D&D 5E Action Econ 101

[sithramir]

I like grapes.

Thaumaturge.

They make cotton candy flavored grapes. Amazing!

I like the term bonus action. It seems a lot of things are labeled as such. I agree haste could be worded differently to make it clear there is no "additional" bonus action since it is one of the few instances it should be clear since it "could" add a bonus action if that was the designers intent. Oh well.

 

[Sir Brennen]

They make cotton candy flavored grapes. Amazing!

Bonus flavor!

 

[drjones]

The impression I got was that changing it to Bonus was intended to speed play by not making it a separate phase of the round that players had to find a way to use productively. It's not an empty bucket everyone gets but only those who are lucky or plan well get to find something useful inside if they rummage around long enough. It is a special package you sometimes get, but if you do you only get to open one.

This may seem like a meaningless distinction but in a game of humans that was driven partially by a playtest of what those humans liked psychology is important.

 

[Sadrik]

As I stated above, you use bonus actions when it makes sense to do so. Does it make sense for the rogue to use cunning action all the time? Probably not... so don't do it. I'm still not understanding where this is going. It's a choice the rogue makes. It's not always turned on.

There is no limit to this rogue ability. If you limit it in your games it is a house rule. I think it needs to be house ruled too. Quirky, but the rogue simply moves faster than everyone else.

Bonus actions are just an action that they will want to fill up every round if they can. It is the action economy of 5e. For the rogue default is that he is taking the bonus action just like any other character with one of their bonus actions. It is something that players will want to maximize - choice to maximize is how you might put it, but that makes it sound like there is some debate if the two weapon fighter will attack with his off handed weapon or not, like weighing the odds or something. No, players will maximize their actions and this is just another round by round resource they will want to maximize. Nothing really "bonus" about it.

I thought one of the stated goals was to edge away from the action economy in 5e? Did they do that?

 

[Sadrik]

Except touch-range spells also carry a level of codification, and always have. It's defined in the explanation of Range of the general rules of spells, and then presented in the very gamey portion of the spell block. It's not repeatedly described in the natural language section of the spell's description except to describe the spell's effect on the creature touched. So, not a good example.

And I really don't see how describing in the individual spells in question that it can be cast and you can take another action is any less gamey. You're still talking about actions on your turn in a game. And by describing the abilities separately, you either run into confusion when interacting with other such abilities, exploits, or end up repeating the rules of their interaction for each instance.

Say I'm a rogue/cleric. Can I attack, use Cunning Action and cast Healing Word all on the same turn? Or do all those and cast Sanctuary and Magic Weapon, too? If not, then you have to clarify that for each and every one of those ability/spell descriptions.

What I hear you asking for is this:

Apple: An apple is type of sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food. If you have an apple, you can't eat another sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food at the same time.

Orange: An orange is a type of sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food. If you have an orange, you can't eat another sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food at the same time..​

As opposed to:

fruit: the sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food. You can only eat one fruit at a time.

Apple: An apple is a fruit.

Orange: An orange is a fruit.​

Is classifying things as "fruit" too gamey? No, I don't think so. Natural language and efficient language aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

My goodness I know what a class is. And it is a really solid argument. That said I am looking at the architecture, building in that class of stuff means you get lots of that kind of stuff. My thought is that stuff can all be represented in a different way where that class is not needed. The more classes you make the more definitions you need and the more arbitrary decisions you have to make. You wind up with things like healing word and cure wounds . It adds a veil of tactical complexity. For some clearly a boon for others a complexity bug.

Again I think it is a great example touch attack spells had they been developed in this era they would have been a bonus action with a duration until discharged on hand or something. Instead we get an action where the attack is part of the action to cast the spell. I reference searing smite and other newer spells as an example to draw contrast.

Two architectural methodologies, one from the past and one current one.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I thought one of the stated goals was to edge away from the action economy in 5e? Did they do that?

I don't know that I've ever heard this and I'm not even sure what it would mean. I'm also not sure how the terminology and conceit of the extra-sometimes-action makes or breaks this goal.

5e has an action economy. It's not important for everyone to know all the time, but if you have a bonus action and a reaction, then you are using all of your possible actions and if you don't, well, that's fine.

 

[Sadrik]

I don't know that I've ever heard this and I'm not even sure what it would mean. I'm also not sure how the terminology and conceit of the extra-sometimes-action makes or breaks this goal.

