Blog: Reacting to the Reaction

[pemerton]

Actually, there is a functional (or, rather, "non-functional", but let's not be picky) difference. The new-old spellcasting regime presumably means that you could, potentially, get two Spiritual Hammers to cast in the same "day". And, if you cast them both, one after another, you presumably now get two extra actions-that-are-not-really-actions-but-are-"part of your action" (huh??) every turn.

All we need now is a few more spells (because gods forbid that non-spellcasters get such complex superpo- er, stuff) that do similar stuff and we'll be able to pimp up the "monstrous regiment of Father Theophilus"...

Yes, this is one thing I had in mind when I talke about the resulting balance problems. And if you solve those balance problems via the "You can only do one action-that-is-not-really-an-action-but-is-"part of your action" per turn" mechanic . . .

I also agree with you that, even before our wonderful new mechanic is introduced, you have a complexity and processing time that doesn't seem wildly different from that associated with minor actions.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmmh. I know there are some advantages of the labelling. And I am not objecting minor actions completely. But I don´t want it used for other things than spells. No weapon drwawing, no converting a move into a minor. Just some spells that can be cast quickened. Maybe just put minor actions into the spell section: "some spells can be cast/sustained so quickly, that you still can do something different on your turn. Only one such action can be used in a single turn"

But for spiritual hammerr, there is a much easier solution: Sustained spells. You can only sustain one spell with a free action during your turn.
Maybe you can´t use chant and spiritual hammer simlutaneously, but I am willing to sacrifice that.

edit: so, lets not argue about semantics... if minor actions are implemented well, no problem. It is just, and I repeat myself here, in 4e minor actions become worth too much... used for too many diferent things (especially in essentials and later)

 

[Neonchameleon]

It almost is. I'm pretty sure Tom's using Immediate Action when he means Opportunity Action.

Well it's a pity he's not talking to Mearls then. Mearls who has pointed out on the Reddit thread that every version of D&D there has ever been has had something like Opportunity Attacks to prevent the D&D Next Goblin Conga Line. (The only edition I've ever found them a problem in is 3.X where there was a great long list of things that triggered them). So if he was comparing them to OAs then he wasn't talking to Mearls. Way to go!

He's also claiming Reactions are new and make D&D Next different from 4e. They aren't. They are 4e Immediate Actions.

Problem:

if there is a minor action, at some point there will be a minor action attack...

Which is a lot better than a confused-action attack like Spiritual Hammer.

I disagree. First, WotC has included a number of good things that 4e brought into the game: encounter building, fast monster design, tactical options for martial characters, at-will attacks for spell casters. Those are all in D&DN.

[Citation Needed] The two martial characters in the playtest had no tactical options. And D&D Next might have fast monster design - but it lacks the good monster design of 4e.

And, yes, a Reaction is just the same think as an Immediate Reaction. It's just easier to explain. "Reaction" is a better term than "Immediate" for "out-of-turn", and the game is easier to learn when there aren't two types.

I'll agree with this. Clean up the Immediates into Reactions and you've presented them better. But the difference is one of formatting rather than of substance. And presenting it as one of substance is frankly laughable.

a lot better than having to think about minor actions all the time...

Why? I have literally never seen a player at any of my tablea have to scratch their head over minor actions. And the only time I've ever seen them be a problem is when a Knight has been reduced to 0hp. (It's not even a problem in ambush - if even vaguely alert, the Knight should be treated as in stance and with Defender Aura running). Why are you finding a problem?

 

[MerricB]

Unfortunately, Tom LaPille is a horrible communicator - there are a lot of people on the Magic side of things that hate him. He might be reaching Monte levels soon. (Monte Cook, great designer though he can be, was not the best person to explain D&D Next design philosophy: both Rodney Thompson and Mike Mearls have been so much better).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Why? I have literally never seen a player at any of my tablea have to scratch their head over minor actions. And the only time I've ever seen them be a problem is when a Knight has been reduced to 0hp. (It's not even a problem in ambush - if even vaguely alert, the Knight should be treated as in stance and with Defender Aura running). Why are you finding a problem?

I was playing a skald.

