How The 5E Action Economy Could Work

ElfWizard as his main attack, shoots a magic missile int vs ac doing 3d4+int+lvl mod damage. He then off-hand attacks an adjacent target with his dagger and does 1d4+dex+lvl mod damage.

DwarfFighter swings his two-handed axe and it costs him a main and off-hand action. He does damage to 1 target 1d12+mods+1d10+mods.

ElfWizard attacks again but chooses to shoot his magic missile as an area spell. He hits two targets but there were 4 targets. He divides his main attack damage of 3d4 by 4 and gives each of the 2 hit targets a 4th of the total damage.

As his off hand action, he disengages from adjacent targets without provoking an opportunity attack.

ElfWizard is attacked anyway but Blinks out as a Reaction, reducing the damage he takes.

Your thought or ideas?

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

i think you're making it way more complicated than it needs to be.

the current action economy system is fine. 

Happy to be back on the best D&D forum on the internet!

I'm not happy with two weapon fighting in the play test. I think people need help with ideas.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

ElfWizard as his main attack, shoots a magic missile int vs ac doing 3d4+int+lvl mod damage. He then off-hand attacks an adjacent target with his dagger and does 1d4+dex+lvl mod damage. DwarfFighter swings his two-handed axe and it costs him a main and off-hand action. He does damage to 1 target 1d12+mods+1d10+mods. ElfWizard attacks again but chooses to shoot his magic missile as an area spell. He hits two targets but there were 4 targets. He divides his main attack damage of 3d4 by 4 and gives each of the 2 hit targets a 4th of the total damage. As his off hand action, he disengages from adjacent targets without provoking an opportunity attack. ElfWizard is attacked anyway but Blinks out as a Reaction, reducing the damage he takes. Your thought or ideas?



I like the kind of questions you are asking.  Unfortunately there aren't much interests in core mechanics.

The current action economy is perfectly fine... in fact I find it works better then all of the previous editions.

Two-weapon fighting is one of the things they want to further tackle in the future packets. They have stated that their goal was to make two-weapon fighting as equally attractive as two-handed style or weapon-shield style without any feat requirements, from the feedback given by playtesters.
One of my current gripes with the game is players dealing a bit too much damage.
Your suggestion pushes that to extremes, especially being able to dual wield normal sized weapons in both hands.

The action economy as stands works well, the issue is the mechanics and classes attached to it. 
I don't think Casting a Spell should be a Main hand/Off hand action. It IS your Action to Cast!

I do not like Two Weapon Fighting either. I would prefer it to be more a style choice. I think additional attacks should be available to everyone at a penatly of -2 per additional attack with MMD negating the penalty if so desired.

If you wield a shield in the off hand you get an AC bonus, so perhaps a weapon should give a +2 damage bonus?

As far as Blink as a reaction, if the spell were set up that way then sure, I could see the spell like this: BLINK-take an action to cast, duration 1 minute, use reactions to gain +5 AC and move 10' for duration.   

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

While duel wielding two identical weapons, 1 weapon would do 1d12+mods and the same weapon in the off-hand will do 1d10+mods. The damage is high but not as high as MDD.

As long as you start characters out with the full constitution score + a max hd number, the damage works out o.k.

The math actually makes combat twice as deadly over all. It reduces encounter time by half from the previous edition.

Here is a chart that explains the action economy in detail. I think that what is not listed here is that mixed classes will have one school where they can do 3d4 and 2d6 damage. The rest of the schools do the damage listed.






























weaponattack roll typewhy?
bludgeoningcon vs acthe goal is to keep pounding
piercingstr vs acthe goal is to strike hard
slashingstr vs acthe goal is to strike hard
thin weaponsdex vs dexthe goal is to exploit chinks


































weaponactionsdamageac
2-handedmain+off-handmain+mods+off-hand+mods
long-handledmain+off-hand1 die level lower than main and off-hand+modsX2+2
thrown or hand crossbowoff-handoff-hand+mods
bow shotmain+off-handmain+mods+off-hand+mods






















































