The 3 action economy was one of my biggest turn offs of pf2e when I first heard of it, which was during the play test I believe. A year ago I decided to give pf2e a full read through and absolutely fell in love with everything, the 3 action economy is amazing
For me it was exactly opposite. I loved the idea from the very beginning. Then I read the playtest rulebook and was turned off by the all minutia especially multiple +1 bonuses everywhere. Finally I come again to try Pathfinder since I now have 3 years of running 5e and Pathfinder starts to look more and more appealing x-)
@@Obcybr I promise those plus 1s aren't as intimidating as it sounds. I personally don't like the advantage and disadvantage system, because everything benefits from the same thing and only once and in the same way. At least with the +1s you have a few different sources they come from and it's sometimes more. Also, while different bonuses can stack, it's only if it's of a different type (item, circumstance, or status) so it doesn't end up being huge
@Winged Hussar the advantage and disadvantage system is one of the things I hate most about 5e. I think having advantage and disadvantage in some cases is cool, but I think having it replace bonuses and penalties really sucks. Personally for pf2e I find the numbers to keep track of are really easy since you often only take the biggest of a certain category, of which there are generally only 2 categories that apply (circumstances and status) and then untyper which just always adds but is still usually pretty simple.
@@kidthegeek I don't mind Advantage/Disadvantage for when things are not codified - someone threw some grit at your eyes, which you manage to mostly block with an arm but your sight is momentarily blocked; the enemy attacks, what is the penalty? Ermm, then enemy has Advantage on the attack. Where I don't like it is for things which are predicatable and frequent, where they should in some way stack or have larger/smaller effects than other things. Shooting at an enemy when there is fog everywhere SHOULD be more penalising than the bonus you get from the enemy not being able to see you - this is where Advantage/Disadvantage flat out fails for me.
@@aimerw I'm not a big fan of non codified things like throwing dirt in someone's face or targeting specific body parts such as targeting their leg to prevent them from moving. In 5e's case it seems like way too easy of a way to give everything advantage or disadvantage. I prefer having a set rule of things that can be done. That being said, even using stuff like that a codified system isn't that hard to implement. Throwing grit in their eyes would make it more difficult to see. Apply the appropriateness penalty, so a -1 or 2 penalty. It's much better IMO.
5e's "move around" as a dynamic battlefield may have been an interesting goal, but then they gave _everyone_ an attack of opportunity, so once you're smacking things with metal sticks, you just stand there and wail away until either falls over. I find that it's _really hard,_ especially as the DM, to make dynamic-feeling battles in 5e.
there's also the action system in Lancer, which I think could be added to the discussion. you always get to move, and then you also get either a full action or two quick actions. some weapons only take a quick but if you're really fighting, that's going to be a full. it also uses something similar to 5e's splitting up movement around attacks (around actions instead). the quick actions include typical stuff but also some stuff that's like very minor spells (this is Mecha, not magic). one bit I don't think would translate as a basic ability (but maybe would work for a class feature) is take a form of damage to make an extra quick action, even if you took a full action. anyway, so many action systems, so little chance that will get one we like.
@lawrl777 Yes and No. From my understanding, it is basically to 5e what Pathfinder 1e was to 4e. It is an alternative that leans on the previous edition more than the current. (Edit: Shadow of the Demon Lord, and the new less dark fantasy version they are making, that is.)
4e was a really great system. It was really well developed and supported. While it had issues it is quite telling that most of the issues 5e has were not 4e problems.
@@GuttedAU yup, a lot of mechanics from 4e is great for combat. The problem was that it focused on combat so much, that you wonder what happened to the social and exploration aspect of dnd. Escentuals, if 5e starts to feel bare bones, just read the 4e books and take the good parts of them for 5e.
@@ruga-ventoj IRC system wise 4e had as much, if not more support for non-combat as 5e. You had your skill checks, you had your skill challenges (a good system that was never officially explained well), rituals and utility powers. I cannot remember if 4e ever had crafting rules. 5th has skill checks, spells, expertise and ...I'm drawing a blank. The poor fighter still got screwed on the number of trained skills.
The 3 action economy is easily one of my favorite features from PF2E. It makes going back to any other system kind of frustrating. It's gotten so bad I've considered homebrewing it into every other system where it makes sense. It's so game changing. So freeing. It's really insane how much it opens up in terms of other systems mechanics, options during combat, and it never feels like you're wasting your turn. There's always something for you. If I all I have to look forward to going back to One D&D is standing in the same place and hitting the enemy until I kill it or it kills me I'll just avoid the game entirely.
The 3 action system, for my group, didn't get people hyped until we played with it. Now, when we play 5e we often make comments about what we would do if we had 3 actions.
I am primarily a 5E player and have invested the most into this system. Your solution to do one action and two minor actions seems like the most ideal option. One thing I particularly love about PF2 is the 3 action economy. My PF2 players have quickly realized that attacking three times isn't ideal but that using another non-attack ability instead of that third attack can really impact the battle. I think that a three standard action economy in 6E would really complicate things both for players and for backwards compatibility but having BAs and movement become minor actions you could easily make the change. Plus, WOTC is really putting all their eggs in the digital basket and could easily update the terminology in the existing books. They completely changed a whole section of Spell Jammer the day after the physical books released and that is now the official version and my physical books are out of date. My hope is that if they aren't watching your videos or considering your solution that someone with the right contacts would point to it and we can see a main action and two minor action system. Continuing to enjoy your content!
Really great discussion. I especially appreciated your run-through of the goals of each edition and potential options. My best advice with One D&D is to always read the Glossary First. It takes the edge off and eases confusion.
Re: 3e had rigid, setup-only Swift actions: In the PHB, you could Quicken to cast any spell 5th level or lower as a Swift action. Moving beyond the PHB, I remember a skill trick that let you Concentrate as a Swift Action, which similarly breaks the action economy right in half.
My problem with the Main Action/Bonus Action vs 3 Actions is that nobody I play with does anything with their Bonus Actions and they have like no impact on gameplay where as the 3 Actions gives more player choices.
Unless you pick up a feat or have a class that uses it (Rogue) bonus actions just get wasted. It’s annoying and makes 5e into a, “move to enemy, roll to hit. Roll to hit X 5. End of encounter.”
the way it's written is that Bonus Actions don't "exist" in the base kit, until a feature *gives* you the option of using a feature as a Bonus Action it's just that so many features give you a BA that most players know they should be picking up something to utilize it.
@@kori228 Which of course isn't how it REALLY works. It's just another way of saying "There isn't anything in the base rules that everyone has access to that uses a bonus action", since everything from items to spells to features to feats can give "a thing" that is used as a bonus action. That design is so archaic that the Rogue was evidently designed with BA's inception, since it has a feature that says it GRANTS YOU a bonus action, in line with the core rules, but that wording was scrapped for everything else, relying on simply saying "As a bonus action," or simply listing the action cost in stat blocks like with spells. It's why Rogue features and subclass features in the PHB refer to the cunning action, rather than just saying "As a bonus action,".
Thanks for the video! Excellent as always. I really appreciate the amount of research that went into it and the breakdown of D&D action system evolved through its many editions. It’s a good way to understand the design goals of 5e. I think the iteration that 5e had during its playtest resulted in truly the most fun I’ve had with 5e. Combats were quick and exhilarating. All you had to think about on your turn was just the one action you wanted to do and that’s it! It was a refreshing change from the long and draggy combat systems of 3e and 4e and really made 5e feel like it went back to its roots and made it unique from what came before it. But that all changed once the game released and bonus actions were introduced. Truly, bonus actions were one of the worst things that happened to this edition. It made combats slow down to an absolute crawl as it basically doubled the amount of time spent making decisions on your turn. It’s hell trying to explain it to new players and it resulted in many confusing rules. I see this as the design team losing sight of their primary design goals. It was a quick fix for a couple of minor problems that they were facing - by offering a simple solution to force something to be “once per turn” in order to prevent exploits. But this was used far too much, and just like one’s concentration “slot”, the bonus action “slot” ended up being yet another source of a character’s power budget for the turn. This is truly a shame. What we have today is in fact a deviation from the game’s original design goals of a quick and snappy combat system. Now 5e features one of the slowest combat systems in modern RPGs today when it was originally designed as completely the opposite. The design team should have had more discipline in restricting the power budget allocated to bonus actions. It should have been the case where the turn’s power budget came completely from your standard action, and your bonus action was just to assist you in performing your standard action, like drawing your weapon or sustaining a concentration spell. Powerful bonus action spells like Misty Step or Healing Word should flat out not exist. I would happily play an edition of D&D with no bonus action whatsoever. Alas, they are stuck with it now.
Still, I understand that the design goals of 6e has largely changed as you mentioned in this video. We don’t know for sure as they never tell us explicitly (because this isn’t a real playtest…), but I believe you are correct in that they want to expand the number of things you can do on your turn other than just “I attack”. It’s different from the original design goal of 5e, but it seems the tide has definitely changed since 2013 and grognards are no longer an audience WOTC cares about. Having long, fancy, complicated turns is hip now. To that end, I definitely agree that your 2 minor + 1 standard action system suggestion is definitely an improvement to what they have currently. I would happily play that, and it seems simple enough to explain to new players. If I were to head back to running 5e for some reason this might be something I try out.
Excellent video as always Ronald! Not directly related to this video, but I wanted to thank you! I stumbled on one of your videos a while ago and you helped get me seriously interested in PF2e. I'm running the Beginner Box this friday and am very excited!
While the multi-attack penalty serves and important job in Pathfinder, there are ways it could be simplified in a 5e/6e context. For example: > Your second and subsequent attacks in the same round are made at disadvantage. There. Nice and simple, not far removed from the maths of the Pathfinder version but much easier to roll with at the table. Honestly, the advantage/disadvantage system is the one piece of 5e that I wish Pathfinder 2e had adopted.
This is a fine suggestion and might be workable! Would need some playtesting tho (it arguably negates negative conditions... I've been wary that Advantage/Disadvantage is too binary and doesn't account for the stacking of conditions... e.g. if it would negate blindness and the effect of other conditions on your non-initial attacks for example)
Personally I think the advantage/disadvantage system is one of the worst parts of 5e. Since it usually interacts poorly with the environment. If you were blinded or prone for example, there would be a very small penalty for attacking three times, since only the first attack would be affected. And what's worse is that it would make dealing out conditions much less effective, leading to much duller combat, at least for me.
@@9652769 In a version adapted to Pathfinder, it certainly could. They could even say something like "triple disadvantage is an automatic failure." In 5e, and presumably in 6e, it isn't.
The simplicity of the 3 action economy with scaling "multi-action" moves was by far my favorite component of PF2E. I think D&D would benefit from adding in some more simplicity or streamlining, but I'm also more of an OSR style player these days so I'm not really sure what the best direction for mainline D&D is really.
I’ve done the 1 major 2 minor system you postulated in this video for nearly 6 months - I’m sad to say that for us the juice isn’t worth the squeeze as a house rule to 5e - it requires a few adjustments that are pretty easy to make as they come up - for example, how do you deal with speed? Slow them down (as you mention) or disallow a second minor action move - after all these little fixes, we continued with play for several months - in the end, play ended up being pretty much unchanged other than giving utility classes like bards more actions per turn - for example they could cast two spells and give bardic inspiration while non bonus action classes fall even further behind - if you limit casting to one spell per turn, it leaves those using bonus action to cast little to do with their major action - dodging is fine but often unhelpful for those who stay in the back line anyway - plus dodging every turn is pretty boring, but if you are ok with the monotony, casters can be end up consistently harder to hit than fighters, furthering the martial-casters divide - alternatively wizards could shoot into melee, but that leads to more friendly fire than you might expect - I think it will require much more of a system overhaul to implement well, as seen with PF2
Regarding the bonus actions: I know that Mike Mearls had said several times that he would have liked to see Bonus actions removed and the turn simplified to just an action and a move, with exception rules for other actions such as “quick” spells or two weapon fighting, to simplify. If anything I would expect One D&D to follow a similar plan rather than PF2’s three action plan.
I really like the main and 2 minor action concept. One thing that might help manage the power of Misty step and other effects might be borrowing from the flourish concept. Assuming that each minor actions used on a turn has to be different (like no attack stacking, no Misty step stacking with another spell) Certain minor actions can have the “momentum” trait, where a minor action can be repeated on a turn. Example: Rogue’s cunning actions feature adds the momentum trait to all movement options
Also, don't forget, If you absolutely can't find anything else to do with your 3rd Action in PF2...you can always raise your shield for a hefty bonus to your AC. 🙂
You can also get actions too, like feinting or, sometimes, intimidation. If you are a spellcaster, you can command your familiar to do something (though they aren't very strong in combat, except for maybe pseudodragon-esque familiars for that spell-like effect). You can also just cast shield spell if you have it. Trying to find use for your third action is a very good idea in most cases, since pathfinder 2e still has "strongest action economy usually wins", but makes the action economy more of a battle with denying you enemy actions and trying to find what action you can use at the moment.
As a human ranger wielding 2 agile weapons, I can say that I hit on almost most attacks quite often (except on boss fights). And then, I multi-classed into a barbarian with dragon instinct, changed my agile weapons for 2 long swords and there is almost no more penalties on the 3rd attack. Our fighter tanks all the mobs and then I came in next to him and "vaporize" target after target. But, I am still not convinced about the 3-move economy thing.. probably I played to much AD&D and 3.x version of the game.
@@ryzenforce i think it's a good system. Especially since casting most spells is two actions. Encourages doing something other than attack spamming, unless you are a ranger.
I really appreciate the research and nuance in this one. Props. Since my opinion was solicited, I can hardly restrain myself :p I think the problems with the 5E action economy are due to misuse, rather than being inherent. I think the one tweak that Wizards should implement to the action system itself is to allow actions to be downgraded to bonus actions again; otherwise, the current action economy is fine the way it is. The real problems are: • Not every character has a bonus action to take by default; as you pointed out this makes eking out bonus actions a key part of optimization and causes casual players to get left behind. • Because bonus actions can be readily converted to damage output, it’s illogical not to do so in the 5E attack damage meta. To rectify that, bonus actions should be provided to all characters, and Wizards should continue the trend started in the second One D&D UA of limiting the ways bonus actions can be used for damage. Note that attacks aren’t the only way to farm bonus actions for damage; they’re just the most egregious. Note also that I don’t think it’s wholly wrong for bonus actions to be used for damage; I just think doing so should be made only situationally relevant, rather than a constant of a character’s routine, and the option to do so should be properly balanced with bonus actions that don’t cause damage. Should a Pathfinder-style economy be adopted? I certainly think not, though I don’t think 2nd edition Pathfinder’s action economy system is inherently bad. As with 5E, the problem is how it’s being used. I don’t really get the way people mythologize 2E Pathfinder’s action economy, because it’s so obvious to me that it has you doing less with more. You have three actions, sure, but your action economy is being fettered by competition with movement and trivial operations like opening doors, drawing your weapon, and politely asking your shield to do its job for the next few seconds. If 5E were to adopt an action-point model, it would need to be freed from these goofy restrictions. The movement aspect is my greatest concern. Whenever movement competes with action, static play is encouraged, even if the effect is minor. I don’t think movement should be interchangeable with any type of lesser action, and I don’t think you should be able to sacrifice movement for any benefit. It’s also just not very fun when you regularly find yourself in a scenario where you don’t get to do much because you had to spend most of your turn moving.
