) to discuss this more, and see the game system for yourself too! The Game System Primer PDF is completely free!
So I kept it vague intentionally as we haven't settled on specific interactions of "When you use a Minor Action you can do X." But to further discuss it I will clarify something. Those types of interactions would not be permanently applicable things, and would instead be limited to possibly even 1 use per combat, or be a lot more specific of an effect so that it is not universally applicable to every situation. I am a huge proponent of game balance and freedom of choice, so every aspect of the game was designed with those ideas as the goals. So the AP system we use was designed to facilitate such a gameplay feel. Turns do not end up being samey or repetitive, as you called it a "template of actions". We also do have a system for customized Signature Powers which require 3 AP to use, and are called a "Signature Action", but that is just not in our Primer as it "comes online" after Level 5 (the max level of content in the Primer).
Dued, duder, dudingham...Indominant doesn't have a hybrid action economy. It has a SET action economy with more bookkeeping attached.
The problem with action point systems is they purport to be more flexible than set action economies, but the designers still want a player's turn in their game to BEHAVE mostly like a D&D turn, so they try to design around the 1st level barbarian just standing still and taking 4 swings with their weapon. That's why PF2E has the multi-attack penalty and DC20 gives you disadvantage on multiple attacks. In essence, these are also just set action economies with more bookkeeping attached.
I’d love for you to download a free Primer of the Indominant Rules! I think you’d see that it isn’t a Set Action economy in disguise. There are no penalties for repeated actions in Indominant. You can use 2 Main Actions on your turn and there is no penalty, even if they are both Attacks, or even 3 to 4 of the same Minor Action!
I can see what you mean about Pathfinder though the Multiple Attack Penalty does make it seem like you aren’t supposed to do multiple attacks, but I can’t really assume what their reasoning for that is. My guess is that enemies would die too easily without the Multiple Attack Penalty. Having played DC20 I’d disagree that it “wants” you to do a D&D-like turn. Turns in DC20 felt very different than D&D for sure.
“Counting 3 action points in Pathfinder is hard!
To fix this, I created a game with 4 action points!”
/sigh
You don’t have to tear others down to build yourself up.
This isn’t my opinion on either system, but the commonly cited pros and cons of them both. I don’t think counting 3 AP is hard, considering that we have 4 AP in our game. But that’s not the same for everyone. Pathfinder is actually a huge inspiration for some part of the game and our design philosophy too!
your opinion on AP systems are your own, but givien that it is wrong and objectively stupid, im taking your credibility away.
@@eustacebhagg2808 thankfully we can all have an opinion 😊 including you. While my opinion likely colors my view, I think I kept the pros and cons quite objective and in line with what most people would agree is true. I didn’t say which system is best, as that’s purely subjective. Thanks for the response!
SWADE is just better in all respects, you can take up to 3 actions every turn, taking multiple actions applies a penalty to all of them.
Its risk vs reward, which is what a LUCL BASED DICE GAME should encourage, TTRPGS should encourage.
I agree that risk vs reward is a big part of what makes TTRPGs fun! But I also think there are other ways to create that, without applying penalties. Something that’s different about Indominant, being a Superhero TTRPG, is that a basic attack isn’t one of your strongest options for dealing damage. For that you have to use your stronger Powers which you can’t do infinitely because of our Drive system. We will have a video about that next week! Thanks for sharing!
@@OdinsKeyGaming "without applying penalties"
SWADE allows you to create whatever character you want. The MAP does not heavily affect people who have speccd heavily into their skills. A PC with a d8 fighting can risk the -2 penalty for two attacks, but someone with a d10 or d12 wont suffer as much. theres also called/aimed attacks at limbs and more for a penalty to hit as well for a bigger benefit, like an attack at someone's head or their weapon. Which is sticking to a single action that turn vs trying to get multiple actions off in one turn.
SWADE is just better, even if you want the super hero fantasy, its got far more to it than jsut basic attacks, but basic attacks are also very valuable. You can test foes, support allies, distract and make foes vulnerable. Magic spells in the system are simple to understand and have modifiers for more versatility. Plenty of actions and methods are available, its not all combat. You can play a pacifist and still be useful even in combat.
The issue you brought up with the penalties is simply because you havent experienced/seen the system I feel.
You are welcome to your opinion that SWADE does it better! I don't think applying a MAP is an "issue" but that doesn't mean there might be a better way to manage/limit things in a game system. "without applying penalties" was said because Multiple Action Penalty has it in the name, it is a penalty. I just think there can be improvements to pretty much everything all the time, including to our system!
@OdinsKeyGaming why is a penalty to it a bad thing? You haven't elaborated in that at all, JUST that you don't like it.
There are many methods in the core roles to help alleviate that in many way for multiple combat styles. Rerolls, bonuses specifically to the combat style, etc. this supports a true risk vs reward system BECAUSE of THE PENALTIES VS REWARDS. Compared to pf2e where you only, ONLY, get a penalty for successive attempts, meaning it's not rush can reward but rather "might as well" like health potions being a bonus action "well I haven't used my bonus action yet, might as well drink a portion line every other turn I can"
You're acting like the modern player were you see ANY penalties and consider it problem.
Do not insult the system with such nonsense, you haven't even made a proper argument about it while you ACT like you enjoy risk vs reward. There is RISK in RISK VS REWARD
I am not sure if you are reading my responses or not. I specifically said that I do **not** think it is a "problem/issue" but that doesn't mean that there isn't a better way to handle it. Something does not have to be bad to have room for improvement. I am not insulting SWADE's system at all either.
All I am saying is that there are other, possibly better, ways to have Risk vs Reward without directly (or numerically) penalizing players for doing something. Having to spend a limited resource on something that is not guaranteed for example is a way to have risk vs reward without directly "punishing" a player for their actions. Another aspect of this is the chance of failure, that inherently adds risk vs reward as doing something unlikely (or without making it more likely) is a chance (or risk) that you are taking.
4:50 if counting three action points (1, 2, 3) is hard, or a drawback, let me say that Pathfinder, and all other TTRPGS, are probably not for you.
It is hard for some that play TTRPGs, which should be valid. But you are also welcome to have your opinion. See my response to your other comment for the rest of my thoughts! 👍
@ Also, I want to apologize for my tone... you're out there in the gaming sphere making things, I have no right to grumble against it.
I am glad you're doing something! Please forgive me for my negative tone. As a Pathfinder player, I get tired of people bemoaning "Mathfinder" as if adding +2 to a number were difficult... it grates on me.
But I wish you well, and I look forward to seeing what you've created! Peace to you!
No worries! No hard feelings here. Of course everyone ahs their right to comment and say that they think, I don't have an issue there friend. I do agree there is some unjust hate on Pathfinder for the whole "Mathfinder" thing, but I was just citing common pros cons, as I mentioned before.
I hope to see your thoughts on future videos we put out!
Your system is just Pathfinder with extra steps
It is definitely similar in that it is an AP system. But there are some key differences, such as no MAP, and the fact that every action has a specific term rather than its own cost allows us to have mechanics that easily interact with certain types of actions. Pathfinder could have interactions with actions based on AP cost but that could have some odd potential interactions. Thanks for watching!