Choose a Class.ability bonus1st lvl skills1st lvl hplvl-up hparmor restrictionsmain attack damageoff-hand attack damage
fighting classstr+13con score+12hp1d12 or 6hpall armor1d12+mods1d10+mods
skilled classdex+16con score+10hp1d10 or 5hpup to leather1d10+mods1d8+mods
fighting casting classwis+13con score+8hp1d8 or 4hpup to chain1d8+mods
magic 1d10+mods
1d6+mods
magic 1d8+mods
casting classint+13con score+6hp1d6 or 3hpjewlery + 1 plate piece1d6+mods
magic 3d4+mods
1d4+mods
magic 2d6+mods















































































































level advancement
levellevel-up award
1st3 powers, 1 main action, 1 off-hand action, 1 reaction
2ndability+1
3rd1 power
4thskill+1
5thlevel bonus+1 trained
6th1 more main action
7thability+1
8th1 power
9thskill+1 or 1 skill
10thlevel bonus+1 proficient
11th1 more off-hand action
12thability+1
13th1 power
14thskill+1
15thlevel bonus+1 expert
16th1 more reaction
17thability+1
18th1 power
19thskill+1 or 1 skill
20thlevel bonus+1 specialist
21st1 power
22ndability+1
23rd1 power
24thskill+1
25thlevel bonus+1 master

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

As far as Blink as a reaction, if the spell were set up that way then sure, I could see the spell like this: BLINK-take an action to cast, duration 1 minute, use reactions to gain +5 AC and move 10' for duration.   



I like your train of thought there.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

While I like the idea of including main-hand/off-hand and the like as game mechanics, I'd prefer to keep the actual actions available in the action economy simpler - one of the criticisms of 4E was that the number of action types bogged down combat, as players tried to acquire as many action types as possible to use in a single combat round. (For instance: in addition to having a standard, move, and minor action each turn, making sure there was an immediate reaction, some triggered free actions, no actions, etc.)

I would like to see "main hand" and "off hand" be keywords attached to particular actions and items. Example: a high-level dedicated two-weapon fighter might have feats, maneuvers, etc. allowing them add off-hand weapon damage to attacks, get a bonus to speed when using an off-hand weapon, get a bonus to AC, get advantage on the main-hand weapon's attack, etc.

This way, even non-traditional characters could take advantage of the abilities: perhaps flasks of alchemist's fire or potions of firebreath would get the off-hand keyword, allowing the wielder to gain two-weapon benefits.
i think you're making it way more complicated than it needs to be.

the current action economy system is fine. 



It's not anymore complicated than the martial damage dice we currently have, and it's almost equivalent.

Every single off-hand action is pretty much equivalent to using your martial damage dice to produce an effect.

Try looking at it this way: you may use an off-hand action to deal an extra 1d6 points of damage on a weapon attack.

It wouldn't be such a bad idea to rename martial damage dice to something different to include additional effects (and improvised actions). You could imagine a system where you spend martial damage dice to kick a chair into your opponent's legs. Or using your martial damage dice to drop a chandelier on your opponent's heads (cut the rope), etc...

The current action economy is not 1 action per round, not with marital damage dice anyways. This system is roughly equivalent except that casters also get to use those "off-hand" actions to do stuff.

It wouldn't be such a bad idea to rename martial damage dice to something different to include additional effects (and improvised actions). You could imagine a system where you spend martial damage dice to kick a chair into your opponent's legs. Or using your martial damage dice to drop a chandelier on your opponent's heads (cut the rope), etc...

The current action economy is not 1 action per round, not with marital damage dice anyways. This system is roughly equivalent except that casters also get to use those "off-hand" actions to do stuff.



Exactly. If you want to slow your opponent, that's fine, but it will cost you an off-hand action.
Casters also get off-hand actions just as Fighters.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

While I like the idea of including main-hand/off-hand and the like as game mechanics, I'd prefer to keep the actual actions available in the action economy simpler - one of the criticisms of 4E was that the number of action types bogged down combat, as players tried to acquire as many action types as possible to use in a single combat round. (For instance: in addition to having a standard, move, and minor action each turn, making sure there was an immediate reaction, some triggered free actions, no actions, etc.)

I would like to see "main hand" and "off hand" be keywords attached to particular actions and items. Example: a high-level dedicated two-weapon fighter might have feats, maneuvers, etc. allowing them add off-hand weapon damage to attacks, get a bonus to speed when using an off-hand weapon, get a bonus to AC, get advantage on the main-hand weapon's attack, etc.

