D&D 5E (2014) A Time-Based Combat System for 5e (2014): Replacing Actions with Seconds and Making Movement Matter

Hrm - for the spells that could be a nice Idea, but you inflate the number of attacks greatly. A martial character would have 2 at level 1, increasing up to 9 attacks at level 17.
number are up to balance,

it was just an example.

also I do not see a problem with 2 attacks per turn at level 1 if that is all that you do for that turn.

and attacking is fun, so 9 or 10 attacks per turn at high levels is also fine.

goes to fantasy about high level fighter dispatches an army of mooks in a minute.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

My hope would be, that it is easier to grasp than different kinds of actions.
I have not experienced what your table seems to have trouble with. I don't find the different categories of actions to be difficult for folks to grasp.
Seconds are intuitively graspable.
But counting them is a pain, especially when what you are counting changes over time or between classes.
It would also allow for more granular additions to the rules based on time - like Casting Time is already in Seconds/minutes/time increments - but are basically (for combat use) just either during the turn or 10 turns.
This is true, and granular can be good. But it isn't easier than the existing system.

I think a solid AP system for D&D combat would be cool. I just don't think this is somehow easier than the 3 types of actions model in use, or PF2's 3 action economy.
 

I have not experienced what your table seems to have trouble with. I don't find the different categories of actions to be difficult for folks to grasp.

But counting them is a pain, especially when what you are counting changes over time or between classes.
My group is also counting weight by the pound ... so I think counting seconds should be fine. I think it is more, what are they used, too, more than what is easier.
This is true, and granular can be good. But it isn't easier than the existing system.

I think a solid AP system for D&D combat would be cool. I just don't think this is somehow easier than the 3 types of actions model in use, or PF2's 3 action economy.
My personal preference is to use ingame-references (like seconds) instead of meta currencies (AP, Action/Bonus Action/Reaction), whenever I can get away with it (that's why I also hate the Bastion system with its Bastion Turns - dude, just use weeks!).
number are up to balance,

it was just an example.

also I do not see a problem with 2 attacks per turn at level 1 if that is all that you do for that turn.

and attacking is fun, so 9 or 10 attacks per turn at high levels is also fine.

goes to fantasy about high level fighter dispatches an army of mooks in a minute.
I was just trying to implement it in a way in which I don't have to redo the math for PC and Monsters ^^. 2 Attacks at level 1 would mean, Monsters and PCs would need double HP at level 1 or die very quickly. Or I would have to adjust the damage dealt ...
If I would a system from scratch, that would be different.
 

Bonus Actions are designed as "while you are doing", not "instead of". Like, attacking with a second weapon while attacking with the first, or hiding while shooting, or smiting while attacking.

Your system converts them to "instead of", then patches it at level 5 with a bunch of mechanics that make it "while". Monks get the 3 attack feature at level 5 so the have time to do flurry and 2 attacks, barb/pal/rangers all get "special bonus actions via move".

The two weapon fighter? Tossed aside; fighters lose an attack to second wind or attack with an offhand weapon or whatever or cleave with a great weapon or...

Basically your base action budget for martials is 4 seconds at level 1, then increases to 6 at level 5. And then you had to throw patches at it. Spellcasters (and anyone without extra attack) meanwhile stay a 4 second budget for their action, giving them full access to bonus actions.

Then, we prevent people from doing multiple reactions actions. So even the second budget is a lie. The most you can do is action + bonus action and you lose your reaction, and sometimes you can't even do more than action.

You can cheese it with 3 bonus actions sometimes. For example, turn your spiritual weapon into a spinning blade with 3 attacks, or other similar stuff. Or 3x flurry of blows for 3 Ki. I'd expect that once cheesed it will be banned and patched away, so again the second budget is a lie.

---

In the end we end up with a management scheme that just weakens PCs (and monsters to a much lesser degree) and doesn't add anything? Whenever I see a way for a player to use it outside of the standard 5e action economy, it looks more like an exploit than a feature.
 

The “seconds” are really just a way of breaking open what happens inside a 6-second round, not a claim that time is literally being tracked continuously. In practice it probably is closer to an action-point system, just with a fiction-first label that matches the six-second round the game already talks about.
...
So I’m less trying to model real time passing and more trying to make tradeoffs between attacking, casting, and positioning clearer and more flexible than Action/Bonus Action currently allows.
My personal preference is to use ingame-references (like seconds) instead of meta currencies (AP, Action/Bonus Action/Reaction), whenever I can get away with it (that's why I also hate the Bastion system with its Bastion Turns - dude, just use weeks!).
My perspective is that you are attaching a fiction-first label to a meta currency. So long as characters are still taking their actions and then (mostly) freezing in place and letting the next person act, and so long as combat rounds aren't then taking 6 second per combatant, then this isn't fiction-first. It's renaming action points as seconds, but it isn't actually making them into seconds.

If you reworked the system and made a simultaneous-action system where everyone did have 6 seconds worth of actions (each with a specified duration) during the same 6-second round, that would be fiction-first. That is much more of a re-write and I understand why you don't want to.

Anyways, as it stands, it's a perfectly fine slightly-more-fiddly action-economy system. There's some combination of actions this allows that standard 5e doesn't that leads to some bizarre results, but welcome to rules tweaks. Mostly I imagine it will be a lot of re-writing and re-learning for minimal change in behavior.

I want to be clear that this system has not been playtested yet. I am posting it here specifically to get feedback before running it at the table. EN-World has a lot of people who have thought deeply about action economies, martial and caster balance, and alternative systems such as Pathfinder Second Edition or GURPS. I am very interested in where people think this would break in practice, what edge cases I may have missed, and which classes or play styles might need adjustment once it sees real play.
A dominant takeaway I have from GURPS (3e, where it matters) is that it is decidedly not built to make different choices be equal or balanced. There are strictly right choices. Other times, there are not, and those are often because of natural consequences of the decisions. It's helpful to understand those in deciding what GURPS options to implement (or how to apply this to a proposed alternate system, like you are doing here). One good example is 'taking a turn to aim/recover' and the implications are different across tasks/genres.

In GURPS, you can swing a sword in 1 second, or swing an axe. Both do cutting damage based of your Str-based swing damage dice, so they are even there. The axe adds more damage to that score, so does overall more damage. However, you have to spend a second to recover and can't attack again (and IIRC can't parry) until you do*. With Damage Reduction and stun thresholds and overall just lower HP compared to something like D&D, it is conceivable that the extra damage on round 1 (and maybe never experiencing the counterattack) justifies the lack of attack (and having to dodge/block instead of parry) on round 2. Possible, but highly unlikely, and I don't think I ever saw anyone use an axe in the game for very long.
*This is relatively realistic (why they likely did it), but they leave out some potential realistic other mechanics that advantage axes over swords other than a little extra damage.

Conversely, missile weapons work better when you spend a second beforehand to aim. There are various rules about penalties for 'snap shots' as well as bonuses (or removal of range penalties) for use of scopes and the like that require aiming. You can just shoot every second* (depending on the loading time of your weapon) and accept any penalty that entails. However the penalties can easily cut your chance of hitting by more than 50%, making shooting every other turn a perfectly reasonable decision (potentially relegating shooting during the first turn to 'cause I won't get a shot off if I wait til turn 2' situations).
*or more than once per second, with rules for automatic fire or fanning a single-action revolver, and so on.
 

If you want to reinforce that it's the same 6 seconds for everyone then you should try using something like the speed chart from hero - players have to decide what they're doing second by second, in order of say, highest dex first. Some people are waiting for their actions to finish, some are moving - it might add to the payoff of changing it in the first place.
 

I am always fooling around with a competitive D&D concept I call "DungeonBall" and one of the things I have considered a couple times in the process is second by second initiative. One square at a time. If you attack, it costs seconds. If you cast, you have to wait seconds. Like that. It is cumbersome though.
 

