An action is not a duration

[BeefGood]

I just realized something interesting (IMO): an action is not a duration/time interval. Instead an action, and a bonus action, a reaction, a free object interaction, a move should be called something like Components of a Turn.
This is not obvious because the rule book tries to confuse us. The most egregious example is “casting times.” In most cases they are not Times. They are Turn Components-usually an action, sometimes a reaction. There are some casting times that are actual time intervals like 1 minute but these are the minority.
Another example is the Don/Doff table on page 146. The intro text says “this is the time it takes to put on/take off the item.” That’s true for the light, medium, and heavy armors, but it is not true for the shield. The don/doff “time” for a shield, 1 action, is a Turn Component, not a time interval.
Edit: page 146 of the PHB

[LeonBH]

An action is a mechanical construct which serves as an abstraction so that the combat engine can be balanced around the scarcity of them.

In other words, it doesn't matter that an action is a duration or not. What matters is you get only one of them on your turn and no actions on another person's turn.

[Gardakan]

It becomes more logical as you play more and more.

Move, Action, Bonus in turn. Reaction out of turn. You can reasonably delay your action with a precise trigger (and still take them afterwards if you want to).

Actions happens over the course of each turn... they're happening withing the same short window how 6 seconds (Initiative gets to decide who act first and start the ****).

[BeefGood]

An action is a mechanical construct which serves as an abstraction so that the combat engine can be balanced around the scarcity of them.

Yes. So the rules should refer to a spell’s “casting construct” rather than its “casting time.”
But that wouldn’t describe those spells whose durations are actually times. What’s needed is a word general enough to encompass both mechanical construct and time.
Maybe “casting resource” ?

[LeonBH]

Yes. So the rules should refer to a spell’s “casting construct” rather than its “casting time.”
But that wouldn’t describe those spells whose durations are actually times. What’s needed is a word general enough to encompass both mechanical construct and time.
Maybe “casting resource” ?

Neither "casting construct" nor "casting resource" are easier to understand than "casting time".

A "resource" is an expendable unit of something - it can be time or items or spell slots. Meanwhile, a "construct" can be anything.

I can see nothing to be gained by changing "casting time" to something else.

However, you're correct it is not a unit of time, since time is not measured in actions or bonus actions.

[holywhippet]

The casting time description really falls apart when you consider spells with a casting time of a bonus action. In theory the bonus action is for very quick actions that take almost no time at all. But you can't cast a spell that has a bonus action as a casting time using a standard action instead even though it is longer.

[Unoriginal]

An action is something that happens in a laps of 6 seconds, and that take enough of those 6 seconds you don't have the time to do another one (but you can add a bonus action and potentially a reaction).

Saying "it takes an action" is much more easier than "it will take the majority of 6 seconds, except if you're speeded up somehow".

[BeefGood]

In theory the bonus action is for very quick actions that take almost no time at all.

It's actually written in the rules, in the discussions of bonus actions and reactions, before the spell list. Bonus actions spells are "especially swift" and reaction spells require "a fraction of a second." But....

But you can't cast a spell that has a bonus action as a casting time using a standard action instead even though it is longer.

Right. So despite the nod to actual times mentioned immediately above, they are still not really times, because you can't do things like taking a bonus action as an action.

I'm thinking, instead of using a catch-all term like "casting resource", make them actual times. Like this:
Your turn is 6 seconds. You can use 1 of those seconds during someone else's turn if you wish.
During your turn, you can move while doing things.
Here are things that you can do during your turn, organized by the amount of time they require:
Things that require 3 seconds:
<things currently called Actions, and spells having casting "time" of 1 action>
Things that require 2 seconds:
<things currently called Bonus Actions, or spells having casting "time" of a bonus action>
Things that require 1 second:
<same for reactions>
That's the skeleton of the Action Economy.

[Talamare]

It's actually written in the rules, in the discussions of bonus actions and reactions, before the spell list. Bonus actions spells are "especially swift" and reaction spells require "a fraction of a second." But....


