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

[Garthanos]

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.

View attachment 119755

"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.

Thing is that is pretty much true in 4e In fact Skill Training mentioned some combination of "natural aptitude" and experience as well as formal training so yeah some of it at least can be innate. There were certainly things which implied attributes were NOT just in born including the more significant attribute increases in that edition and while some could be attributed to demigod hood that is only for some characters many epic destinies are very much not supernatural/divine advancement but rather peaks of skill that go beyond the pale. Taking a feat to get trained in a skill resulting in a very sudden boost could easily be interpreted as discovered a talent you didnt know you had.

 

[TheSword]

There are some people who would like a more complex system with firmer boundaries and see the fact that their ideas aren’t hardwired into the game as a flaw.

I personally like the fact that monsters are basic and can be easily improved. For instance my demons and devils all have one or two abilities or spells that vary by individual. The 3e stat blocks are the inspiration. This keeps fiends varied and interesting.

However me expecting that to be hardwired into the game forces my preferences on people who might like something simpler or who don’t have my preconceived ideas of what Osyluth can and should do.

It’s easier to add than it is to take away!

 

[TheSword]

Also I think people have misconceptions about how easy things should be. Picking up another PC and smashing them into a colleague should be a little difficult... a 50:50 chance doesn’t seem unreasonable.

 

[Garthanos]

There are some people who would like a more complex system with firmer boundaries and see the fact that their ideas aren’t hardwired into the game as a flaw.

I personally like the fact that monsters are basic and can be easily improved.

Makes being a DM much more work to me and I can change the details just as easy as I can add things.

It’s easier to add than it is to take away!

It is easier to changea[[rpxo and maintain well lets call it approximate "balance".

Balance is obviously less important monster side but I like somewhat predictable results for encounter design any way. A bland monster I am always inclined to add to shrug just lacks value as much more than flavor text in a way.

 

[JeffB]

Also I think people have misconceptions about how easy things should be. Picking up another PC and smashing them into a colleague should be a little difficult... a 50:50 chance doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Not sure I would agree. The concept of big monsters like an Ogre or Giant, or even a very strong monster (Frankenstein- Dracula) picking up human sized folks, and throwing them around has always been a staple of folklore, fantasy fiction and cinema. IMO, D&D as a Fantasy RPG should model this. However, D&D gameplay has become it's own model primarily based on "balance of gameplay" and is no longer primarily based in the "reality" of the fiction that inspired it. This is one subtle but significant difference between 4E and all other editions of D&D. 4E is balanced in a different way and more amiable in allowing the game to model cinema and fiction with these types of moves and actions.*

Doesn't make it better- Just different. But it is my preference for the Fiction to inform the Rules, not the opposite.

 

[Oofta]

Not sure I would agree. The concept of big monsters like an Ogre or Giant, or even a very strong monster (Frankenstein- Dracula) picking up human sized folks, and throwing them around has always been a staple of folklore, fantasy fiction and cinema. IMO, D&D as a Fantasy RPG should model this. However, D&D gameplay has become it's own model primarily based on "balance of gameplay" and is no longer primarily based in the "reality" of the fiction that inspired it. This is one subtle but significant difference between 4E and all other editions of D&D. 4E is balanced in a different way and more amiable in allowing the game to model cinema and fiction with these types of moves and actions.*

Doesn't make it better- Just different. But it is my preference for the Fiction to inform the Rules, not the opposite.

You can always add in details like that easily enough, I do now and then if I want a monster to stand out. When I have more than a minute here and there I may start a new thread on this.

The general philosophy of 5E is that it's easier to add features to taste than to take things away.

 

[JeffB]

The general philosophy of 5E is that it's easier to add features to taste than to take things away.

But the features were already there. 5E took them away

 

[Oofta]

But the features were already there. 5E took them away

Where I would say that if a "special" feature is applied too often it is no longer "special"!

 

[JeffB]

Where I would say that if a "special" feature is applied too often it is no longer "special"!

I get that. That's where the action and moves have to be really distinct, and where 4E did not go far enough. 13th Age is a big step forward in that regard.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I usually add a trait like this to the creatures of the ''big hulky'' type:

Large and in Charge: This creatures can add its Con mod to any attempt to grapple a creature or resist a grapple. The creature also reduces forced movement by X ft.

Works generally quite well.