D&D (2024) 4 Things Per Turn

[ezo]

The problem is, almost all "Thinking requiring that much attention becomes an Act" stuff ends up making 99% of "Thinking" never, ever actually worth doing. You're better served just doing something that actively advances resolution of the current conflict.

Then you shouldn't have had to think about it?

Any ability check (which includes thinking, i.e. recalling information or struggling to solve a problem), IMO, worth doing either is part of movement or your action.

It's the same as the problem with healing others being a whole Action.

Frankly, I have never seeing healing as a "whole" Action as an issue. The round is only 6 seconds. You can't do that much "healing" in 6 seconds. A spell, fine I supppse, but using a medical kit (a la Healer feat, etc.) should be more than 6 seconds.

If anything, such actions should be "full-round" actions which allow you limited or no movement, and possibly leave you open to opportunity attacks.

All you're doing is delaying, unless that healing either (a) specifically makes the difference between life and death for that character, or (b) enables that character to do something they could not have done without it.

You aren't delaying anything. Healing in combat is done for (a) or (b) which keeps that character in the fight for another turn hopefully. If you can't heal enough to accomplish (a) or (b) you shouldn't waste your action healing.

In our current came I have a Divine Soul Sorcerer with 2 levels Life Domain Cleric. By twinning my healing, I can heal a lot in one action to keep our Fighter and Hexbalde in the fight. I often do so before they reach (a) to keep them from possibly going down. Why? Because they are the offense in the party and the best thing I can do many rounds is keep them healthy. Sure, once in a while I toss a fireball or spirutal weapon or cantrip, but healing is my thing and I'm good at it.

This is the very specific reason why 4e had Minor Action healing, and why 5e's repeated attempts to do away with Minor/Bonus Action stuff have failed.

Well, I can't speak to 4E because I've never played it or seen it played. I don't know why you'd remove Bonus Actions, they work fine IME and aren't that difficult to deal with. If anything, people complain there aren't enough Bonus Action options or certain things they feel should be bonus actions but aren't. What they fail to understand and wrongly equate is the idea that a "bonus action" is a "quick action", or something minor, easily done, etc. and so should be used of those sorts of things (which if they are that simple or fast, generally are free (object interactions)).

Such as drinking a healing potion as a bonus action? No. That is patently ridiculous IMO and I would never allow it or play that way. It is "gamist" and for people who complain they need to heal but what to do something "cool"--and don't feel healing is "cool". Odds are if you got the point you have to decide between doing something "cool" and healing or being healed, you either pushed your luck or ran into bad luck.

Now, you could play with a round longer than 6 seconds and then you could "do more" on your turn, but that is the only way I could justify that happening.

(Now they're trying to do an end-run...via extremely 4e-like exception-based design. It's not been popular because, surprise surprise, that's really complicated and harder to remember!)

I have no idea what this is about... I assume it is 2024 stuff?

This is certainly a valid concern with any attempt to "fix" the action economy. But the fact is, not all doable things are equally valuable, and trying to force absolutely all of them to live within a single equal-value Action is a great way to discourage people from ever doing a lot of cool things.

No, they aren't. But what level of granularity do you want to break it down to?

Again, this isn't an issue for myself, but I understand it is for others, so they need to find a solution that works for them. The OP's concept, for instance, is not something I would want to use, but if it works for them then great.

I can only spek for myself, and I always liked a complex/full-round and simple action breakdown, with the 1:2 ratio idea, and movements as simple actions. Toss in bonus actions and reactions if you want, sure. Then split the round into multiple turns like Shadowrun. More complex? So not for everyone but that's fine.

 

[NotAYakk]

Yes, the core thing I'm trying to address is that risking your action to Talk or Think is almost always a trap.

As a DM, either I have to give the PC the ability to change their mind (before you roll make an insight check ... they don't look ready to break), have the PC regularly waste their turn (on something that is not going to be nearly as effective as a standard combat action), or make it really good really often (because, honestly, a default action by a D&D PC has huge impact on the game state).

Lets look at intimidate. If the PCs are in an obviously winning position, it makes sense for intimidate to have a decent chance of breaking the enemy's morale. But if they are in an obviously winning position, a single round of attacks is probably going to nearly wrap up combat; the PCs are probably going to take very little damage from the remaining forces, and if the remaining forces have any brains "1/3 of your allies turns into a fine mist of blood" is a lot more intimidating than "roar, surrender!".

If the enemies aren't about to be overrun, the intimidate action isn't likely to succeed. And if it fails it is going to make the PCs position worse, as they just lost an action by someone on their side to do nothing. The result? Intimidate turns out to really only be useful when you want to avoid killing your foes, which "I deal non-lethal damage" is even better at doing.

