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

[Bolares]

I think you are skimming a lot of posts? I don't recall anyone arguing that they couldn't do it. They just aren't that great IME and it is not an effective tactic--they are usually better off just attacking in most cases.

Yeah, I think I misunderstood the grapple discussion.

 

[Undrave]

I don't think it is a huge hole either, it is just a flaw in the design IMO and as myself and so many others have noted: an easy fix

But then that bears the question: why not have it in the first place???

I find it difficult to believe such things never came up in the playtest and initial design, so it must have been a conscious decision IMO to not give them Athletics and other monsters skills they probably should have had.

Maybe a bias against grappling due to trauma from previous editions? You know how the monsters sometimes feel like they weren't built by the same team as the rest of the rules. They didn't want it to be too easy for the Monsters for some reason?

 

[Ashrym]

I find it difficult to believe such things never came up in the playtest and initial design, so it must have been a conscious decision IMO to not give them Athletics and other monsters skills they probably should have had.

Not meeting your personal perception isn't the same thing as a flaw.

It's because proficiency = training that can make a difference and the default is untrained. Size and mass is where the high STR or CON originate.

 

[Bolares]

They could just give advantage on grapple checks to larger creatures, and it would probably be fine...

I can see a reasoning for ogres in vanilla D&D being bad grapplers (compared to a trained martial combatant) because they are just big dumb cratures that like to hit things with other things, and doing Jiu-jitsu is not their strong suit hahaha

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not meeting your personal perception isn't the same thing as a flaw.

It's because proficiency = training that can make a difference and the default is untrained. Size and mass is where the high STR or CON originate.

When I say it is a design flaw, that is my perception and to me it IS a flaw.

Proficiency =/= training. It is additional training. You could have a INT 20 and get +5 to Intelligence (Arcana) checks, because some training is assumed in the ability scores in most cases. You would know more about Arcana than someone with a INT 10 and as high as 12th level!

Sure, size and mass contribute to high STR and CON sometimes, but not always. You can have a 40-lbs halfling with a STR 20 and CON 20. He is small and not heavy at all. Having high ability scores in 5E is just as much, if not more, about your ability to apply those things as it is to the physics of it.

I am not saying any of these are horrible systems, but some of the things we've discussed in the thread are flaws (IMO, of course ).

 

[DND_Reborn]

They could just give advantage on grapple checks to larger creatures, and it would probably be fine...

I can see a reasoning for ogres in vanilla D&D being bad grapplers (compared to a trained martial combatant) because they are just big dumb cratures that like to hit things with other things, and doing Jiu-jitsu is not their strong suit hahaha

I think it would work fine for creatures where a group imagines they might grapple and shove a lot. I don't know how well it would work for all larger creatures... but it might anyway.

Imaging Ogres as slow brutes who are bad at timing a grab, etc. works fine, too. It is all about perception and flavor. I like Ogres being good at it, others won't--no problem there as I see it. If I joined your table and the DM said that Ogres behave the way you describe, I would be fine with it.

The idea of them being good at it was presented by another poster. I showed why, RAW, it usually isn't a great tactic for an Ogre to grapple a creature. There are cases where it will be of course, but not typically IME.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Maybe a bias against grappling due to trauma from previous editions? You know how the monsters sometimes feel like they weren't built by the same team as the rest of the rules. They didn't want it to be too easy for the Monsters for some reason?

Probably. And I definitely agree with the statement I bolded!

 

[HarbingerX]

I'm not going to wade through 14 pages of comments, but still want to reply to OP.

I have no issue with the action economy. Action + move + possible bonus action is great and works really well. Way simpler than 3e and much like some of the good parts of 4e.

There is nothing that states the 'speed' of actions, so I don't quite get the complaint. You have 6 seconds to act, and your action + move + bonus action takes place in that time. Some effects will allow you to do 'a thing' twice in your action, or let you do something that is normally an action as a bonus action. But again, the 'time' element is for your entire turn, not individual actions.

 

[Oofta]

There are a few monsters that are explicitly good at grappling (usually because TENTACLES) and have special abilities built in. Ogres just don't happen to be one of them.

On the other hand it does have me thinking about a Hill Giant combat coming up. Have one of the Hill Giants show up with a really massive belt and all he does is grab people and then throw them like boulders. Maybe give him a hat instead and have him pitch to another giant with a big club? Hmm, lot's of possibilities.

 

[Don Durito]

Shrug.

Athletics is 'Strength' the skill. So I'd just give strong monsters proficiency in Athletics. I'm not sure really that there's an issue here. You need to give the monsters a once over to make them not boring sacks of hit points anyway.

Skills are a complete system afterthought in any case. I certainly wouldn't assume a monster isn't proficient with something just because it's not on the stat block. (Maybe they're not proficient with 'Athletics' maybe they're just proficient with 'grappling' or 'feats of strength').