D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[Tony Vargas]

- - First, if either your action or your reaction involves casting a spell you can't do one at the same time as the other. (so, no reaction spells in the middle of any other action, and no reactions at all in the middle of an action if that action is a spell; but melee reactions during a melee action remain OK)

You could do this by explicitly requiring concentration for all actual spellcasting (not exactly unprecedented in the game's history). It would have the further 'benefit' of concentration spells preventing casting any other spell, not just other concentration-duration spells.

Yeah, then we're into horrible MtG-style counterspell battles. Why not just have it that reaction-speed spells (along with any other reactions) resolve in the order declared and avoid all this crap?

- - Second, reactions resolve in the order they are declared (so first in, first out).

Not so great. Some reactions only make sense if they're resolved before the trigger, some only if done after, and the mechanics don't distinguish (no reaction/interrupt distinction), so that would render some Reactions moot.

Besides, reaction chains (chain reactions!) don't seem that common in 5e.

 

[Hussar]

That's exactly the opposite of a solution.

Whether to call it resignation or outright apologist is a subject we can discuss another day.

This entire thread (and I'm the OP) is about acknowledging the problem, to raise it up general awareness.

Awareness is the first step of recovery.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Thing is, you're presuming this to be a problem for everyone. It's not. It's specifically YOUR problem.

For groups that accept the 6-8 encounter paradigm, there's no problem at all. Poof, vanished. Design adventures with that paradigm in mind and all the issues that you've brought up vanish. No more problems with the -5/+10 feats, because now you can't Bless every single encounter and pump up other buffs. No more problems with the party alpha striking and punching way over their weight class, making encounters too difficult to judge.

The problem is, you want to take 5e and use it for something it's not designed to do. It's just not designed to handle the 1 Encounter Per Day paradigm. [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] can talk about the "edition to unite us all" all he likes, but, while that's a great thing to try, the truth is, at the end of the day, you cannot support all play styles equally. No system can.

As far as raising awareness goes, well, I'll again point you in the direction of the Warlord. You can shout from the rooftops for as long as you like. You are going to get about the same amount of loving from WotC as Warlord fans get.

And, frankly, I'm going to be selfish here. A 5e designed around single encounters would bore me to tears. It would combine the worst of 3e and 4e design - long, dragged out encounters, with incredible complexity and demand on the DM to run those encounters. No thanks. Not interested. I'd much rather WotC continued with the "Day" as the base unit and let individual DM's work from there.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thing is, you're presuming this to be a problem for everyone. It's not. It's specifically YOUR problem.

It's an attribute of the game. It doesn't cease to exist for a player who leverages it in his favor or a table that doesn't care, even though it's not a 'pronblem,' for them.

It's an 'issue.'

The problem is, you want to take 5e and use it for something it's not designed to do. It's just not designed to handle the 1 Encounter Per Day paradigm. [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] can talk about the "edition to unite us all" all he likes, but, while that's a great thing to try, the truth is, at the end of the day, you cannot support all play styles equally. No system can.

Actually two general types of systems can do just that sufficiently robustly balanced, and sufficiently GM-customizable. 5e strives to be the latter.

As far as raising awareness goes, well, I'll again point you in the direction of the Warlord. You can shout from the rooftops for as long as you like. You are going to get about the same amount of loving from WotC as Warlord fans get.

That kind of leap-to-exclusion reasoning isn't terribly helpful, why try to drive people away from a game that's meant to include them?

And, frankly, I'm going to be selfish here. A 5e designed around single encounters would bore me to tears.

If the game had been designed like that, and were commonly run for long 'days,' resulting in pronounced class imbalance and screwed up encounter difficulty we'd be having the same conversation 'round a different elephant.

 

[Lanefan]

You could do this by explicitly requiring concentration for all actual spellcasting (not exactly unprecedented in the game's history). It would have the further 'benefit' of concentration spells preventing casting any other spell, not just other concentration-duration spells.

I thought this was already the case. Interesting.

Not so great. Some reactions only make sense if they're resolved before the trigger,

Explain please.

As written you're saying the reaction is reacting to something that hasn't happened yet, which doesn't make any sense. But I don't think that's what you're trying to say, and so I'm not getting it.

some only if done after, and the mechanics don't distinguish (no reaction/interrupt distinction), so that would render some Reactions moot.

Besides, reaction chains (chain reactions!) don't seem that common in 5e.

Perhaps, but if more reaction-type things get designed in it'd be best to be proactive and nip this stuff in the bud.

Lan-"and now, off to a drunken D&D game"-efan

 

[Hussar]

It's an attribute of the game. It doesn't cease to exist for a player who leverages it in his favor or a table that doesn't care, even though it's not a 'pronblem,' for them.

It's an 'issue.'

Actually two general types of systems can do just that sufficiently robustly balanced, and sufficiently GM-customizable. 5e strives to be the latter.

So you agree that it's up to the individual GM to sort the issue out then?

