Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5955801" data-attributes="member: 22424">We do something similar, but not as draconian - when your turn arrives, you are expected to declare your first action of the round promptly or you lose your turn. (And that is "lose your turn" - it doesn't default to a delayed action. Of course, declaring "delay" is a valid choice.)The thing is, the situation in combat can change quite quickly, and some actions can be contingent on the results of previous actions. So it's not reasonable to expect players to declare everything at the outset IMO.We don't have a lot of reactions/interrupts in our 3.5e game, but where they do apply, players are again expected to declare them promptly - once the action causing the interrupt is resolved, it's too late to go back and interrupt it.The truth is as Chris_Nightwing says - if you allow multiple actions then you inevitably introduce slowdown. All you can do is try to mitigate that slowdown.However, for me multiple actions have never been a cause of great slowdown - the issue has generally been either indecisive players failing to pick an action or, more commonly, those particular types of action that just take a long time to resolve - dispels, polymorphs, and the like.As such, I'm actually happy with the 3e action economy (though 4e generally gets it better); where I want work done on those specific difficult areas. (And for 5e, I'm not terribly happy with what they've done with actions, as I think it's a step back. But I'm willing to live with it.)</blockquote>

Verification