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

[Todd Roybark]

while the Monk and the Barbarian are twiddling their thumbs waiting for that one singular enemy the full casters can't shut down so they can have their one minute of glory before going back to being irrelevant?

This would seem to be a table specific observation, as the monks and barbarians that I have seen played, have been quite effective, the largest damage dealers in aggregate over time due to more attacks, earlier than most classes. (Frenzy Barbarian)

Monks in particular seem especially potent, Qi point Superman jump can get the monk within striking distance, when the Fighter is still out of combat range.

Qi Jump up to strike a flying creature combined with Stunning Strike, to knock said flying creature to the ground so all PCs can attack it, is quite the opposite of Irrelevant in my book..it is Session MVP worthy.

But hey, some people are just adamant in their opinions, like casters are overpowered and monks suck. I would love to see some evidence, (in a different thread please)

Yeah, you’re just wrong.

If empathy and sympathy for people, unfortunately, post venting and phrasing things in a way others may find insulting, while also understanding and having felt the resultant reaction others and myself have had of being ‘tired’ of reading such venting, is wrong...then I am unapologetically wrong.

I don’t agree with S.O.S. position in this thread. No offense to Son of Serpent, I don’t think S.O.S. has presented convincing arguments, but post one is not the place, in my view, to tell someone to go take a hike.

If atanakar and Oofta were hurt by my posts, they have my apologies. I don’t think they were, but my thoughts on that is irrelevant, if harm was felt, my contrition is sincere.

As for Sage Advice, I’ve disagreed with things Gary Gygax, Skip Williams, and Jeremy Crawford have written. The immediacy of Twitter, in my opinion, tends to result in Sage responses that seem rushed, and perhaps, not given due consideration.

If Jeremy Crawford was playing with me as a DM, I would expect he would at least tolerate my rules interpretations at the table, as I would his if situations were reversed...that is how Gamers Roll is it not?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

This would seem to be a table specific observation, as the monks and barbarians that I have seen played, have been quite effective, the largest damage dealers in aggregate over time due to more attacks, earlier than most classes. (Frenzy Barbarian)

It was a hypothetical in response to S.O.S.'s approval of loosening the bonus action spell rules. Context chain:

Example: the way they are organized/written. Poor design. Very poor design. Its seriously starting to anger me. I need a fix. Something to make it better. It seems like there are equal parts too much restriction, poor organization, poor word choice, failure of basic logic, too much paranoia that casters will combo something (heres a brilliant idea: LET THEM), abd self contradiction of basic function (oh time stop how they have mamed you).

Help?

How about some examples to demonstrate your issues?

I disagree with your entire post - there's nothing seriously wrong with how actions work in 5e.

That doesn't means it's perfect; bonus actions sometimes cause me to scratch my head - they're not elegant but they do the job.
By the way, D&D spellcasters being able to combo spells sounds like a recipe to FUBAR the game royally. What an incredibly bad idea. Plus, it won't be so great when enemy spellcasters do that to you:

'And the enemy mage combos a 10d6 fireball and Power Word Kill. He's a sorcerer so let's spend some sorcery points to heighten the damage.'

Ah. Well you see...

All i see here is a positive?

I like the chances of death to be high?

Letting the classes with the most inherently broad attack options be creative is a good thing?

Hard is good? (I say that as a current player and not dm in 5e)

And then my post about the Barbarian and Monk twiddling their thumbs.

 

[Don Durito]

As for Sage Advice, I’ve disagreed with things Gary Gygax, Skip Williams, and Jeremy Crawford have written. The immediacy of Twitter, in my opinion, tends to result in Sage responses that seem rushed, and perhaps, not given due consideration.

If Jeremy Crawford was playing with me as a DM, I would expect he would at least tolerate my rules interpretations at the table, as I would his if situations were reversed...that is how Gamers Roll is it not?

I've seen it said that Sage Advice was orginally started back in the day, under much sufference. Gygax et al. apparently didn't really understand why people kept writing in letters rather than just applying common sense.

 

[Don Durito]

I loved 4e, but I just can't get into 13th age. Not sure what it is.

They're really not similar at all. That's a bit of a myth based on the similarity of some of the power structure and other rules.

In practice they play quite differently. Some of my players who really hated 4E are loving the improvisational nature of 13th Age.

 

[Charlaquin]

In practice they play quite simliarly. Some of my players who really hated 4E are loving the improvisational nature of 13th Age.

I found this statement very confusing at first, and then I remembered that “quite” has opposite meanings in British English and American English.

 

[Don Durito]

You can't really loosen the bonus actions except on a case by case basis. You'd need to go through each one and think is there a good reason for this restriction, and if so how can it be reworded so that it keeps that necessary element of restriction.

Take two-weapon fighting, it definitely should not be a bonus action, but there's still issues with it. It's too powerful at low levels and doesn't scale well at higher levels*, and if you allowed a second offhand attack at high levels you start getting into annoyingly game slowing numbers of additional attacks at high levels.

 

[Don Durito]

I found this statement very confusing at first, and then I remembered that “quite” has opposite meanings in British English and American English.

They do? No I just wrote" similarly" instead of "differently" for some reason. Fixed now.

 

[Charlaquin]

They do? No I just wrote" similarly" instead of "differently" for some reason. Fixed now.

Kinda. My understanding is that while us Yanks use “quite” to mean a significant amount, Brits use it to mean a small amount. I could be misinformed about that though.

 

[tetrasodium]

EDIT: revised the action cost of some items
[/QUOTE]

You can't really loosen the bonus actions except on a case by case basis. You'd need to go through each one and think is they're a good reason for this restriction, and if so how can it be reworded so that it keeps that necessary element of restriction.

Take two-weapon fighting, it definitely should not be a bonus action, but there's still issues with it. It's too powerful at low levels and doesn't scale well at higher levels*, and if you allowed a second offhand attack at high levels you start getting into annoyingly game slowing numbers of additional attacks at high levels.

Yea, this is a case of "5e is easy to tweak (unless you try)"

 

[Iry]

I'm very happy with 5E overall. My only notable concerns are:

• D20 is too random for me. The average non-adventurer might have +4 to a roll, which represents a mere 17% of their total. A level 20 non-expertise adventurer might have +11 to a roll, which represents 36% of their total.
• A few things that cost a bonus action should probably not cost a bonus action. I'm looking at you Two Weapon Fighting. A few things that require concentration should probably not require concentration.
• Monsters need more abilities and tactics.