D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Voadam]

Ever watch Kung Fu movies? The whole point of flurry of blows is that the strikes are very, very fast.

Right, so here at level one where they do action attack unarmed strike, bonus action one unarmed strike from martial arts, is the standard action equal in time length to the bonus action, longer, or shorter? How about at level two when the flurry of blows makes the bonus action two extra attacks?

Are the unarmed strikes taking the same amount of time, or different amounts of time depending on whether they are actions, bonus actions, or how many strikes come in the different actions?

Are you going with a narrative to match the mechanics bonus actions are quicker so one longer action strike and two rapid strikes in the bonus action that combined take less time than the big one?

Or are you going with the narrative of three roughly equal speed strikes because they are all unarmed strikes of equal power?

 

[Irlo]

"BONUS ACTION
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

It doesn't say it explicitly on page 189 under bonus actions, but if you look at the sort of things you get with a bonus action, they're usually pretty quick things. If they took as long as an action, you'd just get two actions.

Most of the examples below of bonus actions are actually you just getting two actions. "This action can be used to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action." "You can use the Dash action as a bonus action on your turn."

"Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action."

"Eagle. While you're raging, other creatures have disadvantage on opportunity attack rolls against you, and you can use the Dash action as a bonus action on your turn. The spirit of the eagle makes you into a predator who can weave through the fray with ease."

Then there are all the bonus actions to command something(pretty quick).

Nothing I can see indicates that it takes as long as an action.

I'd prefer not to hold rigorously to the idea that actions are longer than bonus actions and reactions occur in the blink of an eye.

My rogue uses Cunning Action to Dash 30' as a bonus action. Then he takes the Ready action (this one is a regular action) to prepare to Dash on a certain trigger. Then on the trigger, he Dashes 30' as a reaction.

I can imagine that it took more time for my rogue to get ready to move on a trigger than it took him to move 30' in the first place, and I can imagine that he moved 30' instantaneously on the trigger -- almost a teleport, really. But why would I? It strikes me as goofiness easily avoided by not trying to strictly adhere to a ruleset that is not logically rigorous or consistent.

 

[Maxperson]

Most of the examples below of bonus actions are actually you just getting two actions. "This action can be used to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action." "You can use the Dash action as a bonus action on your turn."

BECAUSE OF SPEED. You get the bonus action because of how quick you are at doing it. It's faster than a normal action.

I'd prefer not to hold rigorously to the idea that actions are longer than bonus actions and reactions occur in the blink of an eye.

You can do that, but the way those things are written is more supportive of my interpretation.

My rogue uses Cunning Action to Dash 30' as a bonus action. Then he takes the Ready action (this one is a regular action) to prepare to Dash on a certain trigger. Then on the trigger, he Dashes 30' as a reaction.

I can imagine that it took more time for my rogue to get ready to move on a trigger than it took him to move 30' in the first place, and I can imagine that he moved 30' instantaneously on the trigger -- almost a teleport, really. But why would I? It strikes me as goofiness easily avoided by not trying to strictly adhere to a ruleset that is not logically rigorous or consistent.

Nothing works in all situations. That's what rulings over rules is for.

 

[Lanefan]

Wizards have spellbooks. How meticulous or complicated the spells may be is not defined. Neither are other casting details beyond the basic V, S, and M components, and what the M may be.

Nor does the book say that casting a counterspell works the exact same way every time a caster uses it. No more than it describes a Bard having to sing a song exactly the same way every time, or a rogue using his lockpick exactly the same way.

Bards and Rogues don't have the same requirement of written instructions on how to do what they do (though a Bard, I suppose, might have sheet music if such has been invented in the setting).

Maybe it's not a quicker to cast version. Maybe they just managed to cast it quicker this time. Or, and this is what I would tend to go with, maybe they cast it first. As I've said a few times now, there's no reason that the events of the fiction need to adhere to our turn structure.

It seems a pretty basic default to say that, in cases like this where it matters who goes first and there's no initiative ticker acting as a timekeeper, characters act in the fiction in the same order as those actions are declared by the players at the table.

Otherwise you get this:

player A - I do X
player B - no, I do Y first!
Player C - no, I do Z firster first!

Does anyone really want that?

There are advantages and disadvantages to acting first and to waiting to act. And although it's the player who is acting last, there's no reason that the characters experience these things in the exact order.

I think that's what's being overlooked. Max described it as "twisting" the fiction.... but really, it's just the fiction that makes sense based on what happens in the game.

Again, though, if one maps player declaration order to character action order it should be FIFO resolution. Making it LIFO gives far too much advantage to the player who declares last...never mind the time-twisting where the last-to-declare player ends up with the first-to-act character.

No, that's clearly not the only way. I've described another way that works without having to do that. Just allow the turns to happen as needed for the players, and then describe what happens in the fiction.

That's not so easy if one wants to narrate things step-by-step as they happen so as to a) provide information to the players and b) keep it all straight.

 

[Irlo]

BECAUSE OF SPEED. You get the bonus action because of how quick you are at doing it. It's faster than a normal action.

Once more into the breach ...

Yes, I'm quick. I can perform two dash actions in one round. Nothing requires that one dash (regular action) needs to take longer than the second one (bonus). I don't understand why you're insisting on it.

