PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next How to Fix 5e Action Economy (Without Really Trying)?



Pablo360
2019-02-05, 09:50 PM
I'm a beginning GM, who hasn't really done a lot outside of D&D 5e. I like it because it's easy to pick up, most people are somewhat familiar with it, and it has a good amount of versatility. However, there are plenty of obvious problems with it, one of which is the action economy. It's simple, which is good —*it's always pretty clear how much one can do, and making it the same for all characters is one less vector for game-breaking cheese —*but the small number of things one can do on a single turn means that plenty of more creative options are rendered moot because they come at the cost of being able to do anything immediately meaningful. For example, the only time anyone even considers readying an action is when there's basically nothing else to do.

I want to introduce a simple fix to this to encourage my players to try more interesting tactics, but I don't want to do anything too big since that could easily tip the powerscale too far in the direction of one class or another. My initial thought is to give each player a sort of “extra action” that can't do things like attacks or 1-action spells, but could be used to do other things —*like readying actions, or taking obscure reactions*—*that would otherwise not be desirable. I also want to introduce more options for bonus actions and reactions that could give players something to do with this; perhaps something like taking an attack for another ally within 5 feet.

What would be the simplest way to go about this? Has someone already gone about this? Is my general idea solid, or is it too broken to be fixed without a more complete overhaul?

Ignimortis
2019-02-05, 10:32 PM
I'm a beginning GM, who hasn't really done a lot outside of D&D 5e. I like it because it's easy to pick up, most people are somewhat familiar with it, and it has a good amount of versatility. However, there are plenty of obvious problems with it, one of which is the action economy. It's simple, which is good —*it's always pretty clear how much one can do, and making it the same for all characters is one less vector for game-breaking cheese —*but the small number of things one can do on a single turn means that plenty of more creative options are rendered moot because they come at the cost of being able to do anything immediately meaningful. For example, the only time anyone even considers readying an action is when there's basically nothing else to do.

I want to introduce a simple fix to this to encourage my players to try more interesting tactics, but I don't want to do anything too big since that could easily tip the powerscale too far in the direction of one class or another. My initial thought is to give each player a sort of “extra action” that can't do things like attacks or 1-action spells, but could be used to do other things —*like readying actions, or taking obscure reactions*—*that would otherwise not be desirable. I also want to introduce more options for bonus actions and reactions that could give players something to do with this; perhaps something like taking an attack for another ally within 5 feet.

What would be the simplest way to go about this? Has someone already gone about this? Is my general idea solid, or is it too broken to be fixed without a more complete overhaul?

You can allow players to forego a bonus action on their turn to gain an extra reaction and vice versa. Not sure how broken it would be, but I don't think that it's gonna be that bad. At worst some heavily buff-reliant classes will be able to get going faster.

Any options for extra possible actions would have to come from feats, either existing ones with some more "oomph", or entirely new things. Taking an attack for someone could be a Shield Master bonus, for instance.

John Out West
2019-02-06, 02:15 AM
I enjoy Pathfinder 2's new action economy, where everything is an action and each character gets three actions, with attacks gaining a cumulative negative attack modifier for multiple attacks on the same turn. (Not including two-weapon fighting) This means that second attack may not be as worthwhile as a grapple or shove.

That being said, from what I can tell you're actual goal is "to encourage my players to try more interesting tactics," which I don't think can be solved at the Action Economy Level. Usually "boring" tactics on the player's side is a result of "boring" tactics or terrain on the GM's side. How often can you finish an enemy off by kicking them off an edge? How often do the enemies cross a corner, turn around, and prepare an attack as a reaction? How often are there explosive barrels or kegs of flammable ale? Rocks or that can be pushed off and rolled towards players/enemies? Are Traps ever a part of the battlefield? Are there often multiple enemy groups fighting at once, transforming the combat into a chaotic skirmish? How often are players encouraged to use cover or deal with siege weapons? How often is there a MacGuffin that is fought over by both sides? How often are the players fighting an enemy that absolutely cannot be fought in a straight forward fight?

This is my opinion on the matter. I hope it helps!

Grod_The_Giant
2019-02-06, 09:58 AM
That being said, from what I can tell you're actual goal is "to encourage my players to try more interesting tactics," which I don't think can be solved at the Action Economy Level.
This. If your players are sticking to vanilla attacks too much, you need to make alternate options more appealing. If I can shove an enemy into fire for 1d6 damage or hit them for 1d8+3, I'm going to for the sword, you know?

Man_Over_Game
2019-02-06, 11:26 AM
More actions generally mean slower gameplay, as do more decisions and planning. Sure, it can be more fun, but so is playing your next turn in 5 minutes.

So you could have everyone take 1 action for 5 minute rounds, or you could take the effective equivalent of 2 actions for 10 minute rounds. In each circumstance, you're still getting 1 action of decision making per 5 minutes of gameplay, but the latter (2 actions/round) takes more time between turns and is harder to balance.

