Zio_the_dark
The dark one :)
Then perhaps you should just play another system and see how it goes for you??i started playing 5e a few months ago. It angered me day one. The irritation has been building.
Last edited:
Then perhaps you should just play another system and see how it goes for you??i started playing 5e a few months ago. It angered me day one. The irritation has been building.
This was the standout issue that came to my mind about the action economy. I understand it's a balance issue, but it's so weird and jarring when you learn about it because it breaks with the system in such an unexpected way. Other than that, I think players sometimes wish they had the option of action "downgrading" that 4th edition had, where you could trade a greater action for a lesser. I know my players would sometimes like to take an extra bonus action in exchange for not moving, but I'm not sad that rule is gone. What is it that people want out of the action economy that they don't have? 3rd edition style full round actions? that just sucks motion and movement out of combat for little real gain. I guess I don't see the real issue.There are logical inconsistancies in the classifications of actions and scenarios in which one is faster than another.
Further, its implied that there are actions that require different amounts of time but reside within the same action length class. Example: non cantrip spells of 1 action time length and cantrip spells of 1 action time length. They actually take different amounts of time, which is what makes it possible to cast one (cantrips) twice on your turn and the other (non cantrip spell) only once plus a cantrip. Is there a classification for an action that is short enough it could occur in tge difference of time between the two clearly different time length standards of 1 standard action? There should be a classified brief time length for that but there doesnt directoy seem to be. If not, sloppy. If there is one though, also sloppy. Why? Because if there is then there should have been a differentiation between what is functionally two different action types that got lumped into "standard action". But there isnt.
From an objective point of view there are functionally two different action types (or lengths) that are lazily never differentiated and are lumped under the same umbrella.
There is an example. There are others. But just look at that one first. Its sloppy.
I'm not too much in 5th edition myself but as many people i like and dislike parts of it. As a gm (i play only with long time friends so no problem here) I often use house rules to offset what I dislike and always ask my players if they feel the new rule is worth the hassle or not...No game is going to work for everyone. The system obviously works for a lot of people.
Im trying to adjust to 5e in case 6e doesnt improve on its horrible game design. Look im not trying to start an edition war but its very hard to be positive about this thing. I feel like a lot of people handle it with kid gloves. The gloves need to come off to try to improve things. And i think the actions are design far more poorly than a lot of people are comfortable admitting.Then perhaps you should just play another sustem and see how it goes for you??
Do you have any actions-related houserules? I'd be interested in hearing them.I'm not too much in 5th edition myself but as many people i like and dislike parts of it. As a gm (i play only with long time friends so no problem here) I often use house rules to offset what I dislike and always ask my players if they feel the new rule is worth the hassle or not...
Yet, another discontent thread about how a portion of the rules in 5e work. This is getting old.
uhhhh no? It takes like 10 minutes to don a heavy armor.You can use a bonus action to put on full plate heavy armor