D&D 5E 5th edition design notes: Per Round powers and triggered actions

[DracoSuave]

As a usage, 'per-round' would replace at-will powers that can only be used once per round...


....that really only matters to certain class features. You're idea here is to replace the text 'This can only be used once per round' with 'Per Round'...

...it saves on text but it isn't actually any more understandable. If your players have trouble grokking 'This can only be used once per round' then they'll have trouble grokking 'Per Round indicates a power that can only be used once per round.'


Also, if you have a reaction, it happens after the trigger. In the case of your sneak attack, extra damage would be added after damage is resolved. It does not work, because it's too late at that point. It would have to be an interrupt triggered by the rolling of damage for it to work like it does now. It changes it from a non-action to an action, which makes it react to abilities it really has no business acting with. You would be unable to use sneak attack on a charge, for example, and given there's a rogue build based around that, that would be a Bad Thing (TM). Breaking existing classes to support a 'simplification' that doesn't actually simplify is not a good thing to do.

Not to mention, the 'dazed' ability would prevent it, and any damage adders for rangers, etc, from working under this scheme, unless they were passive like sorcerers.

It's because of things like 'dazed' that certain things are 'free actions' and other things are not. The division of action types becomes necessary so that certain rules work with things they are intended to work with, and do not work with things they are not.

I understand what you are trying to do, but please try to understand -why- the rules are the way they are before attempting to hack and slash through them and make them 'better'.



I do agree that templating could be cleaned up a lot, especially for older powers... one must understand that Dungeons and Dragons is not a competitive game involving rules that must work for every situation because tournaments, money, and prizes are at stake. It's a cooperative role playing game with make rules that are deliberately designed to be interpreted by a living breathing entity with his own ideas on how the game should be played.

D&D does not need one of these. Cleaning up the rules is fine... but cleaning it up just so that corner cases that never occur in 99% of all -actual- games don't pop up is wasted effort that only serves to make a game more incomprehensible.

And you can't spell incomprehensible without reprehensible.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The PHB in particular has needlessly sloppy core rules text. It could easily be both comprehensible and MUCH more precise. Sure, its not a competitive game and there are plenty of things that can be left open ended, but when nobody can actually figure out what the word 'attack' means I don't exactly think they succeeded in writing quality rules text.

 

[mkill]

@DracoSuave: Good points I haven't thought of. I'll look over it again and make changes.

You especially make a good point about free actions. I still think there are too many triggered free action attacks in the game, but they are probably okay if the power/feature only adds to something that already eats an action (like sneak attack does).

One thing directly: The "per round" rule is mainly motivated by the current Sneak Attack text. Just look at it. It's bloody awful.
"Per encounter" and "per day" are self-explanatory (intuition: get it back after the encounter / the day ends). So why not "per round" (intuition: get it back after the round ends). Who came up with "at-will (special)" + "Special: Can be used once per round"? That's not clear and concise game design.

The PHB in particular has needlessly sloppy core rules text. It could easily be both comprehensible and MUCH more precise.

Oh yes, I absolutely agree. The weird part is that 3rd edition with all its quirks, imbalances and splatbook mayhem still had very clear and concise core rules. If you compare just the PHB of 3rd and 4th edition and just the definitions of core terms and the combat rules, 3rd edition feels like a very finished, polished product. 4th edition feels like a rushed hackjob.

(The other contributing factor is that 3rd edition had an art director, 4th edition was put together by an underpaid intern.)

If 5th edition ever happens, please for the love of good:

* Define all terms precisely. Start with "attack".

* If you miss a good term / condition / whatever, write one, don't always shoehorn every effect in your limited defined vocabulary. I'd rather have a new "frozen" condition instead of some combination of "restrained" and "ongoing 10 cold damage". Not only does this give a more unique flavor to cold powers, you could add a new "thaw" spell to end it. We're badly missing a good fear/scared/fleeing condition.

* Avoid ambiguity. Don't call it "Death Save" if it's not a standard saving throw and it's unclear whether something that applies to saving throws applies here too.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The PHB in particular has needlessly sloppy core rules text. It could easily be both comprehensible and MUCH more precise. Sure, its not a competitive game and there are plenty of things that can be left open ended, but when nobody can actually figure out what the word 'attack' means I don't exactly think they succeeded in writing quality rules text.

The hard part of rules text leading up to the first book of a new edition is that the rules are getting created, worked, changed, and edited every single day for months on end prior to release. So trying to maintain a semblance of cohesiveness with rules and terminology was probably not the easiest thing in the world. We can look back at it now (having had two years of worldwide playtesting, errata, and new rules created based off these original ideas) and we can see the glaring holes that now exist in the first PH (like something as simple as a clearly-state definition within the Wand of Accuracy power whether the DEX mod added to the attack roll could occur after hearing whether the attack was a hit or miss for example.)

At the end of the swirling mass of terms and rules created by WotC for the first PH is when you really needed the worldwide playing of the game to occur before the book actually went to press. That way all our fresh eyes could have told them "Hey, this Divine Challenge power isn't as good as the fighter's one", or "Here's the math between Careful Strike and Twin Strike as you've written it, and there's absolutely no way Careful Strike can ever be better than Twin Strike unless you add the Ranger's modifier to damage".

So we can't fault WotC completely for not having all their rules and terminology ducks completely in rows prior to the first publication of the new rules, and truth be told we should marvel at how many rules they had and how well they actually worked together, all things considering. But we are now at the point where we have a working game that could have a few bumps combed out should it ever go to print again, and mkill's just giving us a few places where we could start moving the brush.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Who came up with "at-will (special)" + "Special: Can be used once per round"? That's not clear and concise game design.

