D&D 5E [Ro3 4/24/2012] The Action Economy of D&D Next

[Minigiant]

Well, consider the gameplay impact of attack and then move (in that order):

1. Assume the only way to move and then attack is to charge and make a basic attack. This increases the importance of having a good basic attack.

2. It becomes harder to avoid opportunity attacks. Spellcasters and ranged attackers now have to choose between casting a spell/making a ranged attack and provoking an opportunity attack or moving away as their action for the round. No more shifting into an unthreatened square and then carrying on regardless.

3. Cover and concealment become harder to negate. No more moving into a position where you're no longer blocked before attacking. You have to deal with whatever is the tactical position at the start of your turn.

4. Given the above, powers and abilities that allow you to move before attacking become more valuable. Similarly, powers and abilities that allow you to move an enemy adjacent to an ally or out from behind cover or concealment so that an ally can get a clear shot become more valuable.

5. It also becomes more useful to have a good ranged attack or a reach weapon, in case you have no adjacent enemies at the start of your round and you can't charge anyone.

All in all, it will be different, but I'm not sure it will be all bad.

Actually. I see Themes being the main method of gaining changes to action.

Lurkers can move then attack without charging.

Skirmishers can move then make 1 attack at any time before the end of the attack.

Slayer gain +2 t attack and damage rolls when charging.

Enemies cannot move after attacking a Guardian.

etc.. etc..

 

[Mattachine]

I will miss the minor action because it was a clean way to adjudicate all those little actions. Still, it seems the designers are looking for ways to streamline and speed combat, and I can support that.

 

[Tallifer]

You're reading too much into it. It's more like 2E and classic 3E: You get a standard action and a move action. It's just described in simpler terms.

-YRUSirius

Standard action and move action. That is simple.

One action, oh but you also get to move. That is not simple. Is it one action? Sounds like two, because moving is action in real life: takes time and effort. How about the infamous five-foot step, which is neither an Action nor even Movement, but is a free action which precludes moving. <smack head>

 

[Pickles JG]

I liked 1e 1 minute rounds. They let you do pretty much any amount of "other stuff" while still moving & attacking (& remember folks an attack in any edition is NOT one swing of a sword). I hate policing players swapping weapons & drawing potions. I can live without minor actions if "leaders" can still heal without giving up their attack & "solos" can still do far more in their turn than "minions" etc. I do hope it is not left too much in the hands of DM fiat as I also hate ruling on that when people cease to be reasonable.

I hope that multiple weapons (or claws) does not equate to multiple attacks in violation of reality after all there is only one brain running those weapon systems. It is slower to resolve too.

 

[Li Shenron]

Today's Rule-Of-Three contains this little nuggetAlso note that extra attacks are free actions, so a mage/fighter can cast a spell as his one action, and still get his free attacks from his fighter levels.)

What are your thoughts on the action system?

The nugget suggests a system similar to but even simpler than 3.0, and that sounds just about right to me.

A major action for an attack/spell/magic_item + a minor action for moving or anything still significant but not as directly useful as attack/cast is neat. The core game doesn't need any more action types than major, minor and free. Let modules take care of more differentiation for the simulationists or the chainmail fans.

I don't think we need to worry about the order, it's pretty sure you can move first and attack later, otherwise it would lead to very stiff melee combat because no one would want to use her turn to end up close to an enemy without even have the chance to strike first!

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm not very fond of it actually. Even though its simpler than the move/standard/minor system its still a "your turn" mess which leaves open the possibilty of tracking durations for things that last until the end of someone's turn or other such nonsense.

Group initiative is the way to go. Who goes first, the PCs or the monsters? Thats the important question. Tracking initiative order is a huge time waster no matter how many actions are performed per turn.

Group initiative is more fun IMHO and builds better teamwork skills. Everyone is engaged at the same time because its the PC's turn rather than Bob's turn, Dave's turn, Sara's turn, Johnny's turn, ... heck I'm gonna go get a drink.

