Making things like Jumping and 'Remembering stuff' an Action is a bad idea, unless WotC just goes all the way and embraces an aspect of Pathfinder 2e.
Step 1: Make Moving an Action too.
Step 2: Give everybody three Actions per turn.
Then you can move, jump and attack on your turn, or move, remember something useful about the enemy, and then cast a spell. Or if you don't need to move, you can remember something useful, cast a spell, and use an item. Etc. I think this would solve a lot of the monotony of DnD 5e combat, where you have one Action to do one thing, and if that thing didn't work, sucks to be you.
The likelihood that they try that is incredibly low. I mean, they'd need to completely remodel combat and the game to give you three actions per a turn, and I don't think anyone would want that. And yeah, remembering stuff should not take your whole action. Max, it should take a bonus action. But I think it being a free action makes more sense. With this rule, if your players ask, "I'm supposed to run ahead and steal the treasure, but I'm not as smart as my character, so I've forgotten the directions, can you please remind me DM?" The DM is supposed to tell the player to make a check and spend their whole action. Yeah, this rule really doesn't make much of any sense.
They already are completely remodeling the action economy by codifying these new actions and changing things like how movement speeds and jumping works, but what they're doing now is a half measure. They either need to bring back the concept of Free Actions and make these new things Free Actions, or they need to increase the number of Actions you can perform in a turn. Otherwise, these changes are just bad, creating Actions nobody will use because it's a waste of a turn.
Making things like Jumping and 'Remembering stuff' an Action is a bad idea, unless WotC just goes all the way and embraces an aspect of Pathfinder 2e.
Step 1: Make Moving an Action too.
Step 2: Give everybody three Actions per turn.
Then you can move, jump and attack on your turn, or move, remember something useful about the enemy, and then cast a spell. Or if you don't need to move, you can remember something useful, cast a spell, and use an item. Etc. I think this would solve a lot of the monotony of DnD 5e combat, where you have one Action to do one thing, and if that thing didn't work, sucks to be you.
The likelihood that they try that is incredibly low. I mean, they'd need to completely remodel combat and the game to give you three actions per a turn, and I don't think anyone would want that. And yeah, remembering stuff should not take your whole action. Max, it should take a bonus action. But I think it being a free action makes more sense. With this rule, if your players ask, "I'm supposed to run ahead and steal the treasure, but I'm not as smart as my character, so I've forgotten the directions, can you please remind me DM?" The DM is supposed to tell the player to make a check and spend their whole action. Yeah, this rule really doesn't make much of any sense.
They already are completely remodeling the action economy by codifying these new actions and changing things like how movement speeds and jumping works, but what they're doing now is a half measure. They either need to bring back the concept of Free Actions and make these new things Free Actions, or they need to increase the number of Actions you can perform in a turn. Otherwise, these changes are just bad, creating Actions nobody will use because it's a waste of a turn.
I guess, but they certainly aren't remodeling the action economy that much, just adding kind of useless actions. So yeah, I hope they bring back the concept of free actions. Either way, I'm against giving people three actions in one turn. Imagine how long it would take just to get through one turn and imagine how boring it would be for the other players at the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I think they're expecting that, if people want to be able to make checks to identify enemies mid combat, they'll be taking the Observant feat. That makes it a bonus action, plus you get an Expertise on a Study skill. Otherwise, wait til combat is over.
Making things like Jumping and 'Remembering stuff' an Action is a bad idea, unless WotC just goes all the way and embraces an aspect of Pathfinder 2e.
Step 1: Make Moving an Action too.
Step 2: Give everybody three Actions per turn.
Then you can move, jump and attack on your turn, or move, remember something useful about the enemy, and then cast a spell. Or if you don't need to move, you can remember something useful, cast a spell, and use an item. Etc. I think this would solve a lot of the monotony of DnD 5e combat, where you have one Action to do one thing, and if that thing didn't work, sucks to be you.
The likelihood that they try that is incredibly low. I mean, they'd need to completely remodel combat and the game to give you three actions per a turn, and I don't think anyone would want that. And yeah, remembering stuff should not take your whole action. Max, it should take a bonus action. But I think it being a free action makes more sense. With this rule, if your players ask, "I'm supposed to run ahead and steal the treasure, but I'm not as smart as my character, so I've forgotten the directions, can you please remind me DM?" The DM is supposed to tell the player to make a check and spend their whole action. Yeah, this rule really doesn't make much of any sense.
They already are completely remodeling the action economy by codifying these new actions and changing things like how movement speeds and jumping works, but what they're doing now is a half measure. They either need to bring back the concept of Free Actions and make these new things Free Actions, or they need to increase the number of Actions you can perform in a turn. Otherwise, these changes are just bad, creating Actions nobody will use because it's a waste of a turn.
I guess, but they certainly aren't remodeling the action economy that much, just adding kind of useless actions. So yeah, I hope they bring back the concept of free actions. Either way, I'm against giving people three actions in one turn. Imagine how long it would take just to get through one turn and imagine how boring it would be for the other players at the table.
It works just fine in other systems that allow multiple actions per turn, like the aforementioned Pathfinder 2e, or are you saying DnD players are uniquely slow and horrible at making decisions on their turn?
Making things like Jumping and 'Remembering stuff' an Action is a bad idea, unless WotC just goes all the way and embraces an aspect of Pathfinder 2e.
Step 1: Make Moving an Action too.
Step 2: Give everybody three Actions per turn.
Then you can move, jump and attack on your turn, or move, remember something useful about the enemy, and then cast a spell. Or if you don't need to move, you can remember something useful, cast a spell, and use an item. Etc. I think this would solve a lot of the monotony of DnD 5e combat, where you have one Action to do one thing, and if that thing didn't work, sucks to be you.