I agree that DND should tweak its action system rather than use a similar one to pathfinder 2e, as that would be a toosignificant change to DND' s identity and would feel too much like a rip off in a situation that to copy is not needed as there are other solutions
"allow actions to be downgraded to bonus actions again" I assume you mean that a player can do 2 bonus actions, yes? The only difference between you propose and what I propose is that I codify it to 3 actions, and that includes possibly moving and interacting with the environment or with an object, while you are talking about 2 actions where movement and 1 object interaction is free (closer to the current system). "Whenever movement competes with action, static play is encouraged." While I agree that a goal of 5e of making movement free was to create more movement in combat (because you no longer needed to forego movement to make more than 1 attack as in 3e), it's rough in practice. Once 2 foes are adjacent to each other, the Opportunity Attack rule strongly incentivizes melee combatants to stay in place. I think that's more the culprit: my experience is that PF2 combats see more movement around the battlefield because opportunity attacks were removed by default. Btw, in the alternative system I propose, you don't lose any Extra Attack you might have, if you choose to move 2x on your turn.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Yes, you understood me correctly. The distinction may appear minor, but I still regard it as significant. I view a bonus action as something you can reasonably pull off while you’re doing something else, such as moving or attacking; thus it makes sense to me for it to be segregated from movement. Having movement and bonus actions in their separate buckets also keeps it simpler and easier to balance. Reducing an action to a bonus action is unlikely to break the game, but replacing your movement with a bonus action actually might; many other things would need to be redesigned to accommodate such a change. We have to keep in mind that even games with a reputation for balance aren’t perfect in that regard, and for 5E specifically, I think designing mechanics with ease of balance in mind would be a wise course of action. Regarding object interactions, I wouldn’t mind if that mechanic were to be removed/streamlined, with something like doors being a part of your movement, similar to standing up, and drawing weapons being a part of your Attack action, like what we saw in the latest UA. And I wouldn’t be surprised if that actually does happen. I agree that 5E is still very static in practice, and I don’t like the attack of opportunity rule either. Though I may sometimes defend it, 5E is far from my ideal system and I think it is, in general, pretty rough. On the flip side, I don’t think your proposal is terrible or anything, although my instincts tell me that it might inflame existing problems. It’s more that I think 5E action economy would be good enough as is if the bonus action options were reasonably balanced, and an attempt is at least being made on that front. As a player I never actually cared that I couldn’t take two bonus actions; I only mentioned it as a possible tweak because, like you said, it seems like common sense that you should be able to. Therefore, even if they didn’t change the action economy at all, I wouldn’t be too dismayed.
I really like your proposal in the end, but I think they would be called just 'Action' and then two 'Bonus action' if the next edition is to be compatable with previous stuff
Wow, me and my party have completely overlooked that casting a spell as bonus action prevents the casting of other spells! I don't even understand why. During one of the sessions the bard was keeping the player group alive by busting a combo of healing spells. And it was perfectly fine. Why would they limit that? I mean, a player would burn their spell slots anyway, but forgetting this rule allowed them for a very needed burst.
It doesn't take many levels into the game for spell slots to become mostly irrelevant at the typical table (there are some exceptional groups that'll actually do 6-8 encounters a day, but it's not at all uncommon for people to be able to go into combat knowing that they can use everything they have because they're going to be able to rest). Spell slots just aren't that much of a limitation past the first few levels for how D&D 5e is actually played.
@@Eladelia It really sucks that 5e is designed for the gradual loss of resources with lots of battles per day. Like, most parties rest after a fight and try to long rest as soon as possible.
re: 3.5e and PF1e, it's worth noting that not only can you trade a standard action for a move action… you can, through some trickery, trade it for a _swift_ action. You ready an action (which always uses your standard) to use a swift action ability with the trigger being "right now".
Actually, what I see, is I see in character creation and optimization videos, is that I think that D&D players are actually starved for a feat driven character creation. That's why I'm trying to move my group to pathfinder 2. #1 race selection v. human and tasha's custom. The grocery list of must have feats. Go to PF2.
Well... I don't think "6e" should separate itself to much from the current system. I highly suspect there will be a UA that presents a rule for actions to allow them to be substituted by a Bonus Action. In a similar way, I wouldn't be to surprised if the Magic rule in the current UA gets expanded to clarify you can only cast one level 1 or higher spell per turn, to clean up the Bonus Action rules and make the game more intuitive. There are ways to make the system work without sacrificing its benefits imo.
Personally, IME I was worried that the 3-action system would be too hard for my players especially after I introduced a different group to 5e and that system was confusing and disheartening ("oh I guess I don't have a bonus action... so my turn is over") but the opposite was true. Teaching PF2e's action system was SO much easier than 5e and the players got it right away.
I've been working on making my own rpg and with the system I'm making there's no hard limit on how many actions can be taken in a turn but taking more than 1 action takes stamina as a soft limit. A DND character that dashes on their turn can move 60 feet while in my system base speed would be between 10-20 based on your species. 15 being average you'd spend 6 stamina to move the same distance as the dashing DND character and still be able to take further actions by spending more stamina. Using my action system I'm also balancing spells by letting them be powerful but they take multiple actions to cast. Either you can spend multiple turns or you can spend stamina to push it out quickly. I did this with the flavor of either taking time to prepare a spell or exerting yourself to force it out. That's a flavor that I haven't really seen in other games
Sounds like a cool mechanic. I don't know offhand, but a lot of board games have really gone whole-hog into experimenting with mechanics, and I'm sure there are some examples out there that have the same basic idea as you proposed. (Risk-reward to do more things on your turn)
A "stamina" to power special abilities is extremely common in video games too. So much so that I am surprised I haven't seen it (at least not in a pure form) in TTRPGS. This could be combined with HP (as usual) and Magic Points for spells, if you wanted to keep Stamina for "martial" powers (and make spells more flexible vs spell slots).
@@delenius1 stamina is used for martial abilities and taking more actions in a turn. There's no hard limit on the number of actions that can be taken in a turn. Each action costs stamina for how many actions you've already taken. It ties into magic in that spells take a number of actions to cast equal to their mana cost. One action gets added for free per turn or you can spend stamina to push out a spell. That gives both the fantasy of taking time to mold the magic inside you and the fantasy of exhausting your body to rush powerful spells. It can be real easy to eat through your stamina
Well done. Great analysis. It will take some time for me to consider the ideas our came up with but I am very interested in doing so to optimize the games I am planning on running. Wonderful food for thought. Wish I could contribute the same insights at this time. I'll do my best to have a more substantial post after considering your many points and how they might contribute to my own gaming.
In the system you proposed, I think Misty Step being a minor action makes perfect sense. You effectively spend a 2nd-level spell slot to combine a shift and a move as 1 action, with some other situational but potentially powerful bonuses. I'd probably say that you can cast a maximum of 1 _levelled_ spell per turn, as well, completely neglecting to disallow minor action cantrips with main action spells or main action cantrips with minor action spells. This is because spellcasters without at least cantrip access are usually sad spellcasters, since they rely heavily on spell attacks and I don't think nerfing casters by removing their damage potential is really a very good idea.
Hey, could you make a video about what are the biggest hits of D&D 5e system compared to Pathfinder 2e biggest hits ? I mean, things you think one could use from the other. I think you opinion on this could bring a lot of different light on this topic.
Indeed this can be a very good topic to discuss about. Personally to me, the difference between the two systems has always just been about the target demographic. They excel in different ways and pursue different design goals, so it just depends on what kind of players you want to cater your table towards.
I appreciate the suggestion, but I'm not sure it would put 5e in a good light - I think 5e's strength is precisely that it is a midway point that people with different preferences could meet at. But that there are better rules-light systems if a group wants to go in that direction, and better combat systems if they want to go in that direction. It's a good gateway RPG imo
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I personaly wouldn't care about it. I actually grew to like your take on D&D rules - I originally felt quite attacked, but now I don't - Now I feel your views are very well done and constructive in its own way.
the 5e vehicle and spelljammer mechanics I've been streaming use object interaction, bonus action and standard actions to similarly act as "3 actions" each round while piloting. It works really well with the larger scale mechanics to sit in a space using 5e economy to act like pf2 combat. looking forward to what 6e might do... action economy is king!
Once again, I'd like to point out that using your Speed in the current playtest allows you to swim or climb as if through difficult terrain. It does not prevent swimming and climbing in their entirety. Only when you specifically Swim or Climb are you unable to use that speed for other movement types.
Yup, that Main Action and two Minor Actions (why not call them Swift Actions since their precedented in D&D?) sounds like it'd be a welcome improvement.
This was a great video. IM not sure i agree with your suggestion at the end, though i understand it, however it was a great video to watch. One of your best ones i think.
Follow up from last post: we went back to vanilla actions, and I’m happy we did - I would actually like to boot the bonus action entirely and have been collecting all the bonus actions to do as much - that’s on hold now tho, because we’re trying out nimble, a native 3 action game derived from 5e
I do wonder if there could be some simpler economy that still feels distinct from PF2E. Like maybe a 1 Main Action, 1 Minor Action, 1 upcoming Reaction system, with the catch that Minor Action and Reaction could be interchangeable. Kinda like the all-out and charge attack mechanics. However, I think more features could be "Battlecry" tag or something, where they can be triggered when Initiative is rolled, or a Minor Action.
@Professor Thinker I mean more like If you don’t have minor attacks or multi attacks you suck. Meaning all rangers and rogues tend to pick the same minor action powers :(.
@Professor Thinker I’m confused. I’m a 4e fan boy. In fact it was my first game but minor attack power optimization or a power with multiple attack powers is what makes most strikers good.
My house rule would be very similar to what you propose, with the caveat that none of the actions can be the same. So if you wanted to perform the minor action Use (Interact with) an Object three times on your turn, they would have to be three different objects. If you wanted to move twice on your turn, you would need to select the Move and Dash actions. You can't move a third time because you would need to select an action you have already done.
Dunno if that adds too much complication for little benefit. If the idea is to limit Attacks, then maybe the limit could be on Attacks only (or those things you don't want repeating). Otherwise I don't see the harm in allowing 2 Moves.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Since I don't play PF2E, is it fun if a player attempts the same skill check three times in a row in order to ensure success? I'm thinking the equivalent of the Search or Study action in 6e, or climbing without a climb speed. I understand that they are giving up way better options in order to do that, but wouldn't it be more narratively interesting if they tried something else after one failure? Then someone else could try, or they all do something else and wait another round for the same person to try again?
With that idea in mind, it could make for interesting interactions with the Extra Attack or Cunning Action features which would normally limit the action choice...
@@Czonka if the combat is tense (as it should be) then it's not dull at all when repeated attempts are made, because it is frustrating! Lol. They are losing actions. I think it makes sense for the players to be able to choose whether they want to mix it up rather than have it be forced on them. Anyway it's something to try out
If you ask me, the D&D skills should be a bonus action due, then you could do something else than attacking during your turn. thus giving you some. maneuvering during combat that is not attacking. Jump & Attack, Identify enemy & attack like that.. My play testing player's won't do anything else than attack during the turn.. because leaving not attacking is not "optimal playing".
The problem with this is that bonus actions are an important part of the action economy for some characters, but very unimportant or not even available for other characters.
Yeah, rename it a Special Action. A Spell Action, Skill Action, or whatever. Bonus Actions as they exist are stupid. Everyone should get the Special Action.
@@Slyguy846 That is part of the problem I talk about in the video. 5e borrowed 4e minor actions while also retaining 3e's rigidity. 3e's rigidity made sense for it, because its Swift Actions were truly just complements to the 1 "main" action. But 5e has muddied the waters. Some things that are currently bonus actions need to be reassigned and/or redesigned. I mention in the vid that a martial's DPR routine should not include its Bonus Action.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I'm sure you bring this up in the video, but the movement of TWF in OneD&D out of bonus action use certainly is a step in this direction, corrrect?
@@NemisCassander Yep! At least that's my guess as to what it's for. But I think that also means they need to relook at Polearm Master and whether your weapon attacks should take up your bonus action (plus the whole issue of balancing different weapon types with each other)
I like to think about ways to make combat more interesting in D&D (adding additional conditions, additional things players could do). all signs pointed to adding an additional “swift” action lol
I personally like bonus actions, as it creates interesting character building challenges especially when multiclassing to pick up stuff like cunning action. That said, I think you should absolutely be able to hold a bonus action, or use it as your normal action. The fact you can't is super bizarre
The main weakness of the PF2 3 action system is that the system doesn’t full embrace itself. In a 3 action system almost every action should be possible to further empower by spending more actions on it, or be quicken but made weaker or more difficult by spending fewer actions.
Yeah I don't understand why 5e changed that. Standard/move/minor was pretty simple. Changing it to move your speed and take an action was just confusing, especially when you wanted to double move.
I love your suggestions but I'm wondering how do you feel about codifying the minor action that uses skills to be something more general? Instead of the player having to remember to try to study or search, I think a more elegant "5e-like" idea would be to describe as a minor action as "Use a skill" which allows the player to use one of their skills to accomplish something. Then in that description, give the examples you mentioned instead. This way you keep to that core design goal of allowing a DM to ask their new player "what do you want to do? you can do one major thing and 2 minor things" and they can say, "I want to look for that one creature that is hiding" or "I want to persuade them to put down their arms and stop this fight". I'm thinking this could solve one of the main problems that seemed to plague 4e, pf1e, and 3e in that there were too many codified ways to use your actions
Another option is just make it that you get 2 actions per turn, bonus actions become 1/2 actions, move becomes an action, you can move half your movement as a 1/2 action (equivalent to the old 5ft step). You can attack twice, second attacks get a penalty to hit. All of this would only work if fighter class is redone to remove the extra attacks past the first extra attack. Which I think is a possibility, as I suspect the fighter base class will be turned into the battle master advanced class, and the fighter base class will be reworked into the champion subclass or become its own new subclass.