Right. So despite the nod to actual times mentioned immediately above, they are still not really times, because you can't do things like taking a bonus action as an action.

I'm thinking, instead of using a catch-all term like "casting resource", make them actual times. Like this:
Your turn is 6 seconds. You can use 1 of those seconds during someone else's turn if you wish.
During your turn, you can move while doing things.
Here are things that you can do during your turn, organized by the amount of time they require:
Things that require 3 seconds:
<things currently called Actions, and spells having casting "time" of 1 action>
Things that require 2 seconds:
<things currently called Bonus Actions, or spells having casting "time" of a bonus action>
Things that require 1 second:
<same for reactions>
That's the skeleton of the Action Economy.

That makes the system significantly more complex.

As Leon said it wisely, it's an abstraction.

Just like how in Final Fantasy Classics, you would take turns standing across a battlefield taking turns hitting each other.
It's not that they think that actual battles are like that, it's that they know they need a simple system for gameplay.

So yea, when you ask - How long does it take to cast something with the casting time of 1 action?

The answer is around 6 seconds. It doesn't matter exactly how many of those seconds are actually spent casting it.
-- What if you MADE it matter, because like a bomb is about to explode in like 4 seconds?

Well then you can either allow the spell to go thru or not, or you can potentially make some form of check. That's the power of a DM vs a hard mechanic system.
The allowance to constantly introduce temporary rules that would just pollute a game's mechanics otherwise.

[Unoriginal]

An action is a duration, it's just not a *set* duration.

Not all attacks are going to take the same time, but they all fit within a fraction of 6 seconds. It's a duration, however how vague.

[Rhedyn]

Time doesn't exist. It's not a thing. It's just a way to explain temporal relations quickly. The notion of time itself is an abstraction.

In such a paradigm, the way the book refers to time and action are valid.

[Eric Diaz]

Right. So despite the nod to actual times mentioned immediately above, they are still not really times, because you can't do things like taking a bonus action as an action.

I'm thinking, instead of using a catch-all term like "casting resource", make them actual times. Like this:
Your turn is 6 seconds. You can use 1 of those seconds during someone else's turn if you wish.
During your turn, you can move while doing things.
Here are things that you can do during your turn, organized by the amount of time they require:
Things that require 3 seconds:
<things currently called Actions, and spells having casting "time" of 1 action>
Things that require 2 seconds:
<things currently called Bonus Actions, or spells having casting "time" of a bonus action>
Things that require 1 second:
<same for reactions>
That's the skeleton of the Action Economy.

Your first sentence (they are still not really times, because you can't do things like taking a bonus action as an action) contradicts the rest of the exercise...

What do you want to accomplish? Would you allow people to take 3 bonus actions every round? Of just fiddle with initiative (which I like)?

To go into deep tactical mode you might limit movement to 5' per second for most races.

Unfortunately, it would be much of a hassle to keep track of things IMO.

[Tanarii]

An action is a duration, it's just not a *set* duration.

Not all attacks are going to take the same time, but they all fit within a fraction of 6 seconds. It's a duration, however how vague.

Not necessarily. Depends if your DM uses some version of the permission slip model.

[Dalebert]

I've seen people claim a spell takes 6 seconds to cast because it lists it's casting time as 1 action. *facepalm* You can do an action, a bonus action, and your move all in 6 seconds. If you're a 2nd+ level fighter, you can cast two spells with a casting time of 1 action and still get a move and a bonus action. All that we know is that it's less than 6 seconds. The rest is pure speculation.

I agree it's purely an abstraction. It might vary a slight amount depending on teh circumstance. All the game cares about is that it's intended to be a limited resource in the action economy. It just bugs me when someone makes leaps like that because it can be used to conclude, for instance, that you can't cast a fly spell while falling a certain distance even if you fall while it's your turn (like you jumped). If you fall when it's not your turn, you probably better have Feather Fall unless it's a really long fall.

[BeefGood]

That makes the system significantly more complex.

It seems simpler to me. "You get 6 seconds; do what you want." Could you say a little more about why it would be more complex?

