D&D 5E Action Types - Rules As Written

[Hriston]

I interpret it to mean your turn is when you get to decide whether, what, and how to communicate with others and the communication can't be more than can fit into a roughly six-second round.

 

[Imaro]

I assumed he was referring to the mechanics of the action economy, but I can see where I might have misinterpreted that.

Well he did go on to debate probability of actions but yes his initial reply could have been around just action economy, though I don't think it was clear cut.

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.

Well... again for me it's not the comparison it's everything else around it. I was very careful not to comment about 4e but instead talk about what I felt the misconceptions around 5e being presented were.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Just like the people who heard enough of inaccurate critiques of 4e (“the classes all play the same”.

How does how someone feel be an inaccurate critique? What, do your feelings and preferences overrule someone else's? It's a subjective statement. Like me saying I don't like avocados because I don't like the texture, and you saying that that's an inaccurate critique of avocados because you personally aren't bothered by it. You don't get to tell other people what feelings they have are legitimate or not.

 

[Charlaquin]

How does how someone feel be an inaccurate critique? What, do your feelings and preferences overrule someone else's? It's a subjective statement. Like me saying I don't like avocados because I don't like the texture, and you saying that that's an inaccurate critique of avocados because you personally aren't bothered by it. You don't get to tell other people what feelings they have are legitimate or not.

“The classes all play the same” is not a statement of preference. If you don’t like the uniformity of the AEDU power structure in pre-Essentials 4e, that’s fine, but it’s not accurate to say all classes played the same. That’s not saying “I don’t like the texture of avocados”, that’s saying “I don’t like avocados because their texture is so rough.” Not liking the texture is fine, but it is inaccurate to claim that they have a rough texture. Each class in 4e did play differently; they had different lists of powers to choose from just like 5e spellcasters have different spell lists, and what those powers did had a huge effect on how the class functioned and what role it played both in and out of combat. Of course, many people still didn’t like the way the 4e classes played, and that’s fine, it’s claiming that they all played the same that is inaccurate. And it’s incredibly frustrating when the reason someone cites for disliking something you like isn’t true of that thing. I don’t mind that you don’t like avocados because of their texture, but if you say you don’t like their texture because it’s too rough, I’m going to be confused since they’re definitely smooth.

 

[5ekyu]

“The classes all play the same” is not a statement of preference. If you don’t like the uniformity of the AEDU power structure in pre-Essentials 4e, that’s fine, but it’s not accurate to say all classes played the same. That’s not saying “I don’t like the texture of avocados”, that’s saying “I don’t like avocados because their texture is so rough.” Not liking the texture is fine, but it is inaccurate to claim that they have a rough texture. Each class in 4e did play differently; they had different lists of powers to choose from just like 5e spellcasters have different spell lists, and what those powers did had a huge effect on how the class functioned and what role it played both in and out of combat. Of course, many people still didn’t like the way the 4e classes played, and that’s fine, it’s claiming that they all played the same that is inaccurate. And it’s incredibly frustrating when the reason someone cites for disliking something you like isn’t true of that thing. I don’t mind that you don’t like avocados because of their texture, but if you say you don’t like their texture because it’s too rough, I’m going to be confused since they’re definitely smooth.

Flaw in your argument is "played the same" in common speech is not a quantifiable thing as much as it is an impression or an aesthetic judgement, ie an opinion.

Two different NFL games can end 15 to 12 in overtime and seem "the same" to one (no big gains, little offense, no touchdowns, boring) but totally different to another (fantastic defense vs good offense for one game while sloppy play, penalties and tons of inept unforced errors.)

To you the "differences" were significant enough, for others maybe not.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

“The classes all play the same” is not a statement of preference..

It absolutely is because it's an opinion. How a class feels to play is completely subjective. Take me for example, I've long stuck with AD&D because I like niche protection. That's my preference. So those few times when I played 4e, the classes did feel like they played the same. Every class had an at will ability. Every one had an encounter ability (which never sat right with me anyway on how that recharged). Every one had a daily, and they all had utility. That made them feel the same because you used and managed resources the exact same way. And when you scrape off the fluff, a lot of the abilities between classes had the same effect. In AD&D (and in 5e), we played a fighter much differently than a thief, or a wizard. When we played 4e, the thief was doing the exact same things in combat as the fighter (do 2W damage+ability modifier, and move the target, or stun it, or whatever). It didn't feel to me like fighters would shine in combat above everyone else, and thieves would shine in exploration more than anyone else, etc.