Is it harder to remember that your attack/spell takes 4 seconds instead of an action? Okay, only playtest could really tell.
Well the thing is, to use this system you still have to remember whether a given activity would normally require an action or a bonus action. Then you have to remember how many “seconds” that type of action costs in this system. And for attacks, that number changes as you level up, which will make it more difficult to remember. Then you have to keep a running count of how many “seconds” you’ve spent as you do your turn. And you’re still also counting your movement, which you can now spend on more things than just moving.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the system is very interesting. But it’s a lot of cognitive load to manage. I imagine players who are really into crunchy mechanical gameplay would enjoy it, but players who already struggle to remember what’s an action and what’s a bonus action would be very overwhelmed by this.
 

Hello everyone,
I have been working on an alternate combat system for Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition, and I wanted to share it here for discussion and critique. This is not intended as a full rewrite of the game or as a claim that something is “broken,” but rather as a thought experiment that grew into a fairly complete rules module.
The basic idea is simple: combat rounds are already described as six seconds long, so instead of abstract action categories, characters spend actual seconds. At the same time, movement becomes a meaningful resource that can be spent on exertion, positioning, and battlefield control rather than just walking around.
The result is a system that is still recognizably 5e, but where martials gain more agency, positioning matters more, and the action economy feels a little closer to the fiction the game already implies.
What follows is the current draft of the system. It has not been playtested yet, and I am very interested in feedback before I ever put it on a table.

The Big Picture​

This system replaces Actions, Bonus Actions, and Extra Attack with a unified time-based economy.

A combat round is still six seconds long. Instead of choosing one Action and possibly a Bonus Action, characters spend seconds directly. Movement is handled separately and can be spent on physical exertion and control, not just locomotion.

Broadly speaking:
  • Time represents focus, attention, and commitment.
  • Movement represents exertion, leverage, and physical control of space.
  • Stances represent deliberate commitment to holding ground or protecting others.

The Core Rules​

The Combat Round​

A combat round represents six seconds.

On your turn, you have:
  • Six seconds to spend on actions
  • Movement equal to your speed, spent in five foot increments
  • One reaction, which costs one second
You may spend seconds and movement in any order.


Converting Actions to Time​

Any feature, spell, or ability that normally requires an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction instead costs seconds as follows:
  • Action costs four seconds
  • Bonus Action costs two seconds
  • Reaction costs one second
If you cannot pay the full time cost, you cannot take that action.

Attacks and Martial Scaling​

Attack​

Making a single weapon attack or unarmed strike costs four seconds.
You may make multiple attacks on your turn as long as you can afford the time and do not exceed any limits imposed by class features.

Faster Attack (Replaces Extra Attack)​

Instead of gaining additional attacks, martial classes reduce the time cost of making attacks.

Fighter
  • At level five, attacks cost three seconds
  • At level eleven, attacks cost two seconds
  • At level twenty, attacks cost one second
A fighter can make no more than four attacks per turn by spending seconds on the Attack action. This limit applies only to attacks made by repeatedly taking the Attack action. Attacks granted by other features, reactions, or abilities do not count against this limit unless explicitly stated.

Action Surge
When a fighter uses Action Surge, they gain four additional seconds to spend on their turn and an additional allowance of up to four attacks using Faster Attack. This allows fighters to exceed the normal four attack limit for that turn only.

Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger
Starting at level five, attacks cost three seconds. This cost does not decrease further unless a class feature explicitly says otherwise.

Monk
Starting at level five, attacks made with monk weapons or unarmed strikes cost two seconds. This cost does not decrease further. Monks gain additional attacks through features such as Flurry of Blows rather than further time reduction.

Spellcasting​

Spellcasting follows the same time conversion:
  • A spell with a casting time of one Action costs four seconds
  • A spell with a casting time of one Bonus Action costs two seconds
  • A spell cast as a Reaction costs one second
You can cast only one leveled spell per turn unless the spell’s casting time is one second. Cantrips are unaffected, and reaction spells may still be cast normally. All other spell rules, such as concentration and components, function as written.

Class-Specific Adjustments at Level Five​

At level five, some classes would otherwise be forced to choose between making two attacks and using their core bonus action features. The following adjustments restore intended class functionality without increasing the length of the round.

Barbarian: Exerted Rage
Once per turn, a barbarian may spend ten feet of movement instead of two seconds to activate or maintain a barbarian feature that normally requires a bonus action, including entering Rage.