Your first sentence (they are still not really times, because you can't do things like taking a bonus action as an action) contradicts the rest of the exercise...

I probably didn't explain it well. There would be no more actions, bonus actions, reactions....there would be only things that you could do, and the amount of time required by each thing.

What do you want to accomplish? Would you allow people to take 3 bonus actions every round?

If there's something particular that I want to accomplish, it's to make life easier for newbies. The game would be easier to learn if a "time" were actually a time, rather than the current situation where a "time" is sometimes a time but more often something else. That said, it's also just interesting to think about. Why wasn't it done this way (using times exclusively)? How would such a game be different?

Sure, I'd allow people to take 3 bonus actions each round, except it wouldn't be described that way. It would be described as doing three 2-second things on your turn. Of course you can fiddle with the various timings to get different results if you want. For example, if doing three 2-second things per turn sounds bad for some reason, then simply set the turn to 5 seconds rather than 6. Then you can only do two of those things.

[Dalebert]

Oh, dang. I didn't realize OP wanted to change ti to actual time. This is already simple and is designed around balancing the action economy. Oh dear no. That would make things far more complicated. It's fine how it is. I just thought we were agreeing about how some folks try to turn it into actual time units and how that doesn't work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Isn't the proposed system basically what some earlier edition (2e? OD&D?) did with ticks? Each type of action took a certain number of ticks, etc? Sounds annoying to use.

[Vogie]

Oh, man, you're going to have a bad day when you realize that time itself is a construct.

It's constructs all the way down.

[Unoriginal]

Oh, man, you're going to have a bad day when you realize that time itself is a construct.

It's constructs all the way down.

"I use my Manual of Golem Creation to create time"

"What."

"Time is a construct."

[Bounty Hunter]

I do a lot of tutorial games and teaching new people to play 5th Edition.

In all the people who've sat at my tables or who've I've assisted online I've never had issues with folks confusing Actions as a 'time length' rather an amount of effort. Usually theres some clarification needed on Bonus Actions and Reactions but the core rules for Actions themselves don't really seem to muddle with people too much.

On the contrary the alternatives you've provided here are much more of a sloppy mess to wade through and I'd dread trying to sit a new player down and describe things to them as you've laid out. Even the 'ticks' method which isn't too hard to describe if organized correctly is just so much more needlessly complex than it needs to be while simultaneously providing no actual benefit.

This is honestly a case of "If it aint broke don't fix it".

[BeefGood]

In all the people who've sat at my tables or who've I've assisted online I've never had issues with folks confusing Actions as a 'time length' rather an amount of effort.

These people were learning from a human expert--you. That's a good situation. When I started learning 5e after a long time away from D&D, it was just me and the PHB for a little while. I would get stuck on things and not have a way to get unstuck. When I found human experts to talk to and eavesdrop on--when I found this board--then learning became easier. So I tend to evaluate the PHB from a PHB-only perspective--no prior experience, no instructors. In such a situation small infelicities in the text, like "Times" that aren't actually times, can be significant.

Many commenters have said that a true time-based system is too complex. Here's my guess why this is so: there's too many possible combinations of things can be done on a turn. This slows down gameplay because players have too many options. It makes game development issues, like character balance, intractable, because no one can hold in his or her head at one time all the things that a character could do. The solution is to rule out huge numbers of possibilities with rules like the limitation to a single reaction. Once you've done that, then the time-based system becomes difficult to defend. This is because, for example, if the rules consist of two numbers--6 seconds for a turn and say 1 second for a reaction--the natural expectation is that those two numbers can be divided, with the result that 6 reactions per turn is permissible. Whereas if the rules are written in terms of non-quantifiable concepts like "reactions", then you just say "a reaction is a thing that you get one of" and no contrary expectations are created.

[Talamare]

Current System - You get an Action, You get a Bonus Action. Do 1 of each, Turn Done.

Action Point System - You get a number of resources to spend, here are the costs.


