I have been running the Curse of the Crimson Throne adventure path and have had a few chase scenes involving people running through doors. The core mechanic of using a move action to open or close a door really took away from some of the "theatrics" of the chases.
An alternative rule which has gained good support is instead to apply a movement cost to opening / closing doors.
Opening a door with momentum: 5' movement
Opening a door without momentum: 10' movement
(i.e. if you are moving/running towards a door and it opens away from you, it only costs 5' of movement as you are putting your weight/shoulder behind opening it).
For heavy doors (doors made of solid metal or stone) these movement costs are doubled.
(Although it could be argued that strength and size (mass) could also play a part, for the sake of simplicity I have not considered these elements).
I'm not sure if this is the "best" alternative to opening/closing doors, but I do believe that a character should not have to spend an entire move action on opening one either... here's hoping I'm not the only one who feels this way and perhaps this may be considered as a rules amendment in Pathfinder?
|
Doors are the biggest gripe at my table. The players are always joking about how everything works good until there's a door. 4e's minor actions are fascinating, sadly I don't see adding minor actions anytime soon to my 3.e. Your system makes sense, but I have a concern. IMO we should be trying to streamline things, not add more complications. That system looks a bit clunky to me. Just a thought for you.
How about allowing one additional action per round (over and above the standard and move actions)? This "minor" action could be used to open or close a door, draw or put away a wand, etc. It would rank below a move action, so you could "trade down" and perform up to three minor actions in a round, if you wished.
Your system makes sense, but I have a concern. IMO we should be trying to streamline things, not add more complications. That system looks a bit clunky to me. Just a thought for you.
Yes I agree. Few adventure modules (if any) indicate which way a door opens so the DM always must determine (usually randomly) the way it opens. Perhaps just a flat cost of 10' of movement for opening or closing a door. (Or 20' if deemed a heavy door).
I'm not sure if this is the "best" alternative to opening/closing doors, but I do believe that a character should not have to spend an entire move action on opening one either... here's hoping I'm not the only one who feels this way and perhaps this may be considered as a rules amendment in Pathfinder?
I'm not sure why this needs to be changed. There's a certain amount of overhead involved with turning a doorknob; a move action for opening a door seems quite reasonable to me. Closing a door is easier (if you're just slamming it shut), but the number of times it comes up in combat is pretty low, in my experience.
If closed doors are stifling your chase scenes, why don't you just have more open doors instead? Or maybe swinging doors?
|
Yes, yes. Opening and closing doors looks a little silly on a combat grid, when the first PC moves to the door, opens it and is forced to stop. While the next PC, perhaps using less actual movement easly walks through the open door and past the PC that opened it.
From a purely technical perspective, I appreciate most of the ideas presented by the OP and others in this thread.
Of course, I would like to see this addressed in PRPG.
How about making it a swift action, if used as part of a move?
You can open and move through a door at relatively no cost. This accounts for our normal ability to open a door and walk through with relative simplicity.
-S
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Swift actions are the 3e equivalent of a minor action. You could make it a swift action to open/close and then you can use your move action as a swift action to open/close again. This makes opening and closing a door basically a move action rather than a full round action.
Yes, yes. Opening and closing doors looks a little silly on a combat grid, when the first PC moves to the door, opens it and is forced to stop. While the next PC, perhaps using less actual movement easly walks through the open door and past the PC that opened it.
Ah...I see the complaint. I agree that you shouldn't be forced to end your turn just to open a door. I'd allow a character to move before and after opening a door, kind of like spring attack.
|
|
I have been running the Curse of the Crimson Throne adventure path and have had a few chase scenes involving people running through doors. The core mechanic of using a move action to open or close a door really took away from some of the "theatrics" of the chases.
I've been playing that opening a door takes 10ft of movement. We play under the assumption that most doors are not complicated mechanically or anywhere near the technology we have today on doors - and thus it's a simple affair to open it.
Some doors determined by the DM require a move action - those doors would be barred doors, large double doors etc - but most are barely more than a swinging door.