The likelihood that they try that is incredibly low. I mean, they'd need to completely remodel combat and the game to give you three actions per a turn, and I don't think anyone would want that. And yeah, remembering stuff should not take your whole action. Max, it should take a bonus action. But I think it being a free action makes more sense. With this rule, if your players ask, "I'm supposed to run ahead and steal the treasure, but I'm not as smart as my character, so I've forgotten the directions, can you please remind me DM?" The DM is supposed to tell the player to make a check and spend their whole action. Yeah, this rule really doesn't make much of any sense.
They already are completely remodeling the action economy by codifying these new actions and changing things like how movement speeds and jumping works, but what they're doing now is a half measure. They either need to bring back the concept of Free Actions and make these new things Free Actions, or they need to increase the number of Actions you can perform in a turn. Otherwise, these changes are just bad, creating Actions nobody will use because it's a waste of a turn.
I guess, but they certainly aren't remodeling the action economy that much, just adding kind of useless actions. So yeah, I hope they bring back the concept of free actions. Either way, I'm against giving people three actions in one turn. Imagine how long it would take just to get through one turn and imagine how boring it would be for the other players at the table.
It works just fine in other systems that allow multiple actions per turn, like the aforementioned Pathfinder 2e, or are you saying DnD players are uniquely slow and horrible at making decisions on their turn?
I don't play Pathfinder so I can't speak on how it works there, but if we were to give three actions, we would completely need to remodel all of D&D. And the designers of 1DD have already said they didn't want to completely change anything. And yes, D&D players are known for being "uniquely slow and horrible at making decisions on their turn" due to the sheer complexity of combat in the game. And a spellcasters turn with three actions would take eons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I don't play Pathfinder so I can't speak on how it works there, but if we were to give three actions, we would completely need to remodel all of D&D. And the designers of 1DD have already said they didn't want to completely change anything. And yes, D&D players are known for being "uniquely slow and horrible at making decisions on their turn" due to the sheer complexity of combat in the game. And a spellcasters turn with three actions would take eons.
We're only two playtests in and they've already made multiple suggestions that completely changes the game and makes backwards compatibility a laughable proposition. Old chargen and new chargen are completely incompatible with backgrounds giving you ability scores and feats now, which also affects the balance of how the racial choices work. The suggestion that only players can crit implies a complete rework of every monster stat block in the game. Level progression has completely changed, as well as several base class features, making it a difficult prospect to try and use old subclasses with the new rules. They totally replaced the effects of nearly every feat, and changed foundational rules like how Two Weapon Fighting works. I could go on, but yeah, they are not at all shying away from foundational changes to the rule set.
As for how 'three actions per turn' works in pathfinder, they have a number of extra things you can do on your turn to use up said actions, and allow certain things to have multiple actions devoted to it to make it stronger. If DnD went the 3 Actions route, I would expect Attacks and Spells to still be limited to 'can only do it once per turn', but there would be ways to devote multiple actions to it to enhance the effect, like a normal attack would be 1 Action, but a Power Attack would be 2 Actions, and certain spells could be super charged with extra actions to give additional effects or range. That would allow for more creative ways to improve spells without going so far as to require upcasting.
Making things like Jumping and 'Remembering stuff' an Action is a bad idea, unless WotC just goes all the way and embraces an aspect of Pathfinder 2e.
Step 1: Make Moving an Action too.
Step 2: Give everybody three Actions per turn.
Then you can move, jump and attack on your turn, or move, remember something useful about the enemy, and then cast a spell. Or if you don't need to move, you can remember something useful, cast a spell, and use an item. Etc. I think this would solve a lot of the monotony of DnD 5e combat, where you have one Action to do one thing, and if that thing didn't work, sucks to be you.
The likelihood that they try that is incredibly low. I mean, they'd need to completely remodel combat and the game to give you three actions per a turn, and I don't think anyone would want that. And yeah, remembering stuff should not take your whole action. Max, it should take a bonus action. But I think it being a free action makes more sense. With this rule, if your players ask, "I'm supposed to run ahead and steal the treasure, but I'm not as smart as my character, so I've forgotten the directions, can you please remind me DM?" The DM is supposed to tell the player to make a check and spend their whole action. Yeah, this rule really doesn't make much of any sense.
They already are completely remodeling the action economy by codifying these new actions and changing things like how movement speeds and jumping works, but what they're doing now is a half measure. They either need to bring back the concept of Free Actions and make these new things Free Actions, or they need to increase the number of Actions you can perform in a turn. Otherwise, these changes are just bad, creating Actions nobody will use because it's a waste of a turn.
I guess, but they certainly aren't remodeling the action economy that much, just adding kind of useless actions. So yeah, I hope they bring back the concept of free actions. Either way, I'm against giving people three actions in one turn. Imagine how long it would take just to get through one turn and imagine how boring it would be for the other players at the table.
It works just fine in other systems that allow multiple actions per turn, like the aforementioned Pathfinder 2e, or are you saying DnD players are uniquely slow and horrible at making decisions on their turn?
I don't play Pathfinder so I can't speak on how it works there, but if we were to give three actions, we would completely need to remodel all of D&D. And the designers of 1DD have already said they didn't want to completely change anything. And yes, D&D players are known for being "uniquely slow and horrible at making decisions on their turn" due to the sheer complexity of combat in the game. And a spellcasters turn with three actions would take eons.
How pathfinder did it is each attack is an action, so you might move, then attack and then attack which is not really different than most level 5 characters in d&d. And some things most commonly spells take multiple actions to do, so a fireball is 2 actions, so again you move and fireball(spells were across the board much weaker than before as well so the fighters using attack twice was fairly balanced). The theory is it allows more flexibility than d&d in practice it pans out to be pretty much the same 80% of the time with some rare circumstances where its changed up a bit.
I don't play Pathfinder so I can't speak on how it works there, but if we were to give three actions, we would completely need to remodel all of D&D. And the designers of 1DD have already said they didn't want to completely change anything. And yes, D&D players are known for being "uniquely slow and horrible at making decisions on their turn" due to the sheer complexity of combat in the game. And a spellcasters turn with three actions would take eons.
We're only two playtests in and they've already made multiple suggestions that completely changes the game and makes backwards compatibility a laughable proposition. Old chargen and new chargen are completely incompatible with backgrounds giving you ability scores and feats now, which also affects the balance of how the racial choices work. The suggestion that only players can crit implies a complete rework of every monster stat block in the game. Level progression has completely changed, as well as several base class features, making it a difficult prospect to try and use old subclasses with the new rules. They totally replaced the effects of nearly every feat, and changed foundational rules like how Two Weapon Fighting works. I could go on, but yeah, they are not at all shying away from foundational changes to the rule set.
As for how 'three actions per turn' works in pathfinder, they have a number of extra things you can do on your turn to use up said actions, and allow certain things to have multiple actions devoted to it to make it stronger. If DnD went the 3 Actions route, I would expect Attacks and Spells to still be limited to 'can only do it once per turn', but there would be ways to devote multiple actions to it to enhance the effect, like a normal attack would be 1 Action, but a Power Attack would be 2 Actions, and certain spells could be super charged with extra actions to give additional effects or range. That would allow for more creative ways to improve spells without going so far as to require upcasting.
Hmmm.... I mean, I understand why you'd want D&D to use that system, but I think the current system is much better. For one, by making movement and attacks both take actions, it discourages tactical play by penalizing you for using your movement for anything other than running up to an enemy and attacking. Having three actions and having to chart down how many actions every single thing is and having each player on each turn keep track of how many actions they would take not only adds much complexity to combat, but it would make the whole overall game a lot more complicated too. In addition, D&D combat already takes #F0R3V3R, this system would make it take even longer. Why would it take longer? Because D&D players are often incredibly indecisive, and having every single decision on whether or not to move not impact just whether or not you move that turn and where you are, but how many times you can attack would mean players would take much longer just deciding whether to move or not. 5e already has an excellent combat system, it does not need to be remodeled or changed. 1DD's designers may be making some relatively changes, but they are mainly (with a few exceptions) making them to improve areas that need to be improved. The combat system is great and changing it in this way would only add unnecessary complexity to the game, and more length to every single combat. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see why this change should be made.
I don't play Pathfinder so I can't speak on how it works there, but if we were to give three actions, we would completely need to remodel all of D&D. And the designers of 1DD have already said they didn't want to completely change anything. And yes, D&D players are known for being "uniquely slow and horrible at making decisions on their turn" due to the sheer complexity of combat in the game. And a spellcasters turn with three actions would take eons.
We're only two playtests in and they've already made multiple suggestions that completely changes the game and makes backwards compatibility a laughable proposition. Old chargen and new chargen are completely incompatible with backgrounds giving you ability scores and feats now, which also affects the balance of how the racial choices work. The suggestion that only players can crit implies a complete rework of every monster stat block in the game. Level progression has completely changed, as well as several base class features, making it a difficult prospect to try and use old subclasses with the new rules. They totally replaced the effects of nearly every feat, and changed foundational rules like how Two Weapon Fighting works. I could go on, but yeah, they are not at all shying away from foundational changes to the rule set.
As for how 'three actions per turn' works in pathfinder, they have a number of extra things you can do on your turn to use up said actions, and allow certain things to have multiple actions devoted to it to make it stronger. If DnD went the 3 Actions route, I would expect Attacks and Spells to still be limited to 'can only do it once per turn', but there would be ways to devote multiple actions to it to enhance the effect, like a normal attack would be 1 Action, but a Power Attack would be 2 Actions, and certain spells could be super charged with extra actions to give additional effects or range. That would allow for more creative ways to improve spells without going so far as to require upcasting.
Hmmm.... I mean, I understand why you'd want D&D to use that system, but I think the current system is much better. For one, by making movement and attacks both take actions, it discourages tactical play by penalizing you for using your movement for anything other than running up to an enemy and attacking. Having three actions and having to chart down how many actions every single thing is and having each player on each turn keep track of how many actions they would take not only adds much complexity to combat, but it would make the whole overall game a lot more complicated too. In addition, D&D combat already takes #F0R3V3R, this system would make it take even longer. Why would it take longer? Because D&D players are often incredibly indecisive, and having every single decision on whether or not to move not impact just whether or not you move that turn and where you are, but how many times you can attack would mean players would take much longer just deciding whether to move or not. 5e already has an excellent combat system, it does not need to be remodeled or changed. 1DD's designers may be making some relatively changes, but they are mainly (with a few exceptions) making them to improve areas that need to be improved. The combat system is great and changing it in this way would only add unnecessary complexity to the game, and more length to every single combat. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see why this change should be made.
I personally don't have issues with indecisive players making everything take forever. I actually have the opposite problem, where the player has a total lack of options and just feels like they can't do anything in combat, especially at lower levels.
Here's a good example. Round one of combat for a group of 3rd level characters. The fighter uses his movement to get in the face of the enemy, then uses his action to attack. Cool. On the enemy's turn, the DM just decides to have the enemy attack the fighter, and moving would trigger an OA, so it stays put.
It's now Round 2. The fighter is already adjacent to the enemy, so he has no reason to move. He's a 3rd level Fighter, so his only Bonus Action is Second Wind, which he doesn't need yet. And the only thing he can really do that's remotely useful is Attack. So he does. And he rolls a 5. He misses. Turn over. He had a turn for a couple of seconds, accomplished nothing, and now waits a few minutes before he can try again.
This kind of thing happens a lot, where your character is already in an optimal position and has no reason to Move, so their 'Move Action', as it was called in previous editions, is completely wasted. Making Move an action and giving players multiple Actions would allow for more tactical choices and interesting options when these kinds of cases arise, devoting the resource they normally use on moving to something else.
I don't play Pathfinder so I can't speak on how it works there, but if we were to give three actions, we would completely need to remodel all of D&D. And the designers of 1DD have already said they didn't want to completely change anything. And yes, D&D players are known for being "uniquely slow and horrible at making decisions on their turn" due to the sheer complexity of combat in the game. And a spellcasters turn with three actions would take eons.