I would add one simple rule. In your turn, you can replace your action for another bonus action (but no more than one spell and a cantrip). So as an exemple, a barbarian shifter could shit and rage in the same round and then move to get closer to combat zone. A bard could give an inspiration and a healing word in the same round. A battle smith artificer could control both his steel defender and a conjured monster but he, himssel, will not attack.
I guess my question is, what about the 3 action economy would break compatibility and why dose it HAVE to be 3 actions? Why not 2 or 4? I think XCOM has a 2 action economy with any things like opening doors or activating a switch being free actions. At least for the most part there are some character types that have a 3rd action.
A 2 Action Point system can easily be added to One D&D and is somewhat Industry Standard. Especially in indie games alongside indie miniature skirmish games. Or potentially something like Super Dungeon Explore. So you get your movement and then something like 3 action points that are spent on different actions. So you could have a current 5e Bonus Action be 1 AP while a Standard Action is 2 AP in this system with classes altering this. So a Fighter might make an Attack action 1AP while a Rogue drops the Dash action to 1AP. Does this make sense? Note: I am posting this while at the section where you are covering the current 5e mechanics in the History section.
Love this!! One pretty solid problem with your solution though: most spellcasters are pretty useless at attacking with weapons, so if you have a "minor" spell it's gonna use up your whole turn anyway, because it's not like you can now use your main action to cast your "real spell". Means no Hex+eldritch blast, no shield of faith+sacred flame, no healing word+vicious mockery. There's basically no benefit to having minor action spells, because now all they allow you to do is attack (unless spellcasters became better at attacking, or attack cantrips became something separate, or maybe there are more useful main actions available...)
A system that I used in a homebrew years ago and I want to integrate into pf1 should I ever start ttrpging again, is an action point system, where every action is worth a number of points. The way this works is when combat begins everyone involved rolls initiative. People begin to declare their actions from lowest roll on up, representing that those with faster initiatives are better able to read and react to those with slower initiatives. Once all actions ate declared and the DM has recorded all of them, the actions requiring the least about of actions points resolve first. When a character's total AP becomes the least amount on the table they declare their next action and more action points are added to their total. The action points keep building, with the those with the least amount resolving and then declaring. Ive not figured out reaction actions yet. Haven't put that much thought into it but my play group really enjoyed the chaotic back and forth and the diversity between weapons with slow action points that hit hard and those with less that hit softer, creating a balance and different combat tactics.
Shinma: They had this in some ways in 1E (maybe 2E) with weapon speeds. A dagger had a 3 speed, while a longsword had a 5. Etc. etc. I'd look there for a base to update from.
Sounds like the 3rd edition of DC Heroes. Namely every round you roll initiative, lowest declares, then the next up, until the highest goes. When you get to your action, you either perform your action or incur a -1/-2 (can't remember which) column penalty for this. It was intuitive once you got the hang of it, but complicated starting out.
@@SilvrSavior Its also easier to show then explain. Then again this is the first time Ive ever tried to explain it like this. Once you try it, the system makes sense. There are no combat rounds and everyone involved just keeps accruing action points. Its more like a real time battle system on paper.
Salutations, and thank you for this wondrous video. I am presently in the midst of writing an overhaul of much of 5e's rules and core content. Would you mind if I used some of the ideas at the end of your video in it (while crediting you)?
I'm a 5e die hard but I always enjoy your point of view. I like your proposed solution but imo I would prefer to keep 1 bonus action and 1 action, I would make it a rule that you can only cast 1 spell a turn and codify a few things anyone can do as a bonus action. I think they were really close to perfect with "movement action bonus action " to be honest I just think that they under thought the bonus action part
I played 4e since it came out and to this day. The one thing i dislike is the interaction of doing actions (like attacks, opening doors. Drinking potions etc) while moving. You have to finish an action before you can take another action. This makes fights very stagnant compared to 5e. The one thing that is murky with 5e is doing an additional bonus actions in place of the standard action. Having DM'd for both systems, i come from the understanding that bonus actions are just reskinned minor actions, and allow players to take 2 bonus actions in a turn in 5e
Speaking of actions, I quite like FFG's Star Wars/Genesys's action system. You get one Maneuver (like a minor action that you describe at the end of the video) and one Action (which can similarly be exchanged for a Maneuver). You can also suffer 2 points of Strain to gain a second Maneuver, which adds a nice element of decision making in combat: "Do I have low enough strain that I can afford to do three things on my turn?" Strain is like a 2nd HP bar which is meant to be spent and recovered more easily than the primary HP bar, called Wounds. It has the potential to be gained or lost with every dice roll you make, and you automatically lose some amount of Strain at the end of an encounter.
Ive always thought that certain things should provoke oportunity attacks but they dont. Perhaps if something uses 3 actions it provokes opportunity attacks
In my experience players tend to be too cautious and will not do things that provoke opportunity attacks. Taking 3 actions to do something would already be a big commitment adding an opportunity attack and they'll probably look for something else to do even if it's suboptimal. Nobody wants to do something that causes their character to get hit.
If D&D moved to a 3 action system I could see them more likely just adding a 3rd action type maybe something like a "Interaction" that could be used to take the Jump, Study, Search, Influence and maybe use/interact with an item. (Most tables I see house rule you can use potions and other such items as bonus actions anyway) This would kind of be taking the free item Interaction per turn and just evolving it into a proper action and expanding it. Is this what they should do? I don't know I'm not a game developer but like I said it's something I can imagine them doing.
Don't sweat it, everyone loves talking about how a game should or should not be. And most people don't know anything about game design. The problem with you proposal is, I believe, that it doesn't mesh well with what is already there in 5e but at the same time it would make the current problems even worse. People already get frustrsted when they can't substitute their action for another Bonus Action. Now you can't even forfeit your action to look at your surroundings. Unless you want to explicitly allow that, in which case you'd have to implement a new rule. But what about Bonus Actions? Can Interact Actions be converted into Bonus Actions or vice versa? By adding onto an already tightly packed system, you bloat the amount of rules needed while simultaneaously creating room for unwanted or confusing interactions.
@@Rubycule I am 100% behind being able to substitute an action for a bonus action or the hypothetical Interact Action, it honestly feels stupid that bonus actions are exclusive to the bonus action as they are supposed lesser actions you can take that can be taken quickly (at least that's how I see them) while Action is your big move for the turn, it makes no sense that you can't give up your big move to do something lesser with it. Though I would say for Bonus and Interact those would not be interchangeable unless you took one of the feats that allowed it. My reason being that while I believe you should be able to substitute anything for an action if you can swap bonus actions and Interact actions at will then there is no point in them even being a distinct actions and if everything is interchangeable then at that point Wizards might as well just copy Pathfinder 2e's system and while I don't have any issue with how Pathfinder does things I really don't want to see D&D just flat out copying hoe Pathfinder does things, they absolutely should take inspiration but don't want to see them stop trying to make a distinction between them.
For spells in 5e, they should have said the following: A character may only cast up to two spells each round, through any combination of actions. This can be one normal spell and one cantrip or two cantrips, but not two normal spells. The wording needs work and I'm not sure 5e's specific phrasing of "spells from spell slots" or "leveled spells," but it works. Similar phrasing should be used for Rogues: they may only Sneak attack once per round, but that can be through any action that allows an attack. If the designers want to limit action frequency, they should just limit action frequency through rounds, not do it in a roundabout way through action type restrictions.
"You can only cast a spell of 1st Level or higher once per turn". You're welcome. Edit: Your initial proposal did not allow for sorcerers to quickened spell, cantrip, and then use their reaction for something like absorb elements. That's why I got rid of the "two spells per round" part.
@@Rubycule makes sense, though it should be "round" instead of "turn," to get around the Rogue problem where they intend something to be once per round but you can get around it with reactions.
@@scytheseven9173 I edited my previous comment. I deliberately wrote once per turn. I think reaction spells are integral to the game. In the same way I believe reaction sneak attacks are integral to the rogue class identity, even if it was a rules oversight initially.
@@Rubycule @Rubycule I suppose there could be an exception for reaction spells, but if it's once per turn you could, say, cast a bonus action leveled spell and ready a Fireball, which would be against the design goal if not letting players cast multiple leveled spells per round. Maybe give a specific exception for spells with a casting time of 1 reaction. "You can cast a spell of first level or above only once per round. Spells with a casting time of 1 reaction ignore this rule, though this exception does not include spells cast using the Ready action." You could also say: "You can cast a spell of 1st level or above only once per round. If you have already cast a spell of 1st level or above, you may cast a spell of first level or above with a casting time of 1 reaction, such as Feather Fall, but this counts as using it for the next round. The Ready action does not change a spell's casting time for this purpose."
I was in a very similar headspace before watching your video, of one major + two minor actions. I was thinking that maybe you could make each minor action say 20ft of movement, and a major action could be either 30ft or 40ft. I think that disengage should still be major action unless you are a rogue. And I think that your idea about defence/offence stances is a relatively good one, although flattened maths would probably need some more work to account for it. Concentration has been a bit of a failure of a mechanic, people forget to roll for it all of the time, so it is not intuitive, so you may be right about the bonus action thing.
Concentration also has the problem that the rolls are usually too easy, but then they do tend to get harder at higher levels (because monsters will deal more damage), which kind of goes against bounded accuracy.
Before watching the video: I think I may have said it in the last video, but personally I like the idea of a 4 action system for 6e, taking some cues from Divinity OS2. It's easy enough to translate over: 1 action in 5e = 2 actions. Bonus action = 1 action. They then can start introducing options that take more actions. Movement I think is the main think that stumps from from a quick and easy translation. I like the idea of movement being part of your action use, since it lets someone give it up to focus on something else, but both giving someone 30 ft. of movement for 1 action or requiring 2 actions for it both feel not quite satisfying. Perhaps something like having it cost 1 action, but you only get half as much for each extra action spent. It takes away some of the simplicity in exchange for keeping roughly the same level of movement across the map. This means that you can spend all 4 actions making 2 attacks on your turn. I'd maybe limit Extra Attack to once per turn but give no "multiple attack penalty", or let them keep their whirlwind of attacks but introduce disadvantage on the second attack action. Might also just increase most spells by 1 action over what they'd normally translate as (maybe keep cantrips as normal). Keeping most spells cost more actions works well in PF2 and 5e certainly has a power imbalance between spells and martials. After watching the video: I actually really like the sound of this too. 5e has strayed away from flat bonuses, but they haven't avoided them completely (such as the archery fighting style), so the +1 to attack or AC based on how you use your minor actions sounds really neat. I'd also offer a "mixed" style to new players, but it does keep it nice and simple. I think while I like my proposed system more (mostly because of my bias towards Divinity), yours does line up much better with what 5e was and what 6e is trying to be, and I'd love to see them go down this route as well, it very neatly simplifies the mess of options 5e has while also making them more versatile.
Casting 2 spells or taking 2 attack actions in a single turn deviates way too far from D&D’s roots. It is also far too strong and will result in a first order optimal strategy of no one wanting to move or do anything else.
@@jltheking3 1, tradition for tradition's sake is a pointless argument to me. Breaking from the roots can be healthy, what matters is if it's fun. Based on my experience with PF2 and Divinity, I think it would be an improvement. 2, People already never want to move when they don't have to, 5e is filled with people sitting next to each other hacking until 1 goes down (unless the DM uses a monster or environment to mix things up, which is just as applicable here), so I don't see much of gameplay changing aside from the extra attack(s) in a turn. That's also why I voiced the idea of either not applying extra attack more than once a turn, or granting disadvantage to the 2nd attack actions (to clarify that's not meant to be an option for the players, it would be set as one or the other, I just haven't done anymore more than the basic concept). There will be enough situations where it would be better to give up 1 attack or a couple at disadvantage in order to do something else, like move, drink a potion, use an item cast a spell etc.
@@WolforNuva You said a lot of words and came up with an extremely complicated system when PF2E does so simply and succinctly via its multiple attack penalty. Also the argument for letting players just stand there and not move is laughable. That is an undesirable situation to me. Combats where creatures are incentivized to just stay standing where they are and not move just sounds like a boring combat system to me. I played PF1e before and god, was the full round action the worst designed mechanic ever.
@@jltheking3 Really? That's extremely complicated to you? All I can do is shrug and say sure man, you don't have to use those rules, but I don't see the complexity. Perhaps it only seems overly complicated because I've yet to formalize and word the rules carefully, since as of now it's just a brainstormed idea. Short of any change to the system we're not privy to, 6e is going to follow in 5e's steps as a not very dynamic combat system. You don't have to like it, but that's just how 5e (and seemingly 6e) are. My 4 action houserule was built with RAW 5e/6e in mind. Those are rules that lead to very stagnant battles, where fighters run up to monsters and stay there wasting movement every turn until the monster is dead. My rules give them something extra to do each turn rather than leave 30ft. of movement unused. It's more versatile and gives martials a bit more oomph so they can finally do something (single target damage) better than casters.
@@WolforNuva I will admit I largely don’t understand what your houserules are because your writing is verbose and unclear. You use words like “perhaps” and “maybe” throughout your writing and did not communicate a concretely playtested set of rules. Perhaps they are, but maybe you can rephrase it in a clearer fashion. You should write your own thoughts after you finish explaining your houserules, instead of sprinkling them throughout your explanation. Learn to write clearly so that way you can present your ideas better to new players coming to your table.
I vote YES for 3 actions in DnD. Actually my only problem with PF2 is this cheapness of choises. I hate this "get +1 to every third attack you making against an evil outsider on the night of full moon if there are a virgin dancing kankan within 5 feet of you". And you have like dozens of such effects. And not only they are hard to remember and use, they feels too cheap to even spend your time to remember them. I love the "major feat" idea or DnD 5e. Where each feat is something meaningful. Something defining your character (but i hate that 80% of feats are usless, while 10% are top use and the rest just OK). I love advantage system (with some exceptions that should be fixed). I don't wanna count numerous +1 bonuses that differs every time. I love the lack of scaling in DnD 5e. When even a puny goblin can play his role against lvl 10 character. Having your level directly affect your attack and skill bonus is a lazy design.
I mean... you don't have to pick the +1 bonuses to certain stuff if you don't want. PF2e has lots of choices of where to spend your feats as you level, and I've NEVER had to spend it on those +1 bonuses. I deliberately didn't pick them because I don't like them, and I've had zero issues.
This is a fantastic video! Good suggestions for 1DD, but I don't think they could make those changes, since old abilities and monster stat blocks would no longer be compatible (they would have to rewrite "bonus action" to "minor action" everywhere, reduce monster speeds by 5', etc). I think their decision to keep compatibility unfortunately means that 1DD will have most of the problems that 5e has.
