D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[Garthanos]

Well, of course not. Since most of the mechanics were cribbed from 4e, admitting that 5e's mechanics are the reason for 5e's popularity would require folks to admit that 4e had some good ideas and that's just not going to happen.

Not according to 4e fans when 5e came out. When it did come out, these forums were full of 4e fans who said they were “forsaken” by WoTC. And betrayed. And lied to because Mearls said 5e would have elements of every edition and 5e didn’t take anything from 4e.

So it would be odd that 4e fans took that position then, and would take your position now since they are opposite positions.

Can we say kind of sort of.... I mean file the numbers small creates some distinction then add on top of that I would say some fundamental design paradigm differences so that even with many or most of the mechanics being the same the result does not necessarily feel like it supports the 4e players sensibilities. Bad Ass hero who eventually advances into a demigod able to do impossible things with skill alone is not happening in 5e. Classes equally able to contribute no matter how intense or not you make the given day is not happening.

We could probably step through this and find a lot of things just not there

https://4thmaster.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-4e-fans-love-4e/

 

[Garthanos]

No, Jeremy. No, it’s not.

Or no Karen. No, it's not.

Not without a megaton of hackmaster fidgeting

 

[Charlaquin]

Don't you mean 3.5s swift action being rebranded as "bonus actions"?

N... no... 3.5’s action economy was a great deal more complex than 4e’s and 5e’s. Enough so that swift actions don’t cleanly map to minor actions the way bonus actions do.

 

[cbwjm]

N... no... 3.5’s action economy was a great deal more complex than 4e’s and 5e’s. Enough so that swift actions don’t cleanly map to minor actions the way bonus actions do.

But bonus actions don't map to 4e's minor actions very well either. 4e you could do multiple minor actions by giving up move or standard actions, can't do that with bonus actions. I honestly can't remember if you could do extra swift actions by giving up other actions.

To me it seems that the 5e bonus action has its roots in the addition of the swift action in 3e becoming the minor action if 4e and now the bonus action of 5e.

 

[Charlaquin]

But bonus actions don't map to 4e's minor actions very well either.

I disagree. 5e’s action economy is basically the same as 4e’s, with some technical differences in how movement is handled.

4e you could do multiple minor actions by giving up move or standard actions, can't do that with bonus actions.

True, and that is one of the improvements that 5e made to 4e’s action economy, in my opinion (the other being the aforementioned technical differences in movement.)

I honestly can't remember if you could do extra swift actions by giving up other actions.

Me either. I don’t think you could (apart from gaining a standard, swift, and move action by not taking a full-round action, I guess), but it has been a long time since I played 3.X

To me it seems that the 5e bonus action has its roots in the addition of the swift action in 3e becoming the minor action if 4e and now the bonus action of 5e.

Sure, I agree with you there.

 

[Garthanos]

I disagree. 5e’s action economy is basically the same as 4e’s, with some technical differences in how movement is handled.

True, and that is one of the improvements that 5e made to 4e’s action economy, in my opinion (the other being the aforementioned technical differences in movement.)

Love the movement changes...

Exactly what is the problem of doing multiple minor actions?

 

[Hussar]

Love the movement changes...

Exactly what is the problem of doing multiple minor actions?

It's really fiddly.

 

[Garthanos]

Well played sir!

Sadistically played /cringing

 

[Charlaquin]

Love the movement changes...

Exactly what is the problem of doing multiple minor actions?

Trading actions of one sort down for actions of another sort makes the decision tree for your turn far more complex, without really adding a lot of depth in my opinion. I prefer 5e’s approach - instead of trading your standard action for a move action, you can use your action to dash. Functionally the same result, but keeps it to one decision - “how will I use my action this turn?” instead of several - “Do I use my standard action this turn? If so, how do I use it? If not, do I trade it down for a move or a minor? If a minor, how do I use that?”

I think PF2 has my favorite take on action economy though. No differentiation between action types at all, you just get three actions. Very low complexity, but with the potential for a lot of depth thanks to special activities costing multiple actions to perform. Go figure the system known for reveling in its own complexity would come up with the simplest turn structure in a d20 game yet.

 

[Gradine]

Sometimes when I come to a long thread that I'm not totally invested in, I'll skip a couple of pages at a time. I can't imagine what that experience would be like in this thread.

For anyone coming to this late, I made this handy flow-chart for how the conversations in this thread have developed: