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

[dave2008]

That sounds awesome. I wish I felt the same way- found my "ultimate" game and it's satisfying to everyone.

Well, what I have realized is that we have a certain way we play and we adapt the game to match our style. We just had to do less of that with 4e and 5e.

 

[Dausuul]

Specifically the "if you cast a bonus action spell, only cantrips may be cast as standard action".

That one is a terrible rule. But that isn't because 5E does a bad job with the action economy overall; it's just this one rule that is terrible, and relatively easy to fix (my rule would be "You can only cast one non-cantrip, non-reaction spell per turn," with the in-game justification that cantrips and reaction spells require less mental focus).

I do think bonus actions are overused, and I would like to see them scaled back. In particular, abilities that allow/require you to use your bonus action every round should be addressed--they clash with other sources of bonus actions and often cause balance problems. Dual wielding, Polearm Mastery, and Crossbow Expert are the main offenders here. (I have less of a problem with the rogue's Cunning Action. While CA is available every round, the options it gives you are not things you'd want to do every single round--you don't always need to dash or disengage, and you can't always hide.)

Other than those adjustments, I think 5E's action economy is solid and I have no problem with it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So just to be clear, we aren't allowed to talk about our frustrations with the system because it sells well, yeah?

"It sells well" answers the original question: "Does anyone else feel like the action economy and the way actions work in general in 5e both just suck?"

Obviously not many, since 5e is the most popular edition, which it wouldn't be if people where generally unhappy with it.

And, when there are so many alternatives available, it seems like sour grapes to attack a particular edition for not being how you would want it. (NB, the same can be said for critics of 4e).

 

[Shardstone]

"It sells well" answers the original question: "Does anyone else feel like the action economy and the way actions work in general in 5e both just suck?"

Obviously not many, since 5e is the most popular edition, which it wouldn't be if people where generally unhappy with it.

And, when there are so many alternatives available, it seems like sour grapes to attack a particular edition for not being how you would want it. (NB, the same can be said for critics of 4e).

Hmmm I think the argument that good sales = something has to be quality is kind of weak. I'm pretty sure McDonalds makes way more money off its fries then places that are known for gourmet or high-quality fries.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Hmmm I think the argument that good sales = something has to be quality is kind of weak. I'm pretty sure McDonalds makes way more money off its fries then places that are known for gourmet or high-quality fries.

I'm sure it does. And criticising McDonalds for not selling pretentious food would be equally sour grapes.

"quality" is another word for "snob value". The argument is "good sales" = "people like it". People buy McDonalds because they like the food. "quality" is subjective and irelevant.

 

[JeffB]

Well, what I have realized is that we have a certain way we play and we adapt the game to match our style. We just had to do less of that with 4e and 5e.

I am totally about modding any game to fit my/our needs. I run everything in a fast loose style.

That said, I enjoy different styles that may not be my preferred way to run games. Highly tactical 4E with minis for example. I don't want to play a year long campaign like that, but an adventure module? Sure. Otherwise, I mod the hell out of it to work for my ToTM style. I wouldn't want to play BTB OD&D forever, For a short campaign, absolutely- bring on low AC, Save or Die, Plenty of Character Deaths, Level Drain, Charts galore, etc. But if I'm runninga long term game, I run my modded mish mash game.

I've noticed onoine over the years that many gamers, in particular D&D players, seem married/beholden/unmovingly attached to their fave edition and play just in one way/style. I enjoy experimenting with various games and in different styles. They all have something to offer. Some days I want complete simplicity of T&T or Dungeons! Other days, I'm pining to try PF2E or break out Rolemaster 2E.

I don't like eating the same meal over and over again each week either, even my favorites.

And once again , you and I are totally off the rails in the thread

5E Action economy Sucks

There. Have at it everyone

 

[dave2008]

Hmmm I think the argument that good sales = something has to be quality is kind of weak. I'm pretty sure McDonalds makes way more money off its fries then places that are known for gourmet or high-quality fries.

The OP wasn't really a question of quality though: "Does anyone else feel like the action economy..." It was about what people feel is or is not working for them. Sales are a barometer of the market's "feelings," but definitely not the only one. Nor do I think using them as an argument helps get to what the OP really wanted. It would just help if the OP was more clear from the get go.

 

[FarBeyondC]

(oh time stop how they have mamed you).

How is time stop maimed, exactly? Comparing it to the 3.5 SRD version, I'd much rather have the 5e version.

 

[FarBeyondC]

There are logical inconsistancies in the classifications of actions and scenarios in which one is faster than another.

Further, its implied that there are actions that require different amounts of time but reside within the same action length class. Example: non cantrip spells of 1 action time length and cantrip spells of 1 action time length. They actually take different amounts of time, which is what makes it possible to cast one (cantrips) twice on your turn and the other (non cantrip spell) only once plus a cantrip. Is there a classification for an action that is short enough it could occur in tge difference of time between the two clearly different time length standards of 1 standard action? There should be a classified brief time length for that but there doesnt directoy seem to be. If not, sloppy. If there is one though, also sloppy. Why? Because if there is then there should have been a differentiation between what is functionally two different action types that got lumped into "standard action". But there isnt.

From an objective point of view there are functionally two different action types (or lengths) that are lazily never differentiated and are lumped under the same umbrella.

There is an example. There are others. But just look at that one first. Its sloppy.

Cantrips aren't faster than leveled spells of the same casting time- they're simpler. They are spells that a caster has practiced so often and so repeatedly that their second nature to them, and thus require no resource expenditure or real effort to implement.

It's not stated anywhere, but it immediately jumps out to me that the idea behind the bonus action casting rule is that casting a spell that quickly temporarily damages your ability to cast magic over a certain complexity threshold- a threshold that cantrips and cantrips alone reside below (at least thus far).

 

[Bolares]

Cantrips aren't faster than leveled spells of the same casting time- they're simpler. They are spells that a caster has practiced so often and so repeatedly that their second nature to them, and thus require no resource expenditure or real effort to implement.

It's not stated anywhere, but it immediately jumps out to me that the idea behind the bonus action casting rule is that casting a spell that quickly temporarily damages your ability to cast magic over a certain complexity threshold- a threshold that cantrips and cantrips alone reside below (at least thus far).

bonus action isn't quicker too. To me it's all about complexity of the spell not cast speed