Very interesting source of debate. I have been playing (just a little) PF1 and (a lot) D&D 5e and PF2. Some of the possible things you will be able to do with Actions, from the new UA docs, have been previously introduced in XGtE and TCoE book, specifically identifying spells being cast at the moment or specific magic effects already being cast, and parley with monsters and try to persuade them not to attack you. I also think the 3 Actions system of PF2 is not a match for D&D, especially to maintain a strong brand identity.
I'd probably keep movement as separate from action and just clean up the bonus action rules so you can perform a bonus action in place of an action. I love the Pf2e 3 actions but I agree that it's probably a bridge too far in terms of changes for One D&D.
I'm haven't watched the vid (no interest in the future of D&D), but am surprised there's almost no one in the comments that brings up 4e. D&D had a simple and intuitive Standard/move/minor action hierarchy, that they decided to just throw out the window with the imprecise 'you can move your speed and take an action, but sometimes do things in place of moving, and sometimes have a bonus action'.
I love Pathfinder 2e, but hearing you talk about D&D 4e, I prefer that action system somewhat. Pathfinder 2e's 3-action economy normally works well, but can get bogged down with "petty" actions. Say you've been downed in combat and someone heals you: you may be up, but you're also normally prone and have dropped a weapon if you were holding one-that's at least 2 actions that are mandatory before you can get to actually participate in combat again. Same for if you have to climb something-if you have a weapon and shield, that's 2 actions for when you start climbing, to put them away, and 2 actions when you stop, to take them out again. Or say you want to open a door, step through it, and close it-that's 3 actions, your whole turn, which seems like too much. Something like Quick Draw can help, but you're still often left with the scenario in the One D&D playtest where you have to choose between jumping and attacking, if not as often. Basically, Pathfinder 2e comes off worse in places where something that would otherwise be a swift/bonus/minor action has to compete with attacking and movement and other primary actions, because sometimes you do actually have to do them (sheathing a weapon, for instance) and it feels like an action tax.
You know, I get why the simple and easy 3 actions per turn is so desirable. Yet, there are just some actions, that I really don't think should share the same resource pool. I really do think that we should have a single action reserved for regular movement, and that multiattack should primarily come from the weapon and secondarily from the wilder's level / proficiency with a given weapon.
Thats how it works in p2e. Everybody gets the basic attack that costs one action, but classes get class feats that grant them special attacks, or extra attacks. Like the ranger has a feat granting two attacks for one action. Giving them 4 attacks in a round for example.
I think stride should also have a "combat penalty" applied.. first stride no problem. Second stride (fatigued 1 -1 to all dex checks) move half speed on second and third stride, but on the third stride you get the slowed 1 condition which means you have only 2 actions the following round, and have general feats to mitigate stride penalty.. as well as dex markers .. above 20 dex get fatigued 1 on third stride instead of slowed 1. Rangers can get ranger feats to mitigate stride penalties.
It happened at the same levels (7 and 13) for all 3 of those classes, but the paladin and ranger needed more xp than the fighter to reach those levels, so your statement is correct... yet misleading.
@@jmvh59 oh, you're right! I think it was weapon specialization that gave the fighter the faster attacks. Looking back at it, the whole system was wonky as hell.
Over the years, 1st and 2nd edition AD&D were all over the place with how you could spend your weapon (and later non weapon) proficiency slots. Specialization (introduced in Dragon magazine and reiterated in Unearthed Arcana) let fighters and their subclasses spend extra slots for increases to hit and damage with a particular weapon, along with an increased attack rate. This was carried on to 2nd edition with the extensive rules cleaned up some. However, I assume a later book expanded proficiency and specialization to broad weapon groups and multiple layers of specialization which is the system present in the Baldur's Gate series of computer games released in the mid to late 90s.
I haven't skimmed all 300+ comments but if casting Misty Step took a minor action and while the spell is active allows you to teleport the set distance as a minor action that may solve some of its problems. You can maintain it on following turns for a single minor action and you get to keep the ability to do one major action and one minor action which could be another short range teleportation. Because it gives you an option to take instead of a normal move, it doesn't really break all of the current use cases while preventing some of the current abuses. It's relatively simple too which goes towards what WotC says is good about 5e and what you are trying to do with your suggestion. If it's just meant to be a throw away teleport you can still use both minor actions to do so. Then you get to do something useful at the destination just like you could before this change
I think 5e made movement so easy with getting rid of AoO on more than 5 foot step/shift & allowing movement between attacks in a multiattack chain wotc actually managed to make combat more static than 3.x where the crunchy front line had to jockey around & interact with themook/front line type monsters who were themselves doing the same to balance protecting their (actually) squishy allies against the benefits of letting them go in order to paste the other side's squishy types. Getting rid of the iterative attack penalties tooo just left everything a brainless smash
Three action system sounds great, makes me want to try pathfinder. Your proposal for dnd sounds interesting but there are two main problems I see 1. Temporary +/-1 modifiers clashes with the simplicity of 5e's advantage/disadvantage system, which is one of its biggest strengths and great for new players. 2. Having 2 minor actions to spend on movement would definitely add too much mobility creep and nullify the uniqueness of the Rouge's cunning action feature.
I think a big solution they can do is simply to get rid of bonus action spells all together. There really aren't that many to begin with. And it would help eliminate that clunky, unnecessary rule where you can't cast more than 1 spell a turn. This is just a theory, but if you notice, jn the most recent One DnD playtest, getting bonus damage on a turn is now somewhat rare. This can be seen with the elimination of the -5/+10 mchanic from feats. This leads me to believe that spells like Hex and Hunters mark won't be Bonus action anymore, since they offer the extra damage. But we'll have to see when they release the revised spells UA.
As someone who got tired of playing dedicated casters in D&D because I got to do one thing a turn while the monk got to go 60 feet and punch six different enemies in different corners of the same room, I would like it if D&D One adopted some more balanced action economy. If a cantrip is only going to do a max of 12 damage to one enemy, why can't I do it more than once a turn if I'm not doing anything else?
5e cantrips are designed to scale as you level up, so while other classes are getting multiple attacks per round the cantrips are also hitting harder. If you had cantrips doing a maximum of 12 damage while someone else was attacking 6 times you may have been neglecting to scale the cantrips as intended.
I have a homebrew of 2 actions, 1 bonus action and 1 reaction per round. There is more... There are two types of moves, simple move and skilled move, which is moving with a skill check. For example, moving in to attack holding a cross, you do a Religion check to get +2 advantage on the attack. ... the 2 actions can be any combination of moves, non-damaging actions and 1 damaging action. In the damaging action, extra attacks are available. So, you could do 2 non-damaging actions with a free 5ft step, like Trip and Deception.... My homebrew is much less complicated and more fun Pathfinder. You can watch my video by searching for "wisdom hunter action combinations".
You forgot to anwer the question: why is there an action system to begin with? What is the goal behind players taking turns and to break up what they want to do in actions? The goal of the mechanic is to limit the players to have their characters do at least one thing, but preferably not more than one thing, that significantly affects the story. If you don't to get at least one significant thing to do during your turn, you will feel undervalued. If you have to wait too long because other players are doing more than one significant thing on their turn, you will either feel undervalued or will be waiting unneccesarily long for your next turn to come up. That was the idea behind the 1 minute round as well. Within that time you should be able to do one significant thing and not be hindered by not having the time to walk up to the enemy or open the door.
i'd love 5e to implement 3 action economy! altough i don't think they will... also i did not know pathfinder 2 used something like that, but i was thinking of homebrewing something similar inspired in divinity 2, the pc game now that i heard about it, i cannot think of a better action economy system
Just at a quick glance, I believe they should move to a two action system and a movement action. Making some abilities that were bonus actions to be worth 1 Action point and most normal actions into being worth 2 Action points. And then they should take a point from pathfinder and define actions properly.
What if you just broke up the turn into 6 segments, every action gets assigned a number that represents how much time it takes in seconds, attacking takes 2 segments, moving takes 2 segments, and bonus action things take 1 segment, some more time consuming things can take between 3-6 segments.
What you're describing is basically what Pathfinder does, except they use 3 segments. Doubling the number of things someone can do per round is a thing someone could experiment with, but I suspect it would be a really big problem in that it would magnify advantages or disadvantages in action economy. When the monsters outnumber the party (or vice versa), the gap between how much each side could do per round would become much larger.
Anime 5e very much simplified the action economy since it very much a point buy system that somewhat uses D&D 5e. You can buy Extra Action/s "Attribute"/Ability which is your standard action you can take in a given round in D&D 5e (Attack, cast, etc.), You also can buy Extra Bonus Actions which is clearly defines what you can do in a given round that is not attack or cast any spell, this means no matter how many bonus actions you have or have spells that are casted as bonus action; only fire off one spell can be used that round; Unless you use the Extra Action "Attribute"/Ability. This is balance the cost of the ability, Extra Bonus Actions cost half as much to buy as Extra Actions.
When I ran the official WOC weeks modules with high school girls, there were 1 Daily, 2 or 3 encounter actions, there was never confusion because of printed characters Cards, Actions and short rest healing, the complaint was players where unkillable, and it was and to much like a video game.
Minor action to increase to hit by +1 just screams to me "if you want to be optimal, stand still and hit things with your stick every turn" I don't like it.
This is the (often) less-optimal fallback for those who want simple gameplay, and don't want to consider with the "compelling default Minor Actions" I propose should be tested.
The problem with this “fallback” is that it’s a little *too* good, to the extent that every single minor action in the game would need to be judged in comparison and must be better than the +1. We also need to consider player psychology. Taking a minor action will be seen as “sacrificing” a +1 to perform something else, and this will disincentivize even casual players from doing otherwise interesting things such as switching weapons, tactical movement, feinting, demoralizing and so on. A game should be designed to encourage interesting actions, not discourage them. Pathfinder 2e does this well with the multiple attack penalty, discouraging players from doing the boring thing of attacking multiple times a turn and encouraging them to think of other interesting things to do. In my opinion, the better design is to leave the turn’s power budget to the standard action, and just let minor actions be exactly that - minor, and ultimately inconsequential even if they are not spent.
@@jltheking3 We are in a time now when people will choose the thing that gives them .01% more average damage then the thing that is "just a cool option". Claiming that what they find fun IS doing more damage. Meanwhile they complain about being bored because they are "forced" into taking the most optimal options for more damage.
DnD5e already has a 3 action economy. They are just not always available to use on every turn...and you as a player need to understand the nuances. Move Action, Standard Action and potentially a 3rd bonus action. Biggest difference...is DnDE allows a Move and a Standard Action. Pathfinder allows you to substitute the Move Action for another Action (often with a penalty). I think the Pathfinder method seems a bit more clear....but often leads to a wasted 3rd Action (Ill just swing away)....whereas DnD5E has just done away with that wasted last attack. So, IMO....they arent that different, the outcome is the same...just explaining things in a different way.
This is good. Different enough to not be a blatant copy of PF2 system, has some historical ties, can generate or aid dynamic gameplay design, understandable mechanically, and most importantly, isnt a hard transition from the current to this goal. Well don.e
Here is how i would do it You have 7 seconds of activity in the round Main actions are 2.5 seconds Minor action is 2 seconds Reaction is 0.5 seconds Feats such as lightning reflexes cut reaction time in half.
I have played both at this point and I have come to believe the three action system is just superior, less obtuse and actually quickens combat. My players (two years and going), STILL get their bonus action/action confused, often time trying to do two bonus actions or the line. That coupled with the not super readable rule of not being able to cast a leveled spell with bonus action if you casted a leveled spell your action, so the reverse is also true but also being able to cast a spell with two actions or the rare occasions that happens...Yeah. Anyway I love the 3 action system and D&D would be better off with it, but it won't happen if they actually want to keep this backwards compatible.
I been running and playing D&D for decades and honestly the three action rule is very nice. Yeah in 5th it can seem like it is a move, an action and a bonus. However many times you have abilities or other things that take a bonus action, then you have reactions and free actions etc. I have seen a lot of new players be very confused and have to keep looking at all their abilities on their turns in combat to hunt for what abilities use bonus actions. I do think the pathfinder three action base is a great, useful and simple design. Yes, the bonus action only spell followed by an action only cantrip is wonky and always trips people up. A lot of new players don't understand why they cant also cast a bonus spell and an action spell. It is really disjointed in the rules.
If dnd1 were to take on 3 action economy I wish there were more spells like Heal even tough that is one of two spells I know from Pathfinder 2e 😆 1 action touch heal, 2 action 30ft +8 healing and 3 actions aoe heal all living even enemies who are living 😄
First off, I think you have a cool channel and present yourself as knowledgeable and trustworthy. Keep making videos, you're awesome. But if I could give a bit of feedback... it's all just a little bit too slow, too monotone, and too long. Your material is great, but making it a little more digestible would go a long way. Anyway, I'll keep trying, even though I usually drop off after a few minutes. But I like your opinions and your insights, what I can see of them. Thanks!
Serious suggestion, have you tried 1.5x or higher speed? Some of my viewers do that. I have some shorter videos as well. But yeah for my longer-form videos I tend to speak carefully and hence the pacing. Hope the timestamps help
The 3 action economy was one of my biggest turn offs of pf2e when I first heard of it, which was during the play test I believe. A year ago I decided to give pf2e a full read through and absolutely fell in love with everything, the 3 action economy is amazing
For me it was exactly opposite. I loved the idea from the very beginning. Then I read the playtest rulebook and was turned off by the all minutia especially multiple +1 bonuses everywhere.
Finally I come again to try Pathfinder since I now have 3 years of running 5e and Pathfinder starts to look more and more appealing x-)
@@Obcybr I promise those plus 1s aren't as intimidating as it sounds. I personally don't like the advantage and disadvantage system, because everything benefits from the same thing and only once and in the same way.
At least with the +1s you have a few different sources they come from and it's sometimes more. Also, while different bonuses can stack, it's only if it's of a different type (item, circumstance, or status) so it doesn't end up being huge
@Winged Hussar the advantage and disadvantage system is one of the things I hate most about 5e. I think having advantage and disadvantage in some cases is cool, but I think having it replace bonuses and penalties really sucks. Personally for pf2e I find the numbers to keep track of are really easy since you often only take the biggest of a certain category, of which there are generally only 2 categories that apply (circumstances and status) and then untyper which just always adds but is still usually pretty simple.
@@kidthegeek I don't mind Advantage/Disadvantage for when things are not codified - someone threw some grit at your eyes, which you manage to mostly block with an arm but your sight is momentarily blocked; the enemy attacks, what is the penalty? Ermm, then enemy has Advantage on the attack.
Where I don't like it is for things which are predicatable and frequent, where they should in some way stack or have larger/smaller effects than other things. Shooting at an enemy when there is fog everywhere SHOULD be more penalising than the bonus you get from the enemy not being able to see you - this is where Advantage/Disadvantage flat out fails for me.
