5E Action Types - Rules As Written - Page 3
+ Log in or register to post
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 87
  1. #21
    Member
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)



    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, Earth
    Posts
    16
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ø Block DemoMonkey


    ø Friend+
    "I wonder if the ice cream forums still have flame wars about chocolate vs vanilla?"

    There were a lot of things people hated about vanilla, many of them poorly founded
    Laugh jaelis, KahlessNestor, 24Fanatic365 laughed with this post

  2. #22
    Member
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)



    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    692
    Reviews
    Read 2 Reviews

    ø Block redrick


    ø Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by DemoMonkey View Post
    "I wonder if the ice cream forums still have flame wars about chocolate vs vanilla?"

    There were a lot of things people hated about vanilla, many of them poorly founded
    I don't care if it went well with pie, cake, brownies and cookies. It just didn't taste like ice cream to me.

    Also, the dude they got to draw the art on the cartons was out of control. Have you ever seen an ice cream scoop that large?

  3. #23
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,136
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ø Block Imaro


    ø Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by jaelis View Post
    4e vs 5e arguments are funny. I wonder if the ice cream forums still have flame wars about chocolate vs vanilla?
    I find it funny and a little irritating that 4e is still being whined about in the 5e forums. If you really believe that 5e is just a thinly veiled 4e and you enjoyed 4e well then you won, congrats! But everyone who likes 5e isn't necessarily going to agree with you.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    I find it funny and a little irritating that 4e is still being whined about in the 5e forums. If you really believe that 5e is just a thinly veiled 4e and you enjoyed 4e well then you won, congrats! But everyone who likes 5e isn't necessarily going to agree with you.
    I don’t think that’s what happened. There are a lot of differences between 4e and 5e. The Action economy (the thing this thread was supposed to be about) is very similar in function, but written more obtusely in response to feedback during the open playtest that said a lot of players don’t like minor actions. But apparently you can’t point that out without a bunch of 4e’s detractors bringing up a lot of unrelated ways 4e is different than 5e.

    I wouldn’t have brought up the functional similarities in action economies if I had known it would have started another one of these stupid arguments. That’ll teach me for thinking people would have let go of their beef with 4e by now.
    Last edited by Charlaquin; Thursday, 7th December, 2017 at 04:34 PM.
    XP KahlessNestor, Hussar gave XP for this post

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by DEFCON 1 View Post
    If a person insists on using Rules As Written... then determines that characters are only allowed to speak on their own turns... and then the person finds it ridiculous that they CAN'T speak on other character's turns and that it's a stupid rule...

    ...perhaps that person shouldn't think playing Rules As Written is anything worth doing in the first place.

    You aren't awarded any points from any scorekeeper-on-high for playing Rules As Written rather than your own interpretation of Rules As Intended or Rules As Fun. So if playing RAW results in situations you don't like... then just don't worry about playing RAW. You'll be happier and nobody else cares one way or the other how you do it anyway.
    i tend to agree...

    My "Stupid Rule" says that if i as a Gm would feel stupid telling someone "it works this way" then i do not use that rule.

    My rule is a slight alteration of the RAW... communication on other people's turns are treated like every other off-turn "action", it uses a reaction.

    The folks i explained that to had no problem seeing it as a good sensible adjudication that lands between -
    "interactions only on your turn" and "talk whenever you want during others turns."

    It also is easily demonstrated as fitting in with the general gameplay flow of action mechanics and trade-offs... is telling so-and-so to do something specific AFTER your turn what your character is paying attention to or is it keeping the goblin from moving around you with an AO?

    Sometimes i describe the "one reaction between turns" as "one distraction between turns" and that gets usually a good response.

    But that works for my players and while we use plenty of RAW we are not seeing them as anything more than a convenient starting point or shared foundation.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    I find it funny and a little irritating that 4e is still being whined about in the 5e forums. If you really believe that 5e is just a thinly veiled 4e and you enjoyed 4e well then you won, congrats! But everyone who likes 5e isn't necessarily going to agree with you.
    I enjoy the talking out of both sides of the mouth. In one thread, you'll have someone complain about how 5e never gave them any 4eisms they were promised, and then in a thread like this, say that 5e is pretty much 4e with different verbiage. Can't have it both ways.

