D&D 5E The Object Interaction Rule, and how it's changed our action economy

[Wik]

Something I've noticed.

I play with some very rules-y players at times. They want to make the best use of their character abilities, and when things get tough, they start playing the rules to get the most out of their action. So, you'll see them drop a sword as a free action to cast a spell or something, only to pick it up next round (as a move action) after the enemy has closed with them so they can get an attack, or....

...you get the idea. Everything is balanced out so that they're every motion is pre-planned and mathed out.

Anyways. When I introduced 5th, I felt that the arbitrariness of the "Object Interaction" was going to be a problem. Why is it that sometimes it takes your action to do an object interaction (such a pulling a lever), and sometimes it doesn't? Was this going to exacerbate the problem?

After a few months of gaming, I've seen the opposite effect. My players are taking turns where they instead use their action to get a free object interaction. And they don't seem to have any problem with the fact that, for example, taking off your backpack is an object interaction, as is searching through it... while taking off your guitar case from your back is an object interaction, but opening it is an action. (And this has come up, and yes, that's our ruling, and no, my players don't seem at all upset about this or find it remotely unfair).

I think part of it is that the rules don't spell everything out, so the players just go with the flow a bit more, rather than stressing the letter of the rules. And the other part has to do with the fact that your move is no longer an "action", but something that can be split up. Players become a bit more flexible that way, and are willing to give up some of their efficiency in favour of that flexibility.

Anyways. Have any other long-timers found that the new, minor, rule change has changed how the game plays out at the table?

 

[pukunui]

Yes! As a DM, I used to hate that it would take some kind of action to open a door, meaning that quite frequently a bad guy trying to get away would have to stop his turn in the doorway, thus allowing the PCs to catch up to him. Now, though, people can mostly move through doors freely without having to stop.

I also love that anyone can snipe since you can move into the open, attack, and then move back again.

 

[Li Shenron]

Before running 5e games I had the opposite worry: it felt better to me when the playtest rules just didn't mention anything specific, and told you to require using an action simply when the DM thought it was bulky and/or useful enough. When the Basic rules came out, the final rule was IIRC that you get free interaction with one object per turn. This seemed to me a bit too restrictive, especially in the common case where a PC wants to switch weapons: is she then interacting with one or two objects?

Example: the Rogue has been shooting arrows, then is attacked in melee, so she wants to store the bow and take out a rapier. Should she get to attack in the same turn?

For me, the playtest rules were better because they left it to the DM to choose. And it does make a difference... requiring to spend your action is pretty much like skipping a turn, so switching weapons is a major tactical decision. Good for some groups who like this kind of tactical choices, bad for other groups who want a more care-free game!

Still, overall is much simpler and better than 3e, where you had to check exactly what kind of action those were, both "move equivalent" IIRC, but then you had the exception that drawing (but not sheathing) could be combined with a move if you had BAB +1, but then again back then I've seen players spend a feat on Quick Draw and say explicitly "just so that we stop this BS", and that didn't feel like a success of the rules...

 

[Ranes]

Still, overall is much simpler and better than 3e, where you had to check exactly what kind of action those were, both "move equivalent" IIRC, but then you had the exception that drawing (but not sheathing) could be combined with a move if you had BAB +1, but then again back then I've seen players spend a feat on Quick Draw and say explicitly "just so that we stop this BS", and that didn't feel like a success of the rules...

It's made worse by the misleading wording. The rule is under the heading 'Draw or Sheathe a Weapon' but only describes drawing one. I always rule that it applies to both. Having said that, I like the 5e system better. I've seen less angst from players. That might have something to do with the DMs I've played 5e with. (Still haven't run it yet.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's made worse by the misleading wording. The rule is under the heading 'Draw or Sheathe a Weapon' but only describes drawing one. I always rule that it applies to both. Having said that, I like the 5e system better. I've seen less angst from players. That might have something to do with the DMs I've played 5e with. (Still haven't run it yet.)

That might be a fine ruling especially if you are not using feats. If you are using feats, then drawing two weapons is one of the benefits of the Dual Wielder feat.

 

[iserith]

I think part of it is that the rules don't spell everything out, so the players just go with the flow a bit more, rather than stressing the letter of the rules. And the other part has to do with the fact that your move is no longer an "action", but something that can be split up. Players become a bit more flexible that way, and are willing to give up some of their efficiency in favour of that flexibility.

