They used their free object interaction to pick up the tile. They’d need another action to eat it. Though going by that logic, they could just eat it at the beginning of their next turn with the same result.
This is the type of shit I dislike about DnD.
In any system I write and run, you simply get 2 actions per turn. Action types are a complication that add nothing to the game.
But then you have to give up one of your attacks to move or do anything else that takes an action. On the other hand, when you have different types of actions, it feels like a waste when you have one you haven’t used but there’s nothing even slightly useful you can do with it.
Pathfinder deals with it by giving you three actions, but the second attack is at a -5 penalty and the third is at -10, so you’re not giving up much by using one of your actions to move. It is a complication, but I think it’s useful. Though I think I’d prefer something a bit lighter on the rules.
But then you have to give up one of your attacks to move or do anything else that takes an action
Yes. That’s generally how it is. If you first have to run to your opponent to hit them, you can’t hit them as often as if you were already there.
If you shoot while moving, you will have a lower effective rate of fire.
But my actual point is: turn-based combat is always an abstraction. I like to abstract it a bit more than DnD does, simply to avoid wasting any game time on arguing about action types.
It honestly just comes down to your DM style. An interaction like this is fun and has no mechanical benefit. If a player then wanted to pick up a potion and drink it as part of a free action, the DM would have to explain this to the players explicitly. But I’ve always been on the side of permissive rulings, because it allows the players to express themselves more freely. It takes more improvisation though.
In this instance I wouldn’t have given the intimidation, no. I’d have allowed them to put the debris in their mouth but the npc was distracted by the attack and didn’t see. To intimidate them would take an action, and a success would give them the frightened condition.
They used their free object interaction to pick up the tile. They’d need another action to eat it. Though going by that logic, they could just eat it at the beginning of their next turn with the same result.
This is the type of shit I dislike about DnD.
In any system I write and run, you simply get 2 actions per turn. Action types are a complication that add nothing to the game.
But then you have to give up one of your attacks to move or do anything else that takes an action. On the other hand, when you have different types of actions, it feels like a waste when you have one you haven’t used but there’s nothing even slightly useful you can do with it.
Pathfinder deals with it by giving you three actions, but the second attack is at a -5 penalty and the third is at -10, so you’re not giving up much by using one of your actions to move. It is a complication, but I think it’s useful. Though I think I’d prefer something a bit lighter on the rules.
Yes. That’s generally how it is. If you first have to run to your opponent to hit them, you can’t hit them as often as if you were already there.
If you shoot while moving, you will have a lower effective rate of fire.
But my actual point is: turn-based combat is always an abstraction. I like to abstract it a bit more than DnD does, simply to avoid wasting any game time on arguing about action types.
It honestly just comes down to your DM style. An interaction like this is fun and has no mechanical benefit. If a player then wanted to pick up a potion and drink it as part of a free action, the DM would have to explain this to the players explicitly. But I’ve always been on the side of permissive rulings, because it allows the players to express themselves more freely. It takes more improvisation though.
But it did have a mechanical benefit!
In this instance I wouldn’t have given the intimidation, no. I’d have allowed them to put the debris in their mouth but the npc was distracted by the attack and didn’t see. To intimidate them would take an action, and a success would give them the frightened condition.