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

[GX.Sigma]

Today's Rule-Of-Three contains this little nugget:

One of the things we're trying to do is streamline the player's turn a bit while still letting the player do something significant each turn. 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. [or move and then action. -gx] Most everything is just an action; attacks, casting spells, activating magic items, etc. "Moving up to your speed" can also cover things like climbing, jumping, and standing up from prone within that movement. We believe this is going to accomplish our goal of making combat move faster across all levels, being easier to teach to new players, and also making sure that the kinds of effects we're putting into the game are big, meaty and significant so that you really feel their impact.

(Also 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?

In my opinion, this sounds like a very bad idea. It sounds like the action system in the D&D Adventure System board games, which was one of the worst things about those games. On your turn you could attack and move... but "immobilized" says you can't move. Does that mean you can't take the move action, or does it mean you're literally stuck in place? "Dazed" says you can only attack or move but not both. Does that mean you can't use abilities that say "use this instead of attacking"? Does it mean you can't use attacks that allow you to move as part of the attack action?

I fear it may lead to very awkward wordings, like "you may do this instead of moving your speed on your turn," rather than "do this as a move action," and a very loose definition of "free actions."

Edit: Trevor on Twitter clarified. You can move then attack, or attack then move.

 

[YRUSirius]

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

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

So how do you engage a foe? You can't attack because you're not adjacent, so you move up. The foe doesn't like the odds and so retreats. You can't attack because you're not adjacent...

Sounds like the charge action will combine a move and attack, and the retreat may draw the dreaded AoO...

 

[YRUSirius]

I'm pretty sure you will be able to move and then attack. Don't read other nonsense into this.

-YRUSirius

 

[tlantl]

As long as my monsters can move and get all of their attacks at the end it's all good. I can't see a lion jumping on someone and getting only one of it's three attacks when it gets there. It would also be nice if all of the attacks are at the same attack bonus.

It will also be nice not to have someone telling me that it's not how it's done when I do make that attack, regardless of whether it's the way it's done or not.


I don't have much use for the adventure path they talk about in the third section. Dro in my world don't live in tunnels and caves under ground.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It depends, how things are done. In actual play, minor, move and standard is bogging the game down.
People think about what to do exactly. And how to haggle with their actions.

It is easier if you attack and move. Instead of moving you can stand up, climb etc. Instead of attacking, you can cast a spell. (or move)
Minor actions are all free actions. The DM tells you how many you can take. fightet extra attacks should always be possible, as weapon switching. But opening a door etc. You could also adjucate, that opening a door costs feet of movement etc.

 

[FireLance]

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.

 

[MortalPlague]

I will miss the minor action.

Unless there's something to replace it (free actions?).

It was a great tool as a DM to grant monsters some cool abilities that didn't quite rank up with full-on attacks. Likewise, for PCs, things like activating magical wards or runes, or making a quick skill check to spot a weakness... something that's more than a free action, but not quite on par with an attack. If that all gets rolled into free actions, I have no problems with it. But if that goes away, I'll be disappointed.

Firelance: good catch on that wording. Attack then move. That has me intrigued.

 

[Incenjucar]

Eh. What we use as minor actions will continue to exist in a much more nebulous, imprecise form. There are too many things that are an enduring part of D&D that are too small to waste an attack on and too significant to do for free.

Imagine if you had to waste an entire attack on Wildshape, or if you could suck down three potions AND Wildshape before attacking and moving.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

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.

I like the sound of teaching the DM to make good decisions at the table - too many rules in the DMG and they panic, look through books, slow things down. Too many rules in the PHB and the players demand that something be resolved by rules as written, rather than using some common sense to resolve the situation. Obviously there is a balance though.

Thank god for getting rid of minor actions. I even think that [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION] 's assessment of action THEN move makes it sound reasonable, and very tactical. After all, in an initiative system, why should you be able to move-attack-attack-move? It will make melee dangerous again and OAs will be simplified. Someone should test this out with current rules. I won't miss minor actions, they were designed to limit the number of little tricks you could do on your turn, but I never thought having unlimited minor actions would have changed much.