Ranger: Tactical Momentum
Once per turn, a ranger may spend ten feet of movement instead of two seconds to activate, transfer, or maintain a ranger feature that normally requires a bonus action, such as moving Hunter’s Mark.

Paladin: Prepared Smite
Once per turn, when a paladin makes an Attack, they may cast a paladin smite spell that normally has a casting time of one Bonus Action as part of that attack, without spending additional seconds. Spell slots and concentration still apply, and this does not bypass the one leveled spell per turn rule.

Movement as Exertion​

Movement represents physical effort and positioning.
You may spend movement in five foot increments either to move or to perform movement-based actions. There is no free object interaction in combat.

Object Interaction​

Minor object interactions cost five feet of movement. Examples include drawing or stowing an item, opening or closing a door, picking up or dropping an object, or tipping over loose furniture.
Complex object interactions require seconds, usually four, and include using magic items, administering a potion to another creature, or manipulating locks, traps, or mechanisms.
While you are in a stance, you may perform object interactions that cost seconds, but not those that cost movement. Spending movement for any reason ends the stance.

Limits on Movement-Based Actions​

Movement-based actions do not deal damage, do not replace attacks, do not trigger on-hit effects, do not count as the Attack action, and do not cast spells. If a movement-based action would meaningfully replicate an attack, spell, or class feature, it instead costs seconds.

Movement-Based Actions​

Shove
Costs ten feet of movement. Make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics). On a success, push the target five feet. This cannot knock the target prone. Size limits apply.

Reposition Ally
Costs ten feet of movement. Move a willing creature within reach five feet. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks. Size limits apply.

Stances​

Some movement-based actions are stances. When you enter a stance, you cannot spend further movement that turn. If you spend movement for any reason, the stance ends. Stances last until the start of your next turn.

Guard Ally
Costs five feet of movement. The first attack made against an adjacent ally before the start of your next turn is made with disadvantage.

Brace
Costs five feet of movement. You gain advantage on the next check or saving throw you make to resist being shoved, knocked prone, or forcibly moved.

Threaten Space
Costs five feet of movement. You have advantage on opportunity attacks until the start of your next turn.

Block Way​

Block Way is a stance that costs fifteen feet of movement, or twenty feet for Large creatures.

While active, when a hostile creature enters your reach while moving, you may contest with Strength (Athletics) against Athletics or Acrobatics. On a success, the creature’s speed becomes zero for the rest of its turn. On a failure, it moves normally. Blocking more than one creature in a turn imposes disadvantage on subsequent checks. Size limits apply.

Reactions​

You may take one reaction per round, costing one second. Opportunity attacks and other reaction-based features function normally unless explicitly changed.



This is not meant to be Dungeons and Dragons but crunchier, nor an attempt to simulate reality for its own sake. The goal was to take ideas already present in the game, such as six second rounds, trained fighters acting faster than others, and the importance of positioning, and align the mechanics more closely with that fiction.

A major motivation was the sense that many martial characters, especially at mid and high levels, run out of meaningful choices. Extra Attack increases damage, but it does not really increase agency. By shifting to a time-based system and giving movement mechanical weight, this approach tries to give martials more ways to influence the battlefield without simply adding more actions.

Another goal was to avoid action inflation. Rather than adding new action types or stacking special exceptions, everything is paid for using either seconds or movement. If something feels strong, it should cost commitment in time or cost you the ability to reposition. Stances are meant to make the choice to hold ground or protect space explicit and costly, rather than passive.

I want to be clear that this system has not been playtested yet. I am posting it here specifically to get feedback before running it at the table. EN-World has a lot of people who have thought deeply about action economies, martial and caster balance, and alternative systems such as Pathfinder Second Edition or GURPS. I am very interested in where people think this would break in practice, what edge cases I may have missed, and which classes or play styles might need adjustment once it sees real play.

Thanks for reading, and I appreciate any thoughts or criticism.

I think the new movement rules will cause the opposite of the effect you want to achieve. I think a lot of martial melee players will do their thing then either shove or move an ally and pick a stance. I think battles will become more static, not more fluid.
 

Remove ads

Top