D&D 5E [Ro3 4/24/2012] The Action Economy of D&D Next

[Dausuul]

I like the look of this. "Act and move" is a good paradigm for the game's action economy. I just hope we don't end up with the minor action sneaking in through the back door, the way swift actions did in 3.5. I'm not a fan of minor actions, but better to have them built into the system from the start than bolted on later.

[Edit: Okay, so it's "one action and one move, in any order." I'm actually a little disappointed. I was just getting interested to see how the act-then-move dynamic played out.]

I do wonder if Rodney literally means "one action, then move" (i.e., you have to do it in that order every time), or if he just means you get one action and one move each round. The latter is what I would have expected based on 3E and 4E. The former is... interesting. Haven't thought through all the the ramifications, but it does do a nice job of bringing back the wizard's dread of melee combat. In 3E, when you were a wizard with a bad guy in your face, you could just five-foot step and cast. In 4E, you could shift and cast, essentially the same thing. But if you have to cast first, you're stuck eating the OA and potentially losing the spell. As Firelance points out, it vastly increases the importance of the tactical situation at the start of your turn.

It's a little counterintuitive though. If I were going to order the two based on my instinctive sense of how these things work, I would put the move first, action second. Typically you're moving someplace with the intent of doing something when you get there, so it's weird to do the moving on turn 1 and the doing something on turn 2.

 

[Sunseeker]

Trevor just posted on Twitter that it is move and then action or action and then move.

Everyone breathe.

Thaumaturge.

Ah, well then they shouldn't have phrased it so poorly.

Anyway, my other point was still that I like minor/swift actions, and if charge is kept as a "move and an attack" we might as well be keeping "full round" actions as well. Making all secondary attacks "free actions" probably means we're going to see "immediate reaction free actions".

 

[Wulfgar76]

In my opinion the 3-action economy (move, standard, minor) action was a HUGE improvement over the action economy over past editions.

The minor action in particular opened up a huge swathe of design space. Never again did you have to waste your turn to drink a potion, open a door, draw a weapon, or even make a 'quick' attack.

Perhaps most importantly, clerics could now heal and attack in the same turn, solving a problem that had plagued D&D since the beginning.

Even 3e/Pathfinder has realized the urgent need for a "second" action during a turn so things like "swift" actions have been retroactively shoehorned into the systems.

Removing the minor action would be a big mistake.

 

[pauljathome]

The thing is, rules light does not imply GM fiat being very important.

Rules light games often have quite specific and precise mechanics, they are just very dissociated and generic, and can be used to describe many kinds of interactions.

Well, they SAID that GMs fiat is going to be important .

I've never seen a rules light system without a LOT of GM interpretation explicitly called for. It pretty much has to either do that OR just ignore situational modifiers. If you're fighting underwater either the rules tell you what happens, the GM does, or you just ignore it.

 

[YRUSirius]

Ah, well then they shouldn't have phrased it so poorly.

Yeah, by now Wizards should know what kind of rules laywering gamer generation they have raised...

*sigh*

-YRUSirius

 

[Dausuul]

In my opinion the 3-action economy (move, standard, minor) action was a HUGE improvement over the action economy over past editions.

The minor action in particular opened up a huge swathe of design space. Never again did you have to waste your turn to drink a potion, open a door, draw a weapon, or even make a 'quick' attack.

Perhaps most importantly, clerics could now heal and attack in the same turn, solving a problem that had plagued D&D since the beginning.

Even 3e/Pathfinder has realized the urgent need for a "second" action during a turn so things like "swift" actions have been retroactively shoehorned into the systems.

I agree that it is better to have the minor action built in than to bolt it on afterward, but I find myself wondering if the minor action and the move action need to be separate things. What if door-opening and potion-drinking were move actions? That makes it a meaningful tradeoff, but not as bad as giving up your attack or spell.

 

[filthgrinder]

Yeah, by now Wizards should know what kind of rules laywering gamer generation they have raised...

*sigh*

-YRUSirius

Exactly. We all need to realize that these game rules are not machine code. This isn't a computer program. It also isn't a death pact. The rules are being set up in a way to allow DMs to make judgement calls.

We do need to pay attention to what they put out and give feedback. It's another to realize that before playtest rules come out, that we have the commonality of language and that the people who are writing these articles, and designing these rules are not technical machines. They are having a conversation with the community. We really need to be sensible.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yeah, by now Wizards should know what kind of rules laywering gamer generation they have raised...

*sigh*

-YRUSirius

If they have any hope of marketing a new product to it, yes, they should.

 

[dkyle]

Well, they SAID that GMs fiat is going to be important .

My point is more that "more GM fiat" does not imply a rules-light system, in the way I usually see the term used. If you just meant a system without a lot of rules, sure. But "rule-light" doesn't usually just mean that. It means a system that gets a lot of mileage out of the rules.

I've never seen a rules light system without a LOT of GM interpretation explicitly called for. It pretty much has to either do that OR just ignore situational modifiers. If you're fighting underwater either the rules tell you what happens, the GM does, or you just ignore it.

They often require the GM to map the world into the generic mechanics, but the mechanics themselves are well-defined. That's different from pure GM fiat, where the mechanics aren't defined.

For example, in a simple D&D game, underwater combat (if left without rules) might have the DM say "you guys are at a -4 to attacks, but not the shark, because he's native to the ocean".

In a rules-light game, each creature might have a certain number of Aspects, and one of the shark's Aspects might be "apex predator in the seas", and an Aspect might grant certain bonuses. In this case, the mechanics of the game are used as written; they're just generic mechanics.

Yeah, by now Wizards should know what kind of rules laywering gamer generation they have raised...

Oh please. Taking someone at the plain English meaning of their words is not "rules lawyering". And especially when we're not playing the game, arguing with the DM, but simply giving feedback. I, for one, hope the playtesters rules lawyer the hell out of the rules they see. Holding back constructive feedback is not helpful. Asking for clarity is highly constructive.

 

[dkyle]

Exactly. We all need to realize that these game rules are not machine code. This isn't a computer program. It also isn't a death pact. The rules are being set up in a way to allow DMs to make judgement calls.

Imprecise, ambiguous rules do not "allow" a DM to make judgement calls. They force the DM to make judgement calls.

Precise, well-defined rules do not in any way prevent a DM from making judgement calls.

We do need to pay attention to what they put out and give feedback. It's another to realize that before playtest rules come out, that we have the commonality of language and that the people who are writing these articles, and designing these rules are not technical machines. They are having a conversation with the community. We really need to be sensible.

What's not sensible about pointing out mistakes, and asking for clarification? We're not judging them, or saying we'll never buy 5E because the 4/24 Ro3 had an ambiguous expression of the action economy rules. We're giving feedback.

The sensible thing to do when giving feedback is to err on the side of caution. And that means giving feedback on what they say, at the very least. If we also want to give feedback on what we think they meant to say, that's certainly helpful, too.