This way, even non-traditional characters could take advantage of the abilities: perhaps flasks of alchemist's fire or potions of firebreath would get the off-hand keyword, allowing the wielder to gain two-weapon benefits.



I'm with you. I agree. Let's see how we can make that happen.

kira3696.tripod.com

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

i think you're making it way more complicated than it needs to be.

the current action economy system is fine. 



It's not anymore complicated than the martial damage dice we currently have, and it's almost equivalent.

Every single off-hand action is pretty much equivalent to using your martial damage dice to produce an effect.

Try looking at it this way: you may use an off-hand action to deal an extra 1d6 points of damage on a weapon attack.

It wouldn't be such a bad idea to rename martial damage dice to something different to include additional effects (and improvised actions). You could imagine a system where you spend martial damage dice to kick a chair into your opponent's legs. Or using your martial damage dice to drop a chandelier on your opponent's heads (cut the rope), etc...

The current action economy is not 1 action per round, not with marital damage dice anyways. This system is roughly equivalent except that casters also get to use those "off-hand" actions to do stuff.




i also think that martial dice are pretty clumsy and over-complicated.

the problem with these extra actions that you might or might not use is that they create an extra option to consider/take each time a new initiative count comes up. the action+move+reaction system is briliant in its simplicity and makes for very snappy play. i'm not ready to trade that level of simplicity and usability for a much more convoluted and clunky system of full/half attack swings.

it's much better for the game if multi-attacks are kept scarce and simple.

Happy to be back on the best D&D forum on the internet!

it's much better for the game if multi-attacks are kept scarce and simple.



That's a little difficult to do now considering so many monsters in the bestiary that have multi-attack.

action+move+reaction leaves no room at all for off-hand actions.

If you allow fighters and monsters to have off-hand actions, then you must allow all classes to have them too.

I think that your comment about multiple attacks being convoluted is really a myth.
I invite anyone who would like to see if that is true to just go to my website and play this Pathfinder encounter that tests some ideas I got from 5th edition.
You'll find that multiple character attacks aren't difficult at all.
Nor do the attacks take a lot of time because characters only have a limited selection of combinations at 1st level.
kira3696.tripod.com

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

If you allow fighters and monsters to have off-hand actions, then you must allow all classes to have them too.

Why? This is one of the things that makes fighters best at martial combat. They're trained to be better and can, eventually, get good enough to make multiple attacks per round (getting multiple initiative turns, IMO).

I could see martial combat focused clerics also getting multiple attacks, at a slower rate than fighters; and rogues as well, at an even slower rate than combat focused clerics.

Wizards often have to use both hands to cast spells, not to mention the concentration needed to cast a spell, and they don't practice martial combat enough to ever get good enough to have multiple martial attacks; they shouldn't get multiple marial attacks, period. Wizards get enough area of effect spells and multiple target spells to cover this.

it's much better for the game if multi-attacks are kept scarce and simple.



That's a little difficult to do now considering so many monsters in the bestiary that have multi-attack.

action+move+reaction leaves no room at all for off-hand actions.

If you allow fighters and monsters to have off-hand actions, then you must allow all classes to have them too.

I think that your comment about multiple attacks being convoluted is really a myth.
I invite anyone who would like to see if that is true to just go to my website and play this Pathfinder encounter that tests some ideas I got from 5th edition.
You'll find that multiple character attacks aren't difficult at all.
Nor do the attacks take a lot of time because characters only have a limited selection of combinations at 1st level.
kira3696.tripod.com



i never said the idea of multiple attacks was convoluted, i said that the way you're trying to model it  was.

also, the multi-attacks from the bestiary are all resolved with a single action and are granted to monsters on a case-by-case basis. you could just as easily come up with fighter maneuvers that do something similar.

Happy to be back on the best D&D forum on the internet!

One of the benefits of a XD or MMD system is the level of complexity remains in the players hands. If you do not want to worry about multiple attack rolls and feel it slows you down then roll d20 and 4d8 damage. If you like more mechanical complexity of rolling to Disarm, Trip, etc.. then it is up to you.

