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

[Son of the Serpent]

You might want to look into a communication class. You jump around everywhere and make points that detract from rather than support your main thesis. This post for example reads like a jumbled mess.

Its a combination of laziness and tertiary language. I operate completely differently when publishing research. This is not my professional life nor my field of study. This is a hobby. Im not attempting to debate. Im discussing. Casually. Not in meticulously optimized format nor through strategic maneuvering.

What is the point of a hobby if i feel like i havent left the paperwork behind?

 

[tetrasodium]

Probably best not to say such a thing when you very obviously have no clear memory of what was actually stated.


It is not. "Feat" is a common English word meaning "action" or "deed". "Feature" is a different word, with a different meaning.

I'd say there is a stronger case to be made that it is both & in the context of d&d is jargon rather than the general definition.

In the end it doesn't really matter​

 

[Son of the Serpent]

No it isn't. Or at least, if it is, I have never seen that stated by a designer or even asserted by anyone until now.

Feats originated during the 3e design process and, as detailed in the issues of Dragon leading up to 3e's release, were originally called "heroic feats". That's not short for feature.

Anyhow, my point is that you're arbitrarily re-defining feats to include things that aren't feats. I'm not sure what standard you're using- it appears to be a sort of smell test- but basically, when you say that fast hands (for example) is a feat, you're making stuff up. It's not a feat; no class ability is a feat. By definition, a class ability is a class ability.

Sure. Pretty obvious what i actually did. But sure. Lets fixate on this little ball of nothing you are pointing at. Because i refered to something as a feat while making clear that i knew it couldnt be acquired by other classes. Its nature being a feat or not isnt even the focus of what i was saying (i never said it was classified as one. I only said it was like one. It is btw) and i never redefined its abilities. I talked about SOMEONE ELSE doing so and part of what my point was was to POINT OUT THAT HE WAS WRONG!

Are you done? I never redefined or altered a feat or reinterpreted one. In fact, im TALKING ABOUT someone having done that. Stop twisting wgat i said or buzz off.

(Ps my first language is not English. I know now that feat is not short for feature. That ability still essentially amounts to a feat. )

 

[atanakar]

(Ps my first language is not English. I know now that feat is not short for feature. That ability still essentially amounts to a feat. )

No. Languages are a skill.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Probably best not to say such a thing when you very obviously have no clear memory of what was actually stated.


It is not. "Feat" is a common English word meaning "action" or "deed". "Feature" is a different word, with a different meaning.

"no clear memory" nah. I do. Just not every jot and tiddle. He definitely made this claim. I remember it clear as day. And i will find it. And it will sound exactly as dumb as i describe it. Even using the term "bonus action" specifically.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Example: the way they are organized/written. Poor design. Very poor design. Its seriously starting to anger me. I need a fix. Something to make it better. It seems like there are equal parts too much restriction, poor organization, poor word choice, failure of basic logic, too much paranoia that casters will combo something (heres a brilliant idea: LET THEM), abd self contradiction of basic function (oh time stop how they have mamed you).

Help?

How about some examples to demonstrate your issues?

I disagree with your entire post - there's nothing seriously wrong with how actions work in 5e.

That doesn't means it's perfect; bonus actions sometimes cause me to scratch my head - they're not elegant but they do the job.
By the way, D&D spellcasters being able to combo spells sounds like a recipe to FUBAR the game royally. What an incredibly bad idea. Plus, it won't be so great when enemy spellcasters do that to you:

'And the enemy mage combos a 10d6 fireball and Power Word Kill. He's a sorcerer so let's spend some sorcery points to heighten the damage.'

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Probably best not to say such a thing when you very obviously have no clear memory of what was actually stated.


It is not. "Feat" is a common English word meaning "action" or "deed". "Feature" is a different word, with a different meaning.

Since you are the 3rd person to point put the latter ill be brief. English = tertiary language. Im actually still right about it functionally amounting to essentially a feat. With the caveats that i originally had in the same statement. Wher i said that ither classes cant take it and that this was only true if reltively simple features. Which thia one is.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

This is utterly incorrect. The two words don't even have a shared etymology.

You are the 4th. Please see any of the 3 earlier posts.

Prevailing message of the earlier 3: "doeant affect my argument. At all."

 

[Son of the Serpent]

No. Languages are a skill.

I see what you did there i tip my wizard hat

 

[Charlaquin]

EDIT: Nevermind, been said already.