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

[Dausuul]

Shoehorned is a loaded term. I believe not all of the 1,2, 3 AND 4e classes existed when the game was initially released, but I wouldn't call them "shoehorned" in. That implies they were shoved in to someplace that wasn't adequate to handle them, which I would say is inaccurate.

I do agree that a mechanic to allow for those type of actions would be nice, but I don't consider it mandatory. For instance, drinking a potion, or healing wouldn't be what I would consider swift/minor type actions. The game isn't all about combat, so just because something isn't as good as swinging a sword doesn't mean it's faster or negligible.
Opening a door or drawing/unhooking/picking up a weapon, sure.

Eh... "shoehorned" is a pretty accurate description of swift actions, although I've been using "bolted on" which I think is a bit more on the mark. Swift actions were the culmination of a lot of fudging and filling to handle stuff like quickened spells. They do the job, but the game was not originally built to incorporate them, and they have some odd quirks (e.g., you can convert your standard action to a move, but not to a swift). Then you add in immediate actions, free actions, not-an-actions... the action economy of 3E was a kludgy mess by the end.

IMO, the ideal situation would be if D&DN neither had nor needed anything except move-and-standard. But the developers need to do some heavy soul-searching to be sure they can go down this road and stay within that framework; not just in the core books but in the parade of splatbooks that follows. If we wind up with a lot of "you can do this once per turn in addition to your normal action," they'd have been better off to include minors from the start.

 

[DEFCON 1]

...but removing minor actions forces a lot of rather minor actions to consume a far larger chunk of the action economy than they should.

Unless they all become free actions or non-actions and they just empower the DMs to make judgment calls on how many of these can be done on an individual player's turn.

 

[dkyle]

I guess I'm a little confused, what are we giving feedback on, the Rule of Three article or the 5E game rules?

Both are entirely reasonable things to give feedback on.

More specifically, though, we're giving feedback on possible 5E game rules.

The game rules aren't out yet.

So?

"You can only attack, then move" is a rule, that was described in the article. Some gave feedback on it. That feedback is valid whether the rule ends up in 5E or not.

"You can attack and move during a turn, whatever order" is a different rule, that was not exactly described in the article, but was a reasonable guess based on what was written. Some gave feedback on it. That feedback is valid whether the rule ends up in 5E or not.

At this point, there are no certain rules for 5E. That does not mean we should not give feedback on specific rules, especially ones described in official articles.

Should we also give feedback about the lack of other things not mentioned in the the rule of three? He did not mention how the attack works, or the move works. He said, "attack and then move", it's an "and" not "and/or", QUICK LET'S FEEDBACK OR WE WONT BE ABLE TO JUST ATTACK AND NOT MOVE! 5E is on rollerskates, everyone must constantly move!

First, the article says "can", as in, optional.

Second, it says "move up to your speed". Moving 0' is "up to" any speed.

Finally, "You attack first, then move" is a far more reasonable rule than "Everyone must move 5 feet every turn". The former could conceivably work in an RPG, and some games do have strict turn structures like that. The latter is just silly.

All moves are the same! The article mentioned nothing about speed! They removed speed from the game!

This is silly. Not just because Speed was in fact mentioned several times, but also because lack of statement of a rule, in this context, is not a statement of a rule, or evidence of a lack of rule.

However, someone saying "If they're removing Speed from the game, I think that's a bad idea", that would be perfectly valid feedback. Some RPGs in fact do not specify "speed".

It's a conversation article. Feedback on big picture ideas is good. Feedback on nit picky word choice on nongame rules isn't helpful.

Except that the article included what is clearly a specific rule. That the statement of the rule was incomplete, and was not the actual rule being considered for 5E, is unfortunate.

 

[Redbadge]

IMO, the ideal situation would be if D&DN neither had nor needed anything except move-and-standard. But the developers need to do some heavy soul-searching to be sure they can go down this road and stay within that framework; not just in the core books but in the parade of splatbooks that follows. If we wind up with a lot of "you can do this once per turn in addition to your normal action," they'd have been better off to include minors from the start.

Without minor actions, this "in-addition-to economy" has to happen. For example, there will almost certainly be a "Quick Draw" ability/feat, and this ability/feat will look something like "you may draw your weapon as part of the same action to make an attack." Otherwise, you'll have weird scenarios in which players try to preclude the need for their characters to "waste" a standard action. For the preceding example, if drawing a sword takes the same action that attacking with it does, PCs will be doing things such as always having their weapon drawn and readied (even more so than prior editions), otherwise their character is essentially stunned the first turn of every fight.

 

[Blackwarder]

I don't understand what's all the fuss, it's almost exactly like 2e action economy only described differently, I bet you will also be able to switch your action with a move or your move with a double action, in 2e it was used mainly in missile combat to make all the shots the weapon allow you in one round.

The following is taken from 2e AD&D PHB in Combat Round section in the Combat chapter:

Imagine the simple act of imbibing a healing potion. First, a character decides to drink the potion before retiring for the night. All he has to do is get it out of his backpack, uncork it, and drink the contents.No problem.

Now imagine the same thing in the middle of a fight. The potion is safely stowed in the character's backpack. First, he takes stock of the situation to see if anyone else can get the potion out for him, but, not surprisingly, everyone is rather busy. So, sword in one hand, he shrugs one strap of the pack off his shoulder. Then, just as two orcs leap toward him, the other strap threatens to slip down, entangling his sword arm. Already the loose strap keeps him from fully using his shield.