Minor action to start the aura (he is not singing all the time)
Minor action to draw a weapon.
Minor action to activate an aura secondary effect
Minor action to heal
Minor action to switch weapons

I had quite some combats, where I didn´t manage to even activate the at will aura modification.

Especially when there were surprise rounds...

depressing.

And to slowing down:
It takes a lot of guesswork, to switch between weapons if you only have one minor action.
And the designers are aware of it. There are two feats, that make switching weapons a lot faster. Which seems to me like a feat tax.

 

[Balesir]

But I don´t want it used for other things than spells.

Sorry, this just sounds like the "Magic is a special snowflake" stuff I'm really sick of. In a fantasy world, magic is just a fact of life - I really don't think it needs to be given all the sweeties and priority for all the toys.

No weapon drwawing, no converting a move into a minor.

Here, too, I disagree. Allowing unlimited drawing/preparing/stowing gear in a turn is both daft and obviates some interesting (i.e. hard) decisions. And a recent situation in the 4e game I'm running worked really well with the "trade actions down" mechanic: the Wizard had two Walls of Ice running simultaneously - wonderfully effective (completely trapped a Naga for most of the fight), but he was unable to sustain both walls and both walk and act at the same time! As a representation of the extreme concentration required to pull off this (impressive) magical feat, it seemed to work well, to me.

edit: so, lets not argue about semantics... if minor actions are implemented well, no problem. It is just, and I repeat myself here, in 4e minor actions become worth too much... used for too many diferent things (especially in essentials and later)

I agree - any argument for Minor Actions must assume that the implementation is going to be good - I think the same applies to almost any request for a system. I much prefer the AEDU system to the old, "Vancian" slots-per-day for Wizards, but I'm willing to see how it pans out, because I think we should see a much better implementation than in previous editions.

I was playing a skald.

Minor action to start the aura (he is not singing all the time)
Minor action to draw a weapon.
Minor action to activate an aura secondary effect
Minor action to heal
Minor action to switch weapons

I had quite some combats, where I didn´t manage to even activate the at will aura modification.

Especially when there were surprise rounds...

depressing.

I think that's a case of poor detail in the implementation. In principle, I think it's fine - limitations on what a class can achieve in time are part of the overall balance of the class, and interesting (i.e. hard) decisions about which things to do first and which can wait are a key element of "fun" in the game - and they are where the character of a character can clearly be shown.

And to slowing down:
It takes a lot of guesswork, to switch between weapons if you only have one minor action.
And the designers are aware of it. There are two feats, that make switching weapons a lot faster. Which seems to me like a feat tax.

Yeah, the feats there made the set up dubious. I don't think that was a matter of flawed basic system, though - feats had a myriad flaws for several reasons, I think (basically, I think they got used as a "too hard" bin so that all sorts of inappropriate stuff got bunged in there, contributing to the already-evident bloat...). Better might be to allow drawing as a free action to any character who is proficient in the weapon - but stowing (as opposed to dropping) a weapon always should require a Minor Action. As should picking something up from the floor.

The thing about "not being able to open a door mid-move" I think would be best served by changing the Move action, not the Minor action. If "Shift" was made a movement mode (as opposed to a seperate action name) and a "Move Action" simply gave you your Move score in "movement points" that could be used throughout your turn, it could be made to work. "Shift" would then just normally take your Move in MPs - special abilities could modify that. Rising from prone could also cost MPs - maybe even different amounts depending on whether you were threatened or not; at a cost of "5 feet" there is never a reason not to rise in the playtest. In fact, if rising from prone worked exactly as if you were moving both into and out of the space you occupy, you could either choose to do it using 1 movement point (triggering an OA if you are in attack range) or to "shift" up using your Move in MPs to rise without triggering an OA.

That system might be a little more involved to describe/explain, but I think it would actually be much simpler in actual use than a vague and messy mixture of system and stuff that doesn't really fit the system as described but we mostly (think we) know what we mean...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]:

I like the ice wall wizard. Seems like a good implementation of sustain minor. I also agree with not beeing able to do an unlimited amount of things. But drawing a weapon while moving seems like a thing most fighters should be able to do.
It just seems reasonable.