I felt the same way when I first got the PHI with things like the Healing Word encounter (supposedly) power. An encounter power that isn't used once per encounter. It's used twice. Doesn't that fly in the face of using terms like 'encounter' in the first place?

Eventually I just got over it, because I came to the conclusion that there was NO good way to term Healing or Inspiring Word or any other ability which could be used more than once in an encounter but not all the time (that nebulous place between encounter and at-will). Shy of creating purple "twice per encounter" powers and orange "thrice per encounter" powers, just tacking a 'Special:' to the red powers as needed was probably the best you could really do. But I certainly hear where you're coming from.

 

[Piratecat]

Best to put these in House Rules, please.

 

[CovertOps]

@mkill: This sounds like a good idea, but I think you'll need to rework something like this:

SNEAK ATTACK (5th edition)
Rogue Class Feature
Per Round
Triggered Reaction
Action Type: Free
Trigger: You hit an enemy with an attack while you have combat advantage against that enemy.
Required: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling
Effect: The attack deals 2d6 extra damage. Increase the damage to 3d6 at 11th level and 5d6 at 21st level.


Aegis of Shielding (5th edition)

You blunt an enemy's attack against your ally.

Per Round - Arcane
Triggered Interrupt - Close burst 10
Action Type: Immediate (you can only use one Immediate action per round)
Trigger: An enemy you marked hits an enemy with an attack that doesn’t include you as a target
Target: The triggering enemy
Effect: You reduce the damage dealt by the attack by an amount equal to 5 + your Constitution modifier.
At 11th level, reduce the damage dealt by 10 + your Constitution modifier. At 21st level, reduce the damage dealt by 15 + your Constitution modifier.

I understand completely about the "hidden" once per round aspect of Immediate actions and even more so that you cannot use them on your turn. Last week in my game I had a 14th level Halfling Rogue/Shadow Assassin using a daily stance power that (as an immediate reaction) allows the PC to (at-will) attack anyone who attacks him/her. We couldn't find the rule on Immediate actions even though I was sure you couldn't use them on your own turn, so as DM I just let the player do it. Of course he was stacking that with the auto DEX damage from his PP (SA) and his +12 AC vs. OA's with Opportunity Knocks to:
1. Do DEX damage
2. Get CA
3. Once per round use his "riposte" attack from the stance.

Of course working it this way makes that daily much more powerful OR it was underpowered to begin with since it requires the monsters to attack you.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the core idea is solid.

While it would be a bit hard to use it in the current game, as the once per trigger type actions may cause a lot of conflicts with current rules...it seems a solid streamline for a future update.

 

[mkill]

@Defcon: You do have a point. 4th edition did a very thorough revamping of the system, and it is remarkably consistent for that.
However, what I would like to see with 5th edition is less revolution and more polish. To use a software analogy, I want Snow Leopard instead of OS X 10.0.

@CovertOps: You're not really changing anything, you're just switching labels. There really should be only one type of action for interrupt / reaction powers to avoid confusion. Even if you make the "immediate action - 1/round" explicit, you still have to deal with the difference of free, immediate and possibly opportunity actions.


How about this rule:

"Triggered actions don't trigger other triggered actions."

This should prevent chain of event situations like you describe.

A rogue moves out of a square next to a dragon.
-> Dragon makes opportunity attack.
---> Rogue uses triggered free action power to dodge the attack (give himself an AC bonus)
------> Dragon misses.
---> Fighter has dragon marked, uses Combat Challenge to attack dragon. Hits.
------> Dragon is bloodied.
---------> Dragon uses bloodied breath.
------------> Wizard uses Shield to protect himself from dragon breath.
---------------> Dragon hits, kills Wizard.
------------------> Cleric uses Unexpected Return to grant Wizard a healing surge and bring him back up.
> Rogue shoots dragon with crossbow (it's still his turn!!)

We've definitely had such rounds in our game. While some people might consider this a dynamic fight, it's also the reason 4th edition fights can turn into a crawl. With the above rule, you have a much more straightforward situation, where the PC or monster acts because it is his turn, and everyone else can react, but the chain stops there.

(Of course, you could add reasonable exceptions, like a feat that allows a defender to use his mark to punish opportunity attacks)

As a side effect, this would also stop combos where you grant yourself one triggered action after the other.

 

[mkill]

Also, if you have a reaction, it happens after the trigger. In the case of your sneak attack, extra damage would be added after damage is resolved. It does not work, because it's too late at that point. It would have to be an interrupt triggered by the rolling of damage for it to work like it does now.

From a pure game mechanics point of view, it is doable. Look at the monk's Flurry of Blows. This is a striker bonus damage feature that is also a separate action from the attack (a free action).

However, you do have a point with...

It changes it from a non-action to an action, which makes it react to abilities it really has no business acting with.

Let's do it as you say and make it triggered, but (literally) no action:

SNEAK ATTACK (5th edition, 2nd draft)
Rogue Class Feature
Per Round
No Action
Trigger: You hit an enemy with an attack while you have combat advantage against that enemy.
Required: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling
Effect: The attack deals 2d6 extra damage. Increase the damage to 3d6 at 11th level and 5d6 at 21st level.

You would be unable to use sneak attack on a charge, for example, and given there's a rogue build based around that, that would be a Bad Thing (TM). Breaking existing classes to support a 'simplification' that doesn't actually simplify is not a good thing to do.

TBH, "charge ends your turn" is another rule that I would kick if I would write 5th edition. But that's part of a different set of revisions...