I could make Intimidate reasonably likely to succeed and cause demoralization even against foes who aren't about to be overrun; if it succeeds regularly, it starts being "skip combat" button, which is somewhat of anti-fun. If it just causes a disruption relatively reliably (except when it doesn't), I guess it can work.

So now I need to invent a mechanism for intimidate to disrupt enemies reasonably reliably without causing them to flee combat at a level similar to what a full attack action by a PC would do, and give it a chance that the enemy flees. Ie, there is a whole bunch of balancing work I have to do to make the Intimidate Action fit just right. I am unaware of anyone's house rules in D&D that have succeeded; do you know of any?

Meanwhile, if Talk is something you can do, the PC can try to do something. They can roar, they can threaten, they can bluster, they can give a suggestion to an ally. I can ask for a roll against a nearly arbitrary DC and don't have to worry about balancing it against the main action of the character.

I fully expect this to result in PCs wanting to say something each turn. Great - encouraging in-combat banter sounds like a good side effect!

Think - having a PC ask about enemy culture, fighting styles, things in the room, motivations of enemies, etc - is also something I'd welcome happening more often in combat.

I similarly don't want to make Think be the centerpiece of someone's turn. You can make mechanics for this, but the weight is heavy. 4e Warlords had "think+talk" actions on that scale - abilities like "your ally gets advantage on their next attack and deals 2x damage" as you point out a weakness in the foe. Dungeon World has "spout lore".

Rather than invent mechanics at that scale, saying that "Think" is a free action means that on their turn, the player can ask me something about the situation, which in turn gives me an excuse to tell them about the encounter, possibly gated behind a check. And they aren't risking "sorry, you spent your turn making that knowledge check" or similar.

It also means I get to feed Players information - when they hit or miss a creature, ask for a check, and depending on the result reveal information about the creature they attacked.

These are all things that I have seen DMs do. In games where DMs demand full actions for intimidation or knowledge checks I rarely see them used; in games where they don't, I see them used quite often. And I don't see the game breaking down.

I mean, I get how it could cause problems - people being analysis paralyzed by "I have to think up a think and a talk!" - but analysis paralysis is best dealt with through other options in my experience. (And, offering A or B causes more paralysis than A and B in my experience)

And, if all that happens is I get players saying "I yell out 'we got this', encouraging my allies" and "are there any flaws in their combat style?" or "how is the enemy morale?" on their turn, I'd consider it a decent result.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Then you shouldn't have had to think about it?

Any ability check (which includes thinking, i.e. recalling information or struggling to solve a problem), IMO, worth doing either is part of movement or your action.


Frankly, I have never seeing healing as a "whole" Action as an issue. The round is only 6 seconds. You can't do that much "healing" in 6 seconds. A spell, fine I supppse, but using a medical kit (a la Healer feat, etc.) should be more than 6 seconds.

If anything, such actions should be "full-round" actions which allow you limited or no movement, and possibly leave you open to opportunity attacks.

You have completely missed the point.

Doing this will simply be telling the player, "Never bother doing these things." You have created such a stupidly high opportunity cost that no one will ever do them.

You aren't delaying anything. Healing in combat is done for (a) or (b) which keeps that character in the fight for another turn hopefully. If you can't heal enough to accomplish (a) or (b) you shouldn't waste your action healing.

YES. THAT WAS THE POINT. You have made healing essentially always a wasted action!

In our current came I have a Divine Soul Sorcerer with 2 levels Life Domain Cleric. By twinning my healing, I can heal a lot in one action to keep our Fighter and Hexbalde in the fight. I often do so before they reach (a) to keep them from possibly going down. Why? Because they are the offense in the party and the best thing I can do many rounds is keep them healthy. Sure, once in a while I toss a fireball or spirutal weapon or cantrip, but healing is my thing and I'm good at it.

....but the opportunity cost of doing that instead of killing the enemies with a fireball or spiritual weapon is precisely what I'm talking about here. A twinned haste would be far more productive in actually ending the fight. That is my point. You had to give up doing something much more powerful in order to...reverse damage that someone else did to your friend. Which means your turn does nothing except turn back the clock. You didn't actually push the fight closer to completion. You just un-did one or more enemy turns.

Such as drinking a healing potion as a bonus action? No. That is patently ridiculous IMO

And my whole point here is that you are allowing your unyielding requirement of absolute "realism" (even though it is entirely possible to drink a potion in that kind of time!) to block useful, productive, enjoyable-to-play design space.

Now, you could play with a round longer than 6 seconds and then you could "do more" on your turn, but that is the only way I could justify that happening.

Yes. I'm aware of your unyielding "realism" requirements, even when those requirements don't actually map to the real world in the first place. Reality is unrealistic. Get used to it.

I have no idea what this is about... I assume it is 2024 stuff?