We're only two playtests in and they've already made multiple suggestions that completely changes the game and makes backwards compatibility a laughable proposition. Old chargen and new chargen are completely incompatible with backgrounds giving you ability scores and feats now, which also affects the balance of how the racial choices work. The suggestion that only players can crit implies a complete rework of every monster stat block in the game. Level progression has completely changed, as well as several base class features, making it a difficult prospect to try and use old subclasses with the new rules. They totally replaced the effects of nearly every feat, and changed foundational rules like how Two Weapon Fighting works. I could go on, but yeah, they are not at all shying away from foundational changes to the rule set.
As for how 'three actions per turn' works in pathfinder, they have a number of extra things you can do on your turn to use up said actions, and allow certain things to have multiple actions devoted to it to make it stronger. If DnD went the 3 Actions route, I would expect Attacks and Spells to still be limited to 'can only do it once per turn', but there would be ways to devote multiple actions to it to enhance the effect, like a normal attack would be 1 Action, but a Power Attack would be 2 Actions, and certain spells could be super charged with extra actions to give additional effects or range. That would allow for more creative ways to improve spells without going so far as to require upcasting.
Hmmm.... I mean, I understand why you'd want D&D to use that system, but I think the current system is much better. For one, by making movement and attacks both take actions, it discourages tactical play by penalizing you for using your movement for anything other than running up to an enemy and attacking. Having three actions and having to chart down how many actions every single thing is and having each player on each turn keep track of how many actions they would take not only adds much complexity to combat, but it would make the whole overall game a lot more complicated too. In addition, D&D combat already takes #F0R3V3R, this system would make it take even longer. Why would it take longer? Because D&D players are often incredibly indecisive, and having every single decision on whether or not to move not impact just whether or not you move that turn and where you are, but how many times you can attack would mean players would take much longer just deciding whether to move or not. 5e already has an excellent combat system, it does not need to be remodeled or changed. 1DD's designers may be making some relatively changes, but they are mainly (with a few exceptions) making them to improve areas that need to be improved. The combat system is great and changing it in this way would only add unnecessary complexity to the game, and more length to every single combat. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see why this change should be made.
I personally don't have issues with indecisive players making everything take forever. I actually have the opposite problem, where the player has a total lack of options and just feels like they can't do anything in combat, especially at lower levels.
Here's a good example. Round one of combat for a group of 3rd level characters. The fighter uses his movement to get in the face of the enemy, then uses his action to attack. Cool. On the enemy's turn, the DM just decides to have the enemy attack the fighter, and moving would trigger an OA, so it stays put.
It's now Round 2. The fighter is already adjacent to the enemy, so he has no reason to move. He's a 3rd level Fighter, so his only Bonus Action is Second Wind, which he doesn't need yet. And the only thing he can really do that's remotely useful is Attack. So he does. And he rolls a 5. He misses. Turn over. He had a turn for a couple of seconds, accomplished nothing, and now waits a few minutes before he can try again.
This kind of thing happens a lot, where your character is already in an optimal position and has no reason to Move, so their 'Move Action', as it was called in previous editions, is completely wasted. Making Move an action and giving players multiple Actions would allow for more tactical choices and interesting options when these kinds of cases arise, devoting the resource they normally use on moving to something else.
I see how the thing you spent three paragraphs discussing is a problem with 5e combat (and here are two links to help with that,) but what I don't see is how the system you are proposing would actually help with that. If anything, giving you less attacks on your turn if you move actively discourages moving. "The resource they would normally use on moving" would not be used for moving with this system, it would be used for attacking, casting a spell, or doing something that is actually much more productive in game.All putting the two systems together means is it discourages using your movement for something creative, since movement and things such as attacks are not equivalent and would not be used an equal amount of the time. No one would typically use this on moving, they would use this on something more productive. This system would just mean that people are more likely to ink into that loop.
And if you limit how much people can use things such as attacks, then it raises the following problems, among many others:
1) How would Extra Attack work? If you allowed people with Extra Attack to use more of their actions on attacks, it would mean they can't use their other actions to do more cool. creative things. If you gave them even more actions, then it would take forever.
2) You'd need to add lot's of non-attack or spellcasting actions to the game that actually work in combat. Now, 1DD is doing the first part of their sentence, but they are completely failing to do the second. It is incredibly hard to make actions that are actually useful in combat, even with three actions, and you'd just get a bunch of filler. So people would be using half their actions on unproductive things, or just the same things over and over again since they're the only non-attacks that would actually work. Oh, and you'd need to add about 30+ pages of actions like this to the core rules. And every new player would need to read, or at least know how they worked, to use them in combat. This would add boatloads of complexity and combat to the game.
3) It would take forever. As people on these very forums often complain,in combat, players turns often last forever and ever and ever. Especially for spellcasters. With this system., people would need to leaf through all these miscellaneous actions in their head, decide which ones are relevant to the current combat, and figure out how they work. This would make combats take much, much longer.
So there, I'm going offline so I may not be able to respond quickly to the next thing you write. But I think I've made my point: The system you are proposing would add both length and complexity to every combat and the game. 5e already has a great combat system, and this would only serve to make it worse. So why implement this change?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I pretty specifically said that Attacking or Casting a Spell would still be limited to once per turn, as it is now, with the possibility of adding additional combat options that would use more actions, like making your standard Attack cost one action, but a Power Attack would be two Actions. I'm also confused how you think giving the possibility to use your movement for non-movement related things would ever discourage movement. You either need to move or you don't. If you can accomplish everything you want to do on a turn without moving, why would you move? And if you can't...then you move. I've never seen anybody make arbitrary movement actions because they had Speed left over so they 'might as well.'
In the existing system, if a player is not in position, they move into position. If they're already in position, then they end their turn with movement they didn't use.
In the system I'm suggesting, if a player is not in position, they move into position. If they're already in position, they can use the Action they would use for Movement on something else, giving them extra options. How is that not just inherently better?