Action economy for 5e is generally a concern regarding how bounded accuracy and damage/round works. Each action by a creature is almost as valuable as any other action by any creature. Even a goblin with a puny attack can still participate against a level 15 player, and facing 20 goblins is enough to be a threat to anyone, due to the fact that they're dealing only slightly less damage than you are.

Check the speeds at your table. See how fast the rounds go. If they're taking around 5 minutes per round, you could probably afford to make the game more complicated. If they're taking longer than that, then you'll find that adding more into the mix will just create indecision and slow the game down.

If you want to make the game more complex, I'd work with the existing action economy to avoid breaking balance.

Consider implementing rules such as these:

Weapons are dramatically diverse, so that each one is a tool for a specific situation.
Making an Object Interaction that involves something that's not a light weapon provokes an Opportunity Attack.
Characters proficient in Martial Weapons can perform Battlemaster Maneuvers by halving their damage and treating the Superiority Dice roll as a 0.
Characters can modify spells on the spot (changing the damage type, or increasing the AoE by 5 feet, doing something that isn't listed on the spell block but it makes sense to do, etc) by spending 1 level higher of a spell slot for it. This may mean that Ray of Frost could freeze something (as a cantrip) by spending a level 1 spell slot for it.
Players can Concentrate on more than just spells, doing things like studying the enemy (Investigation) or holding something in place while they fight (Athletics). While Concentrating this way, they are treated as "taking 10" for those skill checks each turn without spending an action, starting on their next turn.

olskool
2019-02-06, 09:03 PM
You could pull a Mythras style initiative. In a modified for 5e ACTION System, you would have 3 ACTIONS and 1 REACTION, each of which encompasses about 1.5 seconds of a 6-second Round. Each one of the these ACTIONS can be used for anything from casting spells to movement to attacks. REACTIONS are the old 5e "Bonus Actions" awarded by the DM or by various FEATS. You only get ONE of these unless the DM awards you more REACTIONS at higher levels or due to special circumstances. AND, just like with 5e's bonus actions, only the DM can allow a REACTION to be used. To make things easier at the table, we use poker chips of two different colors to represent the 3 ACTIONS and 1 REACTION everyone gets. Checkers game pieces will also work for this.

Base Initiative would be rolled to see who goes first just like in 5e. The highest would be first, then the second highest and so on. The first MAJOR departure from 5e is in HOW the ACTIONS are used. Each combatant gets to declare and take ONE ACTION. Any REACTIONS that the DM says are triggered by an ACTION will immediately be resolved after the triggering ACTION. The acting combatant will surrender one of his ACTION Chips upon declaring his ACTION so everyone at the table knows who is acting and how many ACTIONs that combatant has left. After the first combatant completes his first ACTION, the second fastest combatant will now take his first ACTION. This continues until EVERYONE has taken their first ACTION. You then return to the first combatant who resolves his second ACTION. After EVERYONE has taken their second ACTION (and surrendered their chips), you now have EVERYONE take their third ACTION. At this point, the round ends. PLEASE NOTE, this system can defeat or "break" some builds. No longer will a player be able close with an enemy, attack, and then use movement to flee before their opponent can react because ACTIONS are taken one at a time in order. That opponent is going to get a shot at you as you move in to attack.

THE ACTIONS:

MOVEMENT: Movement is already well designed for the ACTION Economy. The 30ft per 6-second round speed is 5ft per second. The average human can run around 20 feet per second so a movement of 30ft per 1.5 second ACTION is a medium run for most humans. You COULD do up to THREE of these in a round (1 per ACTION). For movement SPEED, I say 30ft is a run, 15ft a trot, 10ft a walk, and 5ft is a crawl.

ATTACKS: You COULD use all three ACTIONS for attacks but, they will ALL carry DISADVANTAGE after the first ACTION used to attack unless you have Multiple Attacks. If you are attacking a single creature, the DM may allow you to either use your REACTION for that second attack OR you can use an ACTION if you choose to. A DM who is dealing with a Character who has multiple Attacks can even award ADDITIONAL REACTIONS at that DM's discretion. IF you are attacking MULTIPLE opponents, the default rule is that you must use an ACTION unless the DM rules otherwise.

SPELL CASTING: Under this system, Spellcasting is done differently. When casting Spells you should consult the Spell's description to see how many components it has. If it has a Verbal Component, it will take ONE ACTION. If it adds a Somatic Component, you will need TWO ACTIONS to cast it. If the Spell adds a Material Component to its requirements, you will need THREE ACTIONS to cast. Casters with the "Warcaster FEAT" can substitute their REACTION for an ACTION. Spells automatically known by casters are so familiar that they take ONE LESS ACTION TO CAST. So it will only take TWO ACTIONS to cast even IF they require a material component. Focuses can also eliminate the need for the third ACTION to prep and handle the Material Component as they are often "already at hand."