@@aimerw I'm not a big fan of non codified things like throwing dirt in someone's face or targeting specific body parts such as targeting their leg to prevent them from moving. In 5e's case it seems like way too easy of a way to give everything advantage or disadvantage. I prefer having a set rule of things that can be done. That being said, even using stuff like that a codified system isn't that hard to implement. Throwing grit in their eyes would make it more difficult to see. Apply the appropriateness penalty, so a -1 or 2 penalty. It's much better IMO.
5e's "move around" as a dynamic battlefield may have been an interesting goal, but then they gave _everyone_ an attack of opportunity, so once you're smacking things with metal sticks, you just stand there and wail away until either falls over. I find that it's _really hard,_ especially as the DM, to make dynamic-feeling battles in 5e.
there's also the action system in Lancer, which I think could be added to the discussion. you always get to move, and then you also get either a full action or two quick actions. some weapons only take a quick but if you're really fighting, that's going to be a full. it also uses something similar to 5e's splitting up movement around attacks (around actions instead). the quick actions include typical stuff but also some stuff that's like very minor spells (this is Mecha, not magic). one bit I don't think would translate as a basic ability (but maybe would work for a class feature) is take a form of damage to make an extra quick action, even if you took a full action.
anyway, so many action systems, so little chance that will get one we like.
Thanks for plugging Lancer! I've heard a number of praises of it and will be checking out ICON in my current "tour" of RPGs!
I was just thinking about Lancer. It's a great system.
LANCER is literally a 4e offshoot. That's why it works so well.
@@datonkallandor8687 i thought it was based on Shadow of the Demon Lord given how advantage works, does that come from 4e too?
@lawrl777 Yes and No. From my understanding, it is basically to 5e what Pathfinder 1e was to 4e. It is an alternative that leans on the previous edition more than the current.
(Edit: Shadow of the Demon Lord, and the new less dark fantasy version they are making, that is.)
I'm a player that has only played 5e so far. This was a great video, and really gets me thinking that 4e had a better action system.
4e was a really great system. It was really well developed and supported. While it had issues it is quite telling that most of the issues 5e has were not 4e problems.
@@GuttedAU yup, a lot of mechanics from 4e is great for combat. The problem was that it focused on combat so much, that you wonder what happened to the social and exploration aspect of dnd.
Escentuals, if 5e starts to feel bare bones, just read the 4e books and take the good parts of them for 5e.
@@ruga-ventoj IRC system wise 4e had as much, if not more support for non-combat as 5e. You had your skill checks, you had your skill challenges (a good system that was never officially explained well), rituals and utility powers. I cannot remember if 4e ever had crafting rules. 5th has skill checks, spells, expertise and ...I'm drawing a blank.
The poor fighter still got screwed on the number of trained skills.
@@ruga-ventoj 4e had way more support for the non-combat pillars of the game than 5e ever did.
As mostly an P1st player they simplistic 3 action economy is what I think allows roll playing, unlike 5th
I never realized how good the v4 action economy was. Thank you.
Tbh, I was skeptical when I first read the title of this video, but this was an extremely nuanced and we'll thought out analysis. Good job!
The 3 action economy is easily one of my favorite features from PF2E. It makes going back to any other system kind of frustrating. It's gotten so bad I've considered homebrewing it into every other system where it makes sense. It's so game changing. So freeing. It's really insane how much it opens up in terms of other systems mechanics, options during combat, and it never feels like you're wasting your turn. There's always something for you. If I all I have to look forward to going back to One D&D is standing in the same place and hitting the enemy until I kill it or it kills me I'll just avoid the game entirely.
It could be super nice if One D&D implements your main action and minor action system.
yeah, unfortunately the D&D branch of WotC doesn't do "nice"
The 3 action system, for my group, didn't get people hyped until we played with it. Now, when we play 5e we often make comments about what we would do if we had 3 actions.
I am primarily a 5E player and have invested the most into this system. Your solution to do one action and two minor actions seems like the most ideal option. One thing I particularly love about PF2 is the 3 action economy. My PF2 players have quickly realized that attacking three times isn't ideal but that using another non-attack ability instead of that third attack can really impact the battle. I think that a three standard action economy in 6E would really complicate things both for players and for backwards compatibility but having BAs and movement become minor actions you could easily make the change. Plus, WOTC is really putting all their eggs in the digital basket and could easily update the terminology in the existing books. They completely changed a whole section of Spell Jammer the day after the physical books released and that is now the official version and my physical books are out of date. My hope is that if they aren't watching your videos or considering your solution that someone with the right contacts would point to it and we can see a main action and two minor action system. Continuing to enjoy your content!
Really great discussion. I especially appreciated your run-through of the goals of each edition and potential options. My best advice with One D&D is to always read the Glossary First. It takes the edge off and eases confusion.
Re: 3e had rigid, setup-only Swift actions: In the PHB, you could Quicken to cast any spell 5th level or lower as a Swift action. Moving beyond the PHB, I remember a skill trick that let you Concentrate as a Swift Action, which similarly breaks the action economy right in half.
My problem with the Main Action/Bonus Action vs 3 Actions is that nobody I play with does anything with their Bonus Actions and they have like no impact on gameplay where as the 3 Actions gives more player choices.
Unless you pick up a feat or have a class that uses it (Rogue) bonus actions just get wasted. It’s annoying and makes 5e into a, “move to enemy, roll to hit. Roll to hit X 5. End of encounter.”
@@jedbex7070 Yep.
the way it's written is that Bonus Actions don't "exist" in the base kit, until a feature *gives* you the option of using a feature as a Bonus Action
it's just that so many features give you a BA that most players know they should be picking up something to utilize it.
@@kori228 Which of course isn't how it REALLY works. It's just another way of saying "There isn't anything in the base rules that everyone has access to that uses a bonus action", since everything from items to spells to features to feats can give "a thing" that is used as a bonus action. That design is so archaic that the Rogue was evidently designed with BA's inception, since it has a feature that says it GRANTS YOU a bonus action, in line with the core rules, but that wording was scrapped for everything else, relying on simply saying "As a bonus action," or simply listing the action cost in stat blocks like with spells.
It's why Rogue features and subclass features in the PHB refer to the cunning action, rather than just saying "As a bonus action,".
Thanks for the video! Excellent as always.
I really appreciate the amount of research that went into it and the breakdown of D&D action system evolved through its many editions. It’s a good way to understand the design goals of 5e.
I think the iteration that 5e had during its playtest resulted in truly the most fun I’ve had with 5e. Combats were quick and exhilarating. All you had to think about on your turn was just the one action you wanted to do and that’s it! It was a refreshing change from the long and draggy combat systems of 3e and 4e and really made 5e feel like it went back to its roots and made it unique from what came before it.
But that all changed once the game released and bonus actions were introduced. Truly, bonus actions were one of the worst things that happened to this edition. It made combats slow down to an absolute crawl as it basically doubled the amount of time spent making decisions on your turn. It’s hell trying to explain it to new players and it resulted in many confusing rules.
I see this as the design team losing sight of their primary design goals. It was a quick fix for a couple of minor problems that they were facing - by offering a simple solution to force something to be “once per turn” in order to prevent exploits.
But this was used far too much, and just like one’s concentration “slot”, the bonus action “slot” ended up being yet another source of a character’s power budget for the turn.
This is truly a shame. What we have today is in fact a deviation from the game’s original design goals of a quick and snappy combat system. Now 5e features one of the slowest combat systems in modern RPGs today when it was originally designed as completely the opposite.
The design team should have had more discipline in restricting the power budget allocated to bonus actions. It should have been the case where the turn’s power budget came completely from your standard action, and your bonus action was just to assist you in performing your standard action, like drawing your weapon or sustaining a concentration spell. Powerful bonus action spells like Misty Step or Healing Word should flat out not exist. I would happily play an edition of D&D with no bonus action whatsoever.
Alas, they are stuck with it now.
Still, I understand that the design goals of 6e has largely changed as you mentioned in this video. We don’t know for sure as they never tell us explicitly (because this isn’t a real playtest…), but I believe you are correct in that they want to expand the number of things you can do on your turn other than just “I attack”.
It’s different from the original design goal of 5e, but it seems the tide has definitely changed since 2013 and grognards are no longer an audience WOTC cares about. Having long, fancy, complicated turns is hip now.
To that end, I definitely agree that your 2 minor + 1 standard action system suggestion is definitely an improvement to what they have currently. I would happily play that, and it seems simple enough to explain to new players.
If I were to head back to running 5e for some reason this might be something I try out.
Excellent video as always Ronald! Not directly related to this video, but I wanted to thank you! I stumbled on one of your videos a while ago and you helped get me seriously interested in PF2e. I'm running the Beginner Box this friday and am very excited!
Awesome! Would love to hear how it goes! (we got a community going on my server btw... join us!)
While the multi-attack penalty serves and important job in Pathfinder, there are ways it could be simplified in a 5e/6e context. For example:
> Your second and subsequent attacks in the same round are made at disadvantage.
There. Nice and simple, not far removed from the maths of the Pathfinder version but much easier to roll with at the table.
Honestly, the advantage/disadvantage system is the one piece of 5e that I wish Pathfinder 2e had adopted.
This is a fine suggestion and might be workable! Would need some playtesting tho (it arguably negates negative conditions... I've been wary that Advantage/Disadvantage is too binary and doesn't account for the stacking of conditions... e.g. if it would negate blindness and the effect of other conditions on your non-initial attacks for example)
Personally I think the advantage/disadvantage system is one of the worst parts of 5e. Since it usually interacts poorly with the environment. If you were blinded or prone for example, there would be a very small penalty for attacking three times, since only the first attack would be affected. And what's worse is that it would make dealing out conditions much less effective, leading to much duller combat, at least for me.
Couldn't the advantage/desadvantage would be stackable?
@@9652769 In a version adapted to Pathfinder, it certainly could. They could even say something like "triple disadvantage is an automatic failure." In 5e, and presumably in 6e, it isn't.
That’s a huge penalty for multiattacker. Disadvantage is way worse than a static penalty
The simplicity of the 3 action economy with scaling "multi-action" moves was by far my favorite component of PF2E. I think D&D would benefit from adding in some more simplicity or streamlining, but I'm also more of an OSR style player these days so I'm not really sure what the best direction for mainline D&D is really.
I’ve done the 1 major 2 minor system you postulated in this video for nearly 6 months - I’m sad to say that for us the juice isn’t worth the squeeze as a house rule to 5e - it requires a few adjustments that are pretty easy to make as they come up - for example, how do you deal with speed? Slow them down (as you mention) or disallow a second minor action move - after all these little fixes, we continued with play for several months - in the end, play ended up being pretty much unchanged other than giving utility classes like bards more actions per turn - for example they could cast two spells and give bardic inspiration while non bonus action classes fall even further behind - if you limit casting to one spell per turn, it leaves those using bonus action to cast little to do with their major action - dodging is fine but often unhelpful for those who stay in the back line anyway - plus dodging every turn is pretty boring, but if you are ok with the monotony, casters can be end up consistently harder to hit than fighters, furthering the martial-casters divide - alternatively wizards could shoot into melee, but that leads to more friendly fire than you might expect - I think it will require much more of a system overhaul to implement well, as seen with PF2
I had a thought that maybe a move + 2 action system might also work, but 3 actions is simply more flexible.
Regarding the bonus actions: I know that Mike Mearls had said several times that he would have liked to see Bonus actions removed and the turn simplified to just an action and a move, with exception rules for other actions such as “quick” spells or two weapon fighting, to simplify. If anything I would expect One D&D to follow a similar plan rather than PF2’s three action plan.
I really like the main and 2 minor action concept. One thing that might help manage the power of Misty step and other effects might be borrowing from the flourish concept.
Assuming that each minor actions used on a turn has to be different (like no attack stacking, no Misty step stacking with another spell)
Certain minor actions can have the “momentum” trait, where a minor action can be repeated on a turn.
Example: Rogue’s cunning actions feature adds the momentum trait to all movement options
Also, don't forget, If you absolutely can't find anything else to do with your 3rd Action in PF2...you can always raise your shield for a hefty bonus to your AC. 🙂
Non fighters can recall knowledge, watch is video on his modification I will use.
You can also get actions too, like feinting or, sometimes, intimidation.
If you are a spellcaster, you can command your familiar to do something (though they aren't very strong in combat, except for maybe pseudodragon-esque familiars for that spell-like effect). You can also just cast shield spell if you have it.
Trying to find use for your third action is a very good idea in most cases, since pathfinder 2e still has "strongest action economy usually wins", but makes the action economy more of a battle with denying you enemy actions and trying to find what action you can use at the moment.
As a human ranger wielding 2 agile weapons, I can say that I hit on almost most attacks quite often (except on boss fights). And then, I multi-classed into a barbarian with dragon instinct, changed my agile weapons for 2 long swords and there is almost no more penalties on the 3rd attack. Our fighter tanks all the mobs and then I came in next to him and "vaporize" target after target. But, I am still not convinced about the 3-move economy thing.. probably I played to much AD&D and 3.x version of the game.
@@ryzenforce i think it's a good system. Especially since casting most spells is two actions.
Encourages doing something other than attack spamming, unless you are a ranger.
@@Alex-cq1zr lol
I really appreciate the research and nuance in this one. Props.
Since my opinion was solicited, I can hardly restrain myself :p I think the problems with the 5E action economy are due to misuse, rather than being inherent. I think the one tweak that Wizards should implement to the action system itself is to allow actions to be downgraded to bonus actions again; otherwise, the current action economy is fine the way it is. The real problems are:
• Not every character has a bonus action to take by default; as you pointed out this makes eking out bonus actions a key part of optimization and causes casual players to get left behind.
• Because bonus actions can be readily converted to damage output, it’s illogical not to do so in the 5E attack damage meta.
To rectify that, bonus actions should be provided to all characters, and Wizards should continue the trend started in the second One D&D UA of limiting the ways bonus actions can be used for damage. Note that attacks aren’t the only way to farm bonus actions for damage; they’re just the most egregious. Note also that I don’t think it’s wholly wrong for bonus actions to be used for damage; I just think doing so should be made only situationally relevant, rather than a constant of a character’s routine, and the option to do so should be properly balanced with bonus actions that don’t cause damage.
Should a Pathfinder-style economy be adopted? I certainly think not, though I don’t think 2nd edition Pathfinder’s action economy system is inherently bad. As with 5E, the problem is how it’s being used. I don’t really get the way people mythologize 2E Pathfinder’s action economy, because it’s so obvious to me that it has you doing less with more. You have three actions, sure, but your action economy is being fettered by competition with movement and trivial operations like opening doors, drawing your weapon, and politely asking your shield to do its job for the next few seconds. If 5E were to adopt an action-point model, it would need to be freed from these goofy restrictions.
