D&D 5E Action Types - Rules As Written

[5ekyu]

Rough and smooth are impressions as well, but we still recognize that avocados (the part you eat, anyway) are one and not the other.




Sure, but if someone points out what the differences were between those two games, you don’t get in a shouting match about it.


Why do you put “differences” in quotes like that? Why do you always have to undermine your opponents’ position with passive aggressive condescension like this? Just say differences. There were differences, whether they were “enough” for you or not.

And as a matter of fact,I would argue that the actual differences in how one class’s actions played out were more significant than they are in 5e. In 4e, a defender and a striker play very differently because the defender’s powers are focused on locking down targets and keeping them from attacking anyone but him, whereas the striker’s powers are focused on dealing damage and moving quickly and freely throughout the battlefield. In 5e, there are no defined combat roles, and very few class features significantly change how one class approaches combat over another, beyond very broad strokes.

And all of that is fine, but if someone’s problem with 4e is that the pre-Essentials power structure was too uniform from one class to another, they should say that. If they claim their problem is that all of the classes played the same, I’m just left wondering how much they actually played, because the differences came in what the powers did more than which types you get at what levels, much like 5e spellcasters are differentiated by what their spells do, nor how many slots they have at what levels (with the exception of the Warlock).

avocado graph - As is red and blue and wet and dry but the fact that there are cases where the "differences" are more measurable and quantifiable does not make "play the same" any more or less of an opinion vs a statement of fact with a determinable accuracy.

Shouting graph - maybe, maybe not. Shouting or not shouting IMX is more a factor of and rooted in emotional investment than in facts. See next graph for example.

"Differences" graph - this seems more like a personal issue for you than an accurate response to what i said. Since "differences" applies to both sides of the division referenced there, i do not see it as being undermining to one side or the other. It highlights that that element is in question and serves that purpose, without necessarily choosing either side in the discussion.

Remaining 4e vs 5e monologue... i could not care less. i have no dog in the 4e vs 5e fight. I have almost never found edition vs edition fights for any games as particularly useful. thats not to say they were all equal, don't matter or all this or all that but simply that IMO **I** and my players have been much better off treating each edition and ruleset for its own strengths and weaknesses and how well they either serve our games or not and let the ones for whom the "edition this vs edition that" debates have importance occupy themselves with those weighty matters.

But "plays the same" still seems a subjective assessment more than an objective fact such as rough or smooth might be and as such "accurate vs inaccurate" seems a poorly assigned filter for it.

 

[redrick]

It’s not like you could use a Minor Action without an ability allowing you to do so. The only practical difference between them is the name.

I could be wrong — I only played a little bit of 4e and it was a while ago, though I actually quite enjoyed it. As I remember, an improvised action could be determined to be a "Minor Action", and all characters were told they had 1 Major Action, 1 Minor Action and 1 Move Action per turn. This is different from 5e, inasmuch as characters only have a bonus action if a feature gives it to them. They cannot, however, use more than one bonus action per turn. While I've occasionally run into situations where we've determined that some improvised action will use a player's bonus action, I think the general consensus has been that it is either free object interaction, or it is an Action.

That being said, I also haven't reread the 5e chapter on combat in a while either, so maybe there's more legalese in there that I'm forgetting.

 

[5ekyu]

And these are all things that lead to how it feels to play the game.



Sorry to tell you, but you don't get to decide what an opinion is or not. How something is played is based on a person's subjective attitudes and desires. Just like how you may drive a car is different from how I may drive a car. You can't very well tell me that how people drive a 1968 Camaro is the same. And your opinion is not objective truth.

So you say.... others may feel "differently" or "feel the same"...

 

[Charlaquin]

And these are all things that lead to how it feels to play the game.

Sure, and if what had been said was “the classes felt the same to me in play”, that would also be a legitimate argument. But what was said was “the classes played the same.”

Sorry to tell you, but you don't get to decide what an opinion is or not. How something is played is based on a person's subjective attitudes and desires. Just like how you may drive a car is different from how I may drive a car. You can't very well tell me that how people drive a 1968 Camaro is the same. And your opinion is not objective truth.

Neither you nor I get to redefine what the word opinion means. “The same” is an assessment of an objective quality. “Play” is an immergent property of game rules. “These two game elements play the same” is a statement not about the speaker’s personal assessment of the game play, but about the objective dissimilarity of the immergent play functions of those game elements. “These two game elements feel the same to me” is a judgment. If they felt the same to you, fine, I no longer have the inclination to discuss with you what features of the game design might be creating that feeling or why I feel differently. But if you claim thay they were the same, then you’re just making a false claim. There were differences, some of them quite significant, in the designs and in the gamestates those designs would create.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Your argument hinges on every game table playing the game the same way. Otherwise you have no idea how one table plays versus the other, and therefore one game table may play the classes the same. Needless to say, such an assumption is incredibly flawed and not true, because I doubt you'll find anyone who thinks everyone plays the game the same way.

 

[John Brebeuf]

4e combats took longer because hp totals were much higher, there were more abilities that focused on manipulating positions on a grid, and the encounter building guidelines were written for groups of multiple enemies to be the rule rather than the exception. The length of combat had almost nothing to do with the mechanics of 4e’s action economy. A lot of people blame multiple off-turn actions, but in practice that came up a lot less often than people make it out to have done.

At YOUR table perhaps, but to make a blanket statement like that about how 4e played out across the board is absurd. I remember plenty of times (and listened to plenty of actual play podcasts) in which players would carry on at excruciating length over what they should do for their minor actions and free actions.

