Why not treat the action economy... like an economy?

[Empath Negative]

Let's say we give each player four "action" points. Not as in the current framework, but instead as part of their turn they spend (or save) action points.

Different actions would cost different amounts.


For example, swinging a two handed weapon once would cost two points, whereas swinging a one handed weapon once would cost one point. The current "move action" would count as one point, as would the current standard action. However, this would require a rebalancing of some move and standard actions, especially where spells are concerned.


It eventually becomes pretty strategic.

A Sword and Board Fighter swings at his opponent twice, and saves two of his action points. Why? Because if he expends an action point when he's attacked he can gain a bonus to his shield AC, reducing his likelihood of being hit.

If you're a two handed fighter and you want to Power Attack you use up all four of your action points and deal triple damage in a swingle swing.

If you're a dagger wielding rogue you run past your teammate, tumble through the ogres square, and drive your two daggers into his back.


Spellcasting is a bit more complex. Most spells consume three action points, immediate spells consume one, full round spells consume four, casting defensively costs one and so forth.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Nifty...

Though I am dubious that WotC would consider such a thing. A bit too far, I think, from how prior editions have dealt with the action economy.

 

[ren1999]

It would work.

If move cost an action point then rather than attack you could spend 2 action points to move twice your range per turn.

If you don't move at all and stay in one place you could use that move point for an attack.

We already have Dodge Action and other kinds of actions in 5th Edition. We may just need to create this Reaction/Action Point System to do these things.

Spells that are powerful would have a heavy action point cost.

After each turn, the action points would reset.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think the problem with this is that to establish any sort of balance, you need a fairly fine grained action point system. I don't think, for instance, that the game would work well if you could attack instead of move - whoever moves into melee first (especially if it requires multiple moves) would get fewer attacks in before their enemy takes a turn.

In fact, allowing up to four attacks in a single turn makes a single turn too powerful. Not to mention that if you expect it to take more action points to attack with a two-handed weapon then, even if said weapon does double damage compared to a one-handed weapon, you'd be better off with a shield, or useful free hand.

Now if you adopted a 'time unit' system, a la X-Com, in which you spend your time units moving and attacking *but* you can only attack once, then that might work. Characters with smaller weapons would be more manoeuvrable compared to the zweihanders, and more likely to have time units left over for reactions outside of their turn. Spellcasters would be vulnerable, perhaps having to spend all their time units casting and leaving nothing for movement or reaction.

 

[Empath Negative]

I think the problem with this is that to establish any sort of balance, you need a fairly fine grained action point system. I don't think, for instance, that the game would work well if you could attack instead of move - whoever moves into melee first (especially if it requires multiple moves) would get fewer attacks in before their enemy takes a turn.

In fact, allowing up to four attacks in a single turn makes a single turn too powerful. Not to mention that if you expect it to take more action points to attack with a two-handed weapon then, even if said weapon does double damage compared to a one-handed weapon, you'd be better off with a shield, or useful free hand.

Now if you adopted a 'time unit' system, a la X-Com, in which you spend your time units moving and attacking *but* you can only attack once, then that might work. Characters with smaller weapons would be more manoeuvrable compared to the zweihanders, and more likely to have time units left over for reactions outside of their turn. Spellcasters would be vulnerable, perhaps having to spend all their time units casting and leaving nothing for movement or reaction.

This is solved by saying you cannot use a weapon more than twice in any given round.

This means that two handed fighters spend 2 points per swing, sword and boards use 1 point per swing BUT can use their shield for an additional bonus twice per round... and two weapon fighters get four attacks...



And I have ZERO problem with spellcasters being vulnerable.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Again, if you can get four attacks per round, then a single round is too powerful. Restrict it to one attack per turn, and let's say you get 3 time points. It's 1 time point to attack with a 1H weapon, 2 for a 2H weapon and 2 for two weapons, 3 for a spell; you can move your speed for 1 time point and do a bunch of other things for 1 time point.

The 1-hander can move twice and attack
The s&b can move, attack and react once
The 2-hander can move and attack
The 2-weaponer can move and attack twice, or move twice and attack once
The spellcaster gotta stay still!

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why not?