I do like the idea of a "swift" action to open a door however - and may adapt that.
Some doors will still require a move action - especially the large grand double doors that are usually seen at the entrance to grand halls and temples.
Robert
Sebastian;
you can only do 1 swift in a round though, I think.
So you could open/swift a door and run through.
But to close it you'd have to stop and take a move action.
(though if in a group.. designate a door opener and a door closer.. or a rotation if you are going through more doors than one a round)
-S
Time to get on a Soap Box. PfRPG should adopt the 4e standard action, movement action, minor action resolution system. Opening doors becomes a minor actions. It is basically the same thing as calling it a swift action in 3.5. And it makes it easy for players to move from 4e to PfRPG. I have not figured out where the quick, swift, immediate actions from 3.5 all fall into the 4e system, but the 3 tiered system of 4e seems an improvement.
(Puts on flame retardent protective suit.)
EDIT: In 4e you can use a 'higher' tiered action to replicate a 'lower' tiered action. So similar to Selgard's description; opening, moving and closing a door could be done by substituting a minor action for a your second move action.
I'd just recommend that you can resume any unspent movement after opening a door.
So if you can move 30 feet (for an unarmored human), you can travel 15 feet, open a door(still a move action), then move another 15 feet.
Doors can and should slow people down. It's just crazy now that if you're 5 feet away from the door that you're not getting though it this turn.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sebastian;
you can only do 1 swift in a round though, I think.
So you could open/swift a door and run through.
But to close it you'd have to stop and take a move action.(though if in a group.. designate a door opener and a door closer.. or a rotation if you are going through more doors than one a round)
-S
I agree, if it were a swift action to open/close a door, you would need to spend a swift action and then a move action if you wanted to both open and close the door. I was responding to someone upthread commenting that 3e doesn't have the minor action concept, which is incorrect. The swift action does the exact same thing as the minor action. So, if you want to emulate how 4e lets you open and close doors, you can do so in 3e by just changing the action to open/close a door from a move action to a swift action. Using this system, you are slowed down if you want to open and shut doors behind you as you flee, but you can at least run through an open door by using a swift action to open it without losing a move action.
Which isn't to say that the swift action system is the best system to use, it's just you can make that change with the 3e rules set without having to create the minor action concept from scratch. I do like having doors cost extra movement to go through.
No need to adopt 4E. 3.5 already has that.
A round is:
2 move actions
or
A standard action and a move action
or
a full round action.
Added to those are:
swift
Immediate.
A person can already
run to a door
open it.
or
open a door
run through it.
I would add
"open or close a door" to the list of "swift actions".
That would allow you to:
move up to a door, open it, move again
or
close a door, move, move.
-S
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yes, but a person cannot open a door, attack, and close the door again under the 3e rules. Nor can a person not adjacent to a door move to the door, open the door, and continue moving (absent a system like Ross proposes above allowing you to split the movement between the opening and the closing).
There is a difference between having doors open as a swift action or having them open as a move action. This thread began with the comment that having doors open as a move action slows things down. One solution is to have them open as a swift action. Another solution is to have them open by spending extra movement. Another solution is to allow the movement to be split.
But in any event, opening and closing doors does not work the same between 3e and 4e. If opening a door is a swift action, you can run to a door, open it, and keep moving. Such a system is one means of addressing the problem encountered by the OP. Other solutions have been suggested, including the OPs proposed solution of having door opening cost extra movement or Ross's suggestion of being able to open the door in the middle of your movement.
If you are saying that you can solve the problem in 3e by just changing the door open action from a move action to a swift action without even knowing of the existence of 4e, I would completely and entirely agree and having been saying exactly that in my last two posts.
I'm not entirely sure I want someone to be able to open a door, attack, and close the door again- though I suppose making opening a door a swift action does allow for that issue.
I originally had said to make it a swift action is done as part of a movement. (much like you can hide, or you can move, or you can hide+move as a move action). That would solve that problem.
I don't really mind if something is 4E or not. I evaluate it on the rule, not the source.
I would rather use existing rules rather than to create new ones out of whole cloth, or to create specific types of rules that only rarely apply. (such as the opening door reducing movement. No other actions deal in penalties of that fashion).
Using a swift action, or a swift+move to open/close doors falls in line with what the rules already allow for, while also allowing the freedom to do what the OP asked for.
-S
I don't really mind if something is 4E or not. I evaluate it on the rule, not the source.
I would rather use existing rules rather than to create new ones out of whole cloth, or to create specific types of rules that only rarely apply. (such as the opening door reducing movement. No other actions deal in penalties of that fashion).
I feel we should look at actions just like everything else in PfRPG and find a better solution. The current 3.5 system of Standard Action, Movement Action, Free Action is un-necessarily restrictive. The opening of a door is just an example. Another example is charging. In a surprise round (1/2 a round) I can charge my move speed and then attack. But in a regular round I have to make it full action? Another example is Withdraw. The 4e solution of defining a shift (5' step without AoO) is more elegant way of defining how it works with other actions. The 3.5 rules were then expanded mid-edition to include immediate and swift actions. It is time for an overhaul and 4e seems to have gotten it right.
For what it is worth I also like the idea of 'little actions' costing movement. But than that should be the system for everything (drawing weapons, stairs movement, doors, etc.). The restriction of course is that people with slower movement rates now take 'longer' to do things that are not really movement.
In a surprise round (1/2 a round) I can charge my move speed and then attack. But in a regular round I have to make it full action?
I've always allowed a 'partial charge' as long as your other move-equivalent action wasn't movement. I thought the rules allowed this.
In a surprise round (1/2 a round) I can charge my move speed and then attack. But in a regular round I have to make it full action?
I've always allowed a 'partial charge' as long as your other move-equivalent action wasn't movement. I thought the rules allowed this.
I am at work, but my memory says 'No'. You must take the full round and can only move in a straight line.
But what you are saying makes sense. That is why we need an overhaul since everybody has the house rules because it just makes sense. I would argue that the rule should be that a charge is a standard action. Charge - Base movement in a straight line ending with an attack. That way you COULD move, say open a door or move around a corner, and then charge.
Hey, that even brings us back to the door opening issue!
|
|
I'd just recommend that you can resume any unspent movement after opening a door.
So if you can move 30 feet (for an unarmored human), you can travel 15 feet, open a door(still a move action), then move another 15 feet.
Doors can and should slow people down. It's just crazy now that if you're 5 feet away from the door that you're not getting though it this turn.
I really like this - its simple and efficient.
Move 15' up to door. Use second 'move' action to open door, and then move remaining portion of the first move 15 more feet or whatever.
This addresses Selgard's concern of being able to open door, attack, and then close a door.
Since closing a door is usually a more swift action than opening, I say make "closing" the door (but not opening) is a swift action.
So you could move up to door, open door, complete your move through the door and close it with your foot as you go through.
This technique could also be applied to say moving to pick something up. Move 15', pick the sword up that someone dropped (2nd move action), then complete your first move - use a swift action to put sword away.
Robert
Swift actions are the 3e equivalent of a minor action. You could make it a swift action to open/close and then you can use your move action as a swift action to open/close again. This makes opening and closing a door basically a move action rather than a full round action.
Bingo!
As for the discussion of types of actions, aside from the major full round, attack, and move actions, the SRD already has Free, Swift (no cost once per round), and Immediate (interrupt Swift actions) actions. We don't need a new action type.
I paraphrase the Swift Action as a free action that takes a lot of effort therefore you can only do it once per round. Minor actions you can do repeatedly in a round. Swift Actions just become a subset of Minor Actions that you can only do once per round. The 4e system works and it is easily reverse compatible.
The reason to introduce it is to let people do things, like open doors, without adding the adding complexity of movement penalties. I kind of like the movement penalties also, but I don't want to have another chart detailing all the possible movements and their associated penalties.
