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

[Ashrym]

When I say it is a design flaw, that is my perception and to me it IS a flaw.

Proficiency =/= training. It is additional training. You could have a INT 20 and get +5 to Intelligence (Arcana) checks, because some training is assumed in the ability scores in most cases. You would know more about Arcana than someone with a INT 10 and as high as 12th level!

Proficiency is training. Ability scores are natural ability. Refer to pg 239 of the DMG for reference.

Proficiency applies from training and practice.

Sure, size and mass contribute to high STR and CON sometimes, but not always. You can have a 40-lbs halfling with a STR 20 and CON 20. He is small and not heavy at all. Having high ability scores in 5E is just as much, if not more, about your ability to apply those things as it is to the physics of it.

I am not saying any of these are horrible systems, but some of the things we've discussed in the thread are flaws (IMO, of course ).

Halfling base STR and CON are not 20's. It would be a 19th level halfling body builder to approach that.

 

[Undrave]

There are a few monsters that are explicitly good at grappling (usually because TENTACLES) and have special abilities built in. Ogres just don't happen to be one of them.

On the other hand it does have me thinking about a Hill Giant combat coming up. Have one of the Hill Giants show up with a really massive belt and all he does is grab people and then throw them like boulders. Maybe give him a hat instead and have him pitch to another giant with a big club? Hmm, lot's of possibilities.

Just give him a big wicker basket on his back where he throws people he's 'plucked'!

 

[Oofta]

Just give him a big wicker basket on his back where he throws people he's 'plucked'!

I was also thinking along the lines of grabbing the party's gnome and pulling off appendages while saying "Lowkey13 loves me, they love me not".

 

[Undrave]

I was also thinking along the lines of grabbing the party's gnome and pulling off appendages while saying "Lowkey13 loves me, they love me not".

Flashbacks to the 2007 Transformersm movie JAZZ! NOOOOOOO!

 

[CleverNickName]

Nah, the action economy in 5E is probably my favorite part of it.

EDIT: Oh wow, there's 15 pages of posts in this thread.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There are a few monsters that are explicitly good at grappling (usually because TENTACLES) and have special abilities built in. Ogres just don't happen to be one of them.

On the other hand it does have me thinking about a Hill Giant combat coming up. Have one of the Hill Giants show up with a really massive belt and all he does is grab people and then throw them like boulders. Maybe give him a hat instead and have him pitch to another giant with a big club? Hmm, lot's of possibilities.

LOL I highly recommend it. In our AtG game, the DM had a Cloud giant pick up a PC and throw her sixty feet (luckily, I had feather fall prepared). But, since a Cloud giant can lift over 3,000 lbs, it would be like someone picking up a 15-20 lb weight and tossing it 10 ft. or so.

 

[Bolares]

This conversation is fun but... kinda of topic? Shouldn't we move it to a new post?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Proficiency is training. Ability scores are natural ability. Refer to pg 239 of the DMG for reference.

Proficiency applies from training and practice.

No, proficiency is additional training, as I said. Here is the passage from the PHB, p. 171. It clearly states ability scores encompass a "creature's training and competence" in activities related to that ability.

"Ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities," means it is NOT "natural ability" as you seem to think. That is what ability scores more represented in earlier editions, but not in 5E. I'll admit the change in philosophy annoyed me at first, but I've accepted it as the intent in 5E.

So, not everyone needs to be proficient in Athletics to grapple or jump effectively, as they can do it with a relatively high STR score. But, will someone who is proficient be better than someone who isn't given the same ability score? Certainly.

I think part of the problem is also the terminology. In prior editions, there were skills you could not attempt without training in them, 5E did away with that. One way I like to explain this is that it is backwards from prior thinking. The training and competence increases ability, not the other way around. Someone becomes stronger because they are physical active and capable.

Halfling base STR and CON are not 20's. It would be a 19th level halfling body builder to approach that.

A lot of assumptions in that statement.

First, your level required is way off. It could be a 4th-level character, to have a 20, or a 6th-level fighter to have both 20's. Remember, default for 5E is rolling 4d6k3 for ability scores. The standard array and point-buy systems are options. So, rolling two 18's (not likely, but certainly possible) and then apply your 4th and 6th level ASIs. Done, and done.

Second is the idea that this STR 20 halfling must be a body builder. What is Strength in 5E?

(Oh, look... "training" again... )

Having a STR 20 could be muscular, of course, but much of STR is the ability to apply leverage and power. Take power-lifting for example. While muscle is important, technique is huge, and STR measures that as well as muscle.

Regardless of how you look at it, the small creature (neither with great size nor mass) can have those high STR and CON scores you seem to think are only linked to size and mass.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This conversation is fun but... kinda of topic? Shouldn't we move it to a new post?

LOL probably! But exactly which topic? We have a few tangents going now...

But for my part I've argued all this stuff before and I've stated why things are as they are. As with nearly all of 5E, so much is up to interpretation and IME very few people (myself included) change sides in such debates.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

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.

I know ive seen it. Ill find it eventually. To me the fact ill eventually find it is what matters. It is frustrating not finding it quickly though. And really though. Google is not thay consistant.

That said im not going to stop looking for it. Yes. Its ok to be wrong. But i remember seeing it so its out there. Personally thats what im focused on.