D&D 5E Action Econ 101

[the Jester]

Does anyone remember the 1st edition (or was it 2E?) spell called Leomund's Lamentable Belaborment?

My friend, I not only remember it, I've already converted it.

EDIT: And for the record, it was in the 1e Unearthed Arcana. I think Leomund must have been an interesting adventuring companion.

Leomund's Lamentable Belaborment
6th-level enchantment (bard, wizard)
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 40'
Components: V
Duration: See text

When you cast this spell, choose a point in range. Each creature within 10' of that point is affected by this devious spell, which distracts them by drawing them into polite conversation on topics of interest to them. Upon casting the spell, you begin a discussion of some topic germane to the spell's targets, each of whom makes a Wisdom saving throw. Those that succeed are unaffected. Creatures affected immediately begin to converse with you, agreeing or disagreeing, all most politely. By concentrating and spending your action to converse, you can maintain the spell for up to seven rounds, but creatures remain under the effects of the spell even after you stop concentrating on it. If you are attacked or otherwise distracted during this time, the subjects don't notice. You can leave at any time after the initial round of casting the spell and the subjects will continue on as if you were still present. As long as they don't take damage and aren't the subject of a spell or attack, they ignore all else that is going on around them, spending their time talking and arguing. However, when you stop using your action to talk to them, each subject completes only the stage of the spell that is currently in.

If you keep talking for three rounds, each target must make another Wisdom saving throw. If this one succeeds, it continues to converse, but if it fails, it wanders away randomly and takes a random action each round, as if under the influence of a confusion spell (with the proviso that it will ignore you). At the end of each of its turns, it makes another saving throw, ending the effect on a success.

If you keep talking for seven rounds, each target must make another Wisdom saving throw, flying into a rage on a failure or realizing that they have been duped on a success (see below). While in a rage, the creature must use its most efficacious attack against the nearest creature other than you and has advantage on attacks, but also grants advantage on attacks against it. At the end of each of its turns, the creature can repeat the save, ending the effect on a success.

A creature that makes its save against the rage realizes that it was duped and falls prone, lamenting its foolishness. It can take no actions or reactions. At the end of each of its turns, it can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect on a success.

 

[Dausuul]

I will also disagree. You do get a bonus action every round.

No. You do not. When I play a 5E wizard, I don't get a bonus action most rounds. It isn't that I am choosing not to use my bonus action--if none of my spells has a bonus action casting time, then I don't have any bonus actions to choose to use or not.

That's why "bonus action" is appropriate. It's true that some characters (rogues with Cunning Action, dual wielders) get a bonus action every round. But a lot of characters get them only occasionally, or almost never.

 

[Sadrik]

This is where we will have to disagree. And really we can both be correct in this. I say there is an available bucket there to maximize. You say some character types are not able to maximize that bucket. Ok. Granted there are a fair number of bonus action casting times and directing spells is a bonus action, and using some magic items are a bonus action. So, there are things that you could do but have decided not to for whatever reason. So, ok.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

My friend, I not only remember it, I've already converted it.

EDIT: And for the record, it was in the 1e Unearthed Arcana. I think Leomund must have been an interesting adventuring companion.

Excellent work, I might just borrow that. But reading this whole thread just made me feel like someone cast that spell and I failed every single saving throw!

 

[Sadrik]

reading this whole thread just made me feel like someone cast that spell and I failed every single saving throw!

Other than being quaint what does this actually mean to you? How do you feel about swift/bonus/minor actions and their effect on gameplay?

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

Other than being quaint what does this actually mean to you?

The thread title led me to believe this would be a useful discussion of the 5E action economy!

How do you feel about swift/bonus/minor actions and their effect on gameplay?

1) I'm indifferent to what they're called.

2) I find them quite useful.

 

[Sadrik]

I find them quite useful.

As in quite useful to gameplay, or as a limiter, or perhaps in helping make character development choices, or all of these?
If gameplay:
How?
What situation?

Thanks for your feedback.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

As in quite useful to gameplay, or as a limiter, or perhaps in helping make character development choices, or all of these?
If gameplay:
How?
What situation?

Thanks for your feedback.

I think they're useful from a game design standpoint. Some actions (spells, attacks, or whatever) would be prohibitive "trap" options if they required a standard action, but overpowered if they were presented as free actions. The bonus action is a useful compromise for these cases.

This is pretty much the raison d'etre of the bonus action game mechanic.

 

[Sadrik]

I think they're useful from a game design standpoint. Some actions (spells, attacks, or whatever) would be prohibitive "trap" options if they required a standard action, but overpowered if they were presented as free actions. The bonus action is a useful compromise for these cases.

This is pretty much the raison d'etre of the bonus action game mechanic.

Ah I see, so a limiter, a second standard action would be too good and this is a way to inject a second action into the gameplay by having a secondary class of actions. This is done because features that utilize these secondary class of actions would be "trap" choices for players during character development.

I think you have hit all three. Thanks for your feedback.

My thought is you do not have to have a second action in gameplay. Shocking grasp does not require a bonus action. Neither would searing strike if written the same way. There are ways of writing the game without the need of a bonus action, all while still maintaining the expected results from the game (1e through 3.5e).

 

[Scott B.]

Incorrect. The reference was just stating that during a normal turn you get an action and a possible bonus action; the action surge grants you an extra action to fit in with those. If your interpretation were correct, then the PHB could have stated that you get an extra action and possible bonus action in addition to the normal action and possible bonus action.