D&D 5E Does anyone else feel like the action economy and the way actions work in general in 5e both just suck?

[Son of the Serpent]

You looking for too much granular simulation.

possibly. But even without that, there's no reason the game cant be more logical.

I also think that lowering the intellectual bar for entry was a mistake. Sacrifices too much.

And that was actually a goal of 5e. Just not stated directly. Because its mean.

Some granularity is generally lost in lower intelligence demanding games though. Pretty basic fact across ttrpgs.

 

[FrogReaver]

You do realize feat is short for feature right?

And no.

Your paraphrase does not conserve the meaning of my statement. So ill reiterate (since you arent getting it or something)

Certain very simple class features just amount to feats. They are merely feats that are built in and cant be selected by others. Its only s seperate game term for glossary purposes. Totally a feat.

You need to reread this or something. I cant respond to your large paragraph because some of it is nonsensical and inapplicable to my actual statement.

As to the latter part of your comment.

No. Its an example not of a broken aspect of the game, but of the broken thinking that went into making related broken aspects of the game. Ie: he doesnt even understand his own action economy.

Ill find the quote in time.

You might want to look into a communication class. You jump around everywhere and make points that detract from rather than support your main thesis. This post for example reads like a jumbled mess.

 

[the Jester]

You do realize feat is short for feature right?

No it isn't. Or at least, if it is, I have never seen that stated by a designer or even asserted by anyone until now.

Feats originated during the 3e design process and, as detailed in the issues of Dragon leading up to 3e's release, were originally called "heroic feats". That's not short for feature.

Anyhow, my point is that you're arbitrarily re-defining feats to include things that aren't feats. I'm not sure what standard you're using- it appears to be a sort of smell test- but basically, when you say that fast hands (for example) is a feat, you're making stuff up. It's not a feat; no class ability is a feat. By definition, a class ability is a class ability.

 

[MarkB]

Im saying that it SHOULDN'T work but that by fiat it does AND that that is a problem. I am also saying that the logical impairments necessary to make such statements probably explain some of the less than optimal rules.

Probably best not to say such a thing when you very obviously have no clear memory of what was actually stated.

You do realize feat is short for feature right?

It is not. "Feat" is a common English word meaning "action" or "deed". "Feature" is a different word, with a different meaning.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I would say that sometimes people just need to accept reality. No matter how many times I've tried sushi* I don't like it. Despite people telling me I just haven't tried "the good stuff". Although if I were in Japan I might give sushi (with cooked or no fish) a shot because then I'd get real wasabi instead of green colored horseradish.

In any case I don't go onto foodie message boards and post about how raw fish would be so much better if they just cooked it.

*I've only ever had it with raw fish, I know that "real" sushi doesn't have to include raw fish. Oh, and don't conflate shashimi with sushi just because shashimi is raw fish, they are not the same.

I prefer nagiri. Usually too much composition in a roll for my optimal preferences. Though i like them as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

possibly. But even without that, there's no reason the game cant be more logical.

I also think that lowering the intellectual bar for entry was a mistake. Sacrifices too much.

And that was actually a goal of 5e. Just not stated directly. Because its mean.

Some granularity is generally lost in lower intelligence demanding games though. Pretty basic fact across ttrpgs.

There's a few minor places sure. Overall the game reads very logically. Concentration makes sense. The action economy makes sense. I'm not exactly sure where you are seeing illogicalness.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Probably best not to say such a thing when you very obviously have no clear memory of what was actually stated.


It is not. "Feat" is a common English word meaning "action" or "deed". "Feature" is a different word, with a different meaning.

Lol. Just when i thought i had grasped english well enough...(not my first language)

Thanks for the correction.

Even with that being said it changes little. Many of the more simple features are about as small as a feat.

 

[Azzy]

You do realize feat is short for feature right?

This is utterly incorrect. The two words don't even have a shared etymology.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is utterly incorrect. The two words don't even have a shared etymology.

This is the internet … you know shorthand. WOW

 

[Azzy]

This is the internet … you know shorthand. WOW

Irrelevent given the context.