D&D (2024) 4 Things Per Turn

[NotAYakk]

On each of your turn you can Move, Think, Talk and Act.

Movement is usually covered by your movement speed. But it can include stunting in a number of ways (jumping on a creature becomes a move, for example).

Thinking includes "do I see someone hidden", "what do I know about this monster". Thinking can be triggered by the PC or the DM - ie, if you hit or miss a creature, the DM can call for an ability check to see if you learn something.

Talking includes coordinating with your party, threatening monsters, confusing monsters with lies (or the truth!), etc. If you make a plan (and follow through) this could grant your allies advantage, you could get enemies to back off, etc.

Act is your Action and your Bonus Action. Core combat engine stuff, including spellcasting.

Core to all of this is that Think and Talk don't use up your action economy, unless you want to do more than one of them. I'm even tempted to include all 4 of these as possible reactions (!) - like, you get a Think/Talk/Move and an Act reaction, not just one reaction.

Having Think be a core part of the action economy means as the DM I can put in more puzzle monsters, and dribble out clues. Monsters who hide, monsters with weaknesses or strengths, alternative ways to win encounters besides kill everyone. Each turn the Player or the DM can be expected to trigger a Think roll (could be perception, knowledge, insight - even athletics to realize how someone moves has a specific feature).

Upgrading Talk to a first-class part of your action economy solves the "I yell for them to surrender". You are expected to coordinate and communicate with your team makes, and as the DM I should be giving out actual mechanical effects based on them. When you say "I'll deal with the golem, you handle the dwarves", the DM can call for a check; and on a success, hand out advantage for following the plan. But that Talk action overlaps with "Surrender, you don't stand a chance".

If I make it clear to the players that they can do 4 things on their turn, one from each column, they are more likely to do this, and I can't help but think this will make combat more cinematic and dynamic.

 

[Reynard]

On each of your turn you can Move, Think, Talk and Act.

Movement is usually covered by your movement speed. But it can include stunting in a number of ways (jumping on a creature becomes a move, for example).

Thinking includes "do I see someone hidden", "what do I know about this monster". Thinking can be triggered by the PC or the DM - ie, if you hit or miss a creature, the DM can call for an ability check to see if you learn something.

Talking includes coordinating with your party, threatening monsters, confusing monsters with lies (or the truth!), etc. If you make a plan (and follow through) this could grant your allies advantage, you could get enemies to back off, etc.

Act is your Action and your Bonus Action. Core combat engine stuff, including spellcasting.

Core to all of this is that Think and Talk don't use up your action economy, unless you want to do more than one of them. I'm even tempted to include all 4 of these as possible reactions (!) - like, you get a Think/Talk/Move and an Act reaction, not just one reaction.

Having Think be a core part of the action economy means as the DM I can put in more puzzle monsters, and dribble out clues. Monsters who hide, monsters with weaknesses or strengths, alternative ways to win encounters besides kill everyone. Each turn the Player or the DM can be expected to trigger a Think roll (could be perception, knowledge, insight - even athletics to realize how someone moves has a specific feature).

Upgrading Talk to a first-class part of your action economy solves the "I yell for them to surrender". You are expected to coordinate and communicate with your team makes, and as the DM I should be giving out actual mechanical effects based on them. When you say "I'll deal with the golem, you handle the dwarves", the DM can call for a check; and on a success, hand out advantage for following the plan. But that Talk action overlaps with "Surrender, you don't stand a chance".

If I make it clear to the players that they can do 4 things on their turn, one from each column, they are more likely to do this, and I can't help but think this will make combat more cinematic and dynamic.

I think you might find unintended consequences by creating a situation in which everyone is always scrounging for Advantage with the Talk action, and to a lesser extent the Think action as you have described them.

D&D is a role-playing game, and role-playing doesn't suddenly stop when initiative is rolled. The characters are still the characters. They should be acting their parts just as they would in the Tavern or the Royal Court. In addition, players should be engaging with the situation and asking questions, just as they do when moving down the dungeon corridor.

 

[ezo]

Move and Act are already core. Talking can be done whenever. Thinking, if you think about it, when it requires that much attention, becomes an Act.

Perhaps people might like this, but to me it seems just a way to bog down combat, which more often than not is too slow to begin with IMO.

But hey, sure, try it with your group. I don't see it catching on, frankly speaking, but I could be wrong.

 

[Quickleaf]

Spoiler: stupid humor

GM: "Alright, we're in the Thinking phase of initiative against the intellect devourers. Tom, what are you doing?"

Tom: "Definitely not thinking."

Marcy: "Me either. No thoughts. Empty as a sieve."

Dougie: "What do I know about intellect devourers? I rolled a 13."

Marcy: "No! Dougie, it's a t–"

GM: "So you're thinking about what you can remember about intellect devourers? Excellent. Well, you know they are creations of mind flayers attracted to thinking creatures..."

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I kind of have always done it similar to that. I think I have (or should have) characters make a roll if they want to make an intimidation check in combat, but I'm not sure I've been completely consistent with that when it comes up.

I give people lore checks to see what they know about the creatures they encountered for free.

I figure if you know it you know it. Yes, there is some merit to trying to remember something, but if I required an action for that nobody is a going to do it, and I prefer a lore-heavy game.