Anyways. Have any other long-timers found that the new, minor, rule change has changed how the game plays out at the table?

I've noticed that players in my games have stopped worrying about the rules because those rules are now firmly in the role of the DM to use. Players only describe what they want to do. The rest is up to the DM and that includes whether the rules need to come into play to resolve something into narration.

 

[Wik]

I've noticed that players in my games have stopped worrying about the rules because those rules are now firmly in the role of the DM to use. Players only describe what they want to do. The rest is up to the DM and that includes whether the rules need to come into play to resolve something into narration.

This is what I'm seeing. It's more noticeable in the traditional "rules-lawyer" players (and I don't mean that necessarily in a bad way).

Last week, the PCs were tied to one another going down a long spiral staircase with a long fall to the bottom (the diviner "had a feeling" that feather fall wasn't going to help - they'd survive the FALL, at least, but wouldn't hit the ground, because "something" was down there). So, the stairs are so slippery that the party is all tied together.

They of course come across cultists, who join hands to start casting a spell. This is scary stuff. The party remains tied together (ruling - object interaction to cut the ropes, action to untie it) and SLOWLY approaches. We quickly rule that you can ready an action, and everyone moves at the same time as the slowest person in initiative. Wasn't in the rules anywhere, but it worked.

What amazed me was, this was a tough fight. The players knew that one round of bad luck could kill them all. And yet, not once did I see someone even try to grab a stone to throw at the cultists, instead preferring to use their actions to dodge (even though the cultists didn't seem interested in ranged attacks). They didn't try to convince me that an action was "actually" an Object Interaction. They just took the ruling and went with it.

COmpare this to pathfinder, where if we didn't know a rule, the game would grind to a halt while someone searched for the rule. If I made a ruling, the game would go on, but two minutes later I'd be interrupted with the "official" ruling. And if mine wasn't as good as the official one, I'd hear about it. And if there were no rules for it, there would be discussion.

So, yeah, I like the new rule.

 

[iserith]

Cool. To be fair to previous editions of D&D, the DM has always been the final arbiter of the rules and not beholden to them at all (as stated in the rules, if not in practice) and the recommendation of "rule-and-go" to keep the action moving rather than look up rules has been around since as far back as I can remember. But it's very common for the players and DM to approach the game in a manner like a board game with strict adherence to the rules (even when it didn't make sense and wasn't very fun) and to spend a lot of time making sure they're getting the rules as close to right as possible. I've been there myself. Nowadays though I'm the Dungeon MASTER and the rules serve ME, not the other way around.

 

[Wik]

Cool. To be fair to previous editions of D&D, the DM has always been the final arbiter of the rules and not beholden to them at all (as stated in the rules, if not in practice) and the recommendation of "rule-and-go" to keep the action moving rather than look up rules has been around since as far back as I can remember. But it's very common for the players and DM to approach the game in a manner like a board game with strict adherence to the rules (even when it didn't make sense and wasn't very fun) and to spend a lot of time making sure they're getting the rules as close to right as possible. I've been there myself. Nowadays though I'm the Dungeon MASTER and the rules serve ME, not the other way around.

Oh, absolutely. Except, sometimes players don't always buy into that. Or rather, they do, but can't help themselves when they see the game stray "away" from the rules. I've always pointed out the example of the player in 4e who ran forward twenty feet and then leaped basically backwards at an angle (gaining the head start running bonus) to a ledge a few feet away. Totally acceptable by the rules... yet when I said "no, you can't do that" there was a bit of griping.

Can't see that happening these days... even with the same player.

 

[iserith]

Oh, absolutely. Except, sometimes players don't always buy into that. Or rather, they do, but can't help themselves when they see the game stray "away" from the rules. I've always pointed out the example of the player in 4e who ran forward twenty feet and then leaped basically backwards at an angle (gaining the head start running bonus) to a ledge a few feet away. Totally acceptable by the rules... yet when I said "no, you can't do that" there was a bit of griping.

Can't see that happening these days... even with the same player.

When I run D&D 4e, I follow a philosophy of "Game Informs the Fiction Informs the Game Informs the Fiction." So if rules say you can do it, then do it (with some rare exceptions where the DM overrides) and we'll establish how it's possible in context. I see that version of D&D as highly cinematic, so this works quite well.