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

[Don Durito]

I confess, I don't know what you're talking about re: the barbarian... What's the issue, exactly?

Basically at one point the designers say that they disagree about when someone should get to reroll to see if they get back a daily. Rob Heinsoo says you should roll after every battle (so if you use a daily in battle 1 you can also reroll after battle 2 and battle 3 even though you didn't have the ability to use in that battle). Jonathon Tweet thinks you should roll only once after the battle in which you use that ability.

Most of the Daily powers are rewritten in a straightforward way so that they could go either way. However, the Barbarian Rage seems to be written in a way that explicitly supports Jonathon Tweet's position.

It's really irrelevant. 13th age takes a lot of things from 4E, but it expects you to make the game your own (As should be made obvious by the fact that the designers often don't agree). There's a lot of the OSR attitude in it. A lot of the rules are there to explicitly call on the GM to make an off the cuff ruling about a situation.

 

[dave2008]

The Reaction seem massively too restrictive to me atleast if someone has multiple attacks they can attack up to 4 times spread out during their turn but only react and do an opportunity attack once?? I mean huh? They had to make really kludgy rules for the Cavalier to even have somewhat decent defender function because of restrictions like that.

I actually wish reactions were more restrictive. I am thinking of adopting the PF2e option or removing OAs (or AO whichever you prefer). Thoughly really I wish they were baked into the action economy: take the 3-action economy of PF2e, expand it to 6 actions and make reactions part of that. So if you spend all 6 actions on your turn, you have not actions left for a reaction!

 

[Charlaquin]

If I have any issue with bonus actions at all, it's that I believe a couple things that are bonus actions shouldn't be, and a couple other things that could or should be bonus actions aren't.

As a case of the former, dual-wielding's off-hand attack should be folded in as part of the Attack action, IMO.

As a case of the latter, making the second object interaction in a round a bonus action is a good idea I saw earlier in this thread. I'm also warming up to the idea of shoving being a bonus action after seeing BG3 in action.

I think shove as a bonus action along with the optional tumble and overrun bonus actions from the DMG would go a long way to making combat less static. I might also throw the idea of spending movement equal to your speed to shift 5 feet without provoking opportunity attacks in there as well.

 

[Eric V]

Basically at one point the designers say that they disagree about when someone should get to reroll to see if they get back a daily. Rob Heinsoo says you should roll after every battle (so if you use a daily in battle 1 you can also reroll after battle 2 and battle 3 even though you didn't have the ability to use in that battle). Jonathon Tweet thinks you should roll only once after the battle in which you use that ability.

Most of the Daily powers are rewritten in a straightforward way so that they could go either way. However, the Barbarian Rage seems to be written in a way that explicitly supports Jonathon Tweet's position.

It's really irrelevant. 13th age takes a lot of things from 4E, but it expects you to make the game your own (As should be made obvious by the fact that the designers often don't agree). There's a lot of the OSR attitude in it. A lot of the rules are there to explicitly call on the GM to make an off the cuff ruling about a situation.

Got it. I remember them disagreeing about how often one can roll a recharge in general (because the rules asks for a recharge roll after a battle, and Heinsoo originally felt that could mean any battle) but the barbarian one is specifically called out as recharging after the battle in which it was used.

Two different things, AFAICT. You are, of course, right about how it is about making the game one's own.

 

[Don Durito]

I actually wish reactions were more restrictive. I am thinking of adopting the PF2e option or removing OAs (or AO whichever you prefer). Thoughly really I wish they were baked into the action economy: take the 3-action economy of PF2e, expand it to 6 actions and make reactions part of that. So if you spend all 6 actions on your turn, you have not actions left for a reaction!

Getting rid of opportunity attacks could work - but you need to have some way to enfore stickiness.

You could make it an opposed saving throw from the person attempting to disengage. Probably Dex, versus the Attack stat. If they succeed they get to move away. If they fail they don't or the attacker gets to roll damage.

 

[dave2008]

Getting rid of opportunity attacks could work - but you need to have some way to enfore stickiness.

You could make it an opposed saving throw from the person attempting to disengage. Probably Dex, versus the Attack stat. If they succeed they get to move away. If they fail they don't or the attacker gets to roll damage.

To be clear, i was talking about the PF2e approach where it is a fighter only feature (some other classes can get something similar through a feat). So you can still get sticky with a fighter

 

[Don Durito]

I think shove as a bonus action along with the optional tumble and overrun bonus actions from the DMG would go a long way to making combat less static. I might also throw the idea of spending movement equal to your speed to shift 5 feet without provoking opportunity attacks in there as well.

Shove as a bonus is great in theory for moving the battlefield around. But isn't the better option usually just to knock people prone?

Wouldn't you just end up with a lot of people knocking each other over all the time and the battle feeling a bit like keystone cops.

 

[dave2008]

I think that would be a lot better. One of the things that has really killed 5E for me is how long it takes for one round to get by. Not as long as 4E (which was too long), but in many cases, like playing a board, game I was at least invested because what other players would do on their turns could substantially change what I did.

Enforce 30 second turns, biggest change for the better in our game play after playing for 20+ years. We started in 4e and carried it to 5e. You have 30 seconds to do everything on your turn: declare, roll to hit, and roll for damage, all of it. When the entire turn is resolved in 3-4 minutes I find it keeps things moving and everyone interested.

 

[dave2008]

Shove as a bonus is great in theory for moving the battlefield around. But isn't the better option usually just to knock people prone?

Wouldn't you just end up with a lot of people knocking each other over all the time and the battle feeling a bit like keystone cops.

You could make the DCs different. It should be easier to shove than to knock someone prone IMO

 

[Don Durito]

Enforce 30 second turns, biggest change for the better in our game play after playing for 20+ years. We started in 4e and carried it to 5e. You have 30 seconds to do everything on your turn: declare, roll to hit, and roll for damage, all of it. When the entire turn is resolved in 3-4 minutes I find it keeps things moving and everyone interested.

Not normally within the purview of a player to enforce.