On the other hand, I think designers have decided that we want the PfRPG to add a level of complexity/realism to the game. If we do this, it should not just be doors. Get rid of the draw weapon is a move action unless you have a BAB > +1 and are moving since then it is free action. Just give it a movement penalty. The whole movement action list should be evaluated. A quick look at the SRD showed the following actions that could be combined with movement for a movement penalty; Draw Weapon, Control Spell, Open/Close Door, Pick-up Item, Load Crossbow (maybe only light x-bow) & Ready a Shield. And I would add Stairs as 1-2-1-2 movement.
Determining which way a door opens is a logical decision. Doors usually open "in" for houses and rooms. The reason a door might open out is to make it more difficult to push inward while it's locked, such as a door in a storefront or... the front of a dungeon. Vault. Etc.
I must say that all these "problems" you've been posting about seem to be easily rectified with common sense. Pick up two things that make your hands full. Say two D&D books. Now move as quickly as you can without running through your living room and to the front door. Now attempt to open the door without dropping the books. Fail, and drop one of the books. Then open the door and move outside.
How long did that take you? Way freaking longer than 6 seconds.
Stop complaining.
Then minor actions are equivalent to free actions as per SRD or you are creating a new level of actions between Free and Swift. The current system bases what you can do in a round in relation to attack(standard action) and movement. You either do one of each, two movement, or full round action + 5 foot step. Free and Swift actions are those minor enough not be considered equal to an attack(standard) or movement.
Sort of. A Minor Action is a new level of action between Free and Move. For reverse compatibility reasons, a Swift Action would become a Minor Action that can only be used once per round. 4e has four action types; Standard, Move, Minor and Free. In 4.0 you can also do a lower level action to substitute for a higher level action. Just like in 3.5 where you can substitute a second Move for your Standard. So you could do nothing but three Minor Actions if you want. They defined Minor Actions as; Pull an item from a sheath/pouch, Open/close a door/chest, Picking up an item within 5'. It easy, it works and was created to solve the door issue. But it also solves the issue of drawing stuff and picking stuff up. Why not use it?
There are a lot of complaints about how 4.0 'dumbed down D&D'. In action resolution they seemed to have added a little more complexity but it just flows right. They also made Charge, Withdrawl and 5' Step make more sense to me.
Lot of good stuff.
Your points are all valid. Some of my points are just to illustrate that if we rethink 'Doors', lets rethink it all. Let's make a system that can handle several issues instead of just one. I hate rules like drawing weapons that have special rules to make it a free action. Why don't wizards have the ability to draw a wand quickly when they are higher level? Or a high level fighter that can get his shield in action faster? It just invites people create house rules. Maybe that is how to end this. I think the 4.0 system will have fewer people house ruling the action resolution system.
One of the annoyances in the chase scene that caused me to consider changing the rule, was that the person fleeing was invisible.
Every time a door opened up they basically knew where the invisible person was, since he had to cease his movement to open a door.
To my party's credit they even asked me if it would be "meta-gaming" to assume that the invisibile person was standing in front of the door. Due to the d20 mechanics, I had to reply that it was not.
Anyways, I'm glad to see the many different options suggested here in this thread. I'm happy to see that most do support the notion that an unlocked door should only slow movement in some method, as opposed to being a major obstacle. I look forward to seeing if this is supported by the designers in the Beta.
Sort of. A Minor Action is a new level of action between Free and Move. For reverse compatibility reasons, a Swift Action would become a Minor Action that can only be used once per round. 4e has four action types; Standard, Move, Minor and Free. In 4.0 you can also do a lower level action to substitute for a higher level action. Just like in 3.5 where you can substitute a second Move for your Standard. So you could do nothing but three Minor Actions if you want. They defined Minor Actions as; Pull an item from a sheath/pouch, Open/close a door/chest, Picking up an item within 5'. It easy, it works and was created to solve the door issue. But it also solves the issue of drawing stuff and picking stuff up. Why not use it?