The movement aspect is my greatest concern. Whenever movement competes with action, static play is encouraged, even if the effect is minor. I don’t think movement should be interchangeable with any type of lesser action, and I don’t think you should be able to sacrifice movement for any benefit. It’s also just not very fun when you regularly find yourself in a scenario where you don’t get to do much because you had to spend most of your turn moving.
I agree that DND should tweak its action system rather than use a similar one to pathfinder 2e, as that would be a toosignificant change to DND' s identity and would feel too much like a rip off in a situation that to copy is not needed as there are other solutions
"allow actions to be downgraded to bonus actions again"
I assume you mean that a player can do 2 bonus actions, yes?
The only difference between you propose and what I propose is that I codify it to 3 actions, and that includes possibly moving and interacting with the environment or with an object, while you are talking about 2 actions where movement and 1 object interaction is free (closer to the current system).
"Whenever movement competes with action, static play is encouraged." While I agree that a goal of 5e of making movement free was to create more movement in combat (because you no longer needed to forego movement to make more than 1 attack as in 3e), it's rough in practice. Once 2 foes are adjacent to each other, the Opportunity Attack rule strongly incentivizes melee combatants to stay in place. I think that's more the culprit: my experience is that PF2 combats see more movement around the battlefield because opportunity attacks were removed by default.
Btw, in the alternative system I propose, you don't lose any Extra Attack you might have, if you choose to move 2x on your turn.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Yes, you understood me correctly. The distinction may appear minor, but I still regard it as significant. I view a bonus action as something you can reasonably pull off while you’re doing something else, such as moving or attacking; thus it makes sense to me for it to be segregated from movement. Having movement and bonus actions in their separate buckets also keeps it simpler and easier to balance. Reducing an action to a bonus action is unlikely to break the game, but replacing your movement with a bonus action actually might; many other things would need to be redesigned to accommodate such a change. We have to keep in mind that even games with a reputation for balance aren’t perfect in that regard, and for 5E specifically, I think designing mechanics with ease of balance in mind would be a wise course of action.
Regarding object interactions, I wouldn’t mind if that mechanic were to be removed/streamlined, with something like doors being a part of your movement, similar to standing up, and drawing weapons being a part of your Attack action, like what we saw in the latest UA. And I wouldn’t be surprised if that actually does happen.
I agree that 5E is still very static in practice, and I don’t like the attack of opportunity rule either. Though I may sometimes defend it, 5E is far from my ideal system and I think it is, in general, pretty rough. On the flip side, I don’t think your proposal is terrible or anything, although my instincts tell me that it might inflame existing problems. It’s more that I think 5E action economy would be good enough as is if the bonus action options were reasonably balanced, and an attempt is at least being made on that front. As a player I never actually cared that I couldn’t take two bonus actions; I only mentioned it as a possible tweak because, like you said, it seems like common sense that you should be able to. Therefore, even if they didn’t change the action economy at all, I wouldn’t be too dismayed.
I really like your proposal in the end, but I think they would be called just 'Action' and then two 'Bonus action' if the next edition is to be compatable with previous stuff
Wow, me and my party have completely overlooked that casting a spell as bonus action prevents the casting of other spells! I don't even understand why. During one of the sessions the bard was keeping the player group alive by busting a combo of healing spells. And it was perfectly fine. Why would they limit that? I mean, a player would burn their spell slots anyway, but forgetting this rule allowed them for a very needed burst.
It doesn't take many levels into the game for spell slots to become mostly irrelevant at the typical table (there are some exceptional groups that'll actually do 6-8 encounters a day, but it's not at all uncommon for people to be able to go into combat knowing that they can use everything they have because they're going to be able to rest). Spell slots just aren't that much of a limitation past the first few levels for how D&D 5e is actually played.
@@Eladelia very true!
@@Eladelia It really sucks that 5e is designed for the gradual loss of resources with lots of battles per day. Like, most parties rest after a fight and try to long rest as soon as possible.
re: 3.5e and PF1e, it's worth noting that not only can you trade a standard action for a move action… you can, through some trickery, trade it for a _swift_ action. You ready an action (which always uses your standard) to use a swift action ability with the trigger being "right now".
I like the 3-action system, it seems much easier to explain to new players.
Actually, what I see, is I see in character creation and optimization videos, is that I think that D&D players are actually starved for a feat driven character creation. That's why I'm trying to move my group to pathfinder 2. #1 race selection v. human and tasha's custom. The grocery list of must have feats. Go to PF2.
Well... I don't think "6e" should separate itself to much from the current system. I highly suspect there will be a UA that presents a rule for actions to allow them to be substituted by a Bonus Action. In a similar way, I wouldn't be to surprised if the Magic rule in the current UA gets expanded to clarify you can only cast one level 1 or higher spell per turn, to clean up the Bonus Action rules and make the game more intuitive.
There are ways to make the system work without sacrificing its benefits imo.
Personally, IME I was worried that the 3-action system would be too hard for my players especially after I introduced a different group to 5e and that system was confusing and disheartening ("oh I guess I don't have a bonus action... so my turn is over") but the opposite was true. Teaching PF2e's action system was SO much easier than 5e and the players got it right away.
I've been working on making my own rpg and with the system I'm making there's no hard limit on how many actions can be taken in a turn but taking more than 1 action takes stamina as a soft limit. A DND character that dashes on their turn can move 60 feet while in my system base speed would be between 10-20 based on your species. 15 being average you'd spend 6 stamina to move the same distance as the dashing DND character and still be able to take further actions by spending more stamina. Using my action system I'm also balancing spells by letting them be powerful but they take multiple actions to cast. Either you can spend multiple turns or you can spend stamina to push it out quickly. I did this with the flavor of either taking time to prepare a spell or exerting yourself to force it out. That's a flavor that I haven't really seen in other games
Sounds like a cool mechanic. I don't know offhand, but a lot of board games have really gone whole-hog into experimenting with mechanics, and I'm sure there are some examples out there that have the same basic idea as you proposed. (Risk-reward to do more things on your turn)
A "stamina" to power special abilities is extremely common in video games too. So much so that I am surprised I haven't seen it (at least not in a pure form) in TTRPGS. This could be combined with HP (as usual) and Magic Points for spells, if you wanted to keep Stamina for "martial" powers (and make spells more flexible vs spell slots).
@@delenius1 stamina is used for martial abilities and taking more actions in a turn. There's no hard limit on the number of actions that can be taken in a turn. Each action costs stamina for how many actions you've already taken. It ties into magic in that spells take a number of actions to cast equal to their mana cost. One action gets added for free per turn or you can spend stamina to push out a spell. That gives both the fantasy of taking time to mold the magic inside you and the fantasy of exhausting your body to rush powerful spells. It can be real easy to eat through your stamina
Well done. Great analysis. It will take some time for me to consider the ideas our came up with but I am very interested in doing so to optimize the games I am planning on running. Wonderful food for thought. Wish I could contribute the same insights at this time. I'll do my best to have a more substantial post after considering your many points and how they might contribute to my own gaming.
In the system you proposed, I think Misty Step being a minor action makes perfect sense. You effectively spend a 2nd-level spell slot to combine a shift and a move as 1 action, with some other situational but potentially powerful bonuses. I'd probably say that you can cast a maximum of 1 _levelled_ spell per turn, as well, completely neglecting to disallow minor action cantrips with main action spells or main action cantrips with minor action spells. This is because spellcasters without at least cantrip access are usually sad spellcasters, since they rely heavily on spell attacks and I don't think nerfing casters by removing their damage potential is really a very good idea.
Hey, could you make a video about what are the biggest hits of D&D 5e system compared to Pathfinder 2e biggest hits ? I mean, things you think one could use from the other.
I think you opinion on this could bring a lot of different light on this topic.
Indeed this can be a very good topic to discuss about.
Personally to me, the difference between the two systems has always just been about the target demographic. They excel in different ways and pursue different design goals, so it just depends on what kind of players you want to cater your table towards.
I appreciate the suggestion, but I'm not sure it would put 5e in a good light - I think 5e's strength is precisely that it is a midway point that people with different preferences could meet at. But that there are better rules-light systems if a group wants to go in that direction, and better combat systems if they want to go in that direction. It's a good gateway RPG imo
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I personaly wouldn't care about it. I actually grew to like your take on D&D rules - I originally felt quite attacked, but now I don't - Now I feel your views are very well done and constructive in its own way.
the 5e vehicle and spelljammer mechanics I've been streaming use object interaction, bonus action and standard actions to similarly act as "3 actions" each round while piloting.
It works really well with the larger scale mechanics to sit in a space using 5e economy to act like pf2 combat.
looking forward to what 6e might do... action economy is king!
Once again, I'd like to point out that using your Speed in the current playtest allows you to swim or climb as if through difficult terrain. It does not prevent swimming and climbing in their entirety. Only when you specifically Swim or Climb are you unable to use that speed for other movement types.
Actually it's _just_ swim that misses out. You can use a climb speed to move on the ground.
Yup, that Main Action and two Minor Actions (why not call them Swift Actions since their precedented in D&D?) sounds like it'd be a welcome improvement.
This was a great video. IM not sure i agree with your suggestion at the end, though i understand it, however it was a great video to watch. One of your best ones i think.
Follow up from last post: we went back to vanilla actions, and I’m happy we did - I would actually like to boot the bonus action entirely and have been collecting all the bonus actions to do as much - that’s on hold now tho, because we’re trying out nimble, a native 3 action game derived from 5e
I do wonder if there could be some simpler economy that still feels distinct from PF2E. Like maybe a 1 Main Action, 1 Minor Action, 1 upcoming Reaction system, with the catch that Minor Action and Reaction could be interchangeable. Kinda like the all-out and charge attack mechanics.
However, I think more features could be "Battlecry" tag or something, where they can be triggered when Initiative is rolled, or a Minor Action.
"Main (Standard), Move, Minor" is straight up 4E and was pretty good for that edition.
@@canamrock As long as they remove minor action attacks it would be nice. Strikers got pretty degenerate lol
@Professor Thinker I mean more like If you don’t have minor attacks or multi attacks you suck. Meaning all rangers and rogues tend to pick the same minor action powers :(.
@Professor Thinker I’m confused. I’m a 4e fan boy. In fact it was my first game but minor attack power optimization or a power with multiple attack powers is what makes most strikers good.
My house rule would be very similar to what you propose, with the caveat that none of the actions can be the same. So if you wanted to perform the minor action Use (Interact with) an Object three times on your turn, they would have to be three different objects. If you wanted to move twice on your turn, you would need to select the Move and Dash actions. You can't move a third time because you would need to select an action you have already done.
Dunno if that adds too much complication for little benefit. If the idea is to limit Attacks, then maybe the limit could be on Attacks only (or those things you don't want repeating). Otherwise I don't see the harm in allowing 2 Moves.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Since I don't play PF2E, is it fun if a player attempts the same skill check three times in a row in order to ensure success? I'm thinking the equivalent of the Search or Study action in 6e, or climbing without a climb speed. I understand that they are giving up way better options in order to do that, but wouldn't it be more narratively interesting if they tried something else after one failure? Then someone else could try, or they all do something else and wait another round for the same person to try again?
With that idea in mind, it could make for interesting interactions with the Extra Attack or Cunning Action features which would normally limit the action choice...
@@Czonka if the combat is tense (as it should be) then it's not dull at all when repeated attempts are made, because it is frustrating! Lol. They are losing actions. I think it makes sense for the players to be able to choose whether they want to mix it up rather than have it be forced on them. Anyway it's something to try out
If you ask me, the D&D skills should be a bonus action due, then you could do something else than attacking during your turn. thus giving you some. maneuvering during combat that is not attacking. Jump & Attack, Identify enemy & attack like that.. My play testing player's won't do anything else than attack during the turn.. because leaving not attacking is not "optimal playing".
The problem with this is that bonus actions are an important part of the action economy for some characters, but very unimportant or not even available for other characters.
Yeah, rename it a Special Action. A Spell Action, Skill Action, or whatever. Bonus Actions as they exist are stupid. Everyone should get the Special Action.
@@Slyguy846 That is part of the problem I talk about in the video. 5e borrowed 4e minor actions while also retaining 3e's rigidity. 3e's rigidity made sense for it, because its Swift Actions were truly just complements to the 1 "main" action. But 5e has muddied the waters.
Some things that are currently bonus actions need to be reassigned and/or redesigned. I mention in the vid that a martial's DPR routine should not include its Bonus Action.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I'm sure you bring this up in the video, but the movement of TWF in OneD&D out of bonus action use certainly is a step in this direction, corrrect?
@@NemisCassander Yep! At least that's my guess as to what it's for. But I think that also means they need to relook at Polearm Master and whether your weapon attacks should take up your bonus action (plus the whole issue of balancing different weapon types with each other)
I like to think about ways to make combat more interesting in D&D (adding additional conditions, additional things players could do). all signs pointed to adding an additional “swift” action lol
I personally like bonus actions, as it creates interesting character building challenges especially when multiclassing to pick up stuff like cunning action. That said, I think you should absolutely be able to hold a bonus action, or use it as your normal action. The fact you can't is super bizarre
The main weakness of the PF2 3 action system is that the system doesn’t full embrace itself. In a 3 action system almost every action should be possible to further empower by spending more actions on it, or be quicken but made weaker or more difficult by spending fewer actions.
In 4e, bonus actions were called minor actions.
The option to trade your actions down meant you could have at most three on a round.
Yeah I don't understand why 5e changed that. Standard/move/minor was pretty simple. Changing it to move your speed and take an action was just confusing, especially when you wanted to double move.
@@knailstheman to appease the grumpy boomers.
I love your suggestions but I'm wondering how do you feel about codifying the minor action that uses skills to be something more general? Instead of the player having to remember to try to study or search, I think a more elegant "5e-like" idea would be to describe as a minor action as "Use a skill" which allows the player to use one of their skills to accomplish something. Then in that description, give the examples you mentioned instead. This way you keep to that core design goal of allowing a DM to ask their new player "what do you want to do? you can do one major thing and 2 minor things" and they can say, "I want to look for that one creature that is hiding" or "I want to persuade them to put down their arms and stop this fight". I'm thinking this could solve one of the main problems that seemed to plague 4e, pf1e, and 3e in that there were too many codified ways to use your actions
Another option is just make it that you get 2 actions per turn, bonus actions become 1/2 actions, move becomes an action, you can move half your movement as a 1/2 action (equivalent to the old 5ft step).
You can attack twice, second attacks get a penalty to hit.
All of this would only work if fighter class is redone to remove the extra attacks past the first extra attack.
Which I think is a possibility, as I suspect the fighter base class will be turned into the battle master advanced class, and the fighter base class will be reworked into the champion subclass or become its own new subclass.
I would add one simple rule. In your turn, you can replace your action for another bonus action (but no more than one spell and a cantrip). So as an exemple, a barbarian shifter could shit and rage in the same round and then move to get closer to combat zone. A bard could give an inspiration and a healing word in the same round. A battle smith artificer could control both his steel defender and a conjured monster but he, himssel, will not attack.
I guess my question is, what about the 3 action economy would break compatibility and why dose it HAVE to be 3 actions? Why not 2 or 4? I think XCOM has a 2 action economy with any things like opening doors or activating a switch being free actions. At least for the most part there are some character types that have a 3rd action.
A 2 Action Point system can easily be added to One D&D and is somewhat Industry Standard. Especially in indie games alongside indie miniature skirmish games. Or potentially something like Super Dungeon Explore. So you get your movement and then something like 3 action points that are spent on different actions. So you could have a current 5e Bonus Action be 1 AP while a Standard Action is 2 AP in this system with classes altering this. So a Fighter might make an Attack action 1AP while a Rogue drops the Dash action to 1AP.
Does this make sense?
Note: I am posting this while at the section where you are covering the current 5e mechanics in the History section.
I don’t play pf2e, but I would love the 3 action economy and the deal buff stacking from getting healed from unconscious.
Love this!! One pretty solid problem with your solution though: most spellcasters are pretty useless at attacking with weapons, so if you have a "minor" spell it's gonna use up your whole turn anyway, because it's not like you can now use your main action to cast your "real spell". Means no Hex+eldritch blast, no shield of faith+sacred flame, no healing word+vicious mockery. There's basically no benefit to having minor action spells, because now all they allow you to do is attack (unless spellcasters became better at attacking, or attack cantrips became something separate, or maybe there are more useful main actions available...)
A system that I used in a homebrew years ago and I want to integrate into pf1 should I ever start ttrpging again, is an action point system, where every action is worth a number of points.
The way this works is when combat begins everyone involved rolls initiative. People begin to declare their actions from lowest roll on up, representing that those with faster initiatives are better able to read and react to those with slower initiatives.
Once all actions ate declared and the DM has recorded all of them, the actions requiring the least about of actions points resolve first. When a character's total AP becomes the least amount on the table they declare their next action and more action points are added to their total.
The action points keep building, with the those with the least amount resolving and then declaring.
Ive not figured out reaction actions yet. Haven't put that much thought into it but my play group really enjoyed the chaotic back and forth and the diversity between weapons with slow action points that hit hard and those with less that hit softer, creating a balance and different combat tactics.
Shinma: They had this in some ways in 1E (maybe 2E) with weapon speeds. A dagger had a 3 speed, while a longsword had a 5. Etc. etc. I'd look there for a base to update from.
Sounds like the 3rd edition of DC Heroes. Namely every round you roll initiative, lowest declares, then the next up, until the highest goes. When you get to your action, you either perform your action or incur a -1/-2 (can't remember which) column penalty for this.
It was intuitive once you got the hang of it, but complicated starting out.
@@SilvrSavior Its also easier to show then explain. Then again this is the first time Ive ever tried to explain it like this.
Once you try it, the system makes sense. There are no combat rounds and everyone involved just keeps accruing action points. Its more like a real time battle system on paper.
Salutations, and thank you for this wondrous video. I am presently in the midst of writing an overhaul of much of 5e's rules and core content. Would you mind if I used some of the ideas at the end of your video in it (while crediting you)?
That would be awesome!
I'm a 5e die hard but I always enjoy your point of view. I like your proposed solution but imo I would prefer to keep 1 bonus action and 1 action, I would make it a rule that you can only cast 1 spell a turn and codify a few things anyone can do as a bonus action. I think they were really close to perfect with "movement action bonus action " to be honest I just think that they under thought the bonus action part
I really like the concept of 4e action system.
I played 4e since it came out and to this day. The one thing i dislike is the interaction of doing actions (like attacks, opening doors. Drinking potions etc) while moving. You have to finish an action before you can take another action. This makes fights very stagnant compared to 5e.
The one thing that is murky with 5e is doing an additional bonus actions in place of the standard action. Having DM'd for both systems, i come from the understanding that bonus actions are just reskinned minor actions, and allow players to take 2 bonus actions in a turn in 5e
Speaking of actions, I quite like FFG's Star Wars/Genesys's action system. You get one Maneuver (like a minor action that you describe at the end of the video) and one Action (which can similarly be exchanged for a Maneuver). You can also suffer 2 points of Strain to gain a second Maneuver, which adds a nice element of decision making in combat: "Do I have low enough strain that I can afford to do three things on my turn?"
Strain is like a 2nd HP bar which is meant to be spent and recovered more easily than the primary HP bar, called Wounds. It has the potential to be gained or lost with every dice roll you make, and you automatically lose some amount of Strain at the end of an encounter.
Ive always thought that certain things should provoke oportunity attacks but they dont. Perhaps if something uses 3 actions it provokes opportunity attacks
In my experience players tend to be too cautious and will not do things that provoke opportunity attacks. Taking 3 actions to do something would already be a big commitment adding an opportunity attack and they'll probably look for something else to do even if it's suboptimal. Nobody wants to do something that causes their character to get hit.
I love your idea for what D&D should do as an alternative. It is still a 3 action economy but made to be backwards compatible with 5e. ❤
If D&D moved to a 3 action system I could see them more likely just adding a 3rd action type maybe something like a "Interaction" that could be used to take the Jump, Study, Search, Influence and maybe use/interact with an item. (Most tables I see house rule you can use potions and other such items as bonus actions anyway)
This would kind of be taking the free item Interaction per turn and just evolving it into a proper action and expanding it. Is this what they should do? I don't know I'm not a game developer but like I said it's something I can imagine them doing.
Don't sweat it, everyone loves talking about how a game should or should not be. And most people don't know anything about game design.
The problem with you proposal is, I believe, that it doesn't mesh well with what is already there in 5e but at the same time it would make the current problems even worse. People already get frustrsted when they can't substitute their action for another Bonus Action. Now you can't even forfeit your action to look at your surroundings. Unless you want to explicitly allow that, in which case you'd have to implement a new rule. But what about Bonus Actions? Can Interact Actions be converted into Bonus Actions or vice versa?
By adding onto an already tightly packed system, you bloat the amount of rules needed while simultaneaously creating room for unwanted or confusing interactions.
@@Rubycule I am 100% behind being able to substitute an action for a bonus action or the hypothetical Interact Action, it honestly feels stupid that bonus actions are exclusive to the bonus action as they are supposed lesser actions you can take that can be taken quickly (at least that's how I see them) while Action is your big move for the turn, it makes no sense that you can't give up your big move to do something lesser with it.
Though I would say for Bonus and Interact those would not be interchangeable unless you took one of the feats that allowed it. My reason being that while I believe you should be able to substitute anything for an action if you can swap bonus actions and Interact actions at will then there is no point in them even being a distinct actions and if everything is interchangeable then at that point Wizards might as well just copy Pathfinder 2e's system and while I don't have any issue with how Pathfinder does things I really don't want to see D&D just flat out copying hoe Pathfinder does things, they absolutely should take inspiration but don't want to see them stop trying to make a distinction between them.
For spells in 5e, they should have said the following:
A character may only cast up to two spells each round, through any combination of actions. This can be one normal spell and one cantrip or two cantrips, but not two normal spells.
The wording needs work and I'm not sure 5e's specific phrasing of "spells from spell slots" or "leveled spells," but it works. Similar phrasing should be used for Rogues: they may only Sneak attack once per round, but that can be through any action that allows an attack. If the designers want to limit action frequency, they should just limit action frequency through rounds, not do it in a roundabout way through action type restrictions.
"You can only cast a spell of 1st Level or higher once per turn". You're welcome.
Edit: Your initial proposal did not allow for sorcerers to quickened spell, cantrip, and then use their reaction for something like absorb elements. That's why I got rid of the "two spells per round" part.
@@Rubycule makes sense, though it should be "round" instead of "turn," to get around the Rogue problem where they intend something to be once per round but you can get around it with reactions.
@@scytheseven9173 I edited my previous comment. I deliberately wrote once per turn. I think reaction spells are integral to the game. In the same way I believe reaction sneak attacks are integral to the rogue class identity, even if it was a rules oversight initially.
@@Rubycule @Rubycule I suppose there could be an exception for reaction spells, but if it's once per turn you could, say, cast a bonus action leveled spell and ready a Fireball, which would be against the design goal if not letting players cast multiple leveled spells per round.
Maybe give a specific exception for spells with a casting time of 1 reaction.
"You can cast a spell of first level or above only once per round. Spells with a casting time of 1 reaction ignore this rule, though this exception does not include spells cast using the Ready action."
You could also say:
"You can cast a spell of 1st level or above only once per round. If you have already cast a spell of 1st level or above, you may cast a spell of first level or above with a casting time of 1 reaction, such as Feather Fall, but this counts as using it for the next round. The Ready action does not change a spell's casting time for this purpose."
I've been thinking about using the 3 action round in a B/X hack.
I was in a very similar headspace before watching your video, of one major + two minor actions. I was thinking that maybe you could make each minor action say 20ft of movement, and a major action could be either 30ft or 40ft.
I think that disengage should still be major action unless you are a rogue. And I think that your idea about defence/offence stances is a relatively good one, although flattened maths would probably need some more work to account for it.
Concentration has been a bit of a failure of a mechanic, people forget to roll for it all of the time, so it is not intuitive, so you may be right about the bonus action thing.
Concentration also has the problem that the rolls are usually too easy, but then they do tend to get harder at higher levels (because monsters will deal more damage), which kind of goes against bounded accuracy.
Before watching the video:
I think I may have said it in the last video, but personally I like the idea of a 4 action system for 6e, taking some cues from Divinity OS2.
It's easy enough to translate over: 1 action in 5e = 2 actions. Bonus action = 1 action. They then can start introducing options that take more actions.
Movement I think is the main think that stumps from from a quick and easy translation. I like the idea of movement being part of your action use, since it lets someone give it up to focus on something else, but both giving someone 30 ft. of movement for 1 action or requiring 2 actions for it both feel not quite satisfying.
Perhaps something like having it cost 1 action, but you only get half as much for each extra action spent. It takes away some of the simplicity in exchange for keeping roughly the same level of movement across the map.
This means that you can spend all 4 actions making 2 attacks on your turn. I'd maybe limit Extra Attack to once per turn but give no "multiple attack penalty", or let them keep their whirlwind of attacks but introduce disadvantage on the second attack action.
Might also just increase most spells by 1 action over what they'd normally translate as (maybe keep cantrips as normal). Keeping most spells cost more actions works well in PF2 and 5e certainly has a power imbalance between spells and martials.
After watching the video:
I actually really like the sound of this too. 5e has strayed away from flat bonuses, but they haven't avoided them completely (such as the archery fighting style), so the +1 to attack or AC based on how you use your minor actions sounds really neat. I'd also offer a "mixed" style to new players, but it does keep it nice and simple.
I think while I like my proposed system more (mostly because of my bias towards Divinity), yours does line up much better with what 5e was and what 6e is trying to be, and I'd love to see them go down this route as well, it very neatly simplifies the mess of options 5e has while also making them more versatile.
Casting 2 spells or taking 2 attack actions in a single turn deviates way too far from D&D’s roots. It is also far too strong and will result in a first order optimal strategy of no one wanting to move or do anything else.
@@jltheking3 1, tradition for tradition's sake is a pointless argument to me. Breaking from the roots can be healthy, what matters is if it's fun.
Based on my experience with PF2 and Divinity, I think it would be an improvement.
2, People already never want to move when they don't have to, 5e is filled with people sitting next to each other hacking until 1 goes down (unless the DM uses a monster or environment to mix things up, which is just as applicable here), so I don't see much of gameplay changing aside from the extra attack(s) in a turn. That's also why I voiced the idea of either not applying extra attack more than once a turn, or granting disadvantage to the 2nd attack actions (to clarify that's not meant to be an option for the players, it would be set as one or the other, I just haven't done anymore more than the basic concept). There will be enough situations where it would be better to give up 1 attack or a couple at disadvantage in order to do something else, like move, drink a potion, use an item cast a spell etc.
@@WolforNuva You said a lot of words and came up with an extremely complicated system when PF2E does so simply and succinctly via its multiple attack penalty.
Also the argument for letting players just stand there and not move is laughable. That is an undesirable situation to me. Combats where creatures are incentivized to just stay standing where they are and not move just sounds like a boring combat system to me. I played PF1e before and god, was the full round action the worst designed mechanic ever.
@@jltheking3 Really? That's extremely complicated to you? All I can do is shrug and say sure man, you don't have to use those rules, but I don't see the complexity.
Perhaps it only seems overly complicated because I've yet to formalize and word the rules carefully, since as of now it's just a brainstormed idea.
Short of any change to the system we're not privy to, 6e is going to follow in 5e's steps as a not very dynamic combat system. You don't have to like it, but that's just how 5e (and seemingly 6e) are.
My 4 action houserule was built with RAW 5e/6e in mind. Those are rules that lead to very stagnant battles, where fighters run up to monsters and stay there wasting movement every turn until the monster is dead.
My rules give them something extra to do each turn rather than leave 30ft. of movement unused. It's more versatile and gives martials a bit more oomph so they can finally do something (single target damage) better than casters.
@@WolforNuva I will admit I largely don’t understand what your houserules are because your writing is verbose and unclear. You use words like “perhaps” and “maybe” throughout your writing and did not communicate a concretely playtested set of rules. Perhaps they are, but maybe you can rephrase it in a clearer fashion.
You should write your own thoughts after you finish explaining your houserules, instead of sprinkling them throughout your explanation. Learn to write clearly so that way you can present your ideas better to new players coming to your table.
I vote YES for 3 actions in DnD.
Actually my only problem with PF2 is this cheapness of choises. I hate this "get +1 to every third attack you making against an evil outsider on the night of full moon if there are a virgin dancing kankan within 5 feet of you". And you have like dozens of such effects. And not only they are hard to remember and use, they feels too cheap to even spend your time to remember them.
I love the "major feat" idea or DnD 5e. Where each feat is something meaningful. Something defining your character (but i hate that 80% of feats are usless, while 10% are top use and the rest just OK). I love advantage system (with some exceptions that should be fixed). I don't wanna count numerous +1 bonuses that differs every time.