On the other hand, why do you need a minor action, if you can split your move as you like? Why not just say, that you may do things as part of your move and be done? As well as doing things as part of your action?

Of course it is not as hardcoded as you like. But I like the freedom of the "DM may I also do x." But the problem, that you have a DM that disallows things you ought to be able to do is there.

Maybe, minor actions could be a rules module.
When I think about it, it could belong to the tactical module. There it seems useful for a lot of things, like standing up from prone etc, while in the narrative module, it just does not fit in.

 

[Balesir]

On the other hand, why do you need a minor action, if you can split your move as you like? Why not just say, that you may do things as part of your move and be done? As well as doing things as part of your action?

Well, along that route, you could go all the way to "you have X "action points" per turn; an attack costs A points, moving 5 feet costs B points, Shifting 5 feet costs C points, drawing a weapon costs D points... and so on. But I think that a simpler breakdown has a few advantages (as well as just being simpler! ).

Of course it is not as hardcoded as you like. But I like the freedom of the "DM may I also do x." But the problem, that you have a DM that disallows things you ought to be able to do is there.

I thin it's more than that. If you have "DM may I do this as well?" you get an answer - either yes or no, it doesn't matter - and this either becomes a rule or you have an arbitrary and nonsensical game. Basically, if, the next time you ask to do the same thing, you get the same answer, then you have a rule - which should have been a rule to begin with. If, on the other hand, the answer is different (for no good reason - a good reason would just mean "there is a rule, but it's a bit more complicated than always yes or always no") then you have a broken game.

Could the system leave most of the actual rules for the DM (and maybe players) to make up as they went along? Sure - but I think it would just be better if they gave rules - good rules that have been considered in relation to all the other rules and properly playtested - from the beginning, in the published ruleset.

Rules "gaps" in a playtest version actually don't worry me - you have to start a playtest somewhere. It's the fact that Mike Mearls seems to have set a design aim to actually deliberately have partial rules that bothers me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like guidelines rather than hard rules in such cases:

usually you can draw a weapon as part of a move.
usually you can open a door without losing time

the weapon may be on your back, the door might be heavier etc.

in 3rd and 4th edition there is the "only a reasonable number of free actions"-rule

I really believe, that rule should be more prominent.
In general, there does not need to be a rule on how many weapons you draw or how many doors you open. there is usually only one weapon or one door. Other situations are so rare, that adding a rule for that in the phb is nonsensical.

Rather have a list in the DMG telling him how many actions are reasonable.

 

[KidSnide]

Here, too, I disagree. Allowing unlimited drawing/preparing/stowing gear in a turn is both daft and obviates some interesting (i.e. hard) decisions. And a recent situation in the 4e game I'm running worked really well with the "trade actions down" mechanic: the Wizard had two Walls of Ice running simultaneously - wonderfully effective (completely trapped a Naga for most of the fight), but he was unable to sustain both walls and both walk and act at the same time! As a representation of the extreme concentration required to pull off this (impressive) magical feat, it seemed to work well, to me.

I think it's a good idea to get rid of minor actions, but it's not because minor actions are useless. They aren't. Anyone (with a good memory) who has spent a substantial amount of time playing tactical 4e can find times when the minor action rules produced interesting decisions. At a minimum, a healer might use two minor actions for a Healing Word and a safe granting ability, or a rogue might make a minor action attack when she misses with sneak attack. Your "two walls" example is great. This kind of minor action use is fun, and it definitely adds something to the game.

The question isn't whether minor actions add anything. The question is whether they add enough.

That's because there is a definite cost to having minor actions in the game. Players spend time thinking about them. I've played or DMed many turns where players did something clever with their action economy. But I've played even more turns where the player was done performing useful tasks, but made the game stop for 20-60 seconds to figure out how to make use of his or her minor action.

Minor actions slow down combat. And if you want to speed it up, you need to look at reducing the number of rounds (useful, but possibly too swingy in the extreme) and reducing the amount of time that it takes to play a round. In the abstract, I like minor actions, but I like fast combat more and -- at least in my opinion -- it's worth sacrificing minor actions for a faster combat.

(I have also noted that "action + move" is easier to explain to new players than "standard / move / minor", but I think the combat speed issue is more important.)

-KS