 

[sevenbastard]

Perhaps people might like this, but to me it seems just a way to bog down combat, which more often than not is too slow to begin with IMO.

Yeah it's already a struggle to get my players to think fast enough during thier turn let alone give thier charachter a option to think......

 

[Horwath]

On each of your turn you can Move, Think, Talk and Act.

Movement is usually covered by your movement speed. But it can include stunting in a number of ways (jumping on a creature becomes a move, for example).

Thinking includes "do I see someone hidden", "what do I know about this monster". Thinking can be triggered by the PC or the DM - ie, if you hit or miss a creature, the DM can call for an ability check to see if you learn something.

Talking includes coordinating with your party, threatening monsters, confusing monsters with lies (or the truth!), etc. If you make a plan (and follow through) this could grant your allies advantage, you could get enemies to back off, etc.

Act is your Action and your Bonus Action. Core combat engine stuff, including spellcasting.

Core to all of this is that Think and Talk don't use up your action economy, unless you want to do more than one of them. I'm even tempted to include all 4 of these as possible reactions (!) - like, you get a Think/Talk/Move and an Act reaction, not just one reaction.

Having Think be a core part of the action economy means as the DM I can put in more puzzle monsters, and dribble out clues. Monsters who hide, monsters with weaknesses or strengths, alternative ways to win encounters besides kill everyone. Each turn the Player or the DM can be expected to trigger a Think roll (could be perception, knowledge, insight - even athletics to realize how someone moves has a specific feature).

Upgrading Talk to a first-class part of your action economy solves the "I yell for them to surrender". You are expected to coordinate and communicate with your team makes, and as the DM I should be giving out actual mechanical effects based on them. When you say "I'll deal with the golem, you handle the dwarves", the DM can call for a check; and on a success, hand out advantage for following the plan. But that Talk action overlaps with "Surrender, you don't stand a chance".

If I make it clear to the players that they can do 4 things on their turn, one from each column, they are more likely to do this, and I can't help but think this will make combat more cinematic and dynamic.

but, I'm a barbarian, I would like to hit them one extra time on the head instead of Thinking and Talking.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Move and Act are already core. Talking can be done whenever. Thinking, if you think about it, when it requires that much attention, becomes an Act.

The problem is, almost all "Thinking requiring that much attention becomes an Act" stuff ends up making 99% of "Thinking" never, ever actually worth doing. You're better served just doing something that actively advances resolution of the current conflict.

It's the same as the problem with healing others being a whole Action. All you're doing is delaying, unless that healing either (a) specifically makes the difference between life and death for that character, or (b) enables that character to do something they could not have done without it. This is the very specific reason why 4e had Minor Action healing, and why 5e's repeated attempts to do away with Minor/Bonus Action stuff have failed. (Now they're trying to do an end-run...via extremely 4e-like exception-based design. It's not been popular because, surprise surprise, that's really complicated and harder to remember!)

Perhaps people might like this, but to me it seems just a way to bog down combat, which more often than not is too slow to begin with IMO.

This is certainly a valid concern with any attempt to "fix" the action economy. But the fact is, not all doable things are equally valuable, and trying to force absolutely all of them to live within a single equal-value Action is a great way to discourage people from ever doing a lot of cool things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

but, I'm a barbarian, I would like to hit them one extra time on the head instead of Thinking and Talking.

I'm sure there are a lot of things you would like instead.

Would doing that actually lead to the game as a whole being a better experience? Would it even lead to you having a better experience long-term?

That's what game design is for. Testing and evaluating to find out whether something like this is actually good for the game-experience of the people at the table, in a sufficient percentage of cases to be worthwhile. Nothing will please 100% of people 100% of the time. Many things that would please people the first 100 times won't please them the next 9900 times. Some things that would be unpleasant in isolation are extremely important for providing an overall pleasant experience.

You have to actually test to find out. "But I don't want to Think or Talk, I want to HIT!" is about as bad as saying, "I don't want to have bitter or sour, I want SWEET!" Even though caramel, one of the most important candy components ever cooked, contains bitterness! Sometimes, to make a sweet thing more deliciously sweet, you may actually need just enough bitterness or sourness or, heck, even umami in some cases!

 

[Horwath]

I'm sure there are a lot of things you would like instead.

Would doing that actually lead to the game as a whole being a better experience? Would it even lead to you having a better experience long-term?

That's what game design is for. Testing and evaluating to find out whether something like this is actually good for the game-experience of the people at the table, in a sufficient percentage of cases to be worthwhile. Nothing will please 100% of people 100% of the time. Many things that would please people the first 100 times won't please them the next 9900 times. Some things that would be unpleasant in isolation are extremely important for providing an overall pleasant experience.

You have to actually test to find out. "But I don't want to Think or Talk, I want to HIT!" is about as bad as saying, "I don't want to have bitter or sour, I want SWEET!" Even though caramel, one of the most important candy components ever cooked, contains bitterness! Sometimes, to make a sweet thing more deliciously sweet, you may actually need just enough bitterness or sourness or, heck, even umami in some cases!

I hear you, that is why yelling out for help is a free or non-action, while talking about something specific should be an Action atleast.

and as getting opponent to surrender is saving future resources, attempt at that should be an Action.

remembering stuff should be a non action, while actively reading something for info should be Action or even longer, depending on amount of information.