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

[DND_Reborn]

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.

True, but as I understand it without a house-rule or some special feature, his turn was over and he couldn't move any more even if had movement remaining.

Now, as @MarkB pointed out, if the player had realized "Hey, I failed to bust down the door, and I still have some movement left. Hey, DM, I move my last 10 fee away from the door so someone else can try. My turn is over." That would have worked and avoided the issue.

-------------------------------------

Another way would be (if I couldn't cast the spell in such a way as to avoid the other PC) to say my character can't cast Shatter without hitting the other PC so I would tell him on my turn of round 1, "Move back you idiot, I'll blow it open!". Then on round 2, he could have moved back and on my turn I would cast Shatter.

That is more how I see the current rules handling it. But, I like the house-rule that if you have movement left over you can use your reaction to move on another creature's turn. It makes more sense in the story. Imagine your character is fighting an orc and you damage him, but he is still alive at the end of your turn (you never moved at all). Another PC casts Magic Missile, killing your damaged orc. You could use your reaction to then move to engage another creature. I mean, you aren't just standing there for the rest of the 6-second turn, are you? That seems silly to me...

Instead, you glance around to see the Cleric in need of help because he has two orcs on him, but he is 45 feet away. You use your reaction after your orc is killed by the MM spell to move 30 feet towards the Cleric. Next round, you move the remaining 15 feet and can attack the orc. In the RAW, you would not have been able to move after your orc died (wasting your move), and have to move and dash the next round, not allowing you to attack.

 

[dave2008]

True, but as I understand it without a house-rule or some special feature, his turn was over and he couldn't move any more even if had movement remaining.

That is not my understanding:
Speed (pg 181 PHB): " Every character and monster has a speed, which is the distance in feet that the character or monster can walk in 1 round. " You movement covers the whole round.

Breaking Up Your Move (pg 191 PHB): "You can break up your Movement on Your Turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet. "

He can use his movement before, during (if you have extra attack), and after his action.

 

[MarkB]

That is not my understanding:
Speed (pg 181 PHB): " Every character and monster has a speed, which is the distance in feet that the character or monster can walk in 1 round. " You movement covers the whole round.

Breaking Up Your Move (pg 191 PHB): "You can break up your Movement on Your Turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet. "

He can use his movement before, during (if you have extra attack), and after his action.

But not during someone else's turn, and that's when he was being asked to move.

 

[Oofta]

True, but as I understand it without a house-rule or some special feature, his turn was over and he couldn't move any more even if had movement remaining.

Now, as @MarkB pointed out, if the player had realized "Hey, I failed to bust down the door, and I still have some movement left. Hey, DM, I move my last 10 fee away from the door so someone else can try. My turn is over." That would have worked and avoided the issue.

-------------------------------------

Another way would be (if I couldn't cast the spell in such a way as to avoid the other PC) to say my character can't cast Shatter without hitting the other PC so I would tell him on my turn of round 1, "Move back you idiot, I'll blow it open!". Then on round 2, he could have moved back and on my turn I would cast Shatter.

That is more how I see the current rules handling it. But, I like the house-rule that if you have movement left over you can use your reaction to move on another creature's turn. It makes more sense in the story. Imagine your character is fighting an orc and you damage him, but he is still alive at the end of your turn (you never moved at all). Another PC casts Magic Missile, killing your damaged orc. You could use your reaction to then move to engage another creature. I mean, you aren't just standing there for the rest of the 6-second turn, are you? That seems silly to me...

Instead, you glance around to see the Cleric in need of help because he has two orcs on him, but he is 45 feet away. You use your reaction after your orc is killed by the MM spell to move 30 feet towards the Cleric. Next round, you move the remaining 15 feet and can attack the orc. In the RAW, you would not have been able to move after your orc died (wasting your move), and have to move and dash the next round, not allowing you to attack.

Gotcha. Using your reaction to move outside of your turn wouldn't hurt anything and seems like a decent trade-off. I don't think there's a perfect system, I would just say that in this case your PC simply hesitated too long. There's always going to be weirdness because TTRPGs have limitations on what's possible with what should be simultaneous actions.

I'm sure there are other systems out there that handle it differently, for something like this I'm okay with sacrificing a little bit for simplicity and ease of play.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Gotcha. Using your reaction to move outside of your turn wouldn't hurt anything and seems like a decent trade-off. I don't think there's a perfect system, I would just say that in this case your PC simply hesitated too long. There's always going to be weirdness because TTRPGs have limitations on what's possible with what should be simultaneous actions.

I'm sure there are other systems out there that handle it differently, for something like this I'm okay with sacrificing a little bit for simplicity and ease of play.

Yeah, that is pretty much the way I look at it. Complexity would make a more complete system, but is that really better? Up to each table I guess. It is like average damage. I use it for everything because to me speeding up play is more important than rolling (I take care of my rolling-bug on the attack roll. ).

 

[dave2008]

But not during someone else's turn, and that's when he was being asked to move.

That is what I get for jumping in half way!

 

[DND_Reborn]

That is what I get for jumping in half way!

It happens...

 

[Todd Roybark]

Obviously not many, since 5e is the most popular edition, which it wouldn't be if people where generally unhappy with it.

No. Either you or someone at the RPG table has to purchase something before one can know if you are dissatisfied with it.

Lack of a comparative sized RPG competitor also means, people will stick with the dominant paradigm. Casual players, do not know about Pathfinder, WFRP 4, MGT 2 etc....they don’t. A listing on Amazon for Pathfinder 2, won’t grab one’s attention as say seeing a sparkly Earthdawn RPG book in a shop can attract your eyes.

Many people in the 1980s played the game a few times and that was it. The sales trend was not sustainable.

I doubt, the current D&D sales surge will be at the same rate 2-5 years from now.

To use an example of sales of a material product in the USA, gun ownership in the USA based off household is at it’s lowest point for the last several decades. What has kept firearm sales steady, is that those who would buy firearms, purchase more than one. The market is sustained by the collectors. (Lets us keep this apolitical, Firearms were used as an example of a material product only..lets keep it that way).

 

[tetrasodium]

No. Either you or someone at the RPG table has to purchase something before one can know if you are dissatisfied with it.

Lack of a comparative sized RPG competitor also means, people will stick with the dominant paradigm. Casual players, do not know about Pathfinder, WFRP 4, MGT 2 etc....they don’t. A listing on Amazon for Pathfinder 2, won’t grab one’s attention as say seeing a sparkly Earthdawn RPG book in a shop can attract your eyes.

Many people in the 1980s played the game a few times and that was it. The sales trend was not sustainable.

I doubt, the current D&D sales surge will be at the same rate 2-5 years from now.

To use an example of sales of a material product in the USA, gun ownership in the USA based off household is at it’s lowest point for the last several decades. What has kept firearm sales steady, is that those who would buy firearms, purchase more than one. The market is sustained by the collectors. (Lets us keep this apolitical, Firearms were used as an example of a material product only..lets keep it that way).

I don't even know what those two are

 

[Mistwell]

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?