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

[Oofta]

Yeah, how dare someone, new to 5e, post their concerns. I mean it is not like a message board is meant for discussion, right?

What I find ‘old’, is people pooping on a thread topic that does not appeal to them, instead of making their Wisdom save and walking away.

I’m not, trying to single you out atanakar, I fail those type of saves all the time as well, (like now).

Feeling frustrated at something you care about, and sharing your frustrations with people who also care about that same something is truly old....as old as humanity.

We were asked "do you agree". My answer was no.

But I will also admit that I don't find it particularly constructive to complain about something and never take advice or consider alternatives. In this case it's just such a general rant that the OP is going to get some pushback.

That and I don't see acknowledging that if you "hate" the fundamental core systems of a game that it might not be for you. Hopefully some advice can help, but there are popular games out there that I'd rather not play. It's not the game's fault, I just acknowledge it isn't for me.

 

[Krachek]

In what way? If you mean like Mike Mearls' idea of specific abilities to encapsulate the effects of a bonus action and action together, it can work but you lose generality. Example: bonus action spells become normal actions which include also an attack. But then, you don't have options to combine them with something else.

If you mean to turn everything that is currently a bonus action into a regular action, then it will indeed be a lot simpler. As long as players accept that they'll have to pick one single action per turn and nothing more.

Indeed Mike idea is a step in a simpler game. One single action is enough, much better than the endless stacking of micro action.

 

[Todd Roybark]

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.

That is a logical inference if you are trying to explain the rule from an in game perspective.
It is however adding flavor text to the game, like re-skinning Orc society but leaving the mechanics the same.

3e had quite a few rules that made sense from a ‘holistic overview of system ecosystem’, like undead being immune to most Illusions and Critical Hits. The rules were logical, made narrative sense...and ultimately made it not viable to say use illusion spells or be a rogue in the Age of Worms adventure path.

I don’t mind a hard rule, made to preserve or enable balance, without the need to skin it ‘in -game narrative clothes’. At this point I only care that the game is fun and supports a wide range of playstyles.

I haven’t always felt that way, but I have less time in general, to let aesthetic concerns get in the way of play.

 

[Garthanos]

It's not elegant like D6 System or (to a lesser extent) Pathfinder 2. There are kludges. But it works ok. It's certainly far better than 3e. 4e's system is better in some ways, certainly looks more elegant, but 4e lacked the big massive spell effects enabled by Concentration.

I do not think that it is always via concentration. An example where they simply decided to make a bigger spell effect is how feather fall works. The 4e feather fall aided one character the 5e one the whole party. I approve the 5e variety more as D&D is a team game.

However I can be picky if I want and traditionally the wizard is known for its area of effect abilities I would make it so that all creatures in an area are affected enemy and ally alike (A clerical variant one might differentiate and only affect allies is more tactically useful)

 

[MarkB]

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. It resukts in far less confusion. That interpretation was actually his suggestion. Hes the one that thought it wouod work that way. Not i. I thought it was just as birdbrained as im sure u did.

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?

I generally dont favor the passive route (you can take that route if you want but if i was going to i think i already would have). Im not strictly a consumer. Im also a builder. I favor the "change something until its better" route. So, you can do that thing you're suggesting and im gonna keep doing mine.

Cool.

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.

 

[Todd Roybark]

@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?

 

[Garthanos]

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.

Common sense isnt common /just saying

 

[tetrasodium]

It works ok, but as some people pointed out on page 2 it trips itself up trying to pretend it's more flexible that it is. Changing established names for change sake didn't help either. I don't think anyone is in doubt that PF2's 3 action economy is superior & more elegant but at least for 5e it would probably be too difficult to make such a change & maintain balance

 

[cmad1977]

So much no.

 

[Azzy]

No, I haven't really had any problems with 5e's action economy.