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

[Imaro]

Why do the customization options in the dmg like the multiple ones that involve positioning or changes to rest/recovery need to meet the need they present themselves for in isolation rather than need a bunch of extra homebrew work rebuilding 5e on the part of the gm? Seriously?... Those rules need to work in isolation because they present themselves as such while doing two problematic things. The first problematic thing is that they waste valuable page space that could have been devoted to a complete rule for something else. The second problem is that by pretending that the option is there with an incomplete option they make it more difficult to properly fix or complain about the omission without meeting ""butbut A rule exists, you just want the wrong thing" as this & other threads show.

Can you show me where the exact "need" for those options is stated (not assumed by you)?

And yet they still bothered to waste pagespace on not one but two different variant rules that still don't meet the need they pretend to fill.

Again show me where this need is stated. I think perhaps you are expecting a single option to do too much or perhaps your desire and the purpose of the option are not in sync?

 

[Oofta]

To be modular you should be able to pull out an entire system such as combat or spellcasting and insert a completely different system that operates on the same framework. Can you give me a system that is modular by your definition...and I'll show you a completely different system that doesn't work with it. In other words your definition is impossible... By your definition combat from any and every rpg would have to be compatible and work seamlessly for something to be considered modular.

I agree. Let's say you even did something simple like ... add more feats. Okay, great. Add a bunch of feats, everybody gets a feat every 2 character levels. Assuming you're okay with some PCs getting two feats per level pretty simple.

But ... then you have a cascading effect. Suddenly PCs are more powerful (or why bother?). So the encounter calculations are even more unbalanced. Then people are going to complain because the monsters should have feats too. Oh, and what does all of this do to the balance of classes? Are there enough feats for fighters to take? Are they just going to add back in feat taxes like we had in 3.5?

Then there's the added layer of confusion. Joe wants to join Sarah's group but she's using these new alternate feat rules so he's less likely to play because of the added technical mastery needed.

That's with a really, really simple change. I can't imagine how you could have a system where you replace entire sections of the book and have any hope of balance, coherence or simplicity.

Could we use some different optional tactical rules? Sure. But I think they'd be pretty easy to house rule, I'm sure there are some options available out there by third parties. The fact that people don't like the existing optional rules from the DMG kind of makes a point: you are never going to satisfy everyone with a single game.

The best you can do is provide a solid framework that loans itself to house rules and customization. I think 5E does that better than at least the previous two editions.

 

[Oofta]

Your argument assumes that tactical combat would be too complicated for a new player to gather organically, there is no evidence to suggest that is true just because 3.5 presented it in what could be considered a poorly arranged fashion of needing to look up any individual action along with any class/PrC features or feats that might change the action. Even wotc agreed that they could not entirely eliminate AoO's any more than they couldredice the number of saves & feats to 1 or limit spells to one each level for each class (or less). The fact that they left in AoOs for ranged attacks in melee, moving away without disengage & things like sentinel/warcaster proves that wotc believed they needed to at least pretend AoOs were a thing.

I'd refute that argument but there's no way to prove it one way or another. I will say that 3.x had a pretty high barrier to entry, just because you didn't have an issue doesn't mean there wasn't one.

In addition we had one of the most extensive play tests ever done for a TTRPG. People didn't want the complexity you seek.

Why do the customization options in the dmg like the multiple ones that involve positioning or changes to rest/recovery need to meet the need they present themselves for in isolation rather than need a bunch of extra homebrew work rebuilding 5e on the part of the gm? Seriously?... Those rules need to work in isolation because they present themselves as such while doing two problematic things. The first problematic thing is that they waste valuable page space that could have been devoted to a complete rule for something else. The second problem is that by pretending that the option is there with an incomplete option they make it more difficult to properly fix or complain about the omission without meeting ""butbut A rule exists, you just want the wrong thing" as this & other threads show.


And yet they still bothered to waste pagespace on not one but two different variant rules that still don't meet the need they pretend to fill.

LOL. They came up with rules but you don't personally agree with them so therefore they're a waste of time. There was no way they could win.

