Action Economy?

I find that the lack of specified action cost is breaking my immersion a bit. Evidently I'm just too used to 4E, where I know that if I don't move this turn, I can pull out and drink a potion and still attack. Encouraged by all the posts to use the fighter to improvise as a cure for boredom, I did just that - I played a whole session and only did a melee basic attack twice.

That does, however, lead me to my question - how much can do you in a round?

They've simplified gameplay significantly by making most things incidental actions. No action is required to open an unstuck door, swap weapons, pull out a potion and so on. But how many of those can you do a round? We fought some undead, and my character had the foresight to purchase a gallon of lamp oil because there's always something useful to burn. It's an incidental action to pull out the oil and a torch, and I've never seen an action attributed to lighting a torch, but how many actions does it take to throw the oil and the torch? Is it one action or two? Can I throw the oil one round and attack with my axe, and then the next turn throw the torch and attack with my axe again? Could I pull out oil and torch, throw the oil, light the torch and throw it in the same turn?

We've figured out skill checks with the built-in system - figure it's a strength vs. dex or a reflex save to avoid being splashed by oil or hit by the torch. But where in the system does it help you decide how many actions you can pull off in a round?
57029358 wrote:
... congratulations, Monkeygentleman.
You won the unwinnable.
68773941 wrote:
monkeygentleman, you are the worst thing to happen to the CharOp forums since Mearls took over WotC.
I don't have my playtest materials on me, but I thought the How To Play booklet stated there was an Action, and then a Movement, then stated what could be done in said Action.


I think it boiled down into what we already consider a Standard Action and a Move Action in 3.5/4e, anyway.  
I think it boils down to a little common sense too.  The combat round is six seconds long.  How much do you think you can do in six seconds....not a whole lot.

Further, to your specific example, when we faced the undead in my group we did not have oil but we did have the wizard's Grease spell that performed the same task.  It took an action to cast the grease spell and another action to cast burning hands to ignite the grease.  So it took two actions to realize the desired effect.

Your mundane solution (oil and torch) I think would be the same number of actions - disperse the oil as an action and then light the torch and throw it into the oil as another action.  If you want to get really technical it also might take an action to light the torch since you are doing it under the duress of combat.

All that being said, I think that combat movement should be made a standard action and you can then have two standard actions a round.  The only flaw with this design is that it exploits certain loopholes: rogue can attack then hide so long as he does not move and get attack roll advanatge and sneak attack damage every round, crossbow users can load and fire without disadvantage because if you are using a crossbow you're obviously not going to move unless the target(s) move out of LOS or range.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
Well, if you have two actions a round then I'm attacking twice, so I'd say that's a little unbalanced.

By the way, Mike Mearls has officially stated Grease isn't flammable :D

I don't have my playtest materials on me, but I thought the How To Play booklet stated there was an Action, and then a Movement, then stated what could be done in said Action.

This is correct. However, everything that wasn't an action was now considered an "incidental" action, such as the examples I mentioned of swapping weapons, pulling out a potion etc.

My question was just wondering how much could be lumped into "incidental" in a single round.

Well, if you have two actions a round then I'm attacking twice, so I'd say that's a little unbalanced.

By the way, Mike Mearls has officially stated Grease isn't flammable :D

I don't have my playtest materials on me, but I thought the How To Play booklet stated there was an Action, and then a Movement, then stated what could be done in said Action.

This is correct. However, everything that wasn't an action was now considered an "incidental" action, such as the examples I mentioned of swapping weapons, pulling out a potion etc.

My question was just wondering how much could be lumped into "incidental" in a single round.




Interesting.  I hadn't played the wizard and the wizards in my group said it was and we all took their word for it...whoops .  I actually just read the description and it does not say anything about it being flamable.  Lesson learned...do not accept anything a wziard says at face value Laughing

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
Hah, I'm pretty sure Grease has always been considered flammable. Mearls may be the current game designer but Grease is as old as D&D itself - and although I joked it was "official", it was really just his call as a DM, probably not official WotC lore.

Although your lesson probably still holds very true. Wizards are a tricksy bunch.
Getting back to your question, im reading the DM guide now and the section on incidental actions does not specify a number you can do in a combat round.  Most of the "incidental actions" listed tend to go hand in hand with a standard action - drawing a potion from your pack is an incidental action but drinking that potion is an action.

Since there is no "rule" I would house rule that you can do one incidental action and one standard action - draw/swap your weapon and then use that weapon.

In your example of the oil and torch - pulling the container of oil from your pack and uncorking it would be incidental but dumping it would be an action; then pulling a torch from pack and lighting it would be an incidental action but throwing it on the oil would be an action.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
I liked Minor Actions, and never had a problem with it. I do understand the argument that if I can DO a minor every round, then I MUST do a minor every round...that can bog things down as people hunt for minors to use. So I get why they call it "incidental" and don't call it a minor with an explicit minor action economy.

That said, I think its safe to think of incidentals as a Minor Actions (ie 1/turn) with the caveat that if part of a move it doesn't count. So moving through a closed door you just open the door. But if you are standing next to a door and attack, then say drink a potion, you could still open the door as a minor action (not really part of the drink a potion move action.

I do wish Minors were in the game, and personally, I think Fighters would be a great "Minor Action" monkeys. Let the Minor Action design space be the baliwick of fighters for the most part.