“Bonus Actions never playtested!?” Is it time for One D&D to consider Pathfinder's 3 action economy?

I've been wanting to do a series of videos on D&D/Pathfinder's history, and decided to cover its action systems while addressing the next edition of D&D!

(I also thoroughly talk about Pathfinder 2e's "Three Action Economy")

0:00 Introduction with TL;DR
4:08 History of D&D action systems
6:08 Original, 1st, and 2nd Editions
7:26 3rd Edition
11:45 4th Edition
17:11 5th Edition
32:22 Pathfinder 2e's Three Action Economy
38:12 What One D&D is trying to do
43:38 Disadvantages of 3 Action Economy
45:12 An alternative?

=============================

LIKE & SUBSCRIBE! I'm a lawyer who teaches and runs tabletop RPGs (Pathfinder, D&D, Starfinder) for kids, teens, and adults, making videos and hosting events related to TTRPGs and board games.

SUPPORT THE RULES LAWYER PATREON! I do unpaid public-interest legal work and don't have a regular income. I need your support to continue making content!

For extended-form actual plays, SUBSCRIBE to my other channel, "RULES LAWYER DISCORD COMMUNITY CHANNEL" :

[kidthegeek]

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

[RSIxidor]

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.

[keziickfirelight]

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.

[tinear]

I never realized how good the v4 action economy was. Thank you.

[rylandrc]

It could be super nice if One D&D implements your main action and minor action system.

[rpgbouncer]

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.

[sjwarhammer]

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.

[skippy]

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!

[ChadHensley]

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!

[LaurelMercier]

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.

[CJWproductions]

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.

[marcusdowning]

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.

[perniciouspilfer]

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. 🙂

[minivergur]

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

[darkowl]

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.

[queenannsrevenge]

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.

[kurtoogle]

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.

[Rubycule]

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.

[jltheking]

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.

[mozaik-inc]

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