Want a more complex game like 3.5? Then play 3.5. Can't find players? Well, maybe that's proof that people prefer a more simplistic rule system like 5E.

 

[TheSword]

Why do the customization options in the dmg like the multiple ones that involve positioning or changes to rest/recovery need to meet the need they present themselves for in isolation rather than need a bunch of extra homebrew work rebuilding 5e on the part of the gm? Seriously?... Those rules need to work in isolation because they present themselves as such while doing two problematic things. The first problematic thing is that they waste valuable page space that could have been devoted to a complete rule for something else. The second problem is that by pretending that the option is there with an incomplete option they make it more difficult to properly fix or complain about the omission without meeting ""butbut A rule exists, you just want the wrong thing" as this & other threads show.


And yet they still bothered to waste pagespace on not one but two different variant rules that still don't meet the need they pretend to fill.

They are examples, it doesn't claim to be a comprehensive guide to monster upgrades... examples for creative DMs to modify.

It seems to me that you want the whole moon on a stick, if you can’t have that then nobody else should be allowed a lollypop.

 

[tetrasodium]

.

What is being good at being complex in a useful way?

millions of people manage to wrangle the complexities of things like baking things from a recipe or memory, driving a car or truck, & many more. I'd say navigate through TSA but usefulness is a debatable problem with that one.

Why do the customization options in the dmg like the multiple ones that involve positioning or changes to rest/recovery need to meet the need they present themselves for in isolation rather than need a bunch of extra homebrew work rebuilding 5e on the part of the gm? Seriously?... Those rules need to work in isolation because they present themselves as such while doing two problematic things. The first problematic thing is that they waste valuable page space that could have been devoted to a complete rule for something else. The second problem is that by pretending that the option is there with an incomplete option they make it more difficult to properly fix or complain about the omission without meeting ""butbut A rule exists, you just want the wrong thing" as this & other threads show.

Can you show me where the exact "need" for those options is stated (not assumed by you)?

Yes I already pointed out evidence for the need of those options in the form of wotc not removing them entirely, I'll go one further & point out how even though fate uses zones rather than a grid... even fate includes a section on moving around when there is someone or something is preventing you from doing so with situation aspects & it's movement rules. Fate is about as rules light as it gets.

More importantly you ignored the fact that I questioned you on the fact that you actually asked why a variant rule needs to work in isolation without needing the gm to finish it.

And yet they still bothered to waste pagespace on not one but two different variant rules that still don't meet the need they pretend to fill.

Again show me where this need is stated. I think perhaps you are expecting a single option to do too much or perhaps your desire and the purpose of the option are not in sync?

Are you incapable of addressing points raised by anyone?... You are going back to why should someone have the nerve to expect a variant rule to fill the need they present themself as being a solution for rather than admit multiple unfinished rules wasting pagespace could have been used for one complete variant rule for literally anything else?... that should be like managing to pass a 10foot high limbo pole.

It seems like your argument is in the process of morphing to "why should positioning rules that give benefits for certain positions not include any cost or effort to obtaining those positions" but you aren't willing to say such an absurd statement, is that correct?

 

[Imaro]

If I wanted positioning in combat to be important I would use...
Facing
Flanking
Marking
Shove Aside

Yes I already pointed out evidence for the need of those options in the form of wotc not removing them entirely, I'll go one further & point out how even though fate uses zones rather than a grid... even fate includes a section on moving around when there is someone or something is preventing you from doing so with situation aspects & it's movement rules. Fate is about as rules light as it gets.

More importantly you ignored the fact that I questioned you on the fact that you actually asked why a variant rule needs to work in isolation without needing the gm to finish it.

You missed the point... unless the Devs stated that this particular need was supposed to be totally addressed by the one change of flanking... why are you assuming it was supposed to?

Are you incapable of addressing points raised by anyone?... You are going back to why should someone have the nerve to expect a variant rule to fill the need they present themself as being a solution for rather than admit multiple unfinished rules wasting pagespace could have been used for one complete variant rule for literally anything else?... that should be like managing to pass a 10foot high limbo pole.

