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

[Janaxstrus]

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.

"has realized"? Shoehorned? You do realize swift actions were in 3.5 long before 4e was even considered right? (Miniatures Handbook 2003) Swift spells were basically the same as Quicken spell (called a free action, but limited to one per round, just like what would become Swift)

 

[filthgrinder]

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.

I guess I'm a little confused, what are we giving feedback on, the Rule of Three article or the 5E game rules? The game rules aren't out yet. Should we also give feedback about the lack of other things not mentioned in the the rule of three? He did not mention how the attack works, or the move works. He said, "attack and then move", it's an "and" not "and/or", QUICK LET'S FEEDBACK OR WE WONT BE ABLE TO JUST ATTACK AND NOT MOVE! 5E is on rollerskates, everyone must constantly move!

All moves are the same! The article mentioned nothing about speed! They removed speed from the game!

It's getting silly.

It's a conversation article. Feedback on big picture ideas is good. Feedback on nit picky word choice on nongame rules isn't helpful.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Standard action and move action. That is simple.

One action, oh but you also get to move. That is not simple. Is it one action? Sounds like two, because moving is action in real life: takes time and effort. How about the infamous five-foot step, which is neither an Action nor even Movement, but is a free action which precludes moving. <smack head>

I disagree.

You get one action and a move. Dead simple.

The old way led to a morass of move actions, minor actions, immediate actions, immediate reactions whatever.

I like this new way. Very simple. Very straightforward.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Eh. Maybe Rodney should've been a little clearer.

But definitely several folks should be a little less pedantic and paranoid.

Hell, that statement applies to half the people I meet out in the Real World, too (friggin' election years).

 

[Incenjucar]

WotC is going to continue to receive nitpicks so long the rules are not available to see, they keep repeating themselves with slight variations (variations tend to look like new decisions), they keep using language poorly (which they did long before 5E was announced), and when they have proven quite comfortable with saying one thing and doing another (such as various claims regarding Themes).

The benefit of the doubt has not been earned.

 

[Wulfgar76]

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.

That would be okay. Perhaps simpler, but not better imo. Trading your move action to do something else is certainly more limiting than always having a minor action every turn.

"has realized"? Shoehorned? You do realize swift actions were in 3.5 long before 4e was even considered right? (Miniatures Handbook 2003) Swift spells were basically the same as Quicken spell (called a free action, but limited to one per round, just like what would become Swift)

Swift actions didn't exist in the 3.0 system when it first came out. At some point it became apparent (someone "realized") that a way to perform an action in addition to the standard and move was necessary. So a new action was invented and inserted into the existing rules ("shoehorned").

But you are right, it's not a 4e concept. The swift/minor action existed in 3.5/PF and I think is generally considered useful and necessary.

Call them what you will: minor/swift actions should absolutely exist in 5e.

 

[Dausuul]

WotC is going to continue to receive nitpicks so long the rules are not available to see, they keep repeating themselves with slight variations (variations tend to look like new decisions), they keep using language poorly (which they did long before 5E was announced), and when they have proven quite comfortable with saying one thing and doing another (such as various claims regarding Themes).

The benefit of the doubt has not been earned.

In a somewhat less confrontational vein, this sort of thing is to be expected given incomplete information. I'm not criticizing their choice to withhold information for the time being, I suspect I would do the same in WotC's place, but this is an inevitable consequence; whatever scraps of information we do get will be analyzed to death.

I don't even see it as a bad thing, necessarily. The idea of having the action and then the move take place in that order every time is a very interesting one. Even though it turns out not to be what Rodney meant, it'd be a creative solution to some longstanding issues, and maybe the discussion will spark other clever ideas.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Swift actions didn't exist in the 3.0 system when it first came out. At some point it became apparent (someone "realized") that a way to perform an action in addition to the standard and move was necessary. So a new action was invented and inserted into the existing rules ("shoehorned").

But you are right, it's not a 4e concept. The swift/minor action existed in 3.5/PF and I think is generally considered useful and necessary.

Call them what you will: minor/swift actions should absolutely exist in 5e.

Shoehorned is a loaded term. I believe not all of the 1,2, 3 AND 4e classes existed when the game was initially released, but I wouldn't call them "shoehorned" in. That implies they were shoved in to someplace that wasn't adequate to handle them, which I would say is inaccurate.

I do agree that a mechanic to allow for those type of actions would be nice, but I don't consider it mandatory. For instance, drinking a potion, or healing wouldn't be what I would consider swift/minor type actions. The game isn't all about combat, so just because something isn't as good as swinging a sword doesn't mean it's faster or negligible.
Opening a door or drawing/unhooking/picking up a weapon, sure.

 

[GX.Sigma]

OP updated. I'm surprised at how positive the response has been. I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

 

[The Little Raven]

You get one action and a move. Dead simple.

Also can be incredibly boring, particularly when you have to sacrifice that action for something small, like opening a door, or drinking a potion, or retrieving an item from your pouch. Or, let's say you don't move, and that move action is now useless since its only use is movement (rather than other equivalent actions).

The old way led to a morass of move actions, minor actions, immediate actions, immediate reactions whatever.

I don't see this being any better, except they've excised some terms. They'll make move actions movement stuff only... until they run into actions that don't justify a standard action, but aren't good enough to be a free action, and they'll end up assigning it to move action anyhow. Or they'll pull a 3e and add new actions mid-edition to compensate. Or include them in the tactical combat module.

I agree they could rework triggered/immediate/free/no actions a bit to reduce the number of categories and discrete rules, but removing minor actions forces a lot of rather minor actions to consume a far larger chunk of the action economy than they should.