Holding the shield as best as possible in front of him, he scrambles backward to avoid the monsters' first wild swings. He gets pushed back a few more feet when a companion shoulders past to block their advance. His companion bought him a little time, so he kneels, lays down his sword, and slips the backpack all the way off. Hearing a wild cry, he instinctively swings his shield up just in time to ward off a glancing blow.

Rummaging through the pack, he finally finds the potion, pulls it out, and, huddling behind his shield, works the cork free. Just then there is a flash of flame all around him--a fireball! He grits his teeth against the heat, shock, and pain and tries to remember not to crush or spill the potion vial. Biting back the pain of the flames, he is relieved to see the potion is still intact. Quickly, he gulps it down, reclaims his sword, kicks his backpack out of the way, and runs back up to the front line.

In game terms, the character withdrew, was missed by one attacker, made a successful saving throw vs. spell (from the fireball), drank a potion, and was ready for combat the next round.

One thing I am curious about is initiative, I like the ideas of group initiative with modifiers and rolling each round with round being roughly one minute, I find that the current initiative cause my group to lose touch with what's happening at the table because their actions comes once every twenty minutes.

I think that for the core rules it's a good system, a more definitive one to various degrees would be better suited for a module and I think that things like minor actions and swift actions belong in those modules.

Warder

 

[Janaxstrus]

I don't understand what's all the fuss, it's almost exactly like 2e action economy only described differently, I bet you will also be able to switch your action with a move or your move with a double action, in 2e it was used mainly in missile combat to make all the shots the weapon allow you in one round.

The following is taken from 2e AD&D PHB in Combat Round section in the Combat chapter:



One thing I am curious about is initiative, I like the ideas of group initiative with modifiers and rolling each round with round being roughly one minute, I find that the current initiative cause my group to lose touch with what's happening at the table because their actions comes once every twenty minutes.

I think that for the core rules it's a good system, a more definitive one to various degrees would be better suited for a module and I think that things like minor actions and swift actions belong in those modules.

Warder

Once every 20 minutes? Seriously? I usually don't have time to grab a frosty beverage in 3e before I'm up again.

 

[Shadeydm]

I wonder what this means for Swordmage Aegis or Hunter's Quarry? I also wonder of opportunity attacks etc will be going bye bye.

 

[Dausuul]

Without minor actions, this "in-addition-to economy" has to happen. For example, there will almost certainly be a "Quick Draw" ability/feat, and this ability/feat will look something like "you may draw your weapon as part of the same action to make an attack." Otherwise, you'll have weird scenarios in which players try to preclude the need for their characters to "waste" a standard action. For the preceding example, if drawing a sword takes the same action that attacking with it does, PCs will be doing things such as always having their weapon drawn and readied (even more so than prior editions), otherwise their character is essentially stunned the first turn of every fight.

If you're in a dungeon or similar setting and you don't have your weapon drawn and readied, you're stupid. Why on earth would you put your sword away if you might be jumped by a horde of goblins at any moment?

If you're relaxing in a tavern... well, either your group worries about things like terrifying all the other patrons and starting a riot, or it doesn't. If it does, you have a good reason to put your sword away. If not, you really will have your weapon in hand at all times, but nobody cares so it doesn't matter.

Quick Draw is an excellent example of what I said above about the need for soul-searching. Contrary to your assertion, it's not inevitable. We don't have to have Quick Draw. The game works just fine without it, and in fact I have rarely seen anyone take Quick Draw in either 3E or 4E. It is a cool and flavorful ability, however... which just happens to require an extension of the action economy. And there will be many other abilities in a similar vein. So the designers need to ask themselves if they can make a pledge to strictly limit such abilities and stick to that pledge. If so, awesome. If not, acknowledge the fact.

 

[Janaxstrus]

If you're in a dungeon or similar setting and you don't have your weapon drawn and readied, you're stupid. Why on earth would you put your sword away if you might be jumped by a horde of goblins at any moment?

If you're relaxing in a tavern... well, either your group worries about things like terrifying all the other patrons and starting a riot, or it doesn't. If it does, you have a good reason to put your sword away. If not, you really will have your weapon in hand at all times, but nobody cares so it doesn't matter.

Quick Draw is an excellent example of what I said above about the need for soul-searching. Contrary to your assertion, it's not inevitable. We don't have to have Quick Draw. The game works just fine without it, and in fact I have rarely seen anyone take Quick Draw in either 3E or 4E. It is a cool and flavorful ability, however... which just happens to require an extension of the action economy. And there will be many other abilities in a similar vein. So the designers need to ask themselves if they can make a pledge to strictly limit such abilities and stick to that pledge. If so, awesome. If not, acknowledge the fact.

My rogue has it, because it's one of those weak feats we've houseruled to improve (if you have twf, you may draw both weapons at once with it, assuming they are light). As written, it's not good at all, since in the first round you usually aren't adjacent to a foe, and you can draw a weapon as part of your move action (after level 1 for medium BAB guys)

 

[I'm A Banana]

until they run into actions that don't justify a standard action, but aren't good enough to be a free action, and they'll end up assigning it to move action anyhow

Did I hallucinate? Thought there was something upthread about standard actions that will sometimes include multiple actions (like a heal and an attack). Even if it's a figment of my imagination, that seems like a possible fix that doesn't involve penalizing movement, or making new actions. Just roll stuff together until it equals one standard action, or remove stuff until it is free.

I wonder what this means for Swordmage Aegis or Hunter's Quarry? I also wonder of opportunity attacks etc will be going bye bye.

These sound like things that can easily be free actions, or included in attacks (much like how a fighter marks simply by attacking).