D&D 5E The Economy of Actions in 5e

[GX.Sigma]

limited free actions

If they're limited, how are they "free?" It really annoys me when games do that.

Why not call them something that implies they're less than a standard action, but not completely free... How about "minor action?"

 

[Mattachine]

Standard Move Minor Free as the base actions.

Reactions, Interrupts, and Opportunity as options.

 

[howandwhy99]

Instead of Action Types why don't we simply use: all abilities available to a character in 1 minute (or whatever time length you are using).

For example:
2 Legs: walk, kick, dance, jump, hop on one foot, etc. These resources afford a character a lot of abilities. Distances, force, finesse of dexterity, etc. are measured out ahead of time per time lengths.

2 Arms: punch, arm walk, dance, arm jump, stand on one hand, etc. Sort of like feet, but slower and weaker. (the real benefit here is the hands)

1 Mouth/throat: vocalize sounds, articulate speech patterns, bite/chew, kiss, etc. Lots of stuff characters can do again.

So listing all of these would get kind of silly and we haven't even mentioned stuff like grafted on demon wings and magic items used as tools, but you know what I'm getting at.

Melee is full body combat. Boxing well means being in extraordinary physical condition. Grappling/Wrestling/MMA is nothing to sneeze at either.

However, is it possible to talk during melee? To hear? To feel the temperature? The tastes and smells? Yeah, a whole lot is possible by one character in a round. Breaking out every currently conceivable option will only serve to have players combing that list every round to maximize their actions. And that's ignoring the passive reception by the senses the DM is obliged to relay.

Rather than spelling every possible detail out in front of the screen, might I suggest giving the players the mind space to get creative in explaining what their PCs will attempt to do? The rest of all this can be behind the screen and as simplified or complex as the DM can desires and can handle.

A lot of these actions are based upon shared initiative anyways. Talking in a round should technically be done by each character on his or her own turn. Engaging in dialogue throughout a round usually means one group has opted to work together in a semi-shared initiative.

 

[Ratskinner]

I know there are a lot of possibilities here, especially when you consider nuances and vagaries of all the different systems.

Personally, I'm a fan of having one singular action per round, and possibly allowing a minor action. I wouldn't have though so, but when I got a chance to play Old School Hack, I was really impressed with how cleanly, clearly, and quickly that worked in play. Oddly enough, it seems to do away with players trying to fit as much as they can into a round. However, the way OSH does it would interfere with D&D's traditional "turn-based" initiative, so it may not be all that compatible.

That said, its unlikely that the "action economy" will make or break 5e for me. If they want my advice, keep it as simple and clear as possible in the basic rules. Let complications be reserved for modules.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I am very partial to Savage Worlds' handling of actions. There are just actions and Free actions (which incs mving your speed).

You can try several at once (but not repeat the same action without the right Edges - though there are maneuvers that allow multiple attacks for eg). Each extra action you take adds a -2 to ALL rolls. Actions without attacks are dealt with with Agility rolls.

Saga had a similar system for attacks (with the appropriate feat choice) with each starting at -10 I believe.

Anyway, I would like a simplified system like this with say a cumulative -5 penalty.

I like putting the choice in the player's hands - but all actions are Actions

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I am very partial to Savage Worlds' handling of actions. There are just actions and Free actions (which incs mving your speed).

You can try several at once (but not repeat the same action without the right Edges - though there are maneuvers that allow multiple attacks for eg). Each extra action you take adds a -2 to ALL rolls. Actions without attacks are dealt with with Agility rolls.

Saga had a similar system for attacks (with the appropriate feat choice) with each starting at -10 I believe.

Anyway, I would like a simplified system like this with say a cumulative -5 penalty.

I like putting the choice in the player's hands - but all actions are Actions

That's pretty much my preference, as I've listed it here before, but simplified further: You get two actions per round. You can't do the same action twice (not even at a penalty). If you want to have opportunity possibilities, you can save one of those actions. There are a few things that are "free"--short speech being the prime example.

This neatly avoids the issue that AeroDM raised of development action creep, because there is no separate list of actions to creep. Moreover, it flips the issue, in that having a set of equal actions to pick from, but getting two, will produce some interesting decisions that don't happen as easily with the hierarchies. I've noticed that people nearly always have a main action in mind, but the secondary one is the one that causes the most worry.

90%+ of the time, that will cover what players want their characters to do, in a reasonably fair manner. I'm not at all sure that the remaining bits are worth the hassle to enable them, except in options. Preferably, these options would be usable separately, so that if people have that one thing they really want, they can turn it on and ignore the rest. Two actions per round also provides all kinds of design room for interesting options, such as requiring a separate cast and target action for spells, thus making offensive spell casting more difficult.

Almost as good would be one action per round, but movement is free. You move and do whatever else you want to do. Any hero worth their salt would be able to move while doing other things, and this recognizes it.

 

[KidSnide]

One of the items on our "what would have made 4e faster" items was action economy. Loved it, but when you had players micro-managing what they could do in a round, it was a slowing factor (amongst many, fully acknowledged).

I'm a big fan of fewer actions. As a player, I like having minor actions -- it creates a more complicated and interesting resource management problem.

But the benefit isn't worth the cost. Although I enjoy spending my minor action in combat, I don't enjoy waiting for everyone else to micro-optimize their minor actions (and I don't expect they enjoy the time I spend on it either). I like hearing what other PCs do, but only when those actions matter. With the exception of minor action heals, low cut, and the occasional super-good utility power, minor actions tend to be -- well "minor". Combat should focus on big actions that push the combat narrative forward and should minimize time spend on fiddly details.

Fiddly details are a problem because they take up time, but they are also a problem because they take up attention. Players can only pay attention to so many things at once. The more rules there are that require attention, the less attention can be paid to creative thinking and good narrative descriptions of what the characters are doing. I value those aspects of combat and detailed action management make them harder.

-KS