D&D 5E Minor actions

[manuzed78]

Hello evrybody
excuse my poor english, it's easier to read than to write ...
I have questions about minor actions and D&D 5e

What are the rules that we know at this time (i m not sure of my 5e comprehension )

I loved the 4e edition rules (for minor actions, not for all )
player's having to spend action for things like drink a potion ... having a table with a list of common actions ...

In the playtest, it seems that minor actions has disappeared.

When i saw this, i imagined rules like that :
to drink a potion or sheathe your weapon, it costs 2 points of mouvement ( of 10 feet ) ... but i havn't seen stuff like that.

What do you think ?

 

[Li Shenron]

The idea in 5e basic & standard game is that, if an action is "minor" then it takes no action at all.

On your turn, you take an action and a move. Only require the use of your turn's actual action when what you're doing is very important: an attack, a spell, using a special ability or item, it usually takes your action. Sometimes the DM can decide something else is important enough to require you to use up that action.

The advanced game might have optional rules to define different types of actions, and tell you how many you can do in a round, like in 3e and 4e.

 

[Sadrik]

I think it will be a standard action to drink a potion.

Minor actions were removed because they add more complex options for players on each round. Players were trying to maximize the use of their three actions (standard, move and minor) rather than do what was natural to them.

I agree with that. Less action resource manipulation and more you get one action per player turn, and then you can move too if you want.

 

[manuzed78]

The idea in 5e basic & standard game is that, if an action is "minor" then it takes no action at all.

Ok my comprehension was quite good.
But i dislike this rule...

The advanced game might have optional rules to define different types of actions, and tell you how many you can do in a round, like in 3e and 4e.

I hope so !

 

[Dausuul]

At least going off the last public playtest, there is no such thing as a minor action in 5E. You get one action on your turn, one reaction outside your turn, and that's it. (Movement is not considered a distinct action. You can move any time on your turn, as often as you like; but your total movement for the turn can't exceed your speed.)

I consider this a very good thing. The profusion of action types in 4E got to be a real drag on combat, as players looked for ways to optimize their action usage--how can I get the most use out of my standard, move, minor, and immediate actions? It was also one more hurdle for newbies trying to grok the combat rules.

For the most part, 5E requires you to use an action to do anything important. Potions require an action to consume. I'm okay with that. It means that potion use in the heat of battle will be relatively rare, but so what? The one area where the 5E system gets a little kludgy is swift spells; I wish they'd found a way to avoid having those, since they are essentially minor actions brought in through the back door. It sets a bad precedent. But otherwise, the new action economy is admirably clean and tight. If something doesn't require an action, then you just do it and don't worry about it.

Likewise, I wouldn't want to see 5E start using a combatant's movement budget for things other than movement. Keep it simple.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

At least going off the last public playtest, there is no such thing as a minor action in 5E. You get one action on your turn, one reaction outside your turn, and that's it. (Movement is not considered a distinct action. You can move any time on your turn, as often as you like; but your total movement for the turn can't exceed your speed.)

I consider this a very good thing. The profusion of action types in 4E got to be a real drag on combat, as players looked for ways to optimize their action usage--how can I get the most use out of my standard, move, minor, and immediate actions? It was also one more hurdle for newbies trying to grok the combat rules.

For the most part, 5E requires you to use an action to do anything important. Potions require an action to consume. I'm okay with that. It means that potion use in the heat of battle will be relatively rare, but so what? The one area where the 5E system gets a little kludgy is swift spells; I wish they'd found a way to avoid having those, since they are essentially minor actions brought in through the back door. It sets a bad precedent. But otherwise, the new action economy is admirably clean and tight. If something doesn't require an action, then you just do it and don't worry about it.

Likewise, I wouldn't want to see 5E start using a combatant's movement budget for things other than movement. Keep it simple.