Correct. There are a number of class features and/or spells which now use awkward, cumbersome language in order to dance around the fact that they're allowing one thing-you-can-do to ride alongside another thing-you-can-do. E.g. "If you cast this spell as an Action, you can also take the Attack Action" sort of stuff. I doubt there's any that are explicitly written exactly like that. But I've seen at least a couple examples that work more or less that way.

No, they aren't. But what level of granularity do you want to break it down to?

I find a five-step system works perfectly fine: "Full" action (you can only do this and no other things this round), Standard action, Minor action, your movement (what 4e called your "Move action"--one of the few things about 5e that I see as a distinct improvement, since you can move much more tactically if you don't have to use it up all at once), and Free actions.

It should be rare--and very worthwhile--for something to eat up EVERYTHING you can do. Most actions should be Standard. Some, like basic healing effects, should be Minor so that the player can both nix an enemy's prior action and do something that actively works to overcome the threat. A very few things (not many, but a few) should be Free actions--it's always risky to

And you'll note that in practice, every WotC edition has had this overall structure. 5e had Full actions (like Full Attack), Standard actions, Swift actions (=4e's Minor action, 5e's Bonus Action), movement, and Free actions. In a meaningful sense, PF2e continues this tradition, but divides things up differently, by saying that you have three usable actions each turn, but some things require more than one action to use. Spells analogous to a swift action in 3e, a minor action in 4e, or a bonus action in 5e are single-action spells in PF2e.

Again, this isn't an issue for myself, but I understand it is for others, so they need to find a solution that works for them. The OP's concept, for instance, is not something I would want to use, but if it works for them then great.

I can only spek for myself, and I always liked a complex/full-round and simple action breakdown, with the 1:2 ratio idea, and movements as simple actions. Toss in bonus actions and reactions if you want, sure. Then split the round into multiple turns like Shadowrun. More complex? So not for everyone but that's fine.

There are many other ways to address this problem--and, more importantly, your preference is far from the only one that should be considered for fundamental subsystems like the action economy. Game design is about a great deal more than obsessive commitment to "realism."

 

[ezo]

You have completely missed the point.

Um... ditto?

Seriously, I don't miss your point at all. I just don't AGREE with your point. There's a big difference.

Doing this will simply be telling the player, "Never bother doing these things." You have created such a stupidly high opportunity cost that no one will ever do them.

No, it doesn't, because my players do them. So again...

YES. THAT WAS THE POINT. You have made healing essentially always a wasted action!

No, the point is I... (a) possibly prevent an ally from dying or (b) keep them in the fight longer to do things they do better than I do.

....but the opportunity cost of doing that instead of killing the enemies with a fireball or spiritual weapon is precisely what I'm talking about here. A twinned haste would be far more productive in actually ending the fight. That is my point. You had to give up doing something much more powerful in order to...reverse damage that someone else did to your friend. Which means your turn does nothing except turn back the clock. You didn't actually push the fight closer to completion. You just un-did one or more enemy turns.

If I don't reverse the damage, then the enemy drops them before they can use the haste... so that is a waste, huh?

It is situational, obviously. Healing isn't always the best course of action, but often it is.

And my whole point here is that you are allowing your unyielding requirement of absolute "realism" (even though it is entirely possible to drink a potion in that kind of time!) to block useful, productive, enjoyable-to-play design space.

Yeah, you don't get it. (bolded)

What "time" are you refering to? A bonus action, or action, or whatever has no "time" element in the round. There is no this takes 1 second, this is 2 seconds, etc.

Can you drink a potion in a round? Certainly! Can you do that while in the middle of a fight and being attacked by an ogre or giant? Probably, but you are spending some of that "time" defending yourself, right?

What about any of that time you spend moving? Or getting the potion out of your pouch? Untying the drawstring? Unstoppering the potion? And so on.

And no, my "unyielding requirement to absolute realism" blocks nothing, thank you very much. I play the way I do and so do my players and we all have a great time. So, its my preference, yes, and let's leave it at that.

Yes. I'm aware of your unyielding "realism" requirements, even when those requirements don't actually map to the real world in the first place. Reality is unrealistic. Get used to it.

They do, actually, even if you refuse to believe that or see it.

"Reality is unrealistic"??? Seriously?

Swinging a sword is much faster than the process of drinking a potion. I can draw a blade, position it, and attack with it much faster than I can untie a pouch, pull out the (correct) potion, open it, bring it to my mouth and drink it.

Correct. There are a number of class features and/or spells which now use awkward, cumbersome language in order to dance around the fact that they're allowing one thing-you-can-do to ride alongside another thing-you-can-do. E.g. "If you cast this spell as an Action, you can also take the Attack Action" sort of stuff. I doubt there's any that are explicitly written exactly like that. But I've seen at least a couple examples that work more or less that way.