    Personally, I think there are plenty of differences between 5e and 4e. I really like 5e and didn't like 4e at all, and for plenty of "founded" reasons. Note that this isn't limited to 5e v 4e, but any edition versus any other edition. 2e v 3e, 2e v 4e, etc etc. People have reasons for liking one edition over the other, and any reason why someone likes or dislikes an edition is not unfounded. Fun is a subjective thing.


    In reference to the OP, 5e is very much "if there is ambiguity, do what your table feels makes the most sense." IMO, that's a feature, not a bug.

  7. #27
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,136
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ø Block Imaro


    ø Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlaquin View Post
    I don’t think that’s what happened. There are a lot of differences between 4e and 5e. The Action economy (the thing this thread was supposed to be about) is very similar in function, but written more obtusely in response to feedback during the open playtest that said a lot of players don’t like minor actions. But apparently you can’t point that out without a bunch of 4e’s detractors bringing up a lot of unrelated ways 4e is different than 5e.

    I wouldn’t have brought up the functional similarities in action economies if I had known it would have started another one of these stupid arguments. That’ll teach me for thinking people would have let go of their beef with 4e by now.
    Actually it wasn't your post that started it... it was the pretty general statement about mechanics that @Hussar posted that seemed to kick everything off. And honestly I think it had more to do with the comment at the end as opposed to the actual comparison. I think enough people heard that they were just misguided in their dislike of 4e enough during it's actual run that it tends to hit a sore spot when it's basically stated again in a different manner. But whatever, I'm here to discuss 5e not rehash 4e

    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
    Pretty much this. Despite the fact that the 5e mechanics are actually pretty close to 4e (and, frankly, 4e really wasn't as far from 3e as people like to pretend), they had to bury this so deeply to avoid the endless kvetching and bitching. It's actually really, really amusing to me to watch people try to say how much they hated 4e while loving 5e at the same time. Completely blows my mind how important "voice" is when writing the books.
    XP The Old Crow gave XP for this post

  8. #28
    Member
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)



    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    692
    Reviews
    Read 2 Reviews

    ø Block redrick


    ø Friend+
    I remember thinking a lot about action economy a lot when I first picked up 5e. Maybe that was because I had played 4e before that and I had trained myself to think in that action economy. Maybe not. Did 3e not have rules about non-combat actions in combat? I skipped that one.

    These days, it just never comes up. We don't sweat it. If a player were to ask to do something absurd in one round, we'd say, "All that is going to use your Action this turn." And they would say, "Oh, yeah, you're probably right." If it's on the edge, maybe we'll allow it with some sort of Dex check. We've gotten away from thinking about it as an economy or a budget, and more into a loose consensus of what is possible. Bonus actions are different because they are all explicitly identified by the feature that provides them. We don't have to worry about classifying something into a Minor Action, a Major Action or a Free Action. It's either complex enough to take your action, or simple enough to just slip in.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    Actually it wasn't your post that started it... it was the pretty general statement about mechanics that @Hussar posted that seemed to kick everything off. And honestly I think it had more to do with the comment at the end as opposed to the actual comparison.
    I assumed he was referring to the mechanics of the action economy, but I can see where I might have misinterpreted that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    I think enough people heard that they were just misguided in their dislike of 4e enough during it's actual run that it tends to hit a sore spot when it's basically stated again in a different manner.
    Just like the people who heard enough of inaccurate critiques of 4e (“the classes all play the same” being right up there with “you couldn’t do anything in combat that you didn’t have a power for” and “they removed rule 0”), and those critiques are still sore spots for us. Like I said, shows me for assuming 5 years later we’d be able to bring up the edition without starting a flame war.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by redrick View Post
    Bonus actions are different because they are all explicitly identified by the feature that provides them. We don't have to worry about classifying something into a Minor Action, a Major Action or a Free Action. It's either complex enough to take your action, or simple enough to just slip in.
    It’s not like you could use a Minor Action without an ability allowing you to do so. The only practical difference between them is the name.

+ Log in or register to post
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Too many action types in action economy
    By Ferghis in forum Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Tuesday, 15th November, 2011, 01:32 PM
  2. Action Types and Swift Actions
    By Ogrork the Mighty in forum Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, 6th August, 2007, 02:39 PM
  3. Full Round Action for Low Level Fighter Types
    By Romotre in forum Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Wednesday, 3rd July, 2002, 03:59 PM
  4. Streamlining Action Types
    By dcollins in forum Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Tuesday, 4th June, 2002, 10:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •