| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2e is a system that, in my opinion, shares a lot of design principles with computer programming: many of its components are modular so that they can interact more cleanly with one another, its mechanics aim to follow consistent rules whenever possible, and its trait system allows mechanics to be categorized efficiently, while also making it easy to apply functionality through rules text across many different elements. Even so, there are bits of mechanical text that are often repeated, which in my opinion means there's opportunity to condense when possible via new traits. Starfinder did this recently with the traversal trait, which takes every mechanic that lets you swap out Strides for alternative forms of movement, as with Sudden Charge, and condenses that functionality into a trait.
In my opinion, there are still more opportunities out there to condense, as there are still some mechanics being repeated in certain effects. This is more of a thought exercise than anything else, but here are some I've spotted and traits I think could condense their functionality:
Evasive: These abilities are so sudden that they do not trigger reactions.
Examples: forced movement, Lightning Dash, Mobility (which could also gain the traversal trait!), Step.
Although Reactive Strike comes up less often than attacks of opportunity in 1e, it's still present enough that many abilities let you avoid triggering reactions, particularly when moving. This simple trait could condense that functionality and make it easy to add it onto other actions.
---
Salvo: These abilities can damage the same target with near-simultaneous hits. If a salvo effect damages a target more than once, combine the damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses.
Examples: Flurry of Blows, force barrage (which additionally condenses bonuses and penalties to damage), Hunted Shot.
There are a few multi-hit actions in the game that can let you bust through a target's resistances, and sometimes that same bit of rules text helps avoid triggering the same weakness tons of times. This trait could condense that bit of text and unify abilities that can be used to focus-fire a single target.
---
Taxing: These abilities involve repeated or especially powerful attacks that leave you unbalanced. Using a taxing action counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty, but you don't increase your multiple attack penalty until you've made all of the action's attacks.
Examples: blazing bolt (2+ actions), Spellstrike, Vicious Swing, Whirlwind Strike.
Essentially, there are a bunch of actions that are basically mega-attacks, either having you max out your MAP in one go, or having you make multiple attacks that don't increase your MAP until you're done. The above trait could cover both functionalities. This would technically mean you could use Whirlwind Strike against a single enemy and still max out your MAP, which doesn't happen right now, though let's be honest, you'd normally just make a single Strike anyway at that point.
---
The general idea here is basically to find little bits of rules text that are repeated more or less identically and condense these into traits. I don't expect these traits to make it into anything official, as the content's already been printed, but it's still fun to find these opportunities all the same. Has anyone else thought of these kinds of repeated mechanics and how to condense them?
Indeed! I'm actually curious to know the developers' stance on MAP beyond the third increment: as it stands, making two attacks or incrementing MAP by two attacks' worth maxes out the penalty, but the way these effects are often phrased suggests the possibility might be open to have a fourth increment via some special mechanic where subsequent attacks might make a difference. If that is ever in the cards, then specifying how many attacks you make would be important, and if not then incrementing MAP by two, three, or more attacks would all have the same effect.
Indeed, I think even with a trait, it would be important to spell out how it works in the rules text of abilities made available at low level, like how Flurry of Blows spells out how it can only be used once per round as a flourish ability. I do think it's still worth condensing commonly-repeated rules text into traits, including the above, but that shouldn't come at the cost of clarity for players just starting out: in fact, having this kind of trait, giving it to an iconic ability like Spellstrike, and having the ability explain how the trait works as with FoB could be a good way to teach players those kinds of game mechanics, and the importance of traits in a game that heavily uses them for rules interactions.
Initially I did think that the bit about not counting your MAP until making all your attacks ought to be a separate trait, as it's not on every ability that counts as two attacks for your MAP, but I think ultimately it boils down to the same thing: the only time when not counting your MAP until you've made all of your attacks is relevant is when you're making more than one attack, i.e. incrementing your MAP to the maximum. Thus, every ability that counts as two or more attacks for the purpose of increasing your MAP could also include that bit of rules text and work the exact same way. The only instance where things would work differently is if you use a multi-Strike ability like Whirlwind Strike to make only a single Strike, at which point I don't think the difference is necessarily meaningful given how that's a plainly inferior use of the ability compared to just Striking. If there were some exception where you'd want to use a multi-Strike ability even against a single target, then perhaps that'd cast that bit into doubt, but nothing jumps to my memory.
An issue with the taxing trait I can imagine is that "This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty." isn't much longer than "This strike gains the taxing trait.", but it IS more readable.
Additionally, abilities like this usually don't have the attack trait, so giving them taxing doesn't make much sense. Unless the trait read "After finishing this activity, increase your multiple attack penalty by 1", but at that point it's awkward and unintuitive.
