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

[Li Shenron]

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.

It's wonky only when you pretend to define the details.

You could instead say that the Bard is speaking the same word(s) to achieve all the effects together, and is capable of doing so only because of ability that works as a bonus action.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's wonky only when you pretend to define the details.

You could instead say that the Bard is speaking the same word(s) to achieve all the effects together, and is capable of doing so only because of ability that works as a bonus action.

AND a reaction (Cutting Words).

And now you're also explicitly tossing out the idea of verbal components as they have traditionally been defined (magic words that trigger an extraordinary effect) in the Vancian tradition, instead making them freeform verbalizations that can be anything you want including insults or praise for your companions.

In short, you're fulfilling all the requirements by defining most of them out of existence, handwaving the rest, and ignoring the kazoo.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

If the action economy wants to limit some between-turn actions to once/round, OAs need to be broken out, because 1/rnd OAs don't serve their purpose. OAs need to be at least 1/turn, so that you can't just 'burn them off,' or they fail to represent the continuous threat of being in melee, without which the 'freeze-frame' effect of turn based initiative gets even further out of hand.
4e and 3e, via Combat Reflexes, were barely-adequate, that way. Even in 1e, there wasn't a limit to the number of 'parting shots' you could take when several enemies ran away from you. In 5e, melee isn't much of a threat, and the old maxim that casters and archers should try to avoid melee is barely applicable (archers get disadvantage, that's about it).

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.

Multi-attacking is problematic in terms of balancing DPR, because of the way it multiplies static damage bonuses. Ironically, for that very reason, it's editions like 2e & 5e that come closest to 'balancing' the melee types with casters via DPR, precisely because multi-attacking can make for such outrageous DPR. FWTWs.

 

[mellored]

If the action economy wants to limit some between-turn actions to once/round, OAs need to be broken out, because 1/rnd OAs don't serve their purpose. OAs need to be at least 1/turn, so that you can't just 'burn them off,' or they fail to represent the continuous threat of being in melee, without which the 'freeze-frame' effect of turn based initiative gets even further out of hand.
4e and 3e, via Combat Reflexes, were barely-adequate, that way. Even in 1e, there wasn't a limit to the number of 'parting shots' you could take when several enemies ran away from you. In 5e, melee isn't much of a threat, and the old maxim that casters and archers should try to avoid melee is barely applicable (archers get disadvantage, that's about it).

I disagree.
If 60 pesants ran by you in 6 seconds, you shouldn't be able to kill them all. That makes no sense story wise. I could see specially trained people get 2 or 3 at the high end.

Admittedly, most 5e melee doesn't pose a good OA threat, but that's due to multi-attack, not having 1 reactoin. 4e fighters would have still been able to defend with just 1 reaction/OA.

Multi-attacking is problematic in terms of balancing DPR, because of the way it multiplies static damage bonuses. Ironically, for that very reason, it's editions like 2e & 5e that come closest to 'balancing' the melee types with casters via DPR, precisely because multi-attacking can make for such outrageous DPR. FWTWs.

5e rogues don't have multi-attack and they work just fine, including posing a threat with their OA.

2e wasn't intended to be balanced. Wizards were supposed to be stronger at higher levels. I don't agree with that either, but that was the intent.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I disagree.
If 60 pesants ran by you in 6 seconds, you shouldn't be able to kill them all.

you shouldn't be able to swing at only one of them in six seconds, either. ;P And it's likely none are getting past you, if only from tripping over the bodies of their friends and holding back in fear.

That makes no sense story wise.

60 virtual non-combatants trying to run past an enemy swinging a weapon with deadly intent certainly doesn't. It's a contrived example that's unlikely to ever happen in genre or in a game, but even so, the 3e or 4e implementation is less lame than the 5e.

I could see specially trained people get 2 or 3 at the high end.

Combat Reflexes was your ticket, then.

Admittedly, most 5e melee doesn't pose a good OA threat, but that's due to multi-attack, not having 1 reactoin.

It's due to both. (That suggests a partial solution: give PCs with Extra Attack an equal number of extra reactions that can only be used to attack).

4e fighters would have still been able to defend with just 1 reaction/OA.

Any marking beyond a single enemy would have been moot, as they'd just walked away from you before attacking your allies. Knights would've been especially hosed.

5e rogues don't have multi-attack and they work just fine, including posing a threat with their OA.

Not after they've used their one and only reaction.

2e wasn't intended to be balanced. Wizards were supposed to be stronger at higher levels. I don't agree with that either, but that was the intent.

That was supposed to be part of the balance between them, another part being the 2e fighter doing insane multi-attacking DPR.
And, yeah, it didn't work too well.

 

[mellored]

you shouldn't be able to swing at only one of them in six seconds, either. ;P

The round is 6 seconds, not just your turn. And much of that time you spent with your action.
So something like...

Action = 3 seconds
Bonus = 1 second
reaction = 1 second
move = 1 second
= 6 seconds.

Even a wizard can make 2 attacks per 6 seconds.

60 virtual non-combatants trying to run past an enemy swinging a weapon with deadly intent certainly doesn't. It's a contrived example that's unlikely to ever happen in the genre or in a game, but even so, the 3e or 4e implementation is less lame than the 5e.

60 is a bit contrived, but i've easily had 10-20 minions all trying to rush a wizard before he could cast fireball.

Combat Reflexes was your ticket, then.

Which is fine as a defender feat/feature.

It's due to both. (That suggests a partial solution: give PCs with Extra Attack an equal number of extra reactions that can only be used to attack).

That's doubling the number of attacks you make in 6 seconds, and dice rolled. Maybe something like, each OA you make reduces the number of attacks you get next turn.

Just an aside, the world record for cutting target's is 10 in 6.4 seconds. Though the straw mats were standing still and posing no threat to the attacker, so it's not exactly a good analog.

Not after they've used their one and only reaction.

Which makes sense and is cinematic. Attack the rogue and put him on defense, which lets you escape.
Though, again, multi-attack messes it up a bit.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The round is 6 seconds, not just your turn. And much of that time you spent with your action.

Prettymuch all that time is spent on your move and action, really, it's just abstracted to resolving on your turn.

You can't really move 60' before an enemy you're in melee with can do anything, you're already fighting him, he's swinging at you the whole six seconds - thus when D&D went to cyclical turn-based initiative, it also formalized AoOs, to reflect that you can't just 'win initiative' and run past an armed enemy or shoot him in the face repeatedly before he can swing at you even once.

A hard limit of 1 AoO per round isn't up to that modeling, and thus emphasizes the freeze-frame discontinuity of turn-based initiative.

That's doubling the number of attacks you make in 6 seconds, and dice rolled. Maybe something like, each OA you make reduces the number of attacks you get next turn.

Attacks on your turn aren't individual swings, you're swinging for the full six seconds that any enemy is w/in reach, an enemy that drops it's guard at any point thus might be hit by a swing that's normally abstracted into your attack routine on your turn - that's an AoO. Having one enemy you're engaged with drop his guard (provoke an AoO) shouldn't save another one doing so later. Maybe if they perfectly coordinated their actions it'd make some sense to only be able to take advantage of one or the other, and rather than go into that exacting detail, some limit might make sense, but 1 seem too low. 3.x Combat Reflexes seems pretty conservative, 4e 1/turn seems reasonable (though it might get silly with improbable numbers of enemies, such could always be statted as swarms, for instance - and, off-turn actions of one enemy could happen on the turn of another, too... :shrug

 

[mellored]

A hard limit of 1 AoO per round isn't up to that modeling, and thus emphasizes the freeze-frame discontinuity of turn-based initiative.

It's better than unlimited OA's.

Attacks on your turn aren't individual swings, you're swinging for the full six seconds that any enemy is w/in reach, an enemy that drops it's guard at any point thus might be hit by a swing that's normally abstracted into your attack routine on your turn - that's an AoO.

I agree.

Having one enemy you're engaged with drop his guard (provoke an AoO) shouldn't save another one doing so later.

I disagree.

some limit might make sense, but 1 seems too low.

1 is enough for the wizard/bard/sorcerer/druid/etc... possibly more than enough.
I don't have any issue with a defender class feature/feat allowing extra defending. But that should be the exception, not the rule.


But back to my main point, 4e had an excessive amount of out of turn actions.

 

[raleel]

For me, 5e feels like someone had a bad time in 4e's action economy and blocked all the exploits. Not that it is bad, per se, but it has a certain lack of options that I really enjoy. For the record, I loved my warlord in 4e, which exploited the action economy like it was a 3rd world nation.

As it is now, I have a spreadsheet I use to maximize my action economy for my wizard - action, bonus, reaction, etc. It's not particularly burdensome, which I suppose is good.

Having just come from an action point game (Mythras) that I enjoyed thoroughly, though, it feels pretty constrained.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's better than unlimited OA's.

I disagree: though AoOs have never been unlimited (I can't even recall a 3.x exploit that purported to do so), the problems with them would be largely theoretical, since the number of ApPs that might be provoked is going to be far from unlimited in the domain of playability, while 1/rnd has issued pretty much right away.

1 is enough for the wizard/bard/sorcerer/druid/etc... possibly more than enough.

I could see restricting a virtual non-combatant that much.

I don't have any issue with a defender class feature/feat allowing extra defending. ns.

There are no defender classes, but there are extra attack classes, and giving them more AoOs would be a good idea, at a minimum.