It seems like your argument is in the process of morphing to "why should positioning rules that give benefits for certain positions not include any cost or effort to obtaining those positions" but you aren't willing to say such an absurd statement, is that correct?

No it's maybe one rule (as opposed to a combination, many, a rule not published by a 3rd party) was not supposed to fix to everyone's satisfaction the very broad, vague and general desire of making position matter.

 

[tetrasodium]

If I wanted positioning in combat to be important I would use...
Facing
Flanking
Marking
Shove Aside


You missed the point... unless the Devs stated that this particular need was supposed to be totally addressed by the one change of flanking... why are you assuming it was supposed to?




No it's maybe one rule (as opposed to a combination, many, a rule not published by a 3rd party) was not supposed to fix to everyone's satisfaction the very broad, vague and general desire of making position matter.

saying that a variant rule should not be expected to do anything unless the devs say it's supposed to is a ridiculous position & you still have not answered for the fact that you are actually arguing that a rule making positioning have significant benefits should not be expected to include anything that imposes some level of effort risk or cost to gaining those beneficial positions.

You still took a dodge on if it's better to have multiple unfinished incomplete variant rules that need significant retooling of 5e to use rather than a smaller number of complete & functional variant rules that wprk out of the box for literally anything else is better. It seems like your argument would hold unchanged if those rules were literally a block of nothing but lorem ipsum & we were arguing if there should be an actual complete rule instead.

 

[generic]

saying that a variant rule should not be expected to do anything unless the devs say it's supposed to is a ridiculous position & you still have not answered for the fact that you are actually arguing that a rule making positioning have significant benefits should not be expected to include anything that imposes some level of effort risk or cost to gaining those beneficial positions.

You still took a dodge on if it's better to have multiple unfinished incomplete variant rules that need significant retooling of 5e to use rather than a smaller number of complete & functional variant rules that wprk out of the box for literally anything else is better. It seems like your argument would hold unchanged if those rules were literally a block of nothing but lorem ipsum & we were arguing if there should be an actual complete rule instead.

Na Na

Na Na

Is getting upset... Hopefully, you'll get the joke, and the mood will improve in the thread.

 

[Imaro]

saying that a variant rule should not be expected to do anything unless the devs say it's supposed to is a ridiculous position & you still have not answered for the fact that you are actually arguing that a rule making positioning have significant benefits should not be expected to include anything that imposes some level of effort risk or cost to gaining those beneficial positions.

As ridiculous as assuming it's supposed to do anything you expect it to? Why should your expectations be considered any less ridiculous?

As to your second point there's no reason to answer since it seems quite apparent. It does what it does (gives positioning significant benefits), you want more/a different rule... One that imposes significant effort or risk for positioning you pick a module that does that. Keeping the two separate is more flexible and accomodates wider scenarios

You still took a dodge on if it's better to have multiple unfinished incomplete variant rules that need significant retooling of 5e to use rather than a smaller number of complete & functional variant rules that wprk out of the box for literally anything else is better. It seems like your argument would hold unchanged if those rules were literally a block of nothing but lorem ipsum & we were arguing if there should be an actual complete rule instead.

Because your question presupposes it's unfinished as opposed to not specifically designed to meet your particular expressed need. Modularity works better with small discrete pieces. As an example with the flanking rule I can choose to only give that rule to champion fighters as a bonus as I feel they are lacking and it fits perfectly as a true added feature. On the other hand if it also imposed and equal amount of penalties or risk... it wouldn't actually be something I could use to give the Champion and actual advantage without modifying it.

 

[TheSword]

The reality is that many of the variant rules are there to cater to individual tastes. They are complete - maybe some people don’t like the rule which is why it is a variant - but it is complete.

The reality I’ve learnt is that you can’t please all the people, all the time - never more so on the internet. However D&D5e does a good job of pleasing more than ever before.

I’m looking forward to seeing out settings like Planescape and Darksun modify the base rules with alternate spell casting, planar effects, more detailed Psionics, high level characters etc in the coming decade.

On a separate point I don’t think something has to be seamless to be modular - just joined up and connected, and able to function with or without the bolt ons.