D&D 5E Action Types - Rules As Written

[Charlaquin]

At YOUR table perhaps, but to make a blanket statement like that about how 4e played out across the board is absurd. I remember plenty of times (and listened to plenty of actual play podcasts) in which players would carry on at excruciating length over what they should do for their minor actions and free actions.

And there are plenty of times at plenty of tables where players carry on at excruciating length over what they should do with their action, bonus action, movement, and interaction with an object in 5e, so what’s your point? Both action economies provide the player with roughly the same number of decisions to make on each of their turns. There’s no accounting for how long some players may take to make those decisions.

This is nonsense.

4e: (1) Standard Action (2) Move Action (3) Minor Action (4) Free action

A free Action was free, it didn’t take up any part of the action economy or create an additional decision point on your turn.

Compare to 5e:

(1) Move (2) Action

You’re missing bonus action, object interaction, and if you’re going to count free actions as part of 4e’s action economy, communicating. That’s exactly the same number of discrete action types. More if you count Movement as part of the action economy.

Half as many, with a few exceptions when situations allow (bonus actions and reactions). Object interaction is really nothing more than, "If you want to do some additional little thing, tell the DM and he'll adjudicate it," which is exactly how it was always done in the old school editions.

A bonus action is no more an exception than a minor action is. Either way you can’t use one unless you have something to use it on, the distinction between having a minor action each turn that you might or might not spend and not having a bonus action to spend unless an ability gives you something to spend it on (but you can still only use one such ability per turn) is a difference in presentation, not in functionality. As for object interaction, you may treat it as “if you want to do some additional little thing, the DM can adjudicate it”, but that’s not how the rules treat it. By the rules, you get one object interaction per turn. If you want to interact with more than one object, it takes an action to do so. You’re of course free to treat it more leniently if you like, I’m pretty sure the significant majority of DM’s do, myself included. At that point, however, it’s functionally equivalent to a free action in 4e.

As far as that goes, 5e's "action economy" is far closer to Moldvay Basic (on your turn you can move and attack/cast a spell) than 4e, in fact it's simpler in many respects ("Disengage" is infinitely more straightforward than the "fighting withdrawal" in B/X, for example).

It presents itself that way, yes, but if you pay attention to what those “little exceptions” are actually doing within the rules, they create an action economy that is functionally almost identical to the 4e action economy, with the things that were previously move actions recreated as actions or given a Movement cost, a few things that used to be minor actions shifted to either be standard or free actions, and some additional guidelines for adjudicating free actions.

 

[Charlaquin]

I just looked up the 4e rules, and, yes, drawing a weapon or interacting with an object is a Minor Action. However, there are also hundreds of powers that can use a Minor Action.

I think this is an important distinction from 5e. In 5e, most of the "powers" (or features) that would use a Minor Action in 4e use a bonus action. So in that respect, the bonus action of 5e is the Minor Action of 4e. However, in 5e, any interaction with an object, drawing of a weapon, or simple activity, is just called "interacting with an object." There's never any circumstance where a player would need to sacrifice a bonus action in order to "interact with an object" or just do something minor in the game world. The rules provide some guidance that's a little vague and confusing on just how much "interacting with an object" can be done in one turn. Personally, I no longer think about this and prefer to just use common sense. Which I can do, since object interaction doesn't interact or interfere with class powers, abilities and features.

Exactly. In effect, they shifted some of the uses of Minor Actions to become free actions, and gave some guidelines on how to adjudicate the logical limit of what you can do with free actions in one turn.

 

[Blue]

I would also kick out bonus action and mold its features into regular Action.

Smite spells and hunters mark could work like regular divine smite. After you hit spend a spell slot for that specific effect.

Two weapon fighting just adds offhand attack to main hand attack action.

Same as Polearm master or crossbow expert.

Rogues could make instead of one action, perform one extra action per turn, Like fighters extra action but limited to: Dash, Disengage, Hide.

Curious, would you codify these in some way in order to keep the "one bonus action per turn"? Or allow it so you could potentially redirect a Hex spell, attack with an off-hand weapon, and cast a healing word in the same round?

If there's going to be a keyword that describes these extra actions and limits them, I don't see a problem with them also providing this bonus action. On the other hand, if they are just things you can do - including several per round - then there is no need for such rules.

 

[Hussar]

Ah, now I'm feeling all nostalgic. Seems like just yesterday these arguments were all the rage. Been so long since I've seen these particular semantic wanks being played out.

Good times, good times.

Have to admit though, someone trying to claim that Moldvay Basic's action economy was simple is a new one though. That's just really funny.

 

[John Brebeuf]

'Simple' is, undoubtedly, relative to the intellectual wherewithal of the one doing the assessment.

 

[24Fanatic365]

It may be because I'm super new to TTRPG, but I'm really just doing it to have fun. I've played with two different groups on Roll20, the first not so great because the DM was kinda all over the place, and the current group I'm playing with being great fun, even though we don't get treasure much. We do get to kill a bunch of stuff, though!

I've played with two different groups doing Adventurers League at the local gaming shop, too, with two different DMs. The house rules were different with each one, but the first time they came up, I thought, "That's a little different.", but I'm there to play the game and have a social night of fun, so who really cares if we aren't playing RAW. And, yes, I've actually read the PHB, except for the last 40 pages or so of the spells toward the end of the book, and about 20% of the DMG.

Although I'm a player who likes to roll dice for EVERYTHING I'm allowed to roll for, I really don't mind only rolling one damage die when I crit. The house rule for crits at my current AL game is to take max damage on one damage die, and then just roll the other one. I don't particularly care for that one, because I want the dice to determine everything the dice could possibly determine. But, only rolling one damage die is still stupid fun. And for me to NOT roll only one and take max damage on the other, unrolled damage die could actually be detrimental to my party, because I could leave a creature alive that may otherwise be finished off.

While I like the RAW, the main goal is to have fun and build memories about chopping evil creatures up, and possibly saving the world, right? Maybe I'm still too new, since we've only been playing since the first of September. I do hope the rules don't ever get in the way of the fun factor around the table for me, though. Just a random thought from a newbie to D&D.

 

[Hussar]

/snippage of goodness

Just a random thought from a newbie to D&D.

Dude, or dudette, welcome to the hobby, the boards, and just let me say that you are doing it 100% right.

 

[Horwath]

Curious, would you codify these in some way in order to keep the "one bonus action per turn"? Or allow it so you could potentially redirect a Hex spell, attack with an off-hand weapon, and cast a healing word in the same round?

If there's going to be a keyword that describes these extra actions and limits them, I don't see a problem with them also providing this bonus action. On the other hand, if they are just things you can do - including several per round - then there is no need for such rules.

Hex/hunters mark redirect. After your target dies redirect the spell. No action. no limit.

Off hand attack, PAM, CE extra attacks are tied with Attack action with that weapon. And are mutualy exclusive. Or they should be.

I would simply remove healing word spell. Mold it into cure wounds. 1d4/per spell level if casted ranged. 1d8/level if by touch. Flavor it that you can channel more energy while in direct contact with the target.

 

[Blue]

Hex/hunters mark redirect. After your target dies redirect the spell. No action. no limit.

Off hand attack, PAM, CE extra attacks are tied with Attack action with that weapon. And are mutualy exclusive. Or they should be.

These all make sense. And by making the Attack option only overloaded one way you avoid a bunch of problems. I like.

I would simply remove healing word spell. Mold it into cure wounds. 1d4/per spell level if casted ranged. 1d8/level if by touch. Flavor it that you can channel more energy while in direct contact with the target.

Back in over a decade of 2nd and then more in 3.x, we also had to talk people into playing a healer because it took their action. 4e and 5e broke this, and I think that's a large positive step that I wouldn't want to lose.

If I wanted to keep healing that didn't take up an action, how would you suggest? A no-action spell, but maximum of once per turn? Could me extend it to Quicken metamagic and other bonus action spells?

 

[Charlaquin]

Back in over a decade of 2nd and then more in 3.x, we also had to talk people into playing a healer because it took their action. 4e and 5e broke this, and I think that's a large positive step that I wouldn't want to lose.

If I wanted to keep healing that didn't take up an action, how would you suggest? A no-action spell, but maximum of once per turn? Could me extend it to Quicken metamagic and other bonus action spells?

I’m personally a fan of Bonus Actions, but if one was of a mind to remove them, spells like this could be handled by including the ability to do something else as part of the effect of the spell. Kind of like green flame blade and the other gish spells from SCAG, Healing Word could allow you to make an Attack or cast a Cantrip as part of the action used to cast it, for example.

Removing Bonus Actions ultimately just means anything that would allow multiple actions in one turn needs to be modeled using exceptions-based design. Like how every spell or ability that forces a Saving Throw has to tell you that as part of its effect, in a single-action system, any ability that allowed you to do more than a single action would normally allow would just have to tell you so as part of its effect.