I do agree the game can be bogged down by to many mechanical options and prefer a system to rely more on imagination than mechanics. I would like to see a system where only one roll was needed to determine if you hit 1, 2, or 3 goblins surrounding you! Maybe if they had an AC of 14 and you rolled a 'to hit' of 16 you hit two of them, 18 and you hit all 3!

As far as speeding up actions under the current system I do ask my players roll multiple d20s simutaniously. They say the blue die is for goblin A and the red for goblin B. It seems to help.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

If you allow fighters and monsters to have off-hand actions, then you must allow all classes to have them too.

Why? This is one of the things that makes fighters best at martial combat. They're trained to be better and can, eventually, get good enough to make multiple attacks per round (getting multiple initiative turns, IMO).

I could see martial combat focused clerics also getting multiple attacks, at a slower rate than fighters; and rogues as well, at an even slower rate than combat focused clerics.

Wizards often have to use both hands to cast spells, not to mention the concentration needed to cast a spell, and they don't practice martial combat enough to ever get good enough to have multiple martial attacks; they shouldn't get multiple marial attacks, period. Wizards get enough area of effect spells and multiple target spells to cover this.




Why? Fighters and casters are both using their weapons throughout adventures. They are both getting faster. Fighters rely on their strength so do more strength and constitution based damage. This is what separates the fighter from the caster in combat. If a fighter gets multiple attacks and a caster doesn't. The damage a fighter does will be more than the caster. So why play a caster? The reason the caster takes a hit when it comes to weapon damage is that the caster can do more magical damage.

Where is it written in fantasy that casters need to use both hands to cast spells?

Multiple fighter attacks also require concentration.

Again, casters practice martial combat during every encounter, especially when they run out of spells.

Area spells do too much damage to too many targets. Fair damage should be divided among all hit targets. The caster is too powerful otherwise.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/


also, the multi-attacks from the bestiary are all resolved with a single action and are granted to monsters on a case-by-case basis. you could just as easily come up with fighter maneuvers that do something similar.



What? How are "MULTIPLE" attacks resolved with a "SINGLE" action?
I believe that we already tried combination attacks with one roll in the last edition and that it failed.

You can not hit multiple targets with one roll without having a degree of success roll. Trying to devise a degree of success roll for attacks is too hard. Furthermore, you still need to roll damage for each hit target unless you are saying that the damage is all the same. That breaks my suspension of disbelief. If I hit two targets, I am not going to do the same damage to both unless I'm using an explosive or magic.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

One of the benefits of a XD or MMD system is the level of complexity remains in the players hands. If you do not want to worry about multiple attack rolls and feel it slows you down then roll d20 and 4d8 damage. If you like more mechanical complexity of rolling to Disarm, Trip, etc.. then it is up to you.

I do agree the game can be bogged down by to many mechanical options and prefer a system to rely more on imagination than mechanics. I would like to see a system where only one roll was needed to determine if you hit 1, 2, or 3 goblins surrounding you! Maybe if they had an AC of 14 and you rolled a 'to hit' of 16 you hit two of them, 18 and you hit all 3!

As far as speeding up actions under the current system I do ask my players roll multiple d20s simutaniously. They say the blue die is for goblin A and the red for goblin B. It seems to help.



The action economy I'm proposing does not eliminate XD. I'm for it and I think it adds a nice wild element to the game.

I'm thinking that XD should be standardized as to not require characters to have more hit points to keep up with the damage though.

1st-5th level 1d4 or 2 static points
6-10 1d6 or 3
11-15 1d8 or 4
16-20 1d10 or 5
21-25 1d12 or 6

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/



i also think that martial dice are pretty clumsy and over-complicated.

the problem with these extra actions that you might or might not use is that they create an extra option to consider/take each time a new initiative count comes up. the action+move+reaction system is briliant in its simplicity and makes for very snappy play. i'm not ready to trade that level of simplicity and usability for a much more convoluted and clunky system of full/half attack swings.

it's much better for the game if multi-attacks are kept scarce and simple.



Hmmm, I don't know what to think about this. The fighter needs to have some interesting options in combat.

Do you have ideas on how to give fighters options without this clumsy over-complicated system?
Sign In to post comments