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.

 

[Zaukrie]

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.

good point! Sorry....also, not sure he's supporting the original anymore? But the newer version is a good game, imo. It's not perfect by any means, but of all the RPGs we've tested the last year, it is the one that would replace 5e someday for us.

 

[CleverNickName]

Another bit of efficiency I should mention: I noticed that characters and monsters had to call their Three Things at the start of their turn, and those things would all resolve at once.

For example, you would say: "For my three things, I will attack the orc with my sword, then attack the orc with my sword again, then move." And then you would roll two attack rolls, apply damage if you hit, then move to the new position. If you got lucky and dropped the orc on the first attack, the second attack was lost. (I say "lost," but wasn't that the goal all along?)

You would not say: "For my first thing, I would like to attack the orc." (roll dice) "And since the orc is still standing, my second thing will be to attack it again." (roll dice) "And I guess since I missed, I'll attack again." (roll dice).

It was impressive how fast combat was with this system. It was a party of four heroes vs. a pack of ten wolves, and combat resolved in less than 15 minutes. At 4th level. In 5E D&D.

 

[Parmandur]

It was impressive how fast combat was with this system. It was a party of four heroes vs. a pack of ten wolves, and combat resolved in less than 15 minutes. At 4th level. In 5E D&D.

...

How long do your fights usually last...?

 

[CleverNickName]

...

How long do your fights usually last...?

At least four times that long if we're using minis and a battle mat. Or twice as long, if we're on Roll20. The only time I've seen a 5E combat scene resolve in less than 15 minutes was when the characters were all low-level, and they were fighting only one or two opponents.

4 heroes vs. 10 wolves, at 4th level? That would probably take my table at least an hour (or half-hour on Roll20).

 

[Parmandur]

At least three times that long if we're using minis and a battle mat. Or twice as long, if we're on Roll20. The only time I've seen a 5E combat scene resolve in less than 15 minutes was when the characters were all low-level, and they were fighting only one or two opponents.

4 heroes vs. 10 wolves, at 4th level? That would probably take my table at least an hour (or half-hour on Roll20).

I would think like 20-25 minutes, given that many baddies, with TotM. Don't really do minis, so combat tends to be fast and dirty, but that is a lot of critters.