To address your bullet points explicitly:
1) How would Extra Attack work? Exactly the same way it does now. When you use your Action to attack, you make more than one attack. It does introduce questions with regards to the Power Attack option I suggested, and anything similar they come up with, but that could be figured out through playtesting. 2) You'd need to add lots of non-attack or spellcasting actions to the game that actually work in combat. They're definitely doing that, or at least trying to, but they're failing to notice that all these new actions are useless when you only have one action per turn. Study, Search, Influence and Jump become infinitely more useful as options in combat if using them didn't take up your main Attack or Spell action for your turn.
3) It would take forever. This is a problem of the players, not the system. You might as well suggest they eliminate options in order to speed up combat. If spellcasters are such a problem, maybe there should be fewer spells? Is that what you're suggesting?
I like this one a lot more than the first ONE playtest. Still not a fan of the inspiration rules and I would like to see them go back to the 5E style. I am fine with the changes to Bard and Rogue.
The only thing I don't particularly like is the new Ranger. I would prefer Tasha's Ranger with all the extra spells. I would be ok with making a Ranger a full caster and elminatting some martial combat abilities, but taking away all the once-a-day spells seems to be going in the wrong direction to me.
As for the discussion on multiple actions, I am against that. We don't need to make a turn any more complicated than it already is and we have 3E and P2E for people that want to do things like power attack, have more complicated combat or take more than one action in a turn.
It does seem like moving TWF away from requiring a bonus action presents an opportunity to eliminate bonus actions all together. Just give everyone one action and one move per turn and roll things like cunning action into movement and allow bonus action spells as part of the attack action or the cast a spell action when combined with an action cantrip.
I won't lie, kinda shocked they took away the rogues ability to sneak attack with reaction attacks on enemy turns. Who was saying rogues do too much damage?
Fly Speed does not require you to move in order to stay aloft. The new rules do not say there is any difference between having a Fly Speed and having Hover thus either you must interpret it as both will fall if grappled or neither will fall if grappled. The most logical of those is that neither will fall. Having a Fly Speed of 0 does not mean you fall, just as having a swim speed of 0 doesn't mean you instantly sink to the bottom, or having a burrow speed of 0 doesn't mean you are suddenly crushed by the dirt on top of you.
What is missing from all of this is some idea of what Wizards is trying to accomplish. It is hard to judge and comment on whether a change is good unless we know what it is trying to accomplish. So far, it just leads to wild speculation about why some change is made with no ability to comment intelligently over whether the change actually accomplishes this end.
Nerfing classes in early game could be because there is a perception that early game adventures are insufficiently challenging. Alternatively, it could be that these particular classes are being nerfed to respond to some perceived imbalance with other classes. Alternatively, the changes could be completely misguided and not accomplish anything that Wizards is intentionally trying to do. Without a statement of goals, it is impossible to judge the proposed changes against what they are trying to achieve.
This lack of stated goals also leads to speculation over changes that have not yet been proposed (e.g. We think paladins will be nerfed like rogues to put them on the same power curve). Such speculation is fun, but is not based on anything other than perceived intent. In this particular example, it is also not consistent with the current proposal that puts rangers on a decidedly different power curve than bards or rogues.
There is some clear intention by Wizards to plug current loop holes that enable popular OP builds or stupid cheese. The combo of BB/GFB with Sneak Attack make Rogue the best damage dealer in the game which should intuitively not be Wizard's intention since Rogue gets tons of other stuff besides damage dealing (I highly suspect BB/GFB will be gone all together b/c we've seen repeated attempts by Wizards to nerf them and the problematic gameplay build / combos they enable). We can also see them plugging the loop hole that allowed the Haste+Hold Action cheese that is just dumb metagaming nonsense. Looking at the feats, we can see them blocking the PAM + Sentinel broken build an also nerfing the Sharpshooter to rebalance Melee vs Ranged combat (i.e. making it so ranged combat isn't superior in all ways to melee). I can confidently predict that Eldritch Blast will be a class feature not a spell to prevent the Sorlock OP build, I also suspect there will be nerfing of the Hexblade Warlock.
Making things like Jumping and 'Remembering stuff' an Action is a bad idea, unless WotC just goes all the way and embraces an aspect of Pathfinder 2e.
Step 1: Make Moving an Action too.
Step 2: Give everybody three Actions per turn.
Then you can move, jump and attack on your turn, or move, remember something useful about the enemy, and then cast a spell. Or if you don't need to move, you can remember something useful, cast a spell, and use an item. Etc. I think this would solve a lot of the monotony of DnD 5e combat, where you have one Action to do one thing, and if that thing didn't work, sucks to be you.
I can all but guarantee they won't do that. Making movement an Action is a recipe for making everyone be ranged and just stand still and blasting stuff, taking away all the dynamics and flow of the combat.
I like this one a lot more than the first ONE playtest. Still not a fan of the inspiration rules and I would like to see them go back to the 5E style. I am fine with the changes to Bard and Rogue.
The only thing I don't particularly like is the new Ranger. I would prefer Tasha's Ranger with all the extra spells. I would be ok with making a Ranger a full caster and elminatting some martial combat abilities, but taking away all the once-a-day spells seems to be going in the wrong direction to me.
I pretty specifically said that Attacking or Casting a Spell would still be limited to once per turn, as it is now, with the possibility of adding additional combat options that would use more actions, like making your standard Attack cost one action, but a Power Attack would be two Actions. I'm also confused how you think giving the possibility to use your movement for non-movement related things would ever discourage movement. You either need to move or you don't. If you can accomplish everything you want to do on a turn without moving, why would you move? And if you can't...then you move. I've never seen anybody make arbitrary movement actions because they had Speed left over so they 'might as well.'
In the existing system, if a player is not in position, they move into position. If they're already in position, then they end their turn with movement they didn't use.
In the system I'm suggesting, if a player is not in position, they move into position. If they're already in position, they can use the Action they would use for Movement on something else, giving them extra options. How is that not just inherently better?