I have to admit that I'm concerned that Reaction and Swift actions together may be as much or more of a problem than Move/Minor/Standard, in practice. Then again, I never saw a newbie stumped by Move/Minor/Standard (though experts bogged down by "How shall I use my minor?", jeez, yep, in Paragon tier or higher). Making OAs Reactions also makes me have a frowny face - they were literally never hard to track in 4E.

 

[Dausuul]

I have to admit that I'm concerned that Reaction and Swift actions together may be as much or more of a problem than Move/Minor/Standard, in practice. Then again, I never saw a newbie stumped by Move/Minor/Standard (though experts bogged down by "How shall I use my minor?", jeez, yep, in Paragon tier or higher). Making OAs Reactions also makes me have a frowny face - they were literally never hard to track in 4E.

Reactions existed in 4E too, where they were called "immediate actions." They aren't any more complicated now than they were before. And merging them with OAs makes sense. What's the point of having two different types of "not-your-turn action" that have to be tracked separately? Acting out of turn should not be common enough to require this.

Technically 5E doesn't have "swift actions," just "swift spells." A swift spell doesn't require an action to cast, but you can only cast one per round. But, as I said, this is just bringing minor actions in through the back door. If they must have non-action spells, they should be simply that: Non-action spells. If you want to cast ten of them in a single round, that's what you do. Balance accordingly.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Reactions existed in 4E too, where they were called "immediate actions." They aren't any more complicated now than they were before. And merging them with OAs makes sense. What's the point of having two different types of "not-your-turn action" that have to be tracked separately? Acting out of turn should not be common enough to require this.

There's a huge point, actually - keeping them separate allows Fighters and others to actually protect people. In 5E's playtest, Fighters (and the like) are pretty hopeless at protecting people because all protecting abilities require a reaction to do anything - and Fighters only have one of those, despite their multiple attacks, extra actions and so on. We'll see if this is resolved in the final product.

Also, you effectively never had to track OAs in 4E - you had 1/turn (turn, not round), so it was always obvious whether it had been used or not. They were not a significant drag on combat (unlike 3.XE).

 

[Dausuul]

There's a huge point, actually - keeping them separate allows Fighters and others to actually protect people. In 5E's playtest, Fighters (and the like) are pretty hopeless at protecting people because all protecting abilities require a reaction to do anything - and Fighters only have one of those, despite their multiple attacks, extra actions and so on. We'll see if this is resolved in the final product.

The 5E fighter has moved sharply away from "Standing In Front of Other People 101." It's a much more offensively oriented class than in 4E. While you do get a few options like the Protection fighting style, the main way you protect your allies is to butcher every monster that comes within your reach.

If the designers wanted to re-create a 4E-style defender fighter, it would be easy to do so without relying on OAs. Here's an example of how it could be done:

Bodyguard: Choose an ally you can see. While you are within 5 feet of that ally and able to take actions, attacks against that ally have disadvantage.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The 5E fighter has moved sharply away from "Standing In Front of Other People 101." It's a much more offensively oriented class than in 4E. While you do get a few options like the Protection fighting style, the main way you protect your allies is to butcher every monster that comes within your reach.

Given that wasn't it's role in 4E (unless you would also describe 2E that way), it's hard to see how it can have "moved away from it". You really seem a bit sneering here. Also the idea that 4E Fighters weren't an offensive menace whilst also helping protect others is pretty funny.

If the designers wanted to re-create a 4E-style defender fighter, it would be easy to do so without relying on OAs. Here's an example of how it could be done:

Bodyguard: Choose an ally you can see. While you are within 5 feet of that ally and able to take actions, attacks against that ally have disadvantage.

Er, not really. In 4E the big deal for Fighters is controlling enemy movement, not imposing a penalty on attacks (which 5E has a moderately decent provision for via a Feat). The point was that the Fighter could go lockdown dangerous enemies and keep them from going where they wanted to - severely punishing them if they ignored him. This happened via a combination of Combat Challenge (immediate action) and OA benefits. He didn't have to hang out with whoever he was protecting. Indeed, if you were there, you'd generally already failed.

There's no simple mechanism I can see for that that doesn't involve more OAs or something similar.