I like a lot of what you've said, but I read the definition of a swift action slightly differently to you. I think saying that "you can perform one swift action per turn" is to differentiate it from a free action, which you can do as often as you like (within reason). In other words, I agree with Sebastian's assertion that the minor action in 4E is equivalent to the swift action in 3.5E. So I don't think we need another action type in the PfRPG, but I am in favour of reclassifying most cases of "manipulate an item" as swift actions. Doesn't that achieve what you want? (Along with formalising that you can trade down from standard > move > swift, which seems obvious given the relative effort each requires.)
I like a lot of what you've said, but I read the definition of aswift action slightly differently to you. I think saying that "you can perform one swift action per turn" is to differentiate it from a free action, which you can do as often as you like (within reason). In other words, I agree with Sebastian's assertion that the minor action in 4E is equivalent to the swift action in 3.5E. So I don't think we need another action type in the PfRPG, but I am in favour of reclassifying most cases of "manipulate an item" as swift actions. Doesn't that achieve what you want? (Along with formalising that you can trade down from standard > move > swift, which seems obvious given the relative effort each requires.)
I don't think you could call these "manipulate an items" Swift Actions. Otherwise, you need to say you can do more than one swift action in a round. Or else you could not open a door, move through, and close the door. Which then confuses it with all the existing Swift Actions for reverse compatibility. I think Sebastian was generalizing and was really saying Minor Action was the rules descendent of the Swift Action. But you could say a Swift Action is a type of Minor Action.
Simply put, we have came upon the same design solution as the 4e designers. It is the natural extension of the rules. This is the type of thing that if WotC had published 3.75 it would have been included. I think WotC made so many other sweeping changes that little improvements like this one are lost. I don't want to lose this improvement just because they went too far in other areas.
I'm not entirely sure I want someone to be able to open a door, attack, and close the door again- though I suppose making opening a door a swift action does allow for that issue.
It makes me think of a cuckoo clock for some reason. :-)
I don't think you could call these "manipulate an items" Swift Actions. Otherwise, you need to say you can do more than one swift action in a round.
Yes, that's precisely what I'm suggesting - though you can only get more than one in a round by giving up a move action or a standard action. Does that cause a problem? There's already a separate rule that says you can't cast more than one quickened spell in a round.
I don't think you could call these "manipulate an items" Swift Actions. Otherwise, you need to say you can do more than one swift action in a round.
Yes, that's precisely what I'm suggesting - though you can only get more than one in a round by giving up a move action or a standard action. Does that cause a problem? There's already a separate rule that says you can't cast more than one quickened spell in a round.
Sure, but how do we seperate the Swift Actions that can only be done once per round (per various books) versus Swift Action Prime that is can be used multiple times? If you are saying the ALL Swift Action are also quickened spells, I guess it works. I just don't know if there are other things that are Swift besides spells. The Swift Action definition implies that there are a few, maybe no, things besides spells that are swift actions. Maybe that is what Sebastian was saying.
As an aside, I also want this so that people can easily move from 4e to PfRPG. PfRPG is currently marketing to the old 3.5 folks. But in about two years they will need to market to the 4e crowd. Basically, step up to a more advanced version of the game. Or else I don't know how they will survive. So if there are little areas that are the same in the two systems, it would help future sales. I am not talking important stuff, just the little stuff that work just as well in 4e as in PfRPG.
EDIT: I am not saying copy half of 4e. We want the flavor and options of PfRPG. But we can have some things in common. We both use the d20 mechanic for goodness sake. It should not be sacrosanct to use the same Action system.
|
|
As an aside, I also want this so that people can easily move from 4e to PfRPG. PfRPG is currently marketing to the old 3.5 folks. But in about two years they will need to market to the 4e crowd. Basically, step up to a more advanced version of the game. Or else I don't know how they will survive. So if there are little areas that are the same in the two systems, it would help future sales. I am not talking important stuff, just the little stuff that work just as well in 4e as in PfRPG.
EDIT: I am not saying copy half of 4e. We want the flavor and options of PfRPG. But we can have some things in common. We both use the d20 mechanic for goodness sake. It should not be sacrosanct to use the same Action system.