It's simply cost-benefit. I've seen a lot of players move either closer or farther away or towards cover "just in case" since they have left over movement, all of this ends if your move action can be used for something else. Likewise, not all combat options have the same requirements for positioning, having movement have an opportunity cost because it uses an action than could be used for something else means that combat options that require less positioning : i.e. ranged attacks / spells, are inherently better than those that require move positioning : i.e. melee options. Thus it incentivises creating a character that does not need to move much at all, thus incentivizes a boring stationary combat rather than a dynamic one.
What is missing from all of this is some idea of what Wizards is trying to accomplish. It is hard to judge and comment on whether a change is good unless we know what it is trying to accomplish. So far, it just leads to wild speculation about why some change is made with no ability to comment intelligently over whether the change actually accomplishes this end.
Nerfing classes in early game could be because there is a perception that early game adventures are insufficiently challenging. Alternatively, it could be that these particular classes are being nerfed to respond to some perceived imbalance with other classes. Alternatively, the changes could be completely misguided and not accomplish anything that Wizards is intentionally trying to do. Without a statement of goals, it is impossible to judge the proposed changes against what they are trying to achieve.
This lack of stated goals also leads to speculation over changes that have not yet been proposed (e.g. We think paladins will be nerfed like rogues to put them on the same power curve). Such speculation is fun, but is not based on anything other than perceived intent. In this particular example, it is also not consistent with the current proposal that puts rangers on a decidedly different power curve than bards or rogues.
There is some clear intention by Wizards to plug current loop holes that enable popular OP builds or stupid cheese. The combo of BB/GFB with Sneak Attack make Rogue the best damage dealer in the game which should intuitively not be Wizard's intention since Rogue gets tons of other stuff besides damage dealing (I highly suspect BB/GFB will be gone all together b/c we've seen repeated attempts by Wizards to nerf them and the problematic gameplay build / combos they enable). We can also see them plugging the loop hole that allowed the Haste+Hold Action cheese that is just dumb metagaming nonsense. Looking at the feats, we can see them blocking the PAM + Sentinel broken build an also nerfing the Sharpshooter to rebalance Melee vs Ranged combat (i.e. making it so ranged combat isn't superior in all ways to melee). I can confidently predict that Eldritch Blast will be a class feature not a spell to prevent the Sorlock OP build, I also suspect there will be nerfing of the Hexblade Warlock.
The new ONE shove and grapple rules are going to enable quite a bit of cheese.
I would disagagee about intend. I really don't see the intention being very clear what is presented so far in ONE did not really rebalance the most powerful imbalances. GWM, PAM and Sentinel all got a boost, while Rogues got nerfed. That actually makes the game more imbalanced IMO.
I woudl disagree with your assessment of PAM/Sentinel. The PAM-Sentinel combo is actually stronger than it was before, having the same abilities plus each of the two feats being +1 ASI boost in addition. The only thing it nerfed is you can no longer use spears and quarterstaffs with PAM, but anything you could do with a Glaive or Halberd with PAM and Sentinel you can still do and you get the ability score boost in addition.
I doubt Hexblade will be nerfed since it came from Critical Role originally and I really don't see them messing with it and pissing off a bunch of critters. I also don't think it needs to be nerfed as Warlock is not particularly powerful class and Genie and Undead are both more powerful subclasses and fathomless is about equal. IF anything I think they will beef up the original PHB sunbclasses to be on par with the later ones.
Boomig Blade can do a lot of damage, but it was not previously usable with Two Weapon Fighting with it and you had to get the spell somehow (unless you are an arcane trickster), so I don't see it being that OP in play. With steady aim and other uses for bonus action besides disengage available I certainly don't think it is an automatic. I mean I can sit back with my crossbow, and shoot with advantage or I can kite in and use my bonus for disengage and get a few more points of damage (and get close enough that I might get attacked in melee). My 11th level scout has booming blade and a killer dagger+2 that does an extra 1d6 psychic damage and I find myself still using my crossbow a lot.
I like this one a lot more than the first ONE playtest. Still not a fan of the inspiration rules and I would like to see them go back to the 5E style. I am fine with the changes to Bard and Rogue.
The only thing I don't particularly like is the new Ranger. I would prefer Tasha's Ranger with all the extra spells. I would be ok with making a Ranger a full caster and elminatting some martial combat abilities, but taking away all the once-a-day spells seems to be going in the wrong direction to me.
(SNIP)
A full caster Ranger is just a Druid.
No I don't want a druid. A Druid is a shapeshifter and does not have proficiency in martial weapons, not to mention that stupid prohibition on metal armor.
I want a character with wilderness skills and spells that can use swords and bows etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They already are completely remodeling the action economy by codifying these new actions and changing things like how movement speeds and jumping works, but what they're doing now is a half measure. They either need to bring back the concept of Free Actions and make these new things Free Actions, or they need to increase the number of Actions you can perform in a turn. Otherwise, these changes are just bad, creating Actions nobody will use because it's a waste of a turn.
I guess, but they certainly aren't remodeling the action economy that much, just adding kind of useless actions. So yeah, I hope they bring back the concept of free actions. Either way, I'm against giving people three actions in one turn. Imagine how long it would take just to get through one turn and imagine how boring it would be for the other players at the table.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I think they're expecting that, if people want to be able to make checks to identify enemies mid combat, they'll be taking the Observant feat. That makes it a bonus action, plus you get an Expertise on a Study skill. Otherwise, wait til combat is over.
It works just fine in other systems that allow multiple actions per turn, like the aforementioned Pathfinder 2e, or are you saying DnD players are uniquely slow and horrible at making decisions on their turn?
I don't play Pathfinder so I can't speak on how it works there, but if we were to give three actions, we would completely need to remodel all of D&D. And the designers of 1DD have already said they didn't want to completely change anything. And yes, D&D players are known for being "uniquely slow and horrible at making decisions on their turn" due to the sheer complexity of combat in the game. And a spellcasters turn with three actions would take eons.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.We're only two playtests in and they've already made multiple suggestions that completely changes the game and makes backwards compatibility a laughable proposition. Old chargen and new chargen are completely incompatible with backgrounds giving you ability scores and feats now, which also affects the balance of how the racial choices work. The suggestion that only players can crit implies a complete rework of every monster stat block in the game. Level progression has completely changed, as well as several base class features, making it a difficult prospect to try and use old subclasses with the new rules. They totally replaced the effects of nearly every feat, and changed foundational rules like how Two Weapon Fighting works. I could go on, but yeah, they are not at all shying away from foundational changes to the rule set.
As for how 'three actions per turn' works in pathfinder, they have a number of extra things you can do on your turn to use up said actions, and allow certain things to have multiple actions devoted to it to make it stronger. If DnD went the 3 Actions route, I would expect Attacks and Spells to still be limited to 'can only do it once per turn', but there would be ways to devote multiple actions to it to enhance the effect, like a normal attack would be 1 Action, but a Power Attack would be 2 Actions, and certain spells could be super charged with extra actions to give additional effects or range. That would allow for more creative ways to improve spells without going so far as to require upcasting.
How pathfinder did it is each attack is an action, so you might move, then attack and then attack which is not really different than most level 5 characters in d&d. And some things most commonly spells take multiple actions to do, so a fireball is 2 actions, so again you move and fireball(spells were across the board much weaker than before as well so the fighters using attack twice was fairly balanced). The theory is it allows more flexibility than d&d in practice it pans out to be pretty much the same 80% of the time with some rare circumstances where its changed up a bit.
Hmmm.... I mean, I understand why you'd want D&D to use that system, but I think the current system is much better. For one, by making movement and attacks both take actions, it discourages tactical play by penalizing you for using your movement for anything other than running up to an enemy and attacking. Having three actions and having to chart down how many actions every single thing is and having each player on each turn keep track of how many actions they would take not only adds much complexity to combat, but it would make the whole overall game a lot more complicated too. In addition, D&D combat already takes #F0R3V3R, this system would make it take even longer. Why would it take longer? Because D&D players are often incredibly indecisive, and having every single decision on whether or not to move not impact just whether or not you move that turn and where you are, but how many times you can attack would mean players would take much longer just deciding whether to move or not. 5e already has an excellent combat system, it does not need to be remodeled or changed. 1DD's designers may be making some relatively changes, but they are mainly (with a few exceptions) making them to improve areas that need to be improved. The combat system is great and changing it in this way would only add unnecessary complexity to the game, and more length to every single combat. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see why this change should be made.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I personally don't have issues with indecisive players making everything take forever. I actually have the opposite problem, where the player has a total lack of options and just feels like they can't do anything in combat, especially at lower levels.
Here's a good example. Round one of combat for a group of 3rd level characters. The fighter uses his movement to get in the face of the enemy, then uses his action to attack. Cool. On the enemy's turn, the DM just decides to have the enemy attack the fighter, and moving would trigger an OA, so it stays put.
It's now Round 2. The fighter is already adjacent to the enemy, so he has no reason to move. He's a 3rd level Fighter, so his only Bonus Action is Second Wind, which he doesn't need yet. And the only thing he can really do that's remotely useful is Attack. So he does. And he rolls a 5. He misses. Turn over. He had a turn for a couple of seconds, accomplished nothing, and now waits a few minutes before he can try again.
This kind of thing happens a lot, where your character is already in an optimal position and has no reason to Move, so their 'Move Action', as it was called in previous editions, is completely wasted. Making Move an action and giving players multiple Actions would allow for more tactical choices and interesting options when these kinds of cases arise, devoting the resource they normally use on moving to something else.
I see how the thing you spent three paragraphs discussing is a problem with 5e combat (and here are two links to help with that,) but what I don't see is how the system you are proposing would actually help with that. If anything, giving you less attacks on your turn if you move actively discourages moving. "The resource they would normally use on moving" would not be used for moving with this system, it would be used for attacking, casting a spell, or doing something that is actually much more productive in game.All putting the two systems together means is it discourages using your movement for something creative, since movement and things such as attacks are not equivalent and would not be used an equal amount of the time. No one would typically use this on moving, they would use this on something more productive. This system would just mean that people are more likely to ink into that loop.
And if you limit how much people can use things such as attacks, then it raises the following problems, among many others:
1) How would Extra Attack work? If you allowed people with Extra Attack to use more of their actions on attacks, it would mean they can't use their other actions to do more cool. creative things. If you gave them even more actions, then it would take forever.
2) You'd need to add lot's of non-attack or spellcasting actions to the game that actually work in combat. Now, 1DD is doing the first part of their sentence, but they are completely failing to do the second. It is incredibly hard to make actions that are actually useful in combat, even with three actions, and you'd just get a bunch of filler. So people would be using half their actions on unproductive things, or just the same things over and over again since they're the only non-attacks that would actually work. Oh, and you'd need to add about 30+ pages of actions like this to the core rules. And every new player would need to read, or at least know how they worked, to use them in combat. This would add boatloads of complexity and combat to the game.
3) It would take forever. As people on these very forums often complain, in combat, players turns often last forever and ever and ever. Especially for spellcasters. With this system., people would need to leaf through all these miscellaneous actions in their head, decide which ones are relevant to the current combat, and figure out how they work. This would make combats take much, much longer.
So there, I'm going offline so I may not be able to respond quickly to the next thing you write. But I think I've made my point: The system you are proposing would add both length and complexity to every combat and the game. 5e already has a great combat system, and this would only serve to make it worse. So why implement this change?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I pretty specifically said that Attacking or Casting a Spell would still be limited to once per turn, as it is now, with the possibility of adding additional combat options that would use more actions, like making your standard Attack cost one action, but a Power Attack would be two Actions. I'm also confused how you think giving the possibility to use your movement for non-movement related things would ever discourage movement. You either need to move or you don't. If you can accomplish everything you want to do on a turn without moving, why would you move? And if you can't...then you move. I've never seen anybody make arbitrary movement actions because they had Speed left over so they 'might as well.'
