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

[Tony Vargas]

We don't need to turn back the clock on everything. 5e sounds more like D&D: Nostalgia than D&D: Next.

 

[Viking Bastard]

5e sounds more like D&D: Nostalgia than D&D: Next.

D&D: Miami.

 

[Minigiant]

Hey, I played a character with Quick Draw. The DM caves us a locker filled with magic daggers and would not give us enough NPCs to sell them all to, the jerk! Stupid throwing rules. Stupid TWF penalties.

Overall, the whole "attack and move plus free actions" thinflg looks like a mess waiting to happen. I have to see how all the free actions of classes, races, and themes combine.


Luke dashes forward about 10 feet to the orc. Then he activates his dragon blood to set his weapon on fire and use his elfsight to accurately swing his axe to make a knockdown maneuver and assassinate attempt while casting....

 

[Plane Sailing]

Also can be incredibly boring, particularly when you have to sacrifice that action for something small, like opening a door, or drinking a potion, or retrieving an item from your pouch. Or, let's say you don't move, and that move action is now useless since its only use is movement (rather than other equivalent actions).

That's only if you assume that it is a standard action to do all those things - but in the vein of greater DM empowerment it is highly likely that little stuff like retrieving an item from a pouch, or opening a door will be subsumed as 'not an action' and takes place while you are doing other stuff.

Relying upon common sense for this kind of thing is going to work for 99.9% of cases I would have thought - and it prevents fun theoretical rule abuses like the peasant railgun, or moving at tremendous velocity via free action mounts and dismounts of horses

 

[Ratskinner]

I've never seen a rules light system without a LOT of GM interpretation explicitly called for. It pretty much has to either do that OR just ignore situational modifiers. If you're fighting underwater either the rules tell you what happens, the GM does, or you just ignore it.

Capes and Universalis don't even have GMs and are pretty rules-lite. From experience, I can tell you that Capes even handles odd environments and the like far faster than D&D.

I'm not saying that the deep-end narrative end of the rpg swimming pool is where to go with 5e, but as proof of concept....

 

[Ratskinner]

I found the article, by Monte Cook, that I was trying to remember: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (What Can You Do?).

Interestingly, it seems that I did miss this part: "How much simpler it would be if you just did one thing on your turn. If things worked that way, there would be no need to categorize actions. You would attack or move or cast a spell. The game could then be generous with stuff that "didn't count," like drawing a weapon or item, opening a door, and so on. Rounds would likely cycle faster as people moved through their turns faster. Not only would each player be doing less, but more importantly, you wouldn't have players searching for extra actions to squeeze every last bit of value out of their turn. This kind of simplification breaks with game history, so older players might balk. But to a new player, the statement "you can do one action on your turn" makes a lot of sense. And it makes individual turns shorter and faster."

However, as GM.Sigma mentions above, there is some appeal in to literally making everything an action. That would make Monte's scenario of few things to do on each turn, but a much quicker turn cycle even more visceral. I'd have to playtest that though, because as both Monte and I have pointed out, a player may feel like they've "wasted" a turn if they have to draw a weapon rather than make an attack. However, this may be mitigated if the game could move blazingly fast as a result.

Thoughts?

Old School Hack does this (one action/turn) and it works blazingly fast, IME. It divides actions into 6 categories, which also determine initiative order. If an action doesn't fit one of those categories...well its probably either insignificant or too big for a combat round. They even have interruptable things (like spellcasting) built right in. (Don't panic, Fighters, they have a built-in charge ability for you that let's you move +attack in the same round.)

I don't expect 5e to go there, but I would fully approve if it did.

 

[howandwhy99]

I like this explanation. The player describes what their character is attempting to do. The DM relays back the results. Getting a definitive rule set out of the mind space of the players can enable them to be more creative.

However, I do prefer the referee to have a more or less comprehensive system for accounting actions taken. If my PC has two arms & hands and I used only one for the round, then the other is still free to have taken actions an arm & hand can take.

In terms of balancing bigger systems I do suggest simple 1-action systems. 1 move for distance. 1 spell casting. 1 melee attack. But even OD&D had 2 ranged attacks possible in a round. I think it comes down to how much action a round is expected to play out.

Again, I'd avoid single player turns as mandatory. Team work means the rules not getting in the way of acting as a group.

 

[am181d]

In 3e you can draw your weapon as part of your move action if your BAB is at least +1, which means mostly everybody.

 

[pauljathome]

Capes and Universalis don't even have GMs and are pretty rules-lite. From experience, I can tell you that Capes even handles odd environments and the like far faster than D&D.

I'm not saying that the deep-end narrative end of the rpg swimming pool is where to go with 5e, but as proof of concept....

I hadn't seen Capes before. Just glanced at it now. Looks interesting.

And pretty good evidence that I was wrong. Rules lite does not have to mean GM fiat. I'll still claim that it often DOES mean that, mind .

 

[Doug McCrae]

Personally, I find 4e's standard/move/minor (and 3e's standard/move/swift) to be too fiddly, and I'd prefer standard/move, or even just standard. If you're playing without the grid you don't really need a move action. Just make sure everyone (yes, even fighters) have a number of interesting, equally viable, options to spend their standard on, and you will have good tactical gaming.

I dislike the idea of extra attacks as a free action, I prefer the idea of a skilled combatant's single attack being bigger. Either it can affect multiple targets, or do more damage to one target, but you're still just making one attack. Everyone who is any good at fighting basically has great cleave.

However, I like immediate reactions such as opportunity attacks and other ways to react to an opponent, like a defender-type interposing his shield between a monster's attack and a squishy wizard. Admittedly, reactions do slow the game down, but I think they're worth it. Move and minor are just too boring and trivial to be worth the brainspace, imo.