That kind of leap to exclusion reasoning isn't terribly helpful, why try to drive people away from a game that's meant to include them? [\quote]

Yet, funnily enough when I bring up exactly this argument about warlords I see multiple threads trying to shut down conversation.

If the game had been designed like that, and were commonly run for long 'days,' resulting in pronounced class imbalance and screwed up encounter difficulty we'd be having the same conversation 'round a different elephant.

Fair enough. Since it wasn't I'll continue to be selfish here.

Stupid autocorrect added an i to shut instead of a u. Blarg.

 

[clearstream]

Which isn't, in any RPG, something I want to have to do. Instead, I want the narrative sense and the mechanics to agree.

I understand your point about the narrative sense, but for me it seems overstated. Partly because you're coming at this with one fixed fiction in mind and we don't need to accept that fiction. We can adopt a fiction in which a mage can weave multiple spell threads at at time. Say I'm Hallow-ing (1 hour cast time) a haunted church and a ghost takes a swipe at me. Holding the threads of Hallow in one metaphorical hand I fling up a Shield with my Reaction.

It doesn't fix them, nor does it excise them. It just sweeps them under the rug and pretends they're not there; a thoroughly unsatisfactory solution.

It satisfies me, ergo not "thoroughly" unsatisfactory Timing and sequencing are complicated in games and troubling humans to manage them shouldn't be our default.

But really, how hard would it be to simply say that if either your action or your reaction involves casting a spell you can't do them at the same time? That right there gets rid of just about all the dissociation.

When I'm Hallow-ing that church, I'm using my action in each of my turns for an hour to do so. It feels natural to me to be able to do other stuff, like cast Counterspell at the Necromancer when she tries to break my Hallow with her Counterspell.

They don't have the concentration tag to maintain, as both are instantaneous; but I thought all spells required some sort of concentration (or focus, or paying attention, or whatever term) while casting.

It's a reasonable assumption based on the history of the game, but mechanically no longer true in 5e. Also, it points to a contradiction in the narrative sense you want to propose. Say it is round 4 and I am Concentrating to maintain the Bless I cast in round 1. Can I cast Healing Word? If I can, you now have two kinds of concentrating - concentrating to cast a spell which blocks casting other spells, and concentrating to maintain a spell which does not. I do not see the value in that added complexity. Or you say that if I am Concentrating on Bless I cannot cast anything else. That greatly ups the price of the Concentration tag on a spell, or changes your narrative to envision more than one kind of concentrating.

Two very simple and non-complexity-adding rules are all that's needed:

- - First, (repeated from above) if either your action or your reaction involves casting a spell you can't do one at the same time as the other. (so, no reaction spells in the middle of any other action, and no reactions at all in the middle of an action if that action is a spell; but melee reactions during a melee action remain OK)

This adds complexity. For example let's look at Shield. As a Wizard I am engaged by an Orc. I want to use my Move to back off so that I can cast Scorching Ray without disadvantage. Also, I dislike being this close to an Orc! My intent is to cast Shield when I trigger the AoO from the Orc. Can I cast Shield while moving? Keeping that question in mind, say I break up my movement so that I move 15' then cast Scorching Ray and then move a further 15'. That's my turn finished. Let's say I didn't end up casting Shield because the Orc missed anyway. Later in that same round, an Eye of Gruumsh casts a Command on our 8 Wisdom Fighter that I need to Counterspell. I'm no longer casting Scorching Ray, right? And I still have my reaction. So can I Counterspell that Command?

The RAW resolves all this in a simple way. Have I used my Reaction this round? No! Great - cast Counterspell. That's far simpler than, Have I used my Reaction this round? No? Branch to Am I still in my turn? Yes? Branch to Am I casting another spell? etc? And what about if I'm not casting but I used my action to trigger my Wand of Magic Missiles? Still no Counterspell? Or attack with a staff? Counterspell is okay?

- - Second, reactions resolve in the order they are declared (so first in, first out).

Lan-"undoing the good work of a generation of game designers"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I understand your point about the narrative sense, but for me it seems overstated. Partly because you're coming at this with one fixed fiction in mind and we don't need to accept that fiction. We can adopt a fiction in which a mage can weave multiple spell threads at at time. Say I'm Hallow-ing (1 hour cast time) a haunted church and a ghost takes a swipe at me. Holding the threads of Hallow in one metaphorical hand I fling up a Shield with my Reaction.

If you're Hallow-ing a haunted church without some friends around to cover you in the event that the church's occupants put up some resistance then you probably deserve to get hit.

When I'm Hallow-ing that church, I'm using my action in each of my turns for an hour to do so. It feels natural to me to be able to do other stuff, like cast Counterspell at the Necromancer when she tries to break my Hallow with her Counterspell.

Where what's natural to me is that you're completely focused on what you're doing to cast the Hallow, to the point that the odds of you even noticing someone casting Counterspell (or any other spell, for all that) are miniscule at best and zero most of the time.

And yes, what I'm saying would make Counterspell more powerful, as it would always trump whatever else was being cast.

It's a reasonable assumption based on the history of the game, but mechanically no longer true in 5e.