In the existing system, if a player is not in position, they move into position. If they're already in position, then they end their turn with movement they didn't use.
In the system I'm suggesting, if a player is not in position, they move into position. If they're already in position, they can use the Action they would use for Movement on something else, giving them extra options. How is that not just inherently better?
To address your bullet points explicitly:
1) How would Extra Attack work? Exactly the same way it does now. When you use your Action to attack, you make more than one attack. It does introduce questions with regards to the Power Attack option I suggested, and anything similar they come up with, but that could be figured out through playtesting.
2) You'd need to add lots of non-attack or spellcasting actions to the game that actually work in combat. They're definitely doing that, or at least trying to, but they're failing to notice that all these new actions are useless when you only have one action per turn. Study, Search, Influence and Jump become infinitely more useful as options in combat if using them didn't take up your main Attack or Spell action for your turn.
3) It would take forever. This is a problem of the players, not the system. You might as well suggest they eliminate options in order to speed up combat. If spellcasters are such a problem, maybe there should be fewer spells? Is that what you're suggesting?
I like this one a lot more than the first ONE playtest. Still not a fan of the inspiration rules and I would like to see them go back to the 5E style. I am fine with the changes to Bard and Rogue.
The only thing I don't particularly like is the new Ranger. I would prefer Tasha's Ranger with all the extra spells. I would be ok with making a Ranger a full caster and elminatting some martial combat abilities, but taking away all the once-a-day spells seems to be going in the wrong direction to me.
As for the discussion on multiple actions, I am against that. We don't need to make a turn any more complicated than it already is and we have 3E and P2E for people that want to do things like power attack, have more complicated combat or take more than one action in a turn.
It does seem like moving TWF away from requiring a bonus action presents an opportunity to eliminate bonus actions all together. Just give everyone one action and one move per turn and roll things like cunning action into movement and allow bonus action spells as part of the attack action or the cast a spell action when combined with an action cantrip.
I won't lie, kinda shocked they took away the rogues ability to sneak attack with reaction attacks on enemy turns. Who was saying rogues do too much damage?
Fly Speed does not require you to move in order to stay aloft. The new rules do not say there is any difference between having a Fly Speed and having Hover thus either you must interpret it as both will fall if grappled or neither will fall if grappled. The most logical of those is that neither will fall. Having a Fly Speed of 0 does not mean you fall, just as having a swim speed of 0 doesn't mean you instantly sink to the bottom, or having a burrow speed of 0 doesn't mean you are suddenly crushed by the dirt on top of you.
There is some clear intention by Wizards to plug current loop holes that enable popular OP builds or stupid cheese. The combo of BB/GFB with Sneak Attack make Rogue the best damage dealer in the game which should intuitively not be Wizard's intention since Rogue gets tons of other stuff besides damage dealing (I highly suspect BB/GFB will be gone all together b/c we've seen repeated attempts by Wizards to nerf them and the problematic gameplay build / combos they enable). We can also see them plugging the loop hole that allowed the Haste+Hold Action cheese that is just dumb metagaming nonsense. Looking at the feats, we can see them blocking the PAM + Sentinel broken build an also nerfing the Sharpshooter to rebalance Melee vs Ranged combat (i.e. making it so ranged combat isn't superior in all ways to melee). I can confidently predict that Eldritch Blast will be a class feature not a spell to prevent the Sorlock OP build, I also suspect there will be nerfing of the Hexblade Warlock.
I can all but guarantee they won't do that. Making movement an Action is a recipe for making everyone be ranged and just stand still and blasting stuff, taking away all the dynamics and flow of the combat.
A full caster Ranger is just a Druid.
It's simply cost-benefit. I've seen a lot of players move either closer or farther away or towards cover "just in case" since they have left over movement, all of this ends if your move action can be used for something else. Likewise, not all combat options have the same requirements for positioning, having movement have an opportunity cost because it uses an action than could be used for something else means that combat options that require less positioning : i.e. ranged attacks / spells, are inherently better than those that require move positioning : i.e. melee options. Thus it incentivises creating a character that does not need to move much at all, thus incentivizes a boring stationary combat rather than a dynamic one.
The new ONE shove and grapple rules are going to enable quite a bit of cheese.
I would disagagee about intend. I really don't see the intention being very clear what is presented so far in ONE did not really rebalance the most powerful imbalances. GWM, PAM and Sentinel all got a boost, while Rogues got nerfed. That actually makes the game more imbalanced IMO.
I woudl disagree with your assessment of PAM/Sentinel. The PAM-Sentinel combo is actually stronger than it was before, having the same abilities plus each of the two feats being +1 ASI boost in addition. The only thing it nerfed is you can no longer use spears and quarterstaffs with PAM, but anything you could do with a Glaive or Halberd with PAM and Sentinel you can still do and you get the ability score boost in addition.
I doubt Hexblade will be nerfed since it came from Critical Role originally and I really don't see them messing with it and pissing off a bunch of critters. I also don't think it needs to be nerfed as Warlock is not particularly powerful class and Genie and Undead are both more powerful subclasses and fathomless is about equal. IF anything I think they will beef up the original PHB sunbclasses to be on par with the later ones.
Boomig Blade can do a lot of damage, but it was not previously usable with Two Weapon Fighting with it and you had to get the spell somehow (unless you are an arcane trickster), so I don't see it being that OP in play. With steady aim and other uses for bonus action besides disengage available I certainly don't think it is an automatic. I mean I can sit back with my crossbow, and shoot with advantage or I can kite in and use my bonus for disengage and get a few more points of damage (and get close enough that I might get attacked in melee). My 11th level scout has booming blade and a killer dagger+2 that does an extra 1d6 psychic damage and I find myself still using my crossbow a lot.
No I don't want a druid. A Druid is a shapeshifter and does not have proficiency in martial weapons, not to mention that stupid prohibition on metal armor.
I want a character with wilderness skills and spells that can use swords and bows etc.