D&D 5E (2014) [Ro3 4/24/2012] The Action Economy of D&D Next

[filthgrinder]

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.

Sounds like an excellent use case of the modular system they have been talking about.
Initiative:
Core rules: individuals roll initiative
Option 1: Group initiative
Option 2: Instant actions, everything happens at once and is resolved at the same time.
Option 3: PCs always go last.
Option 4: ...

And so on. Right now with any addition you can house rule in whichever initiative system you want. However, enumerating them out in the rules and emphasizing that "yes you can add and use any system you want" create a really neat atmosphere of encouraged tinkering.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Sounds like an excellent use case of the modular system they have been talking about.
Initiative:
Core rules: individuals roll initiative
Option 1: Group initiative
Option 2: Instant actions, everything happens at once and is resolved at the same time.
Option 3: PCs always go last.
Option 4: ...

And so on. Right now with any addition you can house rule in whichever initiative system you want. However, enumerating them out in the rules and emphasizing that "yes you can add and use any system you want" create a really neat atmosphere of encouraged tinkering.

I wouldn't mind if individual initiative is core. So long as durations for things are given in neutral units like rounds its easy to use group. If abilities have effects that last "until X's next turn" and the like, then switching to group is harder.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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."

Yup. Which I think is a good thing. Common sense tells me that in the middle of combat I should be able to put my torch down in a useful place on the floor... I should be able to draw my weapon... I should be able to take out and pop open a potion and drink it... I should be able to open a door and close it behind me... I should be able to flip a lever or slice a rope... all kinds of things like this, WITHOUT giving up my attack action for the round. But at the same time, I shouldn't be able to do ALL of that in a single turn either. And that's where the empowerment of the DM comes in to tell me that even though all of these things are "not an action"... doesn't mean I can do EVERYTHING I want in that single turn. Pick one or two and we're good to go.

 

[dkyle]

In general, what it means is we want a system that makes it easy to be the DM, and at the same time trusts the DM to make the right call for any particular situation, rather than create many highly specific chunks of rules text in an attempt to cover every possible situation.

It's a reasonable mission statement, as long is it's understood that there is a significant conflict between those two objectives. More reliance on DM fiat makes the DM's job harder, inherently.

As of right now, we have a system that states that on your turn you can take one action, and then move up to your speed.

If the "and then" should be interpreted strictly, it's an absolutely terrible mechanic. Might as well just take Melee out of the game.

If the ordering isn't strict, then I still dislike it. Removing well-defined terms is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with "Standard Action" and "Move Action".

Removing "Minor Action" is only OK if they never, ever do any mechanics that look like it. If we get tons of "you can swap weapons once per turn while still taking an action", and then "in place of swapping weapons, you may...", then it's a huge step back.

 

[filthgrinder]

If the "and then" should be interpreted strictly, it's an absolutely terrible mechanic. Might as well just take Melee out of the game.

I'm really confused at this reading of a Rule of Three article. This isn't the STRICT MUST BE FOLLOW RULES GUIDE! I think when someone says, "you can move and then attack" in conversation or a casual Q&A article, we all know what they mean in terms of the RPG.

So far, all the information being told to us, even in the very article in question, is "the core game will be simple, free and loose" and "we want to empower DMs and group to run the type of game they want"... and then the very next question, "YOU CAN'T MOVE AND ATTACK! WE'VE STRIPPED THAT OUT OF D&D!". How can you have watched the PAX East panel where they go, "we've gone back and played all the editions of D&D and we are trying to get to a system that feels like D&D to anyone who has played D&D before".. except moving and then attacking, that's right out.

It really seems like nit picking at best and at worst it's intentionally trying to crap all over everything.

I think we all really need to stop the nonsense. When we see a recipe in a cookbook that says, "add salt", we don't need to immediately post on amazon.com's review section, "IT DIDN'T GIVE THE EXACT SALT MEASUREMENT, ONE STAR!" It's add salt to taste. We are cooks, we can handle this.

We are DM's and D&D players, we can handle this. This one, we've got.

 

[Janaxstrus]

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.