5e has an action economy. It's not important for everyone to know all the time, but if you have a bonus action and a reaction, then you are using all of your possible actions and if you don't, well, that's fine.

It looks like they took down the L&Ls but I found a blog commenting on the article that was posted.
http://tobolds.blogspot.com/2012/06/action-economy-of-d-next.html

The impression left from the L&L article was that the action economy would be much simpler. It is simpler, much though... I am uncertain. It feels like 3e + swift actions. Each round you can move and take two actions, one has to be a bonus action and you can take one reaction at any time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It looks like they took down the L&Ls but I found a blog commenting on the article that was posted.
http://tobolds.blogspot.com/2012/06/action-economy-of-d-next.html

The impression left from the L&L article was that the action economy would be much simpler. It is simpler, much though... I am uncertain. It feels like 3e + swift actions. Each round you can move and take two actions, one has to be a bonus action and you can take one reaction at any time.

It seems like it's a sliding scale. You can move and take an action. If someone triggers it, you can make an OA (everyone's reaction). There might be other options for the use of your reaction. And sometimes there's a bonus action if an ability grants one.

But a Champion fighter with the Defense fighting style (for instance) never needs to muck about with bonus actions or alternate reactions.

 

[Lalato]

There is no limit to this rogue ability. If you limit it in your games it is a house rule. I think it needs to be house ruled too. Quirky, but the rogue simply moves faster than everyone else.

Bonus actions are just an action that they will want to fill up every round if they can. It is the action economy of 5e. For the rogue default is that he is taking the bonus action just like any other character with one of their bonus actions. It is something that players will want to maximize - choice to maximize is how you might put it, but that makes it sound like there is some debate if the two weapon fighter will attack with his off handed weapon or not, like weighing the odds or something. No, players will maximize their actions and this is just another round by round resource they will want to maximize. Nothing really "bonus" about it.

I thought one of the stated goals was to edge away from the action economy in 5e? Did they do that?

We were talking about using it OUTSIDE OF COMBAT! If you want to switch back to using it during combat, that's fine... but be consistent. I don't ask for much, but I do ask for that.

Yes, of course, players will maximize their actions whenever possible or useful. What's your point? I don't know of any references from designers where they state they were edging away from that? If you can find one, I'm all ears.

EDIT: I thought about that last bit a little more. It doesn't matter if the designers original intent was to do one thing, but then they decided to do another. There was a massive playtest in which they received feedback on their original ideas. If that led them to include some form of action system, then so be it. Let's discuss that system as it is, I hate discussions about what designers said a year ago. They lead to nowhere... and are boring besides.

 

[Sir Brennen]

The impression left from the L&L article was that the action economy would be much simpler. It is simpler, much though... I am uncertain. It feels like 3e + swift actions. Each round you can move and take two actions, one has to be a bonus action and you can take one reaction at any time.

No, each round you can move and take an action, and possibly a second action as a bonus, if you have an ability (or spell) which allows it.

Granted, there are some characters who, after a certain level or having selected a particular option, will almost always have that bonus action available. Monk's Martial Arts. Rogue's Cunning Action. Any character that is two-weapon fighting.

Where the simplicity comes in is you don't have a huge range of options to parse when you're using that bonus action, unlike the 4E minor and swift actions. For TWF or Martial Arts, you get an extra attack. That's it. Generally there's no reason not to do it, so no time spent wavering to decide. A rogue has a few more options, but there will usually be one that's a more obvious choice for the give situation in a round. I just took out this orc so I can Dash to the next one. Is there a place to Hide? Do I want to Dodge before the dragon spews fire? Even bonus action spells will be a short list, a subset of what the character has prepared/known, and have an obvious use for a given situation. Spells, of course, also require an expenditure of resources, which is another limit on their use as bonus actions.

So, still not nearly as complex as 4E minor/swift actions, which could be part of any number of powers the class has, as well as all those other things like drinking a potion, opening a door, etc. There were so many options, players felt they must have something they could spend their minor action on, often slowing down play to figure out what that was.

Now, there's no searching through all your abilities to find the absolute best use your bonus action. No "use it or lose" anxiety. There's either a fairly obvious option, or, like KM mentions for the Champion fighter with the Defense fighting style, none at all. I'd call that much simpler.

TL;DR - the complexity isn't just about the number of actions you can take in a round; it's also about the number of options you have with those actions.