Actually we need to tell WotC to change Minor action to be "swift actions" so that people can easily switch to PF after they wake up, and smell the crappy.
After having been involved in this thread - what I've done for my campaigns is:
Opening a door is move action - (along with all the other things that are move actions), but if you are moving in the same round as performing a misc move action, you can continue to the extent of your movement before/during/after you are doing your move action.
Thus you can move 15' to the door, open the door, and move the remaining 15' for that round. Or move 15' to a lever, pull it, them finish your move; or move pick up a weapon on the ground, and continue your move....
We'll see how it goes in the next weekends game.
Robert
I hate rules like drawing weapons that have special rules to make it a free action. Why don't wizards have the ability to draw a wand quickly when they are higher level? Or a high level fighter that can get his shield in action faster?
Weapons are treated as stored in a readily accessible manner (a sheath). There are specific items (some magical) for accessing other items (granted most are generally non-SRD). Non-weapon items are generally treated as carried in a backpack/sack/pouch and one must dig around for the item they are looking for.
Oh, come on. What self respecting wizard keeps his wand inaccessible? And so people create house rules to allow one wand and one potion accessible a draw action, just like a sword. Or some one starts a thread to make Opening Doors make sense. Am I the only one who watches Harry Potter or looks at art work of wizards?
It is the natural extension of the rules.
Actually, having gone out and looked at the changes made it is more of a deliberate effort to remove anything not a Standard Action or Movement form interrupting combat. True they have allowances for converting your Movement or Standard action in a round into additional Minor actions, but as they removed all move equivalent actions and seem to have made them all minor actions it seems to be in keeping with their focus on a miniatures combat game.
The Minor Action is a natural extension of the rules. It was proposed in this thread under a different name. But then WotC perverted it to their purpose (kind of like Orcs used to be Elves.) We keep the other Move equivalants in, where they belong, as a Move Equivalent Action. 4e tried to delete it. We keep it in. The Minor action makes sense. The only reason I am for calling it something other than a Swift action is that Swift is already defined in the SRD. Fine, call it a Manipulation Action.
With regard to attempts to 'bridge' between 4e and Pathfinder, WotC has made a deliberate effort to separate itself from the OGL/SRD. The lack of compatibility between 3.x and 4e is not incidental, but intentional. I strongly suspect they will be very active in keeping their new mechanics out of OGL products.
There is alway cross fertilization. WotC now has Adventure Paths. So Paizo can not have a Minor Actions? As I said, change the name. But PfRPG must eventually move players from 4e to survive. It is going to be too big of a market to ignore.
Ok, we agree and disagree on different points. Maybe I am too concerned about the long term strategy of PfRPG. I view Conan, Arcana Evolved, Trued20, and 4e all as sources of ideas for improvement. I don't see the point of recreating the wheel.
EDIT: And WotC will copy PfRPG. If CMB takes off, it will be copied, just under a different name.
|
Ok one thing, doors in fantasy games, are NOT the doors we have in our houses...You should not be able to open a door as a swift action, sorry, a thick wooden solid door, weighs too much to move it that easily...doors are obstacles...let's leave it that way.
Yeah, Wizards are masters of taking other peoples ideas, the splat books are full of them.
Here is the rule that I use in my game, and it applies to doors as well as other situations just fine:
A character can take any move action in the middle of any other move action. That counts as their two actions for the turn.
So you can open a door in the middle of a move. Or you can close a door in the middle of a move. etc.
It helps remove the start-stop-start-stop feeling of the combat round.
That's pretty much what was suggested by another poster above (Ross Byers I believe). Allow a move interupted by another action to be finished afterwards. The example given was move 15', open door, move 15'. It's pretty much how I do it, because it makes sense, and at the same time doesn't go too far in allowing freedom of movement. We are talking about a 6 second round here afterall...