Poor design, in that case and IMO.

Also, it points to a contradiction in the narrative sense you want to propose. Say it is round 4 and I am Concentrating to maintain the Bless I cast in round 1. Can I cast Healing Word? If I can, you now have two kinds of concentrating - concentrating to cast a spell which blocks casting other spells, and concentrating to maintain a spell which does not. I do not see the value in that added complexity. Or you say that if I am Concentrating on Bless I cannot cast anything else. That greatly ups the price of the Concentration tag on a spell,

Exactly. You either keep your concentration spell going or drop it to cast something else. Concentration as written, at least in my view, probably goes overboard in reining in casters.

or changes your narrative to envision more than one kind of concentrating.

Yeah, perhaps...and that way might lie madness, I think.

This adds complexity. For example let's look at Shield. As a Wizard I am engaged by an Orc. I want to use my Move to back off so that I can cast Scorching Ray without disadvantage. Also, I dislike being this close to an Orc! My intent is to cast Shield when I trigger the AoO from the Orc. Can I cast Shield while moving?

One of the real bad moves made by 3e first, then continued by 4e and 5e, is the idea of being able to cast spells at all while in melee. In this case, were it up to me, I'd be saying you can't cast anything while under attack (which if you're casting in response to the Orc attacking you, you most certainly are) as you'll automatically be interrupted.

Keeping that question in mind, say I break up my movement so that I move 15' then cast Scorching Ray and then move a further 15'. That's my turn finished. Let's say I didn't end up casting Shield because the Orc missed anyway.

How would you know that the Orc missed? You said your casting of Shield was being triggered by the Orc taking an AoO - which means you're committed to it once he attacks but before you know the outcome - or so says the narrative, anyway. In any case...

Later in that same round, an Eye of Gruumsh casts a Command on our 8 Wisdom Fighter that I need to Counterspell. I'm no longer casting Scorching Ray, right? And I still have my reaction. So can I Counterspell that Command?

As Counterspell is specifically written as a reaction, I'd have to say yes.

The RAW resolves all this in a simple way. Have I used my Reaction this round? No! Great - cast Counterspell. That's far simpler than, Have I used my Reaction this round? No? Branch to Am I still in my turn? Yes? Branch to Am I casting another spell? etc? And what about if I'm not casting but I used my action to trigger my Wand of Magic Missiles? Still no Counterspell? Or attack with a staff? Counterspell is okay?

The RAW resolves it in a simple way, yes; but in what I see as a wrong simple way.

Lan-"undoing the good work of a generation of game designers"-efan

It's not all good work, unfortunately, and it's the bad bits I'd like to undo as they come up.

Lan-"and speaking of bad bits of design, I think that brings us right back to - among other things - the 5e resting rules"-efan

 

[clearstream]

Where what's natural to me is that you're completely focused on what you're doing to cast the Hallow, to the point that the odds of you even noticing someone casting Counterspell (or any other spell, for all that) are miniscule at best and zero most of the time.

I guess I'm more open to reshaping my fiction. Per SA we're not completely focused on casting Hallow.

One of the real bad moves made by 3e first, then continued by 4e and 5e, is the idea of being able to cast spells at all while in melee. In this case, were it up to me, I'd be saying you can't cast anything while under attack (which if you're casting in response to the Orc attacking you, you most certainly are) as you'll automatically be interrupted.

That is a perennial debate. Not one resolved by whether or not using our action to cast a spell prevents us using our reaction during our turn to cast another spell.

How would you know that the Orc missed? You said your casting of Shield was being triggered by the Orc taking an AoO - which means you're committed to it once he attacks but before you know the outcome - or so says the narrative, anyway. In any case...

Apologies. I intended to draw attention to the Wizard's ability (or not) to use their reaction to cast Shield in their own turn, as contrasted with their ability (or not) to use their reaction to cast a spell using their reaction later during the same round. Given in both cases they were casting a spell in their turn using their action. I additionally wanted to provoke thought about whether we can move and cast, especially in the context of a one hour cast.

As Counterspell is specifically written as a reaction, I'd have to say yes.

The RAW resolves it in a simple way, yes; but in what I see as a wrong simple way.

Okay, well I think you probably appreciate that taken together, we'd end up with reactions-during-our-turn and reactions-before-or-after-our-turn being two different things. That feels messy to me.

It's not all good work, unfortunately, and it's the bad bits I'd like to undo as they come up.

Lan-"and speaking of bad bits of design, I think that brings us right back to - among other things - the 5e resting rules"-efan

Good point

 

[dave2008]

Thing is, you're presuming this to be a problem for everyone. It's not. It's specifically YOUR problem.

He is only making that assumption for the purpose of this thread. This thread is about providing a solution to an assumed problem. If you don't see it has a problem, then the best thing to do is either not participate in the thread; or, put aside your view and look at the issue for the OP's perspective. This tread is for solving an issue, not debating whether or not the issue exists. Is that really so hard to understand?

 

[dave2008]

double post - sorry!