I love the lack of scaling in DnD 5e. When even a puny goblin can play his role against lvl 10 character. Having your level directly affect your attack and skill bonus is a lazy design.
I mean... you don't have to pick the +1 bonuses to certain stuff if you don't want. PF2e has lots of choices of where to spend your feats as you level, and I've NEVER had to spend it on those +1 bonuses. I deliberately didn't pick them because I don't like them, and I've had zero issues.
@@dnominic I frustrated by time spend to read about such option. And the is the most of the time you spend reading PF2. How to get another +1.
At the first of the year I am doing the 3 actions for my PF1e games
This is a fantastic video! Good suggestions for 1DD, but I don't think they could make those changes, since old abilities and monster stat blocks would no longer be compatible (they would have to rewrite "bonus action" to "minor action" everywhere, reduce monster speeds by 5', etc). I think their decision to keep compatibility unfortunately means that 1DD will have most of the problems that 5e has.
Very interesting source of debate. I have been playing (just a little) PF1 and (a lot) D&D 5e and PF2.
Some of the possible things you will be able to do with Actions, from the new UA docs, have been previously introduced in XGtE and TCoE book, specifically identifying spells being cast at the moment or specific magic effects already being cast, and parley with monsters and try to persuade them not to attack you.
I also think the 3 Actions system of PF2 is not a match for D&D, especially to maintain a strong brand identity.
I'd probably keep movement as separate from action and just clean up the bonus action rules so you can perform a bonus action in place of an action. I love the Pf2e 3 actions but I agree that it's probably a bridge too far in terms of changes for One D&D.
I'm haven't watched the vid (no interest in the future of D&D), but am surprised there's almost no one in the comments that brings up 4e. D&D had a simple and intuitive Standard/move/minor action hierarchy, that they decided to just throw out the window with the imprecise 'you can move your speed and take an action, but sometimes do things in place of moving, and sometimes have a bonus action'.
I love Pathfinder 2e, but hearing you talk about D&D 4e, I prefer that action system somewhat. Pathfinder 2e's 3-action economy normally works well, but can get bogged down with "petty" actions.
Say you've been downed in combat and someone heals you: you may be up, but you're also normally prone and have dropped a weapon if you were holding one-that's at least 2 actions that are mandatory before you can get to actually participate in combat again. Same for if you have to climb something-if you have a weapon and shield, that's 2 actions for when you start climbing, to put them away, and 2 actions when you stop, to take them out again. Or say you want to open a door, step through it, and close it-that's 3 actions, your whole turn, which seems like too much. Something like Quick Draw can help, but you're still often left with the scenario in the One D&D playtest where you have to choose between jumping and attacking, if not as often.
Basically, Pathfinder 2e comes off worse in places where something that would otherwise be a swift/bonus/minor action has to compete with attacking and movement and other primary actions, because sometimes you do actually have to do them (sheathing a weapon, for instance) and it feels like an action tax.
You know, I get why the simple and easy 3 actions per turn is so desirable. Yet, there are just some actions, that I really don't think should share the same resource pool.
I really do think that we should have a single action reserved for regular movement, and that multiattack should primarily come from the weapon and secondarily from the wilder's level / proficiency with a given weapon.
Thats how it works in p2e. Everybody gets the basic attack that costs one action, but classes get class feats that grant them special attacks, or extra attacks. Like the ranger has a feat granting two attacks for one action. Giving them 4 attacks in a round for example.
I think stride should also have a "combat penalty" applied.. first stride no problem. Second stride (fatigued 1 -1 to all dex checks) move half speed on second and third stride, but on the third stride you get the slowed 1 condition which means you have only 2 actions the following round, and have general feats to mitigate stride penalty.. as well as dex markers .. above 20 dex get fatigued 1 on third stride instead of slowed 1. Rangers can get ranger feats to mitigate stride penalties.
In AD&D 2e the fighter got extra attacks based on his level. If I remember correctly, the Ranger and Paladin also did but at a lesser rate.
It happened at the same levels (7 and 13) for all 3 of those classes, but the paladin and ranger needed more xp than the fighter to reach those levels, so your statement is correct... yet misleading.
@@jmvh59 oh, you're right! I think it was weapon specialization that gave the fighter the faster attacks. Looking back at it, the whole system was wonky as hell.
Over the years, 1st and 2nd edition AD&D were all over the place with how you could spend your weapon (and later non weapon) proficiency slots. Specialization (introduced in Dragon magazine and reiterated in Unearthed Arcana) let fighters and their subclasses spend extra slots for increases to hit and damage with a particular weapon, along with an increased attack rate. This was carried on to 2nd edition with the extensive rules cleaned up some. However, I assume a later book expanded proficiency and specialization to broad weapon groups and multiple layers of specialization which is the system present in the Baldur's Gate series of computer games released in the mid to late 90s.
I haven't skimmed all 300+ comments but if casting Misty Step took a minor action and while the spell is active allows you to teleport the set distance as a minor action that may solve some of its problems. You can maintain it on following turns for a single minor action and you get to keep the ability to do one major action and one minor action which could be another short range teleportation. Because it gives you an option to take instead of a normal move, it doesn't really break all of the current use cases while preventing some of the current abuses. It's relatively simple too which goes towards what WotC says is good about 5e and what you are trying to do with your suggestion. If it's just meant to be a throw away teleport you can still use both minor actions to do so. Then you get to do something useful at the destination just like you could before this change
I think 5e made movement so easy with getting rid of AoO on more than 5 foot step/shift & allowing movement between attacks in a multiattack chain wotc actually managed to make combat more static than 3.x where the crunchy front line had to jockey around & interact with themook/front line type monsters who were themselves doing the same to balance protecting their (actually) squishy allies against the benefits of letting them go in order to paste the other side's squishy types. Getting rid of the iterative attack penalties tooo just left everything a brainless smash
Three action system sounds great, makes me want to try pathfinder. Your proposal for dnd sounds interesting but there are two main problems I see 1. Temporary +/-1 modifiers clashes with the simplicity of 5e's advantage/disadvantage system, which is one of its biggest strengths and great for new players. 2. Having 2 minor actions to spend on movement would definitely add too much mobility creep and nullify the uniqueness of the Rouge's cunning action feature.
I think a big solution they can do is simply to get rid of bonus action spells all together. There really aren't that many to begin with. And it would help eliminate that clunky, unnecessary rule where you can't cast more than 1 spell a turn.
This is just a theory, but if you notice, jn the most recent One DnD playtest, getting bonus damage on a turn is now somewhat rare. This can be seen with the elimination of the -5/+10 mchanic from feats. This leads me to believe that spells like Hex and Hunters mark won't be Bonus action anymore, since they offer the extra damage. But we'll have to see when they release the revised spells UA.
As someone who got tired of playing dedicated casters in D&D because I got to do one thing a turn while the monk got to go 60 feet and punch six different enemies in different corners of the same room, I would like it if D&D One adopted some more balanced action economy. If a cantrip is only going to do a max of 12 damage to one enemy, why can't I do it more than once a turn if I'm not doing anything else?
5e cantrips are designed to scale as you level up, so while other classes are getting multiple attacks per round the cantrips are also hitting harder. If you had cantrips doing a maximum of 12 damage while someone else was attacking 6 times you may have been neglecting to scale the cantrips as intended.
I have a homebrew of 2 actions, 1 bonus action and 1 reaction per round. There is more... There are two types of moves, simple move and skilled move, which is moving with a skill check. For example, moving in to attack holding a cross, you do a Religion check to get +2 advantage on the attack. ... the 2 actions can be any combination of moves, non-damaging actions and 1 damaging action. In the damaging action, extra attacks are available. So, you could do 2 non-damaging actions with a free 5ft step, like Trip and Deception.... My homebrew is much less complicated and more fun Pathfinder. You can watch my video by searching for "wisdom hunter action combinations".
You forgot to anwer the question: why is there an action system to begin with? What is the goal behind players taking turns and to break up what they want to do in actions?
The goal of the mechanic is to limit the players to have their characters do at least one thing, but preferably not more than one thing, that significantly affects the story. If you don't to get at least one significant thing to do during your turn, you will feel undervalued. If you have to wait too long because other players are doing more than one significant thing on their turn, you will either feel undervalued or will be waiting unneccesarily long for your next turn to come up.
That was the idea behind the 1 minute round as well. Within that time you should be able to do one significant thing and not be hindered by not having the time to walk up to the enemy or open the door.
i'd love 5e to implement 3 action economy! altough i don't think they will...
also i did not know pathfinder 2 used something like that, but i was thinking of homebrewing something similar inspired in divinity 2, the pc game
now that i heard about it, i cannot think of a better action economy system
I do think that being able to move 3 times at full speed is a bit much. Maybe the 3rd move should be at half speed.
Just at a quick glance, I believe they should move to a two action system and a movement action.
Making some abilities that were bonus actions to be worth 1 Action point and most normal actions into being worth 2 Action points.
And then they should take a point from pathfinder and define actions properly.
What if you just broke up the turn into 6 segments, every action gets assigned a number that represents how much time it takes in seconds, attacking takes 2 segments, moving takes 2 segments, and bonus action things take 1 segment, some more time consuming things can take between 3-6 segments.
What you're describing is basically what Pathfinder does, except they use 3 segments. Doubling the number of things someone can do per round is a thing someone could experiment with, but I suspect it would be a really big problem in that it would magnify advantages or disadvantages in action economy. When the monsters outnumber the party (or vice versa), the gap between how much each side could do per round would become much larger.
Anime 5e very much simplified the action economy since it very much a point buy system that somewhat uses D&D 5e. You can buy Extra Action/s "Attribute"/Ability which is your standard action you can take in a given round in D&D 5e (Attack, cast, etc.), You also can buy Extra Bonus Actions which is clearly defines what you can do in a given round that is not attack or cast any spell, this means no matter how many bonus actions you have or have spells that are casted as bonus action; only fire off one spell can be used that round; Unless you use the Extra Action "Attribute"/Ability. This is balance the cost of the ability, Extra Bonus Actions cost half as much to buy as Extra Actions.
I think they are going to pursue a two action system like lancer, as it is much more compatible with their current system.
When I ran the official WOC weeks modules with high school girls, there were 1 Daily, 2 or 3 encounter actions, there was never confusion because of printed characters Cards, Actions and short rest healing, the complaint was players where unkillable, and it was and to much like a video game.
16:30 I mean bonus action does that too.
Something else that was not in DnD Next: Wildshape, Shapechange and the Challenge Rating system.
And it shows in 5e.
Minor action to increase to hit by +1 just screams to me "if you want to be optimal, stand still and hit things with your stick every turn"
I don't like it.
This is the (often) less-optimal fallback for those who want simple gameplay, and don't want to consider with the "compelling default Minor Actions" I propose should be tested.
The problem with this “fallback” is that it’s a little *too* good, to the extent that every single minor action in the game would need to be judged in comparison and must be better than the +1.
We also need to consider player psychology. Taking a minor action will be seen as “sacrificing” a +1 to perform something else, and this will disincentivize even casual players from doing otherwise interesting things such as switching weapons, tactical movement, feinting, demoralizing and so on.
A game should be designed to encourage interesting actions, not discourage them. Pathfinder 2e does this well with the multiple attack penalty, discouraging players from doing the boring thing of attacking multiple times a turn and encouraging them to think of other interesting things to do.
In my opinion, the better design is to leave the turn’s power budget to the standard action, and just let minor actions be exactly that - minor, and ultimately inconsequential even if they are not spent.
@@jltheking3 We are in a time now when people will choose the thing that gives them .01% more average damage then the thing that is "just a cool option". Claiming that what they find fun IS doing more damage. Meanwhile they complain about being bored because they are "forced" into taking the most optimal options for more damage.
@@rbkskillz This is why I don’t play 5e anymore. I physically just can’t. It’s too damn boring for me. Pathfinder 2e has completely spoiled me.
DnD5e already has a 3 action economy. They are just not always available to use on every turn...and you as a player need to understand the nuances.
Move Action, Standard Action and potentially a 3rd bonus action.
Biggest difference...is DnDE allows a Move and a Standard Action.
Pathfinder allows you to substitute the Move Action for another Action (often with a penalty).
I think the Pathfinder method seems a bit more clear....but often leads to a wasted 3rd Action (Ill just swing away)....whereas DnD5E has just done away with that wasted last attack.
So, IMO....they arent that different, the outcome is the same...just explaining things in a different way.
This is good. Different enough to not be a blatant copy of PF2 system, has some historical ties, can generate or aid dynamic gameplay design, understandable mechanically, and most importantly, isnt a hard transition from the current to this goal.
Well don.e
Here is how i would do it
You have 7 seconds of activity in the round
Main actions are 2.5 seconds
Minor action is 2 seconds
Reaction is 0.5 seconds
Feats such as lightning reflexes cut reaction time in half.
I have played both at this point and I have come to believe the three action system is just superior, less obtuse and actually quickens combat. My players (two years and going), STILL get their bonus action/action confused, often time trying to do two bonus actions or the line. That coupled with the not super readable rule of not being able to cast a leveled spell with bonus action if you casted a leveled spell your action, so the reverse is also true but also being able to cast a spell with two actions or the rare occasions that happens...Yeah. Anyway I love the 3 action system and D&D would be better off with it, but it won't happen if they actually want to keep this backwards compatible.
I been running and playing D&D for decades and honestly the three action rule is very nice. Yeah in 5th it can seem like it is a move, an action and a bonus. However many times you have abilities or other things that take a bonus action, then you have reactions and free actions etc. I have seen a lot of new players be very confused and have to keep looking at all their abilities on their turns in combat to hunt for what abilities use bonus actions. I do think the pathfinder three action base is a great, useful and simple design. Yes, the bonus action only spell followed by an action only cantrip is wonky and always trips people up. A lot of new players don't understand why they cant also cast a bonus spell and an action spell. It is really disjointed in the rules.
If dnd1 were to take on 3 action economy I wish there were more spells like Heal even tough that is one of two spells I know from Pathfinder 2e 😆 1 action touch heal, 2 action 30ft +8 healing and 3 actions aoe heal all living even enemies who are living 😄
This was awesome
First off, I think you have a cool channel and present yourself as knowledgeable and trustworthy. Keep making videos, you're awesome.
But if I could give a bit of feedback... it's all just a little bit too slow, too monotone, and too long. Your material is great, but making it a little more digestible would go a long way.
Anyway, I'll keep trying, even though I usually drop off after a few minutes. But I like your opinions and your insights, what I can see of them.
Thanks!
Serious suggestion, have you tried 1.5x or higher speed? Some of my viewers do that. I have some shorter videos as well. But yeah for my longer-form videos I tend to speak carefully and hence the pacing. Hope the timestamps help