Apart from being limited to one Reaction per round and movement being a resource instead of a type of action, 5e’s action economy is almost identical to 4e’s, it’s just written in a way that attempts to hide that fact (and apparently succeeds for many people).

This is nonsense.

4e: (1) Standard Action (2) Move Action (3) Minor Action (4) Free action

All have a codified status in the "action economy." Compare to 5e:

(1) Move (2) Action

Half as many, with a few exceptions when situations allow (bonus actions and reactions). Object interaction is really nothing more than, "If you want to do some additional little thing, tell the DM and he'll adjudicate it," which is exactly how it was always done in the old school editions.

As far as that goes, 5e's "action economy" is far closer to Moldvay Basic (on your turn you can move and attack/cast a spell) than 4e, in fact it's simpler in many respects ("Disengage" is infinitely more straightforward than the "fighting withdrawal" in B/X, for example).

 

[5ekyu]

Sure, and if what had been said was “the classes felt the same to me in play”, that would also be a legitimate argument. But what was said was “the classes played the same.”


Neither you nor I get to redefine what the word opinion means. “The same” is an assessment of an objective quality. “Play” is an immergent property of game rules. “These two game elements play the same” is a statement not about the speaker’s personal assessment of the game play, but about the objective dissimilarity of the immergent play functions of those game elements. “These two game elements feel the same to me” is a judgment. If they felt the same to you, fine, I no longer have the inclination to discuss with you what features of the game design might be creating that feeling or why I feel differently. But if you claim thay they were the same, then you’re just making a false claim. There were differences, some of them quite significant, in the designs and in the gamestates those designs would create.

you seem to be trying to construe "play the same" with a much more extreme position by dint of lack of evidence to the contrary.

Now, i did once hear a member of congress state to the floor of the house that "the absolute lack of evidence is what compels us to investigate." so you may not be that far out on a limb.

yes, one can decide to interpret "this all plays the same" as meaning "this all plays EXACTLY the same FOR EVERYONE" if one wants to manufacture an issue, but in comm place normal speech, i think some folks would need much much more to jump to that conclusion as to what they meant before getting that worked up about it.

 

[5ekyu]

At YOUR table perhaps, but to make a blanket statement like that about how 4e played out across the board is absurd. I remember plenty of times (and listened to plenty of actual play podcasts) in which players would carry on at excruciating length over what they should do for their minor actions and free actions.




This is nonsense.

4e: (1) Standard Action (2) Move Action (3) Minor Action (4) Free action

All have a codified status in the "action economy." Compare to 5e:

(1) Move (2) Action

Half as many, with a few exceptions when situations allow (bonus actions and reactions). Object interaction is really nothing more than, "If you want to do some additional little thing, tell the DM and he'll adjudicate it," which is exactly how it was always done in the old school editions.

As far as that goes, 5e's "action economy" is far closer to Moldvay Basic (on your turn you can move and attack/cast a spell) than 4e, in fact it's simpler in many respects ("Disengage" is infinitely more straightforward than the "fighting withdrawal" in B/X, for example).

Actually for 5e i believe the list is
Action (move included not as a separate thing)
Bonus action (iirc like minor actions) which is dependent on enabling rule/circumstances but it seems to me that most characters have a bonus action on most turns than not so, its hardly an exception.
Reaction - triggered but not uncommon
Interaction - one per turn.
non-actions - loosely specified and rather infrequent IMX.

so the list itself does not seem that difference on just a practical "listing" of types.

if one wants to argue the play is different, that is a different discussion but just listing the types of actions and using different standards so one side looks "shorter" is not particularly compelling.

NOTE: I have no opinion on faster or slower or care about the diff between 4e and 5e. My bet is it varies significantly by group as to which works slower or faster and by how much - and it may vary over time - new to 5e vs old hat at 4e for instance.

 

[redrick]

I just looked up the 4e rules, and, yes, drawing a weapon or interacting with an object is a Minor Action. However, there are also hundreds of powers that can use a Minor Action.

I think this is an important distinction from 5e. In 5e, most of the "powers" (or features) that would use a Minor Action in 4e use a bonus action. So in that respect, the bonus action of 5e is the Minor Action of 4e. However, in 5e, any interaction with an object, drawing of a weapon, or simple activity, is just called "interacting with an object." There's never any circumstance where a player would need to sacrifice a bonus action in order to "interact with an object" or just do something minor in the game world. The rules provide some guidance that's a little vague and confusing on just how much "interacting with an object" can be done in one turn. Personally, I no longer think about this and prefer to just use common sense. Which I can do, since object interaction doesn't interact or interfere with class powers, abilities and features.

 

[Eric V]

If your complaint is, all of the classes had the same resource management system, that’s a legitimate argument. If your complaint is, lots of powers had similar effects, that’s a legitimate complaint. If your complaint is, all of the classes played the same? I’m sorry but that’s not true. Maybe they didn’t play differently enough from each other in the ways that you wanted them to, and that’s fine. But “the classes played the same” is not a statement of opinion. “They felt same-y to me because of the uniform power structure” is a statement of opinion. “They all felt the same to me for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on” is a statement of opinion. “The differences between them didn’t feel significant enough for my taste” is a statement of opinion. “They all played the same” is a statement of fact, and an inaccurate one.

So very true.

It's as though I bought a 3PP and declared it objectively useless, when it's possible someone gets something out of it.