Do You Want Multiple Actions Per Turn or Not?

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I say simplify actions into Half Actions or Full Actions and you can two Half actions or one full action.

Attacking would be a half action, so would moving.
The action for spells would be spell dependent.
Trip would be half.
Readying an action would be full.

Just examples of things I have thought of over the years that has simplified things for me.

Sure you could choose to attack twice and move just 5ft, or you could move twice, or Trip and Attack. Going with two Half or one Full Action per turn would greatly simplify things.

 

[Lanefan]

First off, I far prefer to think in terms of actions per round rather than actions per turn, as I'm not a fan of the hard-coded turn-based system 3e and 4e use and prefer something that allows for a bit more fluidity.

As for what can be done in a round (assuming no haste/slow/etc. effects):
- any one item can be used; includes a wand, or a potion, or an effect from a ring, whatever; with a partial move - or
- any one full attack sequence can be done without movement, with each separate attack getting its own initiative (in other words, NOT all at once) - or
- a full move (includes charge) and maybe a single attack - or
- a spell can be cast with a partial move

Things like speech, turning and fleeing, falling down, etc. are free actions and can be done at any time unless for some reason the DM has asked you to hold (usually while she resolves something else).

Seems simple enough...

Lan-"a turn is defined as ten minutes around here, a round is 30 seconds"-efan

 

[delericho]

IMO, moving away from the standardised language of action types from 4e is a mistake. Especially since the game isn't actually changing what characters can do in the round - it's just making move and minor actions implicit.

Stick with the five action types of 4e (standard, move, minor, response, interrupt). On a character's turn they can take three (standard, move, minor), while on another turn they may be able to take one (either a response or an interrupt) if circumstances allow.

But then, I'm very much in favour of using technical language in place of natural language where it is appropriate - anything that allows you to use one word in place of a dozen is a boon when the books are looking to be many hundreds of pages long.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

[MENTION=85179]ren1999[/MENTION]

I think my only concern with your OP is the needless symmetry. Hook horrors get two attacks because they have two hooks, and are apparently ambidextrous. I would expect a character with two weapons to get two attacks (that's why 2H weapons should do two dice damage). Dragons get crazy numbers of attacks because they have the weapons and control to do this (and they are high-level because they're so well armed).

I think that high level characters will get neat tricks that let them do something else with whatever their normal action is. The recent Ro3 mentioned that war domain Clerics might get to attack and cast a spell with the same action. I imagine the high level Fighter might get an extra attack with the same action, and a Wizard might get an at-will spell as well as a high level spell in the same action. But for simplicity, stick with 1 action and your movement to spend as you like during your turn.

I confess to being undecided about reactions..

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

IMO, moving away from the standardised language of action types from 4e is a mistake. Especially since the game isn't actually changing what characters can do in the round - it's just making move and minor actions implicit.

Stick with the five action types of 4e (standard, move, minor, response, interrupt). On a character's turn they can take three (standard, move, minor), while on another turn they may be able to take one (either a response or an interrupt) if circumstances allow.

But then, I'm very much in favour of using technical language in place of natural language where it is appropriate - anything that allows you to use one word in place of a dozen is a boon when the books are looking to be many hundreds of pages long.

I very much disliked minor actions - they led to considerable slowdown as players tried to find something to do with a minor action each turn. I much prefer deducting 5' movement for something trivial like drawing a weapon or grabbing a scroll.

I think technical language is fine, but there's no need to formalise 5 different kinds of action. The difference between reactions/interrupts was formally necessary because 'Gotcha' actions existed in the rules. If they don't exist, and you have to cast Shield as a tactical choice, or ready yourself to do something specific - in which case the DM can easily adjudicate whether your action screws with the trigger or just happens afterwards.

 

[delericho]

I very much disliked minor actions - they led to considerable slowdown as players tried to find something to do with a minor action each turn.

I guess this is a case where YMMV! I found swift actions (and later the better-named minor actions) to be a real boon - they formalised a lot of the language of "as a free action, once per turn" from things like feather fall. My experience, which was obviously not universal, was that players used them if and only if they had something specific in mind - I didn't really encounter the phenomenon of players trying to squeeze every ounce of use from their actions in the turn.

(Of course, it's possible that that's because my experience with them is from 3e, where powers using swift actions were really quite rare - as I understand it, they became a lot more common in 4e. Alternately, it may be because I have very little patience with players slowing down the game - IMC they're expected to be ready with their actions when their turn comes, or they miss them.)

I think technical language is fine, but there's no need to formalise 5 different kinds of action. The difference between reactions/interrupts was formally necessary because 'Gotcha' actions existed in the rules. If they don't exist, and you have to cast Shield as a tactical choice, or ready yourself to do something specific - in which case the DM can easily adjudicate whether your action screws with the trigger or just happens afterwards.

I found the division useful - if for no other reason than that I had a couple of disputed calls over exactly when an AoO took place. Still, I could certainly live without that particular distinction.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]

You're completely right about swift actions - I remember them being a useful tool. I think it was the formalisation into minor actions that opened a design space that every class insisted on filling. I could understand if it was something that repeated use would break, like quickened spells in 3E, but making an encounter utility power into a minor action - why? I'm only using it once anyway, and there wasn't that much you could stack up to take advantage of using that power and another at the same time (even then, it would typically be for only a round).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Oh and for reactions, I think there could be a rule that makes things very clear:

You can never react to prevent the completion of a triggering action, such that the user loses that action.

Note that this doesn't include movement, which can be stopped and lost. You can make the triggering action miss, or do less damage, or deflect it to someone else, but you can't teleport away when they say they're going to attack you and make them lose an action. If a teleport away power exists it should be triggered on approach, not attack, to avoid invoking the wrath of this principle.

 

[MortalPlague]

Players are going to be thinking about these actions before their turns. They're going to be ready and it isn't going to take a lot of time.

Have you played D&D before?

 

[Fifth Element]

Sure you could choose to attack twice and move just 5ft, or you could move twice, or Trip and Attack. Going with two Half or one Full Action per turn would greatly simplify things.

Where does the 5 ft move in your system come from, action-wise?