As for the topic, I can't think of any repeated text, but I'd potentially enjoy a trait that said willing creatures can willingly fail/crit fail/get a penalty to this effect or something of the sort (shove, drugs, healing bomb...)
I don't think those actions would be specifying the taxing trait in the rules text, as that would defeat the purpose entirely. Rather, you'd just add the taxing trait to the trait list of those actions, and that would shorten the amount of text written significantly. It would also cover the "... but you don't increase your multiple attack penalty after making all of your attacks" part in many such actions, which itself takes a fair amount of text.
Just as an example, here is how Whirlwind Strike reads now:
Traits: Barbarian, fighter, flourish
You lash out in a blur of motion, attacking all nearby adversaries. Make a melee Strike against each enemy within your melee reach. Each attack counts toward your multiple attack penalty, but you do not increase your penalty until you have made all your attacks.
Versus how it would read with the taxing trait:
Traits: Barbarian, fighter, flourish, taxing
You lash out in a blur of motion, attacking all nearby adversaries. Make a melee Strike against each enemy within your melee reach.
That's a reduction in text by a factor of around half, which is quite significant.
As for the topic, I can't think of any repeated text, but I'd potentially enjoy a trait that said willing creatures can willingly fail/crit fail/get a penalty to this effect or something of the sort (shove, drugs, healing bomb...)
I'm quite surprised this isn't a rule already, to be honest. I don't think it needs to be a trait, strictly speaking, so much as a thing you should just be able to do by default.
Versus how it would read with the taxing trait:
Traits: Barbarian, fighter, flourish, taxing
You lash out in a blur of motion, attacking all nearby adversaries. Make a melee Strike against each enemy within your melee reach.That's a reduction in text by a factor of around half, which is quite significant.
This seems like conflating 2 similar things. But I also don't believe either are good usecases.
To clarify: this is all assuming "taxing" means some flavor of "increased MAP" while "sequence" means "MAP doesn't increase until the end of the activity", which seem like fair assumptions based on the names.
With Spellstrike or Whirlwind Strike you're making X attacks and getting X MAP instances. The MAP amount is fine, so taxing wouldn't even fit. What sets these activities apart from basic actions is that the MAP isn't incremented until the action ends, which can be solved with the proposed sequence trait.
Meanwhile with Vicious Swing, you're getting more MAP than you're making attacks. This is where you'd actually want a trait for extra MAP, but it still doesn't make sense to put it on Vicious Swing because the Vicious Swing activity itself isn't an attack, the subordinate Strike is. It would be quite jank if your Strike got disrupted, but because VS is taxing you still took the MAP.
The only way this would work in a consistent way would be if taxing said "attacks made as part of this activity count as two for the purposes of your multiple attack penalty", but that makes the trait super specific and more confusing than just writing it out per feat.
In summary, sequence would be very handy, but I can't see taxing simplifying anything (both because it's mechanically an awkward thing to turn into a trait and because barely anything increments MAP multiple times with one attack). Combining both traits into one doesn't sound like it covers any situations either.
I feel there's a severe amount of confusion here. I'm not proposing separate taxing and sequence traits, and explained my reasons why already on this thread:
Initially I did think that the bit about not counting your MAP until making all your attacks ought to be a separate trait, as it's not on every ability that counts as two attacks for your MAP, but I think ultimately it boils down to the same thing: the only time when not counting your MAP until you've made all of your attacks is relevant is when you're making more than one attack, i.e. incrementing your MAP to the maximum. Thus, every ability that counts as two or more attacks for the purpose of increasing your MAP could also include that bit of rules text and work the exact same way. The only instance where things would work differently is if you use a multi-Strike ability like Whirlwind Strike to make only a single Strike, at which point I don't think the difference is necessarily meaningful given how that's a plainly inferior use of the ability compared to just Striking. If there were some exception where you'd want to use a multi-Strike ability even against a single target, then perhaps that'd cast that bit into doubt, but nothing jumps to my memory.
In short: when you make more than one attack, as with Whirlwind Strike, you max out your MAP at two attacks' worth, and those are the only instances where not counting your MAP until you've finished your attacks matters. There is no point to separating the two traits, and you yourself appear to have furnished the reasons why separate traits wouldn't provide that much economy of rules text either.
Meanwhile with Vicious Swing, you're getting more MAP than you're making attacks. This is where you'd actually want a trait for extra MAP, but it still doesn't make sense to put it on Vicious Swing because the Vicious Swing activity itself isn't an attack, the subordinate Strike is. It would be quite jank if your Strike got disrupted, but because VS is taxing you still took the MAP.
You still apply MAP when making a Strike even if it is disrupted, so even now and without those traits, you would still incur two attacks' worth of MAP by attempting a Strike that gets disrupted. The "jank" you cite therefore already exists, and my proposal would change nothing in that respect, nor would it need to.