Becuase it's spamtastic! If moving takes away from your attacks, people will attack rather than moving wherever possible. And already we're getting fiddly bits like "Can not use a weapon more than twice per round".

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I prefer working in with the previous two editions framework in terms of action economy. PCs get:
* A Major Action [Standard]
* A Minor Action [Move]
* One or more Swift Actions [Swift]

A first level character may start with one swift action where as more advanced characters may accrue further swift actions. Swift actions can be used as reactions to boost defenses, react to opportunities and other special but quick actions and reactions. So rather than your points, you still have the old graded system. However, like yours you can use these actions at any time.

One interesting thing you can do with this is represent really well a heftier weapon such as a greataxe and a light weapon such as a dagger.

Greataxe: This is always a standard action to swing. If you want to power attack with it, you may also have to spend a minor action with the major action. Wielding this sucker takes effort. The wielder when they have achieved a degree of strength and expertise might be able to perform an opportunity attack using a minor action but in reality, the thing is too hefty for the casual user for such antics.

Dagger: In comparison, the beauty of the dagger is how efficient the thing is to attack with. A proficient wielder can attack with it using a major action or also a minor action upon occasion (you might have triggers for this such as if a foe misses them, the wielder's major attack hits and so on). A more experienced dagger wielder though can perform opportunity attacks with just a swift action (kind of like the 3.x combat reflexes except that the opportunity attacks are neatly limited by the number of swift actions a character can perform).

In terms of playability, a player uses differently coloured d20 dice to represent their major, minor and swift actions; bagging them when they have been expended and returning them when they get their actions back. By using reactions for primarily defensive purposes, players will typically always hold one or two back rather than take too much time working out the most efficient manner of expending them, speeding play and keeping everyone attentive throughout a combat round.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Balesir]

Let's say we give each player four "action" points. Not as in the current framework, but instead as part of their turn they spend (or save) action points.

Different actions would cost different amounts.

Oh, heavens, where to start?

First off - practical gameplay considerations: as [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] says, if attacking can take the place of moving there is no reason to do anything but attack. The so-called "Minor Action problem" of players searching for something to do with their Minor Action would be writ large - the desperate search for ways to attack with every action would be on...

As almost an aside, early DragonQuest actually did almost exactly this - but changed it in the next version for a "Tactical Movement Rate" and single attack action. I.e., it has already been tried - it doesn't work well.

Next point:

For example, swinging a two handed weapon once would cost two points, whereas swinging a one handed weapon once would cost one point. The current "move action" would count as one point, as would the current standard action. However, this would require a rebalancing of some move and standard actions, especially where spells are concerned.

This is based on a series of serious misconceptions about how hand-to-hand combat using medieval martial systems works. The idea that two handed weapons are "slower" than one handed ones, to begin with, is totally false. The idea that "sword and board" fighting consists of using one element to attack (the "sword") and another to defend (the "board") is also totally wrong; Google "I33 manuscript" - the sword and shield are used together to attack. Forget the hollywood garbage with "guy 1 swings while guy 2 blocks, then gut 2 swings while guy 1 blocks" - any fighter following that rubric would be dead inside three seconds. You try to strike your enemy as he closes to try to strike you - while simultaneously moving to avoid his attack and controlling either his weapon or his shield with your shield.

Finally (for now), the idea that movement and attack are interchangable is misconceived. Moving - and some actions like drawing weapons, opening (unlocked) doors and rising from prone if no enemy is threatening - are things that the actor has autonomous control over. If I decide to walk to the window, I just do it, I don't have to wait for an opening or manoeuvre to create an opportunity to act. Attacking an opponent in a hand-to-hand combat is not like that - nor is dodging past them or getting to your feet when they are trying to kill you. These actions require that you wait for an opportunity - you must match your actions to what your opponent does, not simply go ahead and do what you want to do without regard to them.

That division is actually not a bad basis for the "Action"/"Move" split in 5e. If "Move" let you take any action that could be done freely and without regard to synchronising your timing with another, and "Actions" let you take an action synchronised with an enemy or even firend or combinations of these (think of acrobats or stuntmen synchronising their actions to perform "stunts"), that could work...

 

[Mallus]

It would slow down play. Therefore, it is a bad idea (for the base game).