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

[UngeheuerLich]

Huch?

Strange things to wonder.

Attack of opportunities will be in... i am very certain about that. Swordmage Aegis and Hunter´s Quarry... both were nice ideas, but rather stupid in the end. Why not simply say, that the ranger deals 1d6 on his first attack, if he attacks the nearest foe. Why not just state, that each round, the swordmage choses a creature to ward?

Minor action juggling was very bad in actual play. Usually nothing bad had happened, if you could take two or 3 minor actions in a single turn.
Also the 1 free action attack per turn and the vast number of minor action attacks undermined the economy.

Also I have to commend Firelance for his considerations about attack -> move in this particular order.

Old versions of D&D had something similar IIRC (maybe it was rolemaster)

Initiative was split by action phases:

1st ranged phase
1st move phase
melee phase
2nd move phase
2nd ranged phase

or something like that.

Initiative is just a way to break a continous flow of time into chunks.
I believe too many phases is clunky, but there could an argument beeing made about following initiative resolution

1. Attack phase: (best initiative goes first)

2. Movement phase: (best initiative goes last)

Charges happen in the attack phase.

 

[Redbadge]

If you're in a dungeon or similar setting and you don't have your weapon drawn and readied, you're stupid. Why on earth would you put your sword away if you might be jumped by a horde of goblins at any moment?

If you're relaxing in a tavern... well, either your group worries about things like terrifying all the other patrons and starting a riot, or it doesn't. If it does, you have a good reason to put your sword away. If not, you really will have your weapon in hand at all times, but nobody cares so it doesn't matter.

Quick Draw is an excellent example of what I said above about the need for soul-searching. Contrary to your assertion, it's not inevitable. We don't have to have Quick Draw. The game works just fine without it, and in fact I have rarely seen anyone take Quick Draw in either 3E or 4E. It is a cool and flavorful ability, however... which just happens to require an extension of the action economy. And there will be many other abilities in a similar vein. So the designers need to ask themselves if they can make a pledge to strictly limit such abilities and stick to that pledge. If so, awesome. If not, acknowledge the fact.

I had considered your rebuttal about having weapons out at all times, but I was just too lazy to address it from the outset. From my experience there are many situations where it would normally be fine for a PC to have his weapon sheathed and yet still anticipate the possibility of combat, precisely because he still has ready and easy access to it.

I think it adds greatly to the narrative for the fighter to be walking along the road (or castle passage, city street, etc.) with his weapon sheathed (not uncommon in fantasy literature and cinema by any means, although usually subverted in video games), and then dramatically draw his weapon when confronted with a threat. Note that I admit that this is still possible under the proposed economy, and it might be even more dramatic because it would feel like a very resonating and protracted action. However, most players would not be pleased with this, and would have to choose between dramatic unsheathing or the ability to attack on turn 1 (perhaps a minor nitpick, I admit, depending on how quick, dynamic, and easy to resolve combat actually is).

As for the attractiveness of Quick Draw in 3e and 4e, in these systems drawing your weapon wasn't a standard action. It is a much bigger benefit to go from Standard to free, than from Move/Minor to free. Obviously, if drawing your weapon *isn't* a Standard action in the proposed economy, my objection is less relevant (though it might apply in any number of other types of scenarios, i.e. potion drinking, etc.)

 

[Shadeydm]

These sound like things that can easily be free actions, or included in attacks (much like how a fighter marks simply by attacking).

Sure but how many free actions will be allowed, will immediate reactions or immediate interrupts also be free actions? Will be shielding swordmage mark you with his aegis as a free action, mitigate damage with said aegis as a free action all on the same turn? will all free actions be capped per round? Are all free actions created equal? Will he mark the baddie, mitigate some damage and still be able to make an opportunity attack? It is potentially a very slippery slope I think.

 

[Blackwarder]

Without minor actions, this "in-addition-to economy" has to happen. For example, there will almost certainly be a "Quick Draw" ability/feat, and this ability/feat will look something like "you may draw your weapon as part of the same action to make an attack." Otherwise, you'll have weird scenarios in which players try to preclude the need for their characters to "waste" a standard action. For the preceding example, if drawing a sword takes the same action that attacking with it does, PCs will be doing things such as always having their weapon drawn and readied (even more so than prior editions), otherwise their character is essentially stunned the first turn of every fight.

Only reason to have actions like those is because 3e came up with the brilliant idea of one round takes six seconds... When the round was around one minute drawing a weapon was considered quick and usually didn't take any action to resolve, all you needed was the DM approval.

Warder

 

[Redbadge]

Only reason to have actions like those is because 3e came up with the brilliant idea of one round takes six seconds... When the round was around one minute drawing a weapon was considered quick and usually didn't take any action to resolve, all you needed was the DM approval.

Warder

I was working from the descriptions I've seen (or inferred?) of the proposed system, intended by the designers to make combat quicker and simpler:

You get a single action and a single move on your turn, and *everything* is an "action," from opening a door, to retrieving a potion, to drinking a potion, and yes, to drawing a weapon.

And if these simple, one-time, easy to resolve actions include some number of extra actions rolled into them, then I'm thinking I'll have to adjust my perspective to see how it's quicker and easier to resolve.

Just so you know, I do think the following is very quick and easy to follow, which is the system that I've envisioned as they discuss the new action economy:

John: I'll move in front of the wizard and draw my weapon.
Jack: I'll move behind that cover and load my crossbow.
Jill: I'll move adjacent to the other door and see if it is locked.
Jane: I'll cast Fireball on those three gnolls.

However, I'm just trying to think of the merits and potential drawbacks of such a system, if it is anything like what they intend, through friendly EnWorld discussion.

 

[Blackwarder]

I was working from the descriptions I've seen (or inferred?) of the proposed system, intended by the designers to make combat quicker and simpler:

You get a single action and a single move on your turn, and *everything* is an "action," from opening a door, to retrieving a potion, to drinking a potion, and yes, to drawing a weapon.

And if these simple, one-time, easy to resolve actions include some number of extra actions rolled into them, then I'm thinking I'll have to adjust my perspective to see how it's quicker and easier to resolve.

Just so you know, I do think the following is very quick and easy to follow, which is the system that I've envisioned as they discuss the new action economy:

John: I'll move in front of the wizard and draw my weapon.
Jack: I'll move behind that cover and load my crossbow.
Jill: I'll move adjacent to the other door and see if it is locked.
Jane: I'll cast Fireball on those three gnolls.

However, I'm just trying to think of the merits and potential drawbacks of such a system, if it is anything like what they intend, through friendly EnWorld discussion.

I think that you are taking it all wrong, and as I've said before I think it's due to the fact that we all got used to think about the combat round lasting only six seconds, in those time increments taking an action to draw a sword, load a bow or retrieving a potion seems logical but if your round is one minute long than doing all of that stuff could just be rolled into a major action, just like in the example I quoted in my earlier post from 2e PHB, it might seems like the fighter there did a lot of things but basically he taken a move action to withdraw (while a buddy covered him) and than an action to takeout a potion and drink it, they even rolled leaving the backpack behind and picking up his sword in the same round.

I don't know about you, but to me it seems that if you want a core game with simplified yet interesting and flexible rules than rolling all of those actions into a common sense narrative is the key and I think that the guys at WotC try to do just that with a system that was in uses in 2e.

Warder

 

[GX.Sigma]

John: I'll move in front of the wizard and draw my weapon.
Jack: I'll move behind that cover and load my crossbow.
Jill: I'll move adjacent to the other door and see if it is locked.
Jane: I'll cast Fireball on those three gnolls.

You know, when you put it like that, it sounds like the best idea I've ever heard. Better than:

Bill: I'll move... Well, should I get into a flanking position? Didn't you have some power that lets me shift one square as reaction? Okay, I'll go... there. Move me there. And then I'll use... should I use the encounter? Okay, I'll use Reaping Smite. *roll attack* *roll damage* Okay, and so... yeah, that's me.
Zoey: I'll--
Bill: Wait! Minor to mark.
Louis: *zzz...*

 

[Redbadge]

I think that you are taking it all wrong, and as I've said before I think it's due to the fact that we all got used to think about the combat round lasting only six seconds, in those time increments taking an action to draw a sword, load a bow or retrieving a potion seems logical but if your round is one minute long than doing all of that stuff could just be rolled into a major action, just like in the example I quoted in my earlier post from 2e PHB, it might seems like the fighter there did a lot of things but basically he taken a move action to withdraw (while a buddy covered him) and than an action to takeout a potion and drink it, they even rolled leaving the backpack behind and picking up his sword in the same round.

I don't know about you, but to me it seems that if you want a core game with simplified yet interesting and flexible rules than rolling all of those actions into a common sense narrative is the key and I think that the guys at WotC try to do just that with a system that was in uses in 2e.

Warder

I found the article, by Monte Cook, that I was trying to remember: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (What Can You Do?).

Interestingly, it seems that I did miss this part: "How much simpler it would be if you just did one thing on your turn. If things worked that way, there would be no need to categorize actions. You would attack or move or cast a spell. The game could then be generous with stuff that "didn't count," like drawing a weapon or item, opening a door, and so on. Rounds would likely cycle faster as people moved through their turns faster. Not only would each player be doing less, but more importantly, you wouldn't have players searching for extra actions to squeeze every last bit of value out of their turn. This kind of simplification breaks with game history, so older players might balk. But to a new player, the statement "you can do one action on your turn" makes a lot of sense. And it makes individual turns shorter and faster."

However, as GM.Sigma mentions above, there is some appeal in to literally making everything an action. That would make Monte's scenario of few things to do on each turn, but a much quicker turn cycle even more visceral. I'd have to playtest that though, because as both Monte and I have pointed out, a player may feel like they've "wasted" a turn if they have to draw a weapon rather than make an attack. However, this may be mitigated if the game could move blazingly fast as a result.

Thoughts?

 

[Blackwarder]

Btw, am I the only one who think that the Drow story arch is WotC first step in bringing back vanician magic to FR? Seems to me that by the end of this story arch there will be a new goddess of magic and a new weave to draw arcane magic from.

Warder

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sure but how many free actions will be allowed, will immediate reactions or immediate interrupts also be free actions? Will be shielding swordmage mark you with his aegis as a free action, mitigate damage with said aegis as a free action all on the same turn? will all free actions be capped per round? Are all free actions created equal? Will he mark the baddie, mitigate some damage and still be able to make an opportunity attack? It is potentially a very slippery slope I think.

These are all specifics that are pretty easy to work out once you have the broad framework in place.

For the aegis, specifically, you might be able to mark as a free action, then reduce damage automatically (as a non-action/reaction/part of the triggering attack).

For opportunity attacks, I think that's a bit of a different point. I'm currently of the opinion that 5e probably won't have them in the basic rules. If you want to add them with the "minis combat" module (or whatever), that might give every character a floating "opportunity action," in which case, sure the swordmage can also still make an opportunity attack.

I don't think there's any inherent balance problem with letting a swordmage do all of that, since, currently, a swordmage can pretty much do all of that.