Group tactics are fun to plan out when the team can act like a unit instead of everyone being an army of one. Gotta spell to throw? Let the caster lead off with a bang then move up and engage. No more forgetting someone's turn and skipping them.

 

[tlantl]

I'm not very fond of it actually.
... durations for things that last until the end of someone's turn or other such nonsense.

.

I'm sort of hoping these mechanics get lost in a swamp or fall of the mule during transport. Set durations that last for rounds, or are instantaneous work fine in my opinion.

I don't want to have to track a half dozen effects each lasting until a player, or monster's turn is over. I've got enough stuff to deal with as it is. I certainly can't trust my players to do it and the longer it takes to complete a round of combat the more likely it is that it'll get lost in the shuffle.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm sort of hoping these mechanics get lost in a swamp or fall of the mule during transport. Set durations that last for rounds, or are instantaneous work fine in my opinion.

I don't want to have to track a half dozen effects each lasting until a player, or monster's turn is over. I've got enough stuff to deal with as it is. I certainly can't trust my players to do it and the longer it takes to complete a round of combat the more likely it is that it'll get lost in the shuffle.

Exactly. Another thing to consider is modularity. If group based initiative is the basic core, adding individual initiative rules as a module can be seamlessly added. If the individual "turn" is hardcoded into the basic game then group initiative becomes harder to implement especially if effects are all given as turn to turn durations.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A couple things we need to remember...

The game is being built to play both with and without grid and miniatures. So many actions that we've gotten used to because of the grid... like 5 foot step/shifts, spellcasting or firing ranged weapons with melee range, OAs, etc... might not appear in the game in the same form anymore. So needing to change Move actions, or having Minor actions etc., might not also be necessary in the format we are currently used to. Things might be even simpler, because the intent is to be able to mentally visualize the game without needing to worry about those kinds of details.

The loss of Minor actions also doesn't really bother me... because it is a part of that 'DM empowerment' that they were talking about. Minor actions were created as a middle ground between actions that shouldn't get done more than once a turn but also shouldn't replace an attack action. Things like drawing/sheathing weapons, drinking potions and the like. Those maneuvers didn't deserve to make you lose your attack... but they also were quite capable of being abused by players who would steamroll over their DMs by insinuating that if they were Free actions, they could be done as many times as they wanted.

If the DM now really has the empowerment to tell his players that 'no, you can't drink more than one potion in your turn', even if the action to do so was categorized as 'Free'... then you no longer need the Minor action. It's a matter of giving DMs the benefit of the doubt and the empowerment that they can run their game using common sense.

Sure... that is asking A LOT for many DMs... many for whom common sense isn't actually all that common... but it does make the game simpler and faster. Which in the end is a good thing for many tables (even if one or two of them go careening out of control by power players trying to get away with 57 actions a turn because they claim the actions are 'Free', and thus should be allowed.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

FWIW, it's not hard to flip to group initiative from this perspective. Just insert a monster turn in between each PC's turn. In fact, the upcoming 4e adventure, Always On Time uses a de facto group initiative for a few setpiece encounters. /blatantselfpromotion

Sometimes I think people here can get very upset by these articles for no reason.. and then I read the comments section on that article and realised how much better we have it. I've never seen such narrow-minded reflection on a work in progress.

Eh. You didn't see the pre-season Red Sox conversations when they were 0-3.

But yeah, sometimes I do get the impression that the WotC boards are made up almost entirely of haters. Over here, the reasonable people stand out a lot more.

If the DM now really has the empowerment to tell his players that 'no, you can't drink more than one potion in your turn', even if the action to do so was categorized as 'Free'... then you no longer need the Minor action.

It's entirely possible that in 5e "free" actions and 4e "minor" actions are roughly the same thing, and that stuff like talking or using a power that triggers on an attack, are considered "not an action."

Or even just a rule like "you can only do one free action in a turn that affects anything mechanically" might give some good guidelines.