Action Point System with DnD's current Mechanics...
You get a number of seconds to spend, here are the costs
Here is a list of restrictions
Here is a list of additional costs


Action Point Systems (or as you're saying 'Spending Time') are great, and I think can create an awesome game.
However DnD in it's current state wouldn't work with an Action Point System. You would have to redesign every single aspect of the game.

[LeonBH]

The spell slot system makes no fictional sense, but it's an abstraction of how magic works. After all, if I use all my lowest level spell slots and am exhausted of casting low level magic, then why do I have enough energy to cast 2nd level spells?

It's because WotC thought it would be simpler if you can hand someone a checklist and whenever you cast a spell, you tick a box off the list.

Spell points is introduced as a variant rule and it is harder to explain to some people in my experience. It offers immense flexibility but that flexibility can be confusing or overwhelming.

---

If you turn the action economy into action points, the game becomes less accessible, especially to the target "demographic" of the action economy system.

Also, as you've expressed yourself, why can't you use six reactions under this new system? Take six one-second reactions under another creature's turn? That seems incredibly efficient to me for War Casters.

If the reason is due to a rule that you can only take one reaction per round, then it is still the same kind of artificial limitations being imposed by your new rule on the actions players can take - which comes from the same place as the 1 reaction/round limitation in the current system, or even the 1 action/turn limitation in the current system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The spell slot system makes no fictional sense, but it's an abstraction of how magic works. After all, if I use all my lowest level spell slots and am exhausted of casting low level magic, then why do I have enough energy to cast 2nd level spells?

It's quantum transitions. Each spell slot represents a quantized packet of energy--you can't spend half of one. Spell casters have learned to store packets of energy in their souls, like knotted pieces of cloth holding the energy. When you spend one, you release that packet. But a 2nd level spell slot =/= 2x1 first level slot. So they're not interchangeable. Stuffing that energy back into the packet takes time and rest, so they don't recharge quickly.

That's the model I use for 5e spell-casting, anyway.

[LeonBH]

It's quantum transitions. Each spell slot represents a quantized packet of energy--you can't spend half of one. Spell casters have learned to store packets of energy in their souls, like knotted pieces of cloth holding the energy. When you spend one, you release that packet. But a 2nd level spell slot =/= 2x1 first level slot. So they're not interchangeable. Stuffing that energy back into the packet takes time and rest, so they don't recharge quickly.

That's the model I use for 5e spell-casting, anyway.

That interpretation runs into issues when you ask, why does every spellcaster prepare exactly four 1st level quantum knots? Can't a 20th level Wizard, who can prepare legendary 9th level quantum knots, choose to prepare more 1st level quantum knots instead of a 9th level quantum knot?

[PhoenixPhyre]

That interpretation runs into issues when you ask, why does every spellcaster prepare exactly four 1st level quantum knots? Can't a 20th level Wizard, who can prepare legendary 9th level quantum knots, choose to prepare more 1st level quantum knots instead of a 9th level quantum knot?

Nope--think atomic energy levels. There are only a certain number of slots open to transition between. The analogy to x-ray electronic transitions is actually almost exact. A 9th level slot is an open hole in a 1s orbital; a 1st level is a hole in the 4f shell (as examples). You can't mix and match--there's only so many electrons around.

[LeonBH]

Nope--think atomic energy levels. There are only a certain number of slots open to transition between. The analogy to x-ray electronic transitions is actually almost exact. A 9th level slot is an open hole in a 1s orbital; a 1st level is a hole in the 4f shell (as examples). You can't mix and match--there's only so many electrons around.

Then why are the slots there in the first place? Once you've assumed that the "orbitals" exist, you've fallen to assuming the conclusion. But the question is what does the spell slot represent?

Also, the analogy doesn't work perfectly because you can spend a 4th level spell slot before you spend a 9th level spell slot, and the "energy state" of the caster does not adjust to return to a configuration in equilibrium.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then why are the slots there in the first place? Once you've assumed that the "orbitals" exist, you've fallen to assuming the conclusion. But the question is what does the spell slot represent?