Time to get on a Soap Box. PfRPG should adopt the 4e standard action, movement action, minor action resolution system. Opening doors becomes a minor actions. It is basically the same thing as calling it a swift action in 3.5. And it makes it easy for players to move from 4e to PfRPG. I have not figured out where the quick, swift, immediate actions from 3.5 all fall into the 4e system, but the 3 tiered system of 4e seems an improvement.
That would get rid of the Full Round Action. I like that. But that is taking the thread in another direction...
Ok one thing, doors in fantasy games, are NOT the doors we have in our houses...You should not be able to open a door as a swift action, sorry, a thick wooden solid door, weighs too much to move it that easily...doors are obstacles...let's leave it that way.
I agree with that one. Doors are heavy(ish) at work, and by the time one has finished opening it, all the others are through already...
However, I understand that it sucks for the player who has to sacrifice his round to open the door... If theatrics is what you want however, how about going through the door! (or bounce back on your friend with a bruised shoulder or strained ankle...)
A character can take any move action in the middle of any other move action. That counts as their two actions for the turn.
In the interests of preserving the concept that "doors should slow movement", this is a good option.
I really do hope that the ability to interrupt a move action with another move action does make it into the Pathfinder rules system, as it has now become a house rule for my campaigns.
Ok one thing, doors in fantasy games, are NOT the doors we have in our houses...You should not be able to open a door as a swift action, sorry, a thick wooden solid door, weighs too much to move it that easily...doors are obstacles...let's leave it that way.
This is true and changes the paradigm of the discussion. Dungeon/Medieval doors are meant as barriers to keep arse's with broadswords out.
Time to get on a Soap Box. PfRPG should adopt the 4e standard action, movement action, minor action resolution system. Opening doors becomes a minor actions. It is basically the same thing as calling it a swift action in 3.5. And it makes it easy for players to move from 4e to PfRPG. I have not figured out where the quick, swift, immediate actions from 3.5 all fall into the 4e system, but the 3 tiered system of 4e seems an improvement.
That would get rid of the Full Round Action. I like that. But that is taking the thread in another direction...
I think we would keep the full round action. We need it for iterative attacks and maybe some other stuff that PfRPG is keeping. And general purpose for keeping reverse compatibility.
Combining two movement (15' move, open door, 15' move) is nice also. It goes back to how much effect you want doors to have. There is some truth to the statment that these are heavy doors.
|
|
Combining two movement (15' move, open door, 15' move) is nice also. It goes back to how much effect you want doors to have. There is some truth to the statment that these are heavy doors.
I'm adopting this idea as well.
The DM would have to adjudicate certain doors as not being so easy to open. Large heavy double doors that you typically see entering temples or grand chambers; or doors that are blocked, barricaded, locked, barred, etc.
But most standard doors that are not blocked or locked I think should fit into the move - open - finish move scenario.
It would also serve to make those "grand" doors stand out even more and 'mean' something.
Robert
Heh, I was kind of a big fan of the way doors worked in 3.5e, but only because it was fun to slam the door on monsters. Here's a fun strip I found and cropped off for a more entertaining ending.
However, I like the suggestion of opening/closing while in motion.
|
Oh, come on. What self respecting wizard keeps his wand inaccessible?
I sure as hell don't.
I had a cylindrical bandolier, like an arm-splint-cast, that spins like a Gatling Gun, and pops the correct wand into my hand.
This isn't rocket-science, or magic. It's basic carpentry with some springs attached.
And then I got a Handy Haversack. But the 'Wand-Wench' is still cool.
As for the door question.
Instead of saddling the game with a rigid mechanic, that half the time should not apply, why don't we have the %age of an action to open them depend on the specific door, the material, the construction, and purpose? The same way they have different hardness, hp, and Break DC?
|
The way Kor outlined it is how it was done at my game for years until we had a rules lawyer joined last year and pointed out we were wrong and had to do it the right way.
I'm thinking about going back to it really. Although if you want to really force the issue the villian has a bunch of unseen servants permanencied at the doors that automatically open and shut them for him...bad guys will always get away since it's not costing them move actions to get through the doors but the party will have to.