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

[Maxperson]

From jeremy crawford himself. You can use a bonus action to put on full plate heavy armor. You cannot use a bonus action to chug a potion.

I'd like to see where he said that. Could you link it?

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Thats what ive been working on. When i saw it it was a few months ago.

So im having to dig for it. But im working on it.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I'd like to see where he said that. Could you link it?

The heavy armor bit is with the use of a feature or something similar. Its still nonsense.

 

[Fenris-77]

Just give monsters the prof they need. Same with feats. If the players want to grapple and use feats, so will the monsters. An Ogre should definitely be able to do grapple-y things. Some players seem to think they while they should accrue all the benefits of rules like grapple and feats that their opponents never should. Personally, I don't agree. I never let the rules get in the way of a good time.

 

[Oofta]

The heavy armor bit is with the use of a feature or something similar. Its still nonsense.

If anyone other than you stated it, yes it would be nonsense. But you're the only one who has ever seen or heard this. Maybe you just misunderstood or misremembered?

As has been pointed out fast hands applies to an object interaction that takes a single action not something that takes 10 minutes. There is no issue.

 

[TwoSix]

You misunderstand, I'll stick with the sentinel example. The feat says exactly what it does & what circumstances trigger it. The vast majority, or at least a sizable plurality of what a character can do is like that. Compared to a more narrative system like fate it's very hard coded. That doesn't say it's bad, just that it's a problem if you start doing too many unexpected things... For example, even while saying that it doesn't seem that you were able to decide if alice or bob is the one who has sentinel triggered or why not.

Yea, I agree with you. D&D is (going back several editions now) fundamentally a game of power acquisition via rules-granted exceptions. That's always going to exist in tension with a stunting system (where you describe an attempt at a novel solution based on environmental or situational factors), because if the situational factors aren't limited enough, you've essentially granted the PCs a free power-up. This is the root behind issues like "throw dirt in the enemies eyes to blind them"; sure, it makes sense, but an at-will blind only requiring access to dirt is pretty powerful!

The obvious counter is too make throwing the dirt require a more difficult check to succeed, but then you run into the other issue with stunting systems; to make sure the stunts aren't too powerful, you generally have to make the stunt more situational or weakened enough that the PC's normal resources become the better option.

 

[Fenris-77]

Throwing dirt in the eyes could just as easily be disadvantage on next attack (which is about all you get out of blinded anyway) and that's not broken. There nothing about D&D that makes it impossible or even inadvisable to throw dirt and swing from chandeliers. Interaction with the environment during combat, and a willingness to step even a little bit outside the 'roll to hit - roll for damage' rut can be a breath of fresh air for a D&D game.

 

[Ashrym]

I am fine with the action economy.

I am curious about this supposed ruling about Fast Hands being usable to don heavy armor. I do not think that's been a ruling of any kind, even in combination of multiple tweets. I feel like it's been enough time for the OP to have found that quote if such a quote existed. Can we put it to bed now and conclude that was a mistaken reading or misremembered by the OP?

I think there was confusion a few years ago after this:

Crawford stated a shield could be donned (it normally takes 1 action) and then there was some conclusion jumping with shields equals armor even though I don't know if the armor question was actually answered.

It should definitely be put to rest. Donning armor takes more than 1 action. Donning a shield takes 1 action. One meets the fast hands requirements while the other does not.

 

[Blue]

There are logical inconsistancies in the classifications of actions and scenarios in which one is faster than another.

Further, its implied that there are actions that require different amounts of time but reside within the same action length class. Example: non cantrip spells of 1 action time length and cantrip spells of 1 action time length. They actually take different amounts of time, which is what makes it possible to cast one (cantrips) twice on your turn and the other (non cantrip spell) only once plus a cantrip.

I think all that you an infer is there is a difference. I don't see anything that implies the difference in in length of casting, and sicne they have the same casting time - 1 action - I see strong evidence it's not that. I always took it as spell complexity, but there's nothing that implies that. The rules are silent about why you can only cast a 1-action cantrip if you cast any spell using a bonus action, but because we know the length of casting time, we can definitively say it's not due to different lengths and must be due to one of the other differences between cantrips and spells that use slots.

 

[Oofta]

I think all that you an infer is there is a difference. I don't see anything that implies the difference in in length of casting, and sicne they have the same casting time - 1 action - I see strong evidence it's not that. I always took it as spell complexity, but there's nothing that implies that. The rules are silent about why you can only cast a 1-action cantrip if you cast any spell using a bonus action, but because we know the length of casting time, we can definitively say it's not due to different lengths and must be due to one of the other differences between cantrips and spells that use slots.

I've always thought of it as a PC only being able to channel so much energy in a short period of time in most cases. The only spell they explicitly call out as taking less time is reaction spells such as shield or counterspell.

Of course it's on my "do I want to house rule and allow bonus+normal spell because I think it's a silly restriction" list.