ADDING ACTIONS TO HIGH-LEVEL CHARACTERS:

It will be up to the DM to determine what bonus actions use the REACTION and what FEATS or CLASS ABILITIES may require adding a fourth ACTION. BE CAREFUL HERE! Adding a fourth ACTION can significantly increase a Character's power during gameplay. It will give that Character a basically UNOPPOSED ACTION unless there are multiple enemies. Such a Character could dominate a single opponent.

These are the basics of the Mythras Initiative System. Use what you will and ignore the rest.

Yddisac
2019-02-07, 12:19 AM
That being said, from what I can tell you're actual goal is "to encourage my players to try more interesting tactics," which I don't think can be solved at the Action Economy Level. Usually "boring" tactics on the player's side is a result of "boring" tactics or terrain on the GM's side. How often can you finish an enemy off by kicking them off an edge? How often do the enemies cross a corner, turn around, and prepare an attack as a reaction? How often are there explosive barrels or kegs of flammable ale? Rocks or that can be pushed off and rolled towards players/enemies? Are Traps ever a part of the battlefield? Are there often multiple enemy groups fighting at once, transforming the combat into a chaotic skirmish? How often are players encouraged to use cover or deal with siege weapons? How often is there a MacGuffin that is fought over by both sides? How often are the players fighting an enemy that absolutely cannot be fought in a straight forward fight?

I think this is about right. Changing the system isn't as likely to result in an actual change in how people play the game as a change in GM style. At the end of the day, table culture will determine a lot more about how you play the game than system mechanics.

An anecdote from my past to back this up: I was in a oneshot sci-fi game, playing as a Battle Master Fighter 8/Rogue 2. We got in a fight on top of our RV (yes, we had an RV) with an enemy vehicle jammed right up against us. Some other players started setting up to attack normally... until I used Tripping Attack... from the top of a moving vehicle. Suddenly the whole thing became a race to knock enemies off the top of the RV before they did the same to us. Since other folks lacked the Tripping Attack feature, they used some pretty elaborate skill challenges to accomplish the same ends. Ended up being a cool scene, memorable enough that I could easily recall it to share on Giant in the Playground years later, and not a single standard attack action was used. The environment, after all, rewarded our creative choices.

My concern with providing more actions is that it won't necessarily encourage players to get more creative. For example, if you could take an action and ready an action, I'd prepare for a lot of "I attack, then I prepare to attack if the enemy attacks me" or similarly dull manoeuvres.

Another trick you could borrow from another system is Monster of the Week's requirement that you describe your actions diegetically rather than mechanically (this is probably shared with other Apocalypse systems, but MotW is the one I know). Others have written about this better than I can, and I'm tired, so I can't provide great examples of this, but. With the right table culture, attacking can be fairly dramatic in itself. That's another change that takes place at the table level rather than the system level, though.


You could pull a Mythras style initiative.
While I'm sure this works fine for Mythras, I fail to see how this offers more options or allows more creative choices when retrofitted onto 5e. In fact, it seems to restrict action more than 5e does by forcing spellcasters to go through actions at an unsustainable rate. You even point out yourself how tying movement to actions negates creative engagement strategies like hit-and-run, thereby encouraging the very stand-and-deliver combat style OP is trying to deal with. I don't think retrofitting this system onto 5e would address OP's needs.

Quellian-dyrae
2019-02-09, 03:40 PM
I'd also say it might work better to make the actions more useful than adding more actions. While this can be done situationally, as with having environmental concerns to shove people into, in the general sense it might help to make the actions themselves stronger.

Maybe a Shove could apply an additional time per five points your check succeeds by, and shoving an enemy into another enemy might impose Disadvantage on their next attack rolls. Likewise, shoving an enemy towards an ally might give that ally Advantage on its next attack.

Maybe Help can provide Advantage on one attack per attack you're able to make, to keep it useful for higher-level characters.

Readying is usually worse than just taking the intended action, unless you currently can't take the action but expect the enemy to do something to let you on its turn. If you want players to try Readying actions more tactically, it helps to make the readied action stronger than it otherwise would be. Maybe let the extra prep time allow you to make the readied action with Advantage. Alternately, a Readied action that deals damage or forces a saving throw could negate the provoking action or end the target's turn or something (or have a chance to). That makes Readying valid as a deterrent.

Maybe the effects of Dodge persist (or you can Dodge again as a bonus action) if nobody hits you or you don't fail a Dexterity save while it lasts. That makes it more likely that your action will successfully waste enemy actions rather than just getting them to go after your allies or whatever. Or if it doesn't, hey, you get more rounds of improved defense. Best case they attack you, fail, and you still get the longer-lasting defense.

I'm only passingly familiar with 5e so I'm not sure how well that would actually balance out, but point is, if the other actions are powerful enough to compare reasonably to attacks, they're more likely to be used instead of just attacking, when the situation warrants at least; ideally, you want all the various actions to be equally useful in general, but with strengths and weaknesses that ensure they're not all equally useful all the time.