God, please don't let group initiative be the default.
I find it much more immersive if people have to work together when they don't all just get to set themselves up exactly how they want and pull it off. Monsters interupting their carefully laid plans with moving or a spell makes it feel more dynamic to me.

Group initiative feels more like turn based strategy, to me personally.
If they throw it in a module, that would be great. I might even take a look at it again. Individual, in my opinion, should be the default though.

 

[dkyle]

I'm really confused at this reading of a Rule of Three article. This isn't the STRICT MUST BE FOLLOW RULES GUIDE! I think when someone says, "you can move and then attack" in conversation or a casual Q&A article, we all know what they mean in terms of the RPG.

Why is it confusing that he might mean exactly what he said? He might not, of course. That's why I said "If" and gave feedback on both conditions.

If we're always going to assume that they can't possibly have meant what they said whenever they say something we don't like, and instead always assume they're doing the right thing that we like to think they're doing, then what the hell is the point of feedback?

Also, the statement started with: "As of right now, we have a system that states..." That certainly doesn't sound like "conversational" or "casual". It sounds like a statement of what the system is currently written as. At the very least, consider this feedback that when relaying specific rules, it's important to be clear and unambiguous.

A conversation is fundamentally different than a written article, because in a conversation, ambiguities can be resolved immediately. If I were having a conversation with Rodney, and he said that, I'd say, "oh, we can move, then attack too, right"? Absent that, the best I can do is respond conditionally. Which is exactly what I did.

So far, all the information being told to us, even in the very article in question, is "the core game will be simple, free and loose" and "we want to empower DMs and group to run the type of game they want"... and then the very next question, "YOU CAN'T MOVE AND ATTACK! WE'VE STRIPPED THAT OUT OF D&D!". How can you have watched the PAX East panel where they go, "we've gone back and played all the editions of D&D and we are trying to get to a system that feels like D&D to anyone who has played D&D before".. except moving and then attacking, that's right out.

You are aware that sometimes people make mistakes, and don't always succeed at doing what they say they want to do, right? And that the best way to prevent those mistakes is to have others look at it and give feedback? If everyone that looks at it says "they can't possibly have meant that, I'm sure it's fine", well, guess, what? It's entirely possible that they did mean that, that it slipped through the cracks, and now they have useless feedback.

I think we all really need to stop the nonsense. When we see a recipe in a cookbook that says, "add salt", we don't need to immediately post on amazon.com's review section, "IT DIDN'T GIVE THE EXACT SALT MEASUREMENT, ONE STAR!" It's add salt to taste. We are cooks, we can handle this.

We are DM's and D&D players, we can handle this. This one, we've got.

"Add salt to taste" is a rule based on subjectivity of the cook. It's essentially analogous to "DM chooses a reasonable DC".

"Attack, then move" but not allowing "Move, then attack" is an objective, precise rule that has huge gameplay implications.

Now, is that the actual rule they're currently using? Perhaps not. But it's hardly impossible.

 

[ExploderWizard]

God, please don't let group initiative be the default.
I find it much more immersive if people have to work together when they don't all just get to set themselves up exactly how they want and pull it off. Monsters interupting their carefully laid plans with moving or a spell makes it feel more dynamic to me.

Group initiative feels more like turn based strategy, to me personally.
If they throw it in a module, that would be great. I might even take a look at it again. Individual, in my opinion, should be the default though.

As long as durations are not based on individual turns I'm fine either way.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think that if you ran a combat with earlier edition rules and the strict proviso that you must ACT first and then MOVE.. it would turn out ok.

If you're not engaged with someone at the start of your turn, you can cast a spell, use a ranged weapon or (I'm going to allow) charge (using both your actions). If you are, you either try to do one of these things in melee and provoke an OA, or you back off, wait until next turn.

Melee becomes *much* more important than before. Wizards can be chased down by agile fighters, and similarly the party fighters must engage combatants to stop them getting to your wizard. I think it would be interesting!

 

[the Jester]

Anything that speeds up combat is a good thing IMHO. Some things might come with too high of a cost, but this? Awesome.