D&D 5E Does anyone else feel like the action economy and the way actions work in general in 5e both just suck?

[Son of the Serpent]

Cantrips aren't faster than leveled spells of the same casting time- they're simpler. They are spells that a caster has practiced so often and so repeatedly that their second nature to them, and thus require no resource expenditure or real effort to implement.

It's not stated anywhere, but it immediately jumps out to me that the idea behind the bonus action casting rule is that casting a spell that quickly temporarily damages your ability to cast magic over a certain complexity threshold- a threshold that cantrips and cantrips alone reside below (at least thus far).

The first half of what you said is actually something i already pointed out and supports my points. (Edit: woopsie. I have dyslexia for the record. Totally thought you said "are" where you actually said "arent". Considering that, i was wrong about agreeing with the first half. Also its not in the rules that cantrips are shorter casts but seems to be a thing. Not definitively. Just probably.)

THE SECOND HALF on the other hand...thats certainly not canon or in the rules, but if i didnt hate theae rules so much id very much like to use that as an in game explanation for why the restriction is there. I like that a lot. And it makes an awful lot of sense (unlike the rules). Might even use that for some things in my 3.5 games.

I love it when someone comes up with good fluff to go with the rules.

 

[Bolares]

The first half of what you said is actually something i already pointed out and supports my points. (Edit: woopsie. I have dyslexia for the record. Totally thought you said "are" where you actually said "arent". Considering that, i was wrong about agreeing with the first half. Also its not in the rules that cantrips are shorter casts but seems to be a thing. Not definitively. Just probably.)

THE SECOND HALF on the other hand...thats certainly not canon or in the rules, but if i didnt hate theae rules so much id very much like to use that as an in game explanation for why the restriction is there. I like that a lot. And it makes an awful lot of sense (unlike the rules). Might even use that for some things in my 3.5 games.

I love it when someone comes up with good fluff to go with the rules.

It's not a thing. cantrips are not faster, either in RAW or RAI. casting times are the same for spells an cantrips if both are 1 action spells.

 

[Ashrym]

The action economy is fine. I agree with other posters that some of the things determined to be bonus actions are a bit off.

As for combat fluidity, use the flanking rules. It creates incentive for players and opponents alike to move so that can flank and are no longer flanked.

An example of quickened spell bonus action would be polymorph following by quickened sleep. People might not like the rule but it's there as a blanket rule to protect against potential spell combos that become powerful.

It's not a thing. cantrips are not faster, either in RAW or RAI. casting times are the same for spells an cantrips if both are 1 action spells.

It is a thing if you use the optional speed factor for initiative. That subtracts the level of the spell being cast from the caster's initiative roll. That has some implication.

 

[Bolares]

It is a thing if you use the optional speed factor for initiative. That subtracts the level of the spell being cast from the caster's initiative roll. That has some implication.

only in cases were you use that rule. Optional rules don't have implications on the core rules or the basic perception and assumptions of the game. If they did, they wouldn't be optional

 

[DND_Reborn]

My only real issue with action economy is more related to initiative. I will give an example:

Yesterday our party was going into a building to fight our opponents inside. The main door was closed and barred, and one character tried to break it down, using his move to reach the door and making his Strength check. He failed. My character was next, and I wanted to cast Shatter on the door, doorway, etc. But, now the first character was in the way. IRL, I could shout, "Get back!" and he could step out of the way. But because his turn was done, there was nothing to do. So, I had to move the center of the spell to one side to affect the door but not the other PC.

As others have pointed out, the initiative and turn-based systems assumes many actions occur simultaneously. IRL, my Shatter spell might have finished before the first PC even reached the door.

This is where you can have a better simulation-style RPG with different speeds, etc. but then you have to question is the increase in complexity worth the potential benefit?

In that respect, I don't have many issues with how the 5E designers handled it. Is it a bit messy at times? Sure. But it is relatively simple, fast, and does the job well enough.

