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

[loverdrive]

While I can definitely see that having value, there's also the converse that if defense is truly super important...it functionally becomes a two-action game where one action is always reserved for defending yourself.

Not really. There are plenty of situations where it's beneficial to use all your actions, and plenty of situations where leaving two or even three reactions is a good idea.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not really. There are plenty of situations where it's beneficial to use all your actions, and plenty of situations where leaving two or even three reactions is a good idea.

I really don't think it's wise to be blithe about this. This is a common and thorny design trap in all sorts of game design--the problem of having an action that has the risk of being either so overwhelmingly optimal there's no reason ever to not take it, or so pointless that there's never a reason to take it.

Like, if you just baldly implemented this "three actions" thing in 4e, then every single round, every character would always use Total Defense as one of their three actions, because there's really no reason to not do so. You're functionally giving yourself a free feat, every round, forever--unless you know you're just not going to get hit even slightly, in which case, again, it boils down to a trivial calculation, not an actually engaging decision.

 

[loverdrive]

I really don't think it's wise to be blithe about this. This is a common and thorny design trap in all sorts of game design--the problem of having an action that has the risk of being either so overwhelmingly optimal there's no reason ever to not take it, or so pointless that there's never a reason to take it.

Like, if you just baldly implemented this "three actions" thing in 4e, then every single round, every character would always use Total Defense as one of their three actions, because there's really no reason to not do so. You're functionally giving yourself a free feat, every round, forever--unless you know you're just not going to get hit even slightly, in which case, again, it boils down to a trivial calculation, not an actually engaging decision.

I think the biggest impact of 3 actions/reactions per turn doesn't really have anything to do with the shape of a turn itself: it's the fact that being outnumbered becomes much, much worse than it'd otherwise be.

In Elder Scrolls it's just mathematically impossible to defend against more than two attackers (and even two are a big problem already) — and it screws over boss monsters a lot.

 

[Zaukrie]

Nimble also does this. Each additional attack adds a disadvantage die. Some classes don't have disadvantage on the second or third attack. It's a good system, imo.

Edit.... But not monsters, just PCs.

 

[Dire Bare]

Nimble also does this. Each additional attack adds a disadvantage die. Some classes don't have disadvantage on the second or third attack. It's a good system, imo.

Edit.... But not monsters, just PCs.

For those not in the know . . . Nimble is a 5E hack to make 5E more, well, nimble and quick. There are two versions, the original Nimble which is a book of alternate rules systems for 5E, and a newer version which is a separate game to itself.