D&D 5E (2014) "You Can Do 3 Things" - My Nephew's D&D Houserule

[Charlaquin]

Just spitballing here...

Flurry of Blows: spend all remaining moves to make three unarmed strikes.

That would get stronger the more moves you’ve already used on your turn. I’d go with something like once per turn spend a Focus/Ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a single move.

Action Surge: once per short rest, you can make 5 moves on your turn instead of 3.

Interesting. Why add two instead of just adding one?

Haste: while this spell is in effect, you can make 4 moves on your turn instead of 3.

I might note the Haste restriction on what kinds of actions you can do with the extra move (which is mostly just that you can’t use it to cast a spell).

Slow: while this spell is in effect, you make 2 moves on your turn instead of 3.

Perfect!

Expeditious Retreat: you can move once for free on your turn while this spell is in effect.

Awesome.

I can't get this house-rule out of my head. It's actually pretty clever.

The kids are alright.

It was definitely my favorite innovation PF2 made, and the thing that most tempts me to try playing or running it some time. Unfortunately, it still has the 3.Xe umbrella problem of a billion niggling little 1 and 2 point modifiers that I never want to go back to.

 

[CM]

The Zombicide board game and its derivatives also give each character 3 actions to spend on their turns, which can include things like move, attack, or search.

 

[CleverNickName]

The Zombicide board game and its derivatives also give each character 3 actions to spend on their turns, which can include things like move, attack, or search.

This sounds like something my nephew and his friends would play. I've never heard them talk about Pathfinder, but they are pretty much always talking about zombies.

 

[Seramus]

Huh. Maybe I should check out PF2 one of these days.

It's an interesting system and well worth checking out. The 3 Action Economy is such a great idea, and the core around which everything else is built (also really tight math).

I do personally think it has some issues, so be aware of that. Not every class uses the awesome 3 Action Economy equally well, and some classes use it in downright clunky ways. There are also some other pain points, like the hand economy is especially brutal in the name of balance. You even have to spend one of your Actions holding a two handed weapon with your off hand if you let go for some reason (to grab a rope or drink a potion).

But the core ideas are great and steal-able!

 

[DeviousQuail]

I think I would just change extra attack to extra die of damage if I used this house rule. It's cool that their experimenting with the rules.

 

[AlViking]

It messes up balance pretty quickly though and not just for character classes. Low level fighter "I attack, attack, attack". High level fighter "I attack, attack, attack". Mid-to-high level wizard "I cast fireball, fireball, fireball". A hydra with 8 heads "It bites, bites, bites".

It's not a bad approach but D&D isn't balanced around it. Unless of course the 3 things are just replacing action (which could include multiple attacks), bonus action and move, but the wizard couldn't cast a cantrip and throw a dagger as a bonus action. I doubt they're overly concerned about such things but people who aren't quite as casual may be.

 

[Charlaquin]

It messes up balance pretty quickly though and not just for character classes. Low level fighter "I attack, attack, attack". High level fighter "I attack, attack, attack".

Works, but only if there’s a target within 5ft already, and it survives all those attacks.

Mid-to-high level wizard "I cast fireball, fireball, fireball".

Can’t do that cause one spell with a spell slot per turn. You could fireball, firebolt, firebolt, I guess.

A hydra with 8 heads "It bites, bites, bites".

Again, only if there’s already a PC in melee range.

It's not a bad approach but D&D isn't balanced around it. Unless of course the 3 things are just replacing action (which could include multiple attacks), bonus action and move, but the wizard couldn't cast a cantrip and throw a dagger as a bonus action. I doubt they're overly concerned about such things but people who aren't quite as casual may be.

Yeah, I probably wouldn’t use this rule in 5e. But it is a cool action economy structure.

 

[ECMO3]

Last weekend, I sat in on my nephew's D&D game, and noticed they were using a house-rule I've never seen before. I thought I'd share, and see what everyone else thought of it.

First, a bit of background. My nephew and his friends have an after-school game every Friday. He's the DM, and there were four other kids in the group. They are all in 7th grade, so I assume they're between the ages of 12 and 13, and they are playing Curse of Strahd. So:

At some point in the game, the party was attacked by a pack of wolves. Initiative was rolled like normal, but I noticed something weird about the way the characters were calling their actions: they kept referring to The Three Things that they were going to be doing on their turn.

"For my three things, I'd like to swing my sword, swing my sword again, and then swing my sword again."

"For my three things, I'd like to cast firebolt, throw a dagger, and move."

"For my three things, I'd like to drink a potion, move, and move some more."

"For its three things, the wolf will move, bite, and then move."

Eventually I caught on: they had condensed the game's action economy and all of the different types of actions into just three "moves" that everyone could do on their turn. Attacks, movement, bonus actions, spells, potions, whatever--you got to do three of them on your turn. There were a few exceptions: they still only got one reaction, and they still couldn't cast more than one spell on their turn unless one of them was a cantrip. But still, for the most part, everyone in the group got to do three things on their turn. Even the monsters.

I thought it was interesting, so I asked him about it after the game. He said that they got the idea from a different game (he couldn't remember which one) and they liked it so much they kept it in their D&D game. "Nobody cares that much about the different actions and stuff. Just do your three things, then let the next person go."

I'm not saying I'd adopt that house-rule, but I would totally adopt that house rule can totally see the appeal. Maybe I'd tweak it a bit so that it scales with proficiency bonus? And I'm sure it would cause problems with monks (flurry of blows) and fighters (action surge), etc., so it's definitely not suitable for all tables. It works for a bunch of middle-schoolers, tho.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting. Has anyone else seen this house-rule out in the wild?

That is a really good way to simplify it, but to make it work you need to accept that people who don't get spells will be inferior, or else you need to make it substantially more complicated.

I would be totally cool with it, but the people who demand that Fighters be as good as casters wouldn't be.

 

[AlViking]

Works, but only if there’s a target within 5ft already, and it survives all those attacks.

Which happens quite frequently against higher CR monsters.

Can’t do that cause one spell with a spell slot per turn. You could fireball, firebolt, firebolt, I guess.

Depends on what rules they're choosing to use I suppose. But even a leveled spell and two cantrips could be a bit much.

Again, only if there’s already a PC in melee range.

Which, again, at mid-to-high levels happens all the time with monsters that have multi-attack.

Yeah, I probably wouldn’t use this rule in 5e. But it is a cool action economy structure.

I get the appeal but at a certain point I think a game designed with this in mind would be a better option.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This sounds like something my nephew and his friends would play. I've never heard them talk about Pathfinder, but they are pretty much always talking about zombies.

Zombies are the Roman Empire of middle school.