Multiple actions in an exchange

[Silverblaze]

Many systems come up with multiple action systems for combat.  

Do you think the Fate System as defined within hte Dresden Universe is balanced for PC's?
Do you think it is fair for NPC's and not PC's?
Is it unfair or fair for both?

D&D: characters get more actions through spells or more attacks as they level - fairly balanced
3rd ed. D&D/Spycraft/Star Wars: free actions, move actions, attack actions, full round actions and modified as above - abusable but fairly balanced
Star Wars - west end: D6 system, subtract a die to get an additional actioin, limited only by number of D6's rolled (turned out to make skilled players whirlwinds of death)
Shadowrun: initiative modifies how many actions one recieves (balanced unless someone munchkins initiative/actions)
White Wolf Vampire old school: celerity 1-5 geneates that many additional actions ( 6-10 exists but rarer)
White Wolf Werewolf: Rage rating 1-10 dictates actions (mildly broken unless context of the game is taken into account they need those actions to live...still pretty mean)
White Wolf Scion: similar to a cross between Old school vampire and Shadowrun fairly balanced considering the genre
DC Heroes Mayfair/Blood of Heroes MEGS system: one dice action two auto actions (moving, turning on powers etc) this does not change generally - balanced for a superhepr game
MechWarrior RPG: one action a round unless in a mech using the old Battletech system for combat seems balanced but combat out of mechs is clunky at best

I think this system should have one action a round as no powers in the book really get into having more actions even Mythic Speed.  Multiple attacks per round could easily make mages far less useful.  They also could out damage mages/wizards/evocators for no require of stress expended.  I think Evil Hat has a near perfect recipe and multiple actions generally will unbalance and ruin the combat system… especially if someone found a way to cast multiple evocations at once.  Spray attacks and zone wide attacks handle this just fine in my opinion.

I can definitely say if I were allowed to use a power or stunt that allows me multiple actions combat will be a lot less challenging and require far meaner encounters and more work to generate challenge on behalf of the GM.

People should do as they like in their games, but the above is my opinion and I’m seeking what others think/feel about it.

[Sanctaphrax]

I think that anything allowing multiple actions should use spray attacks as a balancing point.

Spray attacks aren't all that strong, so that should keep things reasonable.

By the way, two more for your list:

Shadowrun 4E + Eclipse Phase: Characters have a speed stat, which dictates how many times they act per turn. Balanced in that it is as unfair as it is supposed to be.

Exalted 2E: No turns. Each action takes a certain number of ticks, which determines how long it will take before a character can act again. There are also flurries, which let you take multiple actions by taking penalties to all of them. About as balanced as a one-legged stool.

[ways and means]

I think that anything allowing multiple actions should use spray attacks as a balancing point.

Exalted 2E: No turns. Each action takes a certain number of ticks, which determines how long it will take before a character can act again. There are also flurries, which let you take multiple actions by taking penalties to all of them. About as balanced as a one-legged stool.

But awesome especially when you can get a 2-3 tick attacks (abusive charm set up), which means you can flurry (up to a silly number of attack with no penalty with the right magical flurry charm which also reduces your enemies defence for each attack) two to three times for every action everyone else has.   

[Belial666]

A rather bad idea. It's already hard to get a PbP going with a single action per exchange. Imagine how slow it would be if everyone had to write down 3-4 actions...

[Tsunami]

Multiple Actions for PC... not ever. That is my opinion.

Regarding NPC:
If you give an NPC two instead of one action per round you essentially duplicate him.
Except for the one stress track it's no different from having two NPC instead of one.
So if you are, for example, facing a group of characters that would normally need 5 NPC to challange them, you could concentrate those 5 into two NPC, one with 2 and one with 3 actions per round.

The multiple action part then simply turns into an issue of description, and that's no problem at all.
That is really the only situation in which i would allow multiple actions.

[ways and means]

The only example of mulitple action in the system already is WVC feeding and inciting which it get over by calling it only one action.

[BumblingBear]

The only way I think I would allow multiple actions in one turn is if a PC or NPC were to make a spray attack on one person.

Basically divide up the attack and weapon between two attacks on one target.

The only real reason I could see for a player doing that is for maximum fate point spending.

[evileeyore]

A rather bad idea. It's already hard to get a PbP going with a single action per exchange. Imagine how slow it would be if everyone had to write down 3-4 actions...

I really shouldn't laugh... I'm in his PbP.

[Tallyrand]

One middle ground idea that I've been playing around with is allowing players to Invoke to create bonus actions and actions out of turn.  For the cost of a fate chip you could throw up a reactive defense (Speed of thought) or use an appropriate aspect to toss out an extra attack during a scene.

[BumblingBear]

One middle ground idea that I've been playing around with is allowing players to Invoke to create bonus actions and actions out of turn.  For the cost of a fate chip you could throw up a reactive defense (Speed of thought) or use an appropriate aspect to toss out an extra attack during a scene.

I already allow reactive blocks anyway.  It seem appropriate to me because a swordsman can block with a sword.  Why can't a wizard block with a shield?  The shield needs a lot less movement than a sword block does.

[toturi]

I had figured that DFRPG had already allowed multiple actions per turn. Those extra actions are supplementary actions. I think that there is only no multiple attacks in this game system.

[ryanshowseason2]

For me multiple attacks exist as

A. Spray attacks

B. Declarations with weapons, guns etc, to use against a single target. Variable difficulty.

I've thought about allowing two rolls and taking the better of  the two. But that already exists by invoking an aspect, presumably one that relates to speed.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't understand the widespread belief that multiple actions are inherently overpowered. As long as they aren't any stronger than spray attacks, what's the problem?

[devonapple]

I don't understand the widespread belief that multiple actions are inherently overpowered. As long as they aren't any stronger than spray attacks, what's the problem?

Simply: some folks want more than the Spray Attack option provides, or feel that having the option is a necessity for a good (combat-based) game.

[Sanctaphrax]

Uh, wait.

It sounds like you're arguing my side, which is that multiple actions are a viable mechanic.

But the context makes it seem otherwise.

The problem with multiple attacks is that people want more than spray attacks provide?

I don't understand.