Also, the analogy doesn't work perfectly because you can spend a 4th level spell slot before you spend a 9th level spell slot, and the "energy state" of the caster does not adjust to return to a configuration in equilibrium.

You're missing the nature of the analogy (or unfamiliar with electronic structure and spectroscopy).

All mortals (in the analogy) are neutral atoms. Heavy metal atoms, to be precise (so lots and lots of electrons). "Normal" people can't interact with these electrons in any significant way. Spell-casters of 1st level or higher can. As they sleep, their unconscious minds use the ambient magical energy that suffuses reality to lift a few of these electrons out of their orbitals, leaving them in an excited, meta-stable state. When they cast a spell, they let the lifted electron drop back into its slot, releasing a packet of energy which fuels the spell.

Thus, a "charged up" caster (all spell slots available) has a maximally excited soul-state. Just like in atoms, the outer states (high orbital number) lie very close together and thus release very little energy when a hole is filled. The difference between an inner state and the excited states is much larger, releasing much more energy. And you can fill these states (releasing the energy) in any order--you can have a K-alpha transition (from * to 1s) and an M-alpha (transitioning to n = 3 or n = 4) in any order.

A depleted caster (no spell slots left) is in the ground state--there are no electrons out of place, no spells left to cast.

Also just like atomic orbitals, each "shell" (spell level) can only hold so many electrons to begin with, and you can't have more vacancies than it can hold electrons. As you drop to lower n (higher spell level), you can hold fewer and fewer vacancies.

Cantrips use the very outermost shells--these are excited even at thermal energies, so there's always tiny amounts of energy available.

Yes, it sounds backwards. But hey, no one said quantum mechanics was intuitive (or if they did, they's real weird).

[LeonBH]

I felt deeply unsatisfied with that explanation, but I've realized you're assuming an entirely different system from I initially thought.

I thought you meant plain and simple that spell slots were orbitals. If they were filled, the slot was charged. If they were empty, the slot is used. And so to get 5s, you must fill 1s 2s 2p 3s 3p 4s 3d 4p. And you cannot remove an arbitrary place in this sequence. 1s 2s 3s 3p does not exist.

But what you're actually saying is the ground state is when all the orbitals are filled, and when they are charged, the electrons are lifted from the ground state to an arbitrary higher energy state. Then they fall back down in an arbitrary order as spells are cast, filling in 1s 2s 2p 3s and so on as they go.

But now the gates are open for all kinds of tinkering with the magic system. Transference of energy from caster to caster should be possible unaided, such that an expended 3rd level spell slot by caster A can be recharged by absorbing the stored energy of the 3rd level slot from caster B. It also suggests the existence of 10th level spell slots (since there are many orbitals).

And it doesn't work for Sorcerers, the Rod of Absorption, the Ring of Spell Storing, and the Absorption Ioun Stone, which allow spell energy to be converted from one level to another.

The Ring of Spell Storing in particular does treat a 2nd level spell to take up twice as much energy as a 1st level spell, and a 5th level spell to take up five times as much energy as a 1st level spell. Under this analogy, the Ring must have a 5th level orbital to be able to store a 5th level spell, as well as five 1st level orbitals to store five 1st level spells. But this system does not forbid the Ring from filling in all its available orbitals, whereas it really can store only a max of 5 spell levels.

Meanwhile, the Sorcerer can take the quantum knot of a 4th level spell slot and create two 1st level spell slots from it, so now they have six 1st level spell slots, breaking the stable configuration of their electrons. It is like creating a 1s 2s 2p 2s 2p 3s 3p which does not exist under this analogy.

[Gardakan]

Time doesn't exist. It's not a thing. It's just a way to explain temporal relations quickly. The notion of time itself is an abstraction.

In such a paradigm, the way the book refers to time and action are valid.

Time does exist. It's measurable. It's relatable.

I'd be foolish to believe the opposite, since it's what I study and teach at the same time.

The way to explain temporal relations is called... time. We refer to time, and we can even put a measure onto it (like seconds, minutes, hours, days, years).