So, IMO, any fix to action-economy will likely come from a change in initiative as well.

 

[JeffB]

My only real issue with action economy is more related to initiative.

So, IMO, any fix to action-economy will likely come from a change in initiative as well.

The two are completely intertwined for better or worse. Until you change the Initiative structure and design the game around it, you will get weirdness and overly swingy results (which is what I was getting at in the other Initiative thread).

 

[MarkB]

My only real issue with action economy is more related to initiative. I will give an example:

Yesterday our party was going into a building to fight our opponents inside. The main door was closed and barred, and one character tried to break it down, using his move to reach the door and making his Strength check. He failed. My character was next, and I wanted to cast Shatter on the door, doorway, etc. But, now the first character was in the way. IRL, I could shout, "Get back!" and he could step out of the way. But because his turn was done, there was nothing to do. So, I had to move the center of the spell to one side to affect the door but not the other PC.

Sounds like lack of forethought. The person who charged in knew that others might need to access the door, so could have used any remaining movement on his turn to step back. You could have asked him to do so during his turn, instead of waiting until your own to decide what to do.

But that's pretty realistic, actually. Doors are a choke point, and it's not unusual for a group of people in a hurry to get in each others' way, even if they're professional combatants.

Honestly, the opposite effect - a group of people each moving up to the door in turn to try and force it, then stepping aside perfectly for the next one in line - would stand out as a less realistic resolution of the situation.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sounds like lack of forethought. The person who charged in knew that others might need to access the door, so could have used any remaining movement on his turn to step back. You could have asked him to do so during his turn, instead of waiting until your own to decide what to do.

But that's pretty realistic, actually. Doors are a choke point, and it's not unusual for a group of people in a hurry to get in each others' way, even if they're professional combatants.

Honestly, the opposite effect - a group of people each moving up to the door in turn to try and force it, then stepping aside perfectly for the next one in line - would stand out as a less realistic resolution of the situation.

IIRC he used all his movement to get to the door, but I could be mistaken. The player who DM's CoS uses ToM all the time and is new to DMing so it was a bit unclear.

I never planned to use Shatter until the other player failed to open door. But yeah, if he had movement left, moving back would have been a good idea.

I was thinking if he had movement left, but failed to use it on his turn, maybe we could house-rule you can use your reaction to move if you have any movement remaining. IDK....

 

[TheSword]

I’m a big fan of 5e’s action economy and for the most part find it very satisfying. Particular for rogues, fighters, sorcerers and some others.

That said it is based on having bonus actions and reactions available. I would like to see more bonus actions and reactions in the game - simple things that mean by default you get to do something (less powerful than a class ability) with these.

Attacking with an off hand weapon is a good example of a default bonus action but I would like to see a few more as that isn’t appropriate for a lot of characters.

 

[Oofta]

My only real issue with action economy is more related to initiative. I will give an example:

Yesterday our party was going into a building to fight our opponents inside. The main door was closed and barred, and one character tried to break it down, using his move to reach the door and making his Strength check. He failed. My character was next, and I wanted to cast Shatter on the door, doorway, etc. But, now the first character was in the way. IRL, I could shout, "Get back!" and he could step out of the way. But because his turn was done, there was nothing to do. So, I had to move the center of the spell to one side to affect the door but not the other PC.

As others have pointed out, the initiative and turn-based systems assumes many actions occur simultaneously. IRL, my Shatter spell might have finished before the first PC even reached the door.

This is where you can have a better simulation-style RPG with different speeds, etc. but then you have to question is the increase in complexity worth the potential benefit?

In that respect, I don't have many issues with how the 5E designers handled it. Is it a bit messy at times? Sure. But it is relatively simple, fast, and does the job well enough.

So, IMO, any fix to action-economy will likely come from a change in initiative as well.

There's no restriction to speaking only during your turn. So after trying to bash the door (and failing) your PC could have yelled at him to back up. If he still had movement he could. Only if he had used all his movement would he be stuck at the door.