Talk:Object Interactions Repealed (5e Variant Rule)

I like the idea of it, and I agree that for many characters, being limited to a single interaction without using your action (or bonus action if you are a thief rogue) can slow things down. One reason it was designed this way was to prevent players from spending time micromanaging their action economy while keeping some limit on it. It does add some strategy, like the decision to drop your sword so you can draw and attack with your bow, or put away your sword after attacking one turn so you can draw your bow and attack with it the next turn. It can still be aggravating though when players have to stop and think about what they want to do just because they can't pull out both short swords or they can't close the door after they open it without wasting their action.

But if you want to create a variant rule to eliminate it, don't add more action economy to keep track of...Here's my proposal:

The number of interactions you can make (draw sword, open door, etc) is now unlimited.

However, I'm not sure giving characters the ability to pull out and drink 4 potions of healing and then make a swing or two with a battlaxe in six seconds makes sense, nor would it be balanced, as objects like potions and caltrops usually require an action.

Here are our options for objects like caltrops and potions:

1. Requires action (Like the official rules. It's the most balanced, but most limited.)

2. Bonus Action (Like thief rogue. Retains some amount of sacrifice for using a potion, caltrops or healing kit. Pretty balanced, but still has "Do I want to use up my bonus action?" It's catered to classes without many uses for bonus actions, like fighter.)

3. Once per turn for free. When readying an action, you can also use an object in addition to the action. (Easy for action economy, requires little thinking, and is still fairly balanced.)

4. Replace move, action, bonus action, and reaction. When readying an action, you can also use an object in addition to the action. (Basically what the variant rule currently does. Very flexible, but adds a lot of action economy, and allows for "I pour ball bearings on the ground, stabilize by buddy, drink a potion, and then pull out my greatsword and attack.")

5. Unlimited (Adds no action economy, easiest to think about, but least balanced: "I cover the entire floor with caltrops!!!! While stabilizing my buddy. And drinking 8 potions. Then I pull out and start attacking with my dual swords.")

I think 3 is the best balance between ease of use and balance. Unlimited interactions and one Use an Object or potion allows for smooth cinematics like you described without going overboard. I'd be happy to rework the variant rule to use precise and concise language if you'd like to use any of my suggestions. It could be a really good variant rule, one that I might try out, but it needs to be refined a little.

--Carcabob (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2016 (MST)

Instead of keeping track of all the "environment actions", why not just let the player make as many interactions as they want until the DM says "no more"? This is probably one of the most common case of DM adjudication, and is certainly easier to handle than the 11-point amendment presented in this rule. Marasmusine (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2018 (MST)

I understand the argument of the author, but ignoring the object interaction rules entirely (point 11) seems unbalanced to me. The rules were written to restrict characters in order to create a sense of realism. Downing 8 potions in 6 seconds, in addition to fighting and moving, is just absurd. However, the author does raise some good concerns as to how 1 minor object interaction per turn is a hindrance.

1. Dual Wielding

Dual Wielding is cool, but only pulling out one weapon per turn limits it considerably. However, one thing I've noticed in my D&D experience is that no one (including the DM) checks whether you have your weapons out. So, the fix for dual wielders is to say they have their primary weapon (or both weapons) already out before combat. This is reasonable for most scenarios (dungeons, stealth missions, etc) where the character is expecting danger and thus is prepared to fight.

2. Switching Weapons

This is something I disagree with. A modern soldier, for example, doesn't put down his rifle and pull out a grenade launcher in the middle of battle. They usually stick to the weapon in their hands, as the damage they can do in the time they would be vulnerable and not fighting while they switch weapons is more beneficial than the increased effectiveness of the second weapon. I don't see why switching out a sword for a bow during your turn is realistic. It might lead to times when an attack may be wasted because there are no other enemies within range of the fighter's movement. I believe keeping the sense of realism in that case is more beneficial to the game than the increased effectiveness of switching weapons.
2a. I will note that there is a way to do this in two turns: sheath your sword at the end of the first and pull out the bow at the beginning of the second.

3. Environmental Destruction

I'm not seeing how the rules hinder smashing through multiple doors. You'd use your attacks for each one. As for opening each door, that is a problem. I'd make the ruling that opening the door costs 5 ft of movement, which represents the time it takes to stop, open the door, and start running again.

In summary, I don't think throwing out the object interaction rules is necessary. I do think that there are some tweaks, but getting rid of the rule leads to unrealistic and unbalanced scenarios.

I agree that removing the limit on how many object interactions can take place and leaving it up to common sense adjudications is the best approach. I see too many people bringing up the wack scenario of a PC slamming 8 potions, but since when does consuming a potion only take up an object interaction? RAW contradictions aside, the DMG (pg. 139) makes it clear that consuming a potion requires an action. Did you all read the book? There's no possible way that something like this could take place unless the DM was just confused. I understand how the DMG creates conflict considering the official rules also state that downing a flagon of ale is an object interaction, but I find it easiest to simply overrule that. Consuming anything, be it food or liquid, requires an action, if not more. Full stop. Vobria (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2019 (MDT)