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

[the Jester]

Certain very simple class features just amount to feats. They are merely feats that are built in and cant be selected by others. Its only s seperate game term for glossary purposes. Totally a feat.

What, now?

If you can't take it as an option when you get an ASI, regardless of your class (barring the need to meet certain prerequisites), it isn't a feat. What you are saying is like asserting that any class ability is a feat, but tied to that class and level- it's meaningless. You could make a game where everything is a feat and everyone builds their character out of them, but that's not 5e. Just arbitrarily deciding that a not-feat is a feat doesn't make sense to me. That's like me saying that "fighter is a race" even though it isn't.

Anyway, yes. I think that might be the one. And for the record no. I never purported to think that was how it worked. I ignore jeremy crawford as a rule.

So why are you claiming that some nonsense he posted is an example of how the game is broken, when even if he posted that it's plainly wrong?

 

[the Jester]

I don't think anyone is in doubt that PF2's 3 action economy is superior & more elegant

Yeah, someone is in doubt about that, all right. The three-action economy looks clunky and overcomplicated to me- it's absolutely not "superior and more elegant".

YMMV, but I assure you that your opinion is not universal.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

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

Thats a horrible bad rule. There isnt a point.

Thanks for the elucidation.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

In a role play perspective thinking about action economy or simply « how do I spend my bonus action », is a breach in the character play.
It would be better to go with simpler rules and common sense.

having offhand attack separated from extra attack feature, or the endless debate about the shield master shield attack timing are some examples that the system don’t help game play, but rather put emphasis on a technical aspect and ruling.

I can agree to this sentiment.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

You looking for too much granular simulation.

 

[Oofta]

@Oofta, I don’t disagree with what you are saying in general, but imagine you were returning something to a store for the 1st time and the cashier said “I am so sick of people like you returning this item, it is getting old”.

In that situation your response could legitimately be “WTF”.

Same here. Son of Serpent isn’t trolling...he is venting. I know I have vented on this board, and others have responded poorly, at other times people have responded with kindness and changed my opinion.

Is it kindness to tell someone to play another game?

I would say that sometimes people just need to accept reality. No matter how many times I've tried sushi* I don't like it. Despite people telling me I just haven't tried "the good stuff". Although if I were in Japan I might give sushi (with cooked or no fish) a shot because then I'd get real wasabi instead of green colored horseradish.

In any case I don't go onto foodie message boards and post about how raw fish would be so much better if they just cooked it.

*I've only ever had it with raw fish, I know that "real" sushi doesn't have to include raw fish. Oh, and don't conflate shashimi with sushi just because shashimi is raw fish, they are not the same.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

If you didn't think it was true, you wouldn't have used it as an illustrative example of how broken the action economy allegedly was. Why would you have knowingly tried to illustrate your point with a falsehood?


The problem is that the way you're coming across is that you want to take something that a great many people already like and enjoy, and get it changed until it is better for you. That isn't being a positive force of change.

The great thing about there being so many different popular game systems out there is that you can find one which works really well for you, and don't need to try to change one that's already working well for other people.

Im saying that it SHOULDN'T work but that by fiat it does AND that that is a problem. I am also saying that the logical impairments necessary to make such statements probably explain some of the less than optimal rules.

 

[FrogReaver]

Rulings not rules.

5e rules are meant to cover 90-99% of the situations you find yourself in. The rest is to be handled by the DM.

As an example - we think it's dumb you can't draw more than 1 weapon a turn without a bonus action because dual wielding weapons is a thing. My games don't require the feat to draw 2 weapons simultaneously.

Cantrip + Spell should always be possible as long as 1 of them is cast as a bonus action. I don't think the rules read this way. I don't think 2 spells should be castable on 1 turn. Sorcerers shouldn't get to double fireball.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

What, now?

If you can't take it as an option when you get an ASI, regardless of your class (barring the need to meet certain prerequisites), it isn't a feat. What you are saying is like asserting that any class ability is a feat, but tied to that class and level- it's meaningless. You could make a game where everything is a feat and everyone builds their character out of them, but that's not 5e. Just arbitrarily deciding that a not-feat is a feat doesn't make sense to me. That's like me saying that "fighter is a race" even though it isn't.



So why are you claiming that some nonsense he posted is an example of how the game is broken, when even if he posted that it's plainly wrong?

You do realize feat is short for feature right?

And no.

Your paraphrase does not conserve the meaning of my statement. So ill reiterate (since you arent getting it or something)

Certain very simple class features just amount to feats. They are merely feats that are built in and cant be selected by others. Its only s seperate game term for glossary purposes. Totally a feat.

You need to reread this or something. I cant respond to your large paragraph because some of it is nonsensical and inapplicable to my actual statement.

As to the latter part of your comment.

No. Its an example not of a broken aspect of the game, but of the broken thinking that went into making related broken aspects of the game. Ie: he doesnt even understand his own action economy.

Ill find the quote in time.

 

[FrogReaver]

You do realize feat is short for feature right?

In a game with feats it's probably best not to describe every feature with the shorthand feat. Just a thought