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

[Maxperson]

The heavy armor bit is with the use of a feature or something similar. Its still nonsense.

It appears that since nobody can actually come up with a link that says this, that it never happened and is just a misunderstanding. Certainly, as written, the ability in question cannot do what you claim Crawford said.

 

[TwoSix]

Throwing dirt in the eyes could just as easily be disadvantage on next attack (which is about all you get out of blinded anyway) and that's not broken. There nothing about D&D that makes it impossible or even inadvisable to throw dirt and swing from chandeliers. Interaction with the environment during combat, and a willingness to step even a little bit outside the 'roll to hit - roll for damage' rut can be a breath of fresh air for a D&D game.

Sure, but then you're right back at the other concept I mentioned, where the stunting is weak to the point where your normal actions are probably better. "Disadvantage on next attack" is below a cantrip level of effectiveness (since Vicious Mockery does this but damage also).

It's not infeasible (I can see edge cases where this might be useful), but it's a far cry from a really robust stunting system.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

If anyone other than you stated it, yes it would be nonsense. But you're the only one who has ever seen or heard this. Maybe you just misunderstood or misremembered?

As has been pointed out fast hands applies to an object interaction that takes a single action not something that takes 10 minutes. There is no issue.

No. I did not misunderstand or misremember. Its taking a while to dig it up because of the at time idiotic manner in which 5e rules (outside of actual d&d books) have been disseminated by wotc. Until a certain month during 2019 btw jeremy crawford's twitter rulings were ACTUALLY official rulings. And twitter is not the best place for doing that.

 

[tetrasodium]

Throwing dirt in the eyes could just as easily be disadvantage on next attack (which is about all you get out of blinded anyway) and that's not broken. There nothing about D&D that makes it impossible or even inadvisable to throw dirt and swing from chandeliers. Interaction with the environment during combat, and a willingness to step even a little bit outside the 'roll to hit - roll for damage' rut can be a breath of fresh air for a D&D game.

Here's some Immediate problems that will come up
"can I use my cunning action?"
"I've got big feet & these wolves are short, can I kick dirt as part of my move to blind them ob my way up?"
"hat's the range of dirt?"
"How much dirt does it take for that?" > "why.." >"Just curious & trying to wrap my brain around the mechanics"

Spoiler: One of the mechanics in question

we are on the high ground of a hill, how much extra range can we throw dirt in their eyes because of that
"Yea you can find some kids shorter than the arrow shield on the wall who are tall enough to reach over">"Ok so we tell the guards on the wall to tell these kids where the climbers are whenever the guards are reloading & have the kids dump sand on them to blind the climbers"
on & on & on

 

[Blue]

I've always thought of it as a PC only being able to channel so much energy in a short period of time in most cases. The only spell they explicitly call out as taking less time is reaction spells such as shield or counterspell.

Of course it's on my "do I want to house rule and allow bonus+normal spell because I think it's a silly restriction" list.

I think in one game I play we sort of backed into "only use one slot between action and bonus action" as a slight loosening. It's never been officially stated, but the casters and the DM seem to do that.

 

[Maxperson]

No. I did not misunderstand or misremember. Its taking a while to dig it up because of the at time idiotic manner in which 5e rules (outside of actual d&d books) have been disseminated by wotc. Until a certain month during 2019 btw jeremy crawford's twitter rulings were ACTUALLY official rulings. And twitter is not the best place for doing that.

Google should bring up some trace of it, though, and it doesn't. A ruling like that would have been widely talked about, yet I don't even see a whisper of it.

 

[Oofta]

No. I did not misunderstand or misremember. Its taking a while to dig it up because of the at time idiotic manner in which 5e rules (outside of actual d&d books) have been disseminated by wotc. Until a certain month during 2019 btw jeremy crawford's twitter rulings were ACTUALLY official rulings. And twitter is not the best place for doing that.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or in this case any evidence at all, which you have not been able to provide.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Google should bring up some trace of it, though, and it doesn't. A ruling like that would have been widely talked about, yet I don't even see a whisper of it.

That is quite a faulty assumption. That is nothing like what google is like. Its very unrealiable.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or in this case any evidence at all, which you have not been able to provide.

The above establishes nothing new.

And my response is "so far"

Still looking.

 

[Oofta]

That is quite a faulty assumption. That is nothing like what google is like. Its very unrealiable.

You do know that it's okay to make a mistake, right? That doubling down on something no one else has ever seen even though they were able to find related tweets doesn't really improve your credibility?

But even if it was a tweet I don't personally pay much attention to them. Crawford has admitted that some replies were done after a late night at the bar.