Well, I think most of the stuff they changed in 2024 is messed up, so oh well. "Get used to it" I suppose?

I find a five-step system works perfectly fine: "Full" action (you can only do this and no other things this round), Standard action, Minor action, your movement (what 4e called your "Move action"--one of the few things about 5e that I see as a distinct improvement, since you can move much more tactically if you don't have to use it up all at once), and Free actions.

Sure, something along those lines works for me.

It should be rare--and very worthwhile--for something to eat up EVERYTHING you can do. Most actions should be Standard. Some, like basic healing effects, should be Minor so that the player can both nix an enemy's prior action and do something that actively works to overcome the threat. A very few things (not many, but a few) should be Free actions--it's always risky to

(bolded) Once again, I'll never agree to this. Healing effects (skill, potion, spell, whatever) should be a standard action and in some cases even a full-round action. Yeah, realism.

For example, to nerf the power of casters...
Full-round: Casting a spell (you get maybe the 5-foot step).
Standard: Casting a cantrip.
Minor/Bonus: Fairly quick spells or getting out a cost-spell component maybe.
Move: well, moving?
Free: Grabbing your spell focus.

There are many other ways to address this problem--and, more importantly, your preference is far from the only one that should be considered for fundamental subsystems like the action economy.

It is the only one I am concerned with. Your preference is also far from the only one, right?

Game design is about a great deal more than obsessive commitment to "realism."

That depends. Is being more realistic one of the design goals (in my case, always).

When PCs (or creatures) start doing things that would require Superman/Flash-like speed in the game, I lose interest quickly. Fantasy is my goal, but believable fantasy, not super-heroics.

Obviously your design goals are opposing mine, no worries. Enjoy your game and I'll enjoy mine.

 

[NotAYakk]

If I don't reverse the damage, then the enemy drops them before they can use the haste... so that is a waste, huh?

So if your healing is enough to erase a turn of enemy damage, then ... combat is not very threatening. It is just "how long can I keep up healing for" endurance test.

If it isn't, then you are buying a partial ally turn (in terms of how many extra turns they stay up) in exchange for your full turn.

Bursty, rare use healing, or using it when someone is ambushed and will be able to reposition to a better defensive position, are exceptions to this.

If you can outheal enemy focus fire, the enemy is pretty trivial. If you can't, your healing action gives your ally less than a single round of extra actions. If you instead had done an action to bring the combat to a conclusion, your action would happen sooner (hence have time-based leverage).

So, in the general situation, healing your ally as your action works when your actions suck compared to your ally's, or when healing is very expensive thing you can do rarely, or when the fight is already pretty trivial, or when you can expect allies to reposition themselves better in the future and not experience a similar level of damage flux.

Swinging a sword is much faster than the process of drinking a potion. I can draw a blade, position it, and attack with it much faster than I can untie a pouch, pull out the (correct) potion, open it, bring it to my mouth and drink it.

I don't know about you, but if I had magical healing potions I'd put them in a the fantasy equivalent of either a camelback or a beer hat and be able to suck them down while fighting. I'd definitely not bury them in some random pouch. Heck, I might even set up the tube so that it flooded my mouth if I stopped clenching my jaw (so if I'm KO'd I it forces itself into my gut).

I'd probably build some kind of healing potion injection system that shoots it strait into my blood stream that is spring powered.

Fumble around in a pouch my arse.

 

[ezo]

So, in the general situation, healing your ally as your action works when your actions suck compared to your ally's, or when healing is very expensive thing you can do rarely, or when the fight is already pretty trivial, or when you can expect allies to reposition themselves better in the future and not experience a similar level of damage flux.

Well, in this case my character is a healer so his action is to buff and keep his allies in the fight. His actions don't "suck", they do what they are intended to do.

I don't know about you, but if I had magical healing potions I'd put them in a the fantasy equivalent of either a camelback or a beer hat and be able to suck them down while fighting. I'd definitely not bury them in some random pouch. Heck, I might even set up the tube so that it flooded my mouth if I stopped clenching my jaw (so if I'm KO'd I it forces itself into my gut).

I'd probably build some kind of healing potion injection system that shoots it strait into my blood stream that is spring powered.

Fumble around in a pouch my arse.

You can do such if you want in your games, certainly, but in D&D potions are in vials/flasks and so in my games your healing potions would lose their potency "contained" in such a manner (just like water in a camelback goes stale over time and beer in beer-hats goes flat--quickly).

Anyway... frankly I have no stake in this conversation. As I said in my first post regarding the OP:

But hey, sure, try it with your group. I don't see it catching on, frankly speaking, but I could be wrong.

So, best of luck to you.