Nothing works in all situations. That's what rulings over rules is for.

Well, we got to this point, anyway!

 

[Lanefan]

If there ARE interrupts available at the table (and at mid high level play, they are invetable), The DM is best served by making sure he accounts for them BEFORE moving to step 3, but also making players aware that once step 3 comes (The DM dictating the results) it's too late for further reactions etc.

I agree with this! Problem is, it falls apart once 5e RAW is applied to it.

Step 1: I declare that the Orc swings his axe at Falstaffe
Step 2: I roll to hit, the die gives me a good enough result.
Step 3: I declare that Falstaffe is hit, and then move on to rolling damage.

This is the sticking point. With reactions being allowed to wait until step 3 above has already happened, in effect the reaction is trying to retcon the declared hit into a miss by going back to step 2 and making it that the roll wasn't good enough.

What would make far more sense is that reactions can only come right after step 1, where I declare the attack but BEFORE I make the to-hit roll; and if this means that sometimes a reaction might be wasted because I would have missed anyway then too bad - so be it.

 

[tetrasodium]

Shield: The hit is a potential hit, you do not advance to step 3 (description) until it is an actual hit or an actual miss. Once that's resolved proceed to step 3.

Uncanny Dodge: the damage is potential damage and you do not advance to step 3 until it is actual damage. The amount of potential damage is declared, the player declares uncanny dodge - actual damage is assessed. Proceed to step 3.

Counterspell: The DM declares the Baddie is casting a spell. Player declares counterspell, if Baddie is a caster he may ALSO then use his reaction. Each counterspell is resolved to see if it's successful (even if the 1st isn't, baddie still loses the spell slot). After resolution proceed to step 3.

Seems to me, the only problem is if the DM jumps to step 3 early:

DM: The Monster hits for 20 points of damage and nearly guts you!
Player: No he didn't.
DM: OK, guess I have to back up.

That's too early and both looks clunky and requires a weird retcon.

But if you just make sure to resolve all proper actions in step 2, that does not happen:

DM: The bugbear will hit you unless you can do something about it..
Player: I cast shield, my AC is 20 for this and the rest of the round.
DM: Ok then. The bugbears morningstar clangs off your shield, that was close!

or of course:

DM: The bugbear will hit you unless you can do something about it..
Player: I cast shield, my AC is 20 for this and the rest of the round.
DM: Ok then. You can't get the shield up quite in time - the bugbear's morningstar impacts for 11 HP of damage.

Step 3 does not occur until after the reaction is resolved. And in play it's fairly smooth, it's actually more clunky typed out than in play.

I don't believe that it's a matter of jumping to step3 too early because we have had a system that did what you are proposing but it did so by declaring things before doing them where they were open to butbutbut hurdles before the roll to settle them rather than rolling the dice and then declaring them in some sort of schrodinger's cat style successful and blocked. I quoted the mechanics for that earlier in 1022. I don't know if you were around back in 2e & earlier when that was the norm but it was not uncommon for some groups to simply roll steps1 & 2 into their appropriate positions in the initiative for each monster & PC just because it could be a hassle to track. What you are suggesting is for the GM to run the game in a perpetual state of quantum ogre that never actually settles upon a door as a solution.

 

[Mort]

I agree with this! Problem is, it falls apart once 5e RAW is applied to it.

Step 1: I declare that the Orc swings his axe at Falstaffe
Step 2: I roll to hit, the die gives me a good enough result.
Step 3: I declare that Falstaffe is hit, and then move on to rolling damage.

This is the sticking point. With reactions being allowed to wait until step 3 above has already happened, in effect the reaction is trying to retcon the declared hit into a miss by going back to step 2 and making it that the roll wasn't good enough.

What would make far more sense is that reactions can only come right after step 1, where I declare the attack but BEFORE I make the to-hit roll; and if this means that sometimes a reaction might be wasted because I would have missed anyway then too bad - so be it.

But since interrupts exist, you have to add step 2.5: give the target an opportunity to use one BEFORE moving to step 3. It's that or a redesign. Since I find the current system works smoothly, I'm not interested in doing that.

 

[Lanefan]

The discussion you stepped into there was whether or not the spell is cast uniformly each time the caster casts it. Make it a forceful gesture and it will be the same exact gesture taking the same amount of time to perform each time the caster casts it. Same if it's some other somatic method. There will be no variation, because the spell is precise in what it requires.

If you break it up due to casting your own counterspell in the middle of your original casting, you are no longer casting the original spell precisely as required. The game is silent on whether or not this will ruin the spell, but a DM is well within his rights to make the reasonable ruling that it does ruin it.

Sorry, Max, I'm sad to say the game isn't silent on this; that is if "the game" is assumed to include Sage Advice rulings. Crawford (I think it was he, anyway) ruled the original spell survives this process.

 

[Lanefan]

But since interrupts exist, you have to add step 2.5: give the target an opportunity to use one BEFORE moving to step 3. It's that it ax redesign. Since I find the current system works smoothly, I'm not interested in doing that.

Sorry, the bolded bit doesn't quite parse.

Other than that, my point is that interrupts should have to be declared before it's clear whether there will in fact be anything for them to successfully interrupt - i.e. at the end of step 1 before any mechanical resolution processes begin.

Otherwise IMO it gives too much power to the interrupter.