D&D 5E Is multiple actions per rounds a good idea?

[Blackbrrd]

They have given the Fighter two attacks per round from level 6 and lots of the cleric spells are usable together with a regular attack.

I wonder if it's a good base mechanic to give extra actions (two attacks or spell and attack) to increase the power. It makes the player take an additional decision each round, which in my opinion slows down the game.

They have earlier stated that they wanted to get rid of the minor action from the minor-move-standard actions from 4e, but to me it looks like they are adding it right in again. Instead of it being a single mechanic, they are doing it in different ways for different classes.

I would rather have them create stronger maneuvers or spells instead. If they want to keep it, I think they should use a common mechanic like the minor action from 4e.

 

[Hautamaki]

Multiple actions definitely is one of the main reasons high level combat gets so slowed down. But at the same time it may a trade-off worth making, as long as they keep control of it. So far it looks good imo.

 

[Rydac]

I voted "no"
I'm very much from the two many actions slows things down school, however, I'm ok with cleric heals that also getting an attack type spells as this isn't really a slow decision making process for the cleric....speeds them up if anything "oh I can attack and give Ed some healing.....bingo!"

I'm ok with the Fighter getting the second attack (though I'd grant it a few levels later) as long as it was the only class getting it and at some later point getting a third attack .....if it gets more or multiple classes do eventually things will bog down greatly.....all of a sudden your table of 5 players feels like 9!

I cheered when they removed the minor action. Having DM'd every week of Encounters I've seen way way way too much of "wait is there anything else I can do....minor action wise " it is a definite segment of paralysis by analysis.

One of the reasons d&d next plays so fast is the minor action removal. Some of the players who are the worst offenders in searching for a minor action to do have said they like not having them in Next!

 

[howandwhy99]

I think an Action Economy should follow the abilities available to the creature. Physical abilities are the easiest to enumerate. For example, just for humans:

• Breathing
• Swallowing
• Biting
• Smelling
• Tasting
• Hearing & locating in a medium
• A vision arc with light required
• Depth perception
• Arm-based attacks (most weapons requiring hand use too)
• Hand (or feet?) fine-tuned object manipulation
• Movement speed with legs and feet
• Maintaining balance
• Natural AC with skin
• Internal organs (lots of abilities like resisting poisons which I won't list)

All of the above are separate actions in my book and capable of being used by every human creature every round unless an ability is otherwise hindered or removed (like the loss of an eye or an arm).

Of course, a lot of them also fall under a default of "happens unless willfully overridden". All except for hearing which would require item use to impede.

However, I don't believe these should all be detailed for players, but rather on a sheet behind the Dm screen. Showcasing literally dozens of action much less action slots to be filled every round is detrimental to play and creativity. It fills up players minds with too much to remember and can box their thinking into acting as if only these actions were available instead of any conceivable and communicable idea.

I don't think Melee Attacks Per Round should be more than 1 as they represent a series of attacks and defenses, parries and ripostes for example.

Special circumstances could change this however as could Maneuvers. I like how ranged attackers using simple bows could attack 2x per round when unhindered (out of melee), but ranged attacks didn't include defensive melee actions so incurred AoOs.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Yes, and really goes with the spirit of bounded accuracy (and maybe damage now, if they remove ability modifiers to damage), and I would say Expertise slows down combat more than an extra attack.

 

[tlantl]

Why isn't there a plain old no answer?

You don't need multiple actions each round and you don't need to make stuff more powerful either. All this does is add to the power bloat of the game. the stuff that turns players off at higher levels.

A simple game with simple mechanics makes for a more accessible and often more fun game, not piling on action after action or bloating up monster hit points so you can bloat up damage dice and effects. Eventually you'll make things too complicated or too full of options or too unwieldy that people give up in frustration or disgust.

For me 3e and pathfinder both have this problem. I understand 4e does too. I don't need it or want it.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

With regards to healing and attacking this is what I would do differently.

If you use a smaller action to heal then it does less healing than if you used a standard action.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Why isn't there a plain old no answer?

Because a "No" doesn't really explain why, and there are a million reasons to say no. Therefore, I added the "Other" option.

 

[Li Shenron]

I voted no, but additional attacks are ok for me as long as they are a Fighter's exclusive schtik and don't start spreading to other classes.

 

[Magil]

I like multiple attacks/actions per round, but I think two is enough of a ceiling. Though I'm a big 4E fan, I wholly support removing the minor action. I think "attacking twice" has a very different mechanical feel than simply adding more damage. Plus it allows for different interactions with other game elements, which to me is a good thing (though I understand some don't see it that way).