D&D 5E 5e actions economy VS other editions and systems

[RangerWickett]

I'm considering a system where each round you have two stages. First, in initiative order, everyone moves. Then, in initiative order, everyone acts. Ideally with some mechanics to encourage moving around the battlefield for advantage. One of the things I like least about D&D and PF is the idea that the big dragon stands in one place and goes claw/claw/bite/tail/wing/wing, but if it moves it only gets one attack, so the fight ends up very static.

I want a way to capture the Princess Bride-style "clashing swords as they move back and forth across the landscape" duel.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In Scion, you basically draw a pie chart with 8 slices, each of which is a 'tick.' Your starting initiative determines which tick you act on first, and then whenever you take an action, you move your marker around the chart a certain number of ticks, then don't act until the turn cycles around to you. Some quick movement might just be one tick, sprinting might be 3, aiming could be 1 to 3, and most attacks were 4 or 5 ticks. That was perhaps a realistic model, but it didn't feel cinematic, because you never got a good 'establishing shot and scene' for a character like you do in turn-based games.

I've been reading Arcanis, and it uses a similar system, except the pie is split into twelve slices. There are also a lot of mechanics that can push you down 1d4 ticks, or prevent you from using spells or maneuvers for a number of ticks after you've just used one. The whole thing just seems like a lot of work, and a lot of things to track.

Since you seem to be more familiar with this sort of thing, do you have any idea what the point is of representing it as a cycle? Why have 8 or 12 ticks and then start over, instead of just continuing to count up until the end of combat? Why bother saying that something takes place on the fifth tick of the second round, instead of just calling it tick 13?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ready Action lets you hit them if you are waiting for it, so no issues there.

I guess it depends on the specific situations you find yourself in, whether that's actually sufficient for your needs. I recall reading somewhere on these forums that any situation which requires readying an action to solve is a problematic situation, but I don't recall where that was, or if it's one of the formal named fallacies or anything.

And it stops the whole "I needed to move a few feet but my first attack killed the opponent so I lose all the rest of my attacks because the rest of the foes are 5' from me".

Of course, 4E also solved that problem by replacing iterative attacks with discrete maneuvers. It wouldn't have been a problem in 5E, either, if they'd gone with their earlier model of scaling attack damage rather than granting extra attacks.

 

[mellored]

Since you seem to be more familiar with this sort of thing, do you have any idea what the point is of representing it as a cycle? Why have 8 or 12 ticks and then start over, instead of just continuing to count up until the end of combat? Why bother saying that something takes place on the fifth tick of the second round, instead of just calling it tick 13?

It helps reduce math, and gives you a visual representation.

Move 4 ticks us easier than 13+4.
And you can't fit 80 ticks easily on a piece of paper, but you can go around a circle 10 times.

It's also why clocks are circles. It’s easy to add 15 minutes, and you don’t have a meeting at minute 52010 of the day.

 

[RangerWickett]

I've been reading Arcanis, and it uses a similar system, except the pie is split into twelve slices. There are also a lot of mechanics that can push you down 1d4 ticks, or prevent you from using spells or maneuvers for a number of ticks after you've just used one. The whole thing just seems like a lot of work, and a lot of things to track.

Since you seem to be more familiar with this sort of thing, do you have any idea what the point is of representing it as a cycle? Why have 8 or 12 ticks and then start over, instead of just continuing to count up until the end of combat? Why bother saying that something takes place on the fifth tick of the second round, instead of just calling it tick 13?

Each tick is supposed to be about a second, and it's easier to use a 'clockface' by going in circles instead of, I dunno, a continuous line. It just requires less space to track if you're on a circle. And I suppose every 'round' you know 8 seconds have passed.

 

[mellored]

4E's only action problem was that interrupts and oppertunity attacks where different things. That lead to a lot of out-of-turn interruptions, which added extra confusion and slowed things down.

I'm less of a fan of multi-attack, from any edition. Maybe as a cleave ability, or two weapon thing, but overall it just seems to slow things down with excessive die rolling.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It helps reduce math, and gives you a visual representation.

Move 4 ticks us easier than 13+4.
And you can't fit 80 ticks easily on a piece of paper, but you can go around a circle 10 times.

So they assume you're using a physical representation, and that's the justification for making it harder on anyone keeping track in their head? I guess it makes sense, in the same way that confining movement to 5-foot increments makes sense under the assumption that you're using a grid.

Each tick is supposed to be about a second, and it's easier to use a 'clockface' by going in circles instead of, I dunno, a continuous line. It just requires less space to track if you're on a circle. And I suppose every 'round' you know 8 seconds have passed.

An actual clock face has room for sixty ticks before you would need to start over, though.

Does Scion actually use Rounds for anything? In most games, a round is just the time from the start of one character's turn until the start of that character's next turn. In D&D, for example, the designations of Round 1 and Round 2 are meaningless since nothing starts at the beginning of a Round or ends at the end of a Round; you just have the initiative order, and there's no real distinction between the bottom of the order and the top of the order. If something was supposed to happen at the start or end of a round, then it could make sense to show that on the clock, since you would want to know when that special event was going to take place.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What bonus actions should really say instead, is that they represent doing more things simultaneously. This is for example how Bardic Inspiration really works: the Bard is not first doing an attack and then inspiring the allies, he's doing both things at the same time. Which is by the way very consistent with how movement also works. So the Bard is using her legs to move and her arms to attack and her voice to inspire, which naturally make sense to imagine as simultaneous.

Which gets really wonky if she is using her arms to make somatic components to cast a spell and her voice to play a kazoo as a focus to replace material components to cast a spell and her voice to speak the verbal components to cast a spell and her voice to inspire her comrades with oratory and her voice to speak insults (Cutting Words) to prevent the enemy magician from successfully Counterspelling her spell.

I'm not really clear what the OP is asking, but I'm fine with how turns work in AD&D, Shadowrun, GURPS, and also MERP if I'm remembering it correctly. The way 5E runs is also okay overall--I do like reactions. I guess that means I have no clear preference for games in terms of "action economy" mechanics.

I do however prefer games where proactive preparation is more of a thing. Thus, Shadowrun and AD&D are more interesting to me than 5E in terms of how spells actually work. 5E has a handful of spells that let you be proactive (Glyph of Warding to set up healing stations; Planar Binding and Mass Suggestion to create minions; Mold Earth to shape terrain), and they consequently get overused, which feels repetitive compared to a system or story where long-lasting enchantments are more widely available (Dresden Files), perhaps with a different cost.

 

[Oofta]

4E's only action problem was that interrupts and oppertunity attacks where different things. That lead to a lot of out-of-turn interruptions, which added extra confusion and slowed things down.

I'm less of a fan of multi-attack, from any edition. Maybe as a cleave ability, or two weapon thing, but overall it just seems to slow things down with excessive die rolling.

I dunno. For me it's just an excuse to buy more dice! I encourage people to roll all their die at one time, even for multiple attacks. As long as you are consistent and Red is always first, green second or whatever it really speeds up the game.

Of course there's always that one guy (you know who you are Bob ) who insists on rolling. One. Die. At. A. Time.

 

[mellored]

I dunno. For me it's just an excuse to buy more dice! I encourage people to roll all their die at one time, even for multiple attacks. As long as you are consistent and Red is always first, green second or whatever it really speeds up the game.

Of course there's always that one guy (you know who you are Bob ) who insists on rolling. One. Die. At. A. Time.

Exactly.

Claw, claw, bite is 6 different rolls following the rules.
Hit roll, damage roll, hit roll, damage roll, hit roll, damage roll... way too much.

Rolling 6 dice all at once is fine though.