So to me, that made all classes play the same way. You don't have the right to tell me I'm objectively wrong just because they felt like they played differently to you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Flaw in your argument is "played the same" in common speech is not a quantifiable thing as much as it is an impression or an aesthetic judgement, ie an opinion.

Rough and smooth are impressions as well, but we still recognize that avocados (the part you eat, anyway) are one and not the other.

Two different NFL games can end 15 to 12 in overtime and seem "the same" to one (no big gains, little offense, no touchdowns, boring) but totally different to another (fantastic defense vs good offense for one game while sloppy play, penalties and tons of inept unforced errors.)

Sure, but if someone points out what the differences were between those two games, you don’t get in a shouting match about it.

To you the "differences" were significant enough, for others maybe not.

Why do you put “differences” in quotes like that? Why do you always have to undermine your opponents’ position with passive aggressive condescension like this? Just say differences. There were differences, whether they were “enough” for you or not.

And as a matter of fact,I would argue that the actual differences in how one class’s actions played out were more significant than they are in 5e. In 4e, a defender and a striker play very differently because the defender’s powers are focused on locking down targets and keeping them from attacking anyone but him, whereas the striker’s powers are focused on dealing damage and moving quickly and freely throughout the battlefield. In 5e, there are no defined combat roles, and very few class features significantly change how one class approaches combat over another, beyond very broad strokes.

And all of that is fine, but if someone’s problem with 4e is that the pre-Essentials power structure was too uniform from one class to another, they should say that. If they claim their problem is that all of the classes played the same, I’m just left wondering how much they actually played, because the differences came in what the powers did more than which types you get at what levels, much like 5e spellcasters are differentiated by what their spells do, nor how many slots they have at what levels (with the exception of the Warlock).

 

[Charlaquin]

It absolutely is because it's an opinion. How a class feels to play is completely subjective. Take me for example, I've long stuck with AD&D because I like niche protection. That's my preference. So those few times when I played 4e, the classes did feel like they played the same. Every class had an at will ability. Every one had an encounter ability (which never sat right with me anyway on how that recharged). Every one had a daily, and they all had utility. That made them feel the same because you used and managed resources the exact same way. And when you scrape off the fluff, a lot of the abilities between classes had the same effect. In AD&D (and in 5e), we played a fighter much differently than a thief, or a wizard. When we played 4e, the thief was doing the exact same things in combat as the fighter (do 2W damage+ability modifier, and move the target, or stun it, or whatever). It didn't feel to me like fighters would shine in combat above everyone else, and thieves would shine in exploration more than anyone else, etc.

So to me, that made all classes play the same way. You don't have the right to tell me I'm objectively wrong just because they felt like they played differently to you.

If your complaint is, all of the classes had the same resource management system, that’s a legitimate argument. If your complaint is, lots of powers had similar effects, that’s a legitimate complaint. If your complaint is, all of the classes played the same? I’m sorry but that’s not true. Maybe they didn’t play differently enough from each other in the ways that you wanted them to, and that’s fine. But “the classes played the same” is not a statement of opinion. “They felt same-y to me because of the uniform power structure” is a statement of opinion. “They all felt the same to me for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on” is a statement of opinion. “The differences between them didn’t feel significant enough for my taste” is a statement of opinion. “They all played the same” is a statement of fact, and an inaccurate one.

 

[cmad1977]

All 4e classes sure felt the same to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sacrosanct]

If your complaint is, all of the classes had the same resource management system, that’s a legitimate argument. If your complaint is, lots of powers had similar effects, that’s a legitimate complaint.

And these are all things that lead to how it feels to play the game.

If your complaint is, all of the classes played the same? I’m sorry but that’s not true. Maybe they didn’t play differently enough from each other in the ways that you wanted them to, and that’s fine. But “the classes played the same” is not a statement of opinion. “They felt same-y to me because of the uniform power structure” is a statement of opinion. “They all felt the same to me for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on” is a statement of opinion. “The differences between them didn’t feel significant enough for my taste” is a statement of opinion. “They all played the same” is a statement of fact, and an inaccurate one.

Sorry to tell you, but you don't get to decide what an opinion is or not. How something is played is based on a person's subjective attitudes and desires. Just like how you may drive a car is different from how I may drive a car. You can't very well tell me that how people drive a 1968 Camaro is the same. And your opinion is not objective truth.