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

[TheSword]

Problem the customization options are presented simplistically like they just work in isolation they really do not... I want flanking and burst effect higher multi-target effects for martial types but flanking and positioning need to be more difficult to obtain or more dependent on application of special abilities. So adding one little thing or 2 is a huge cascade affecting every class potentially not the triviality it is presented as.

You want to be able to make changes to the system but not have those changes impact anything else in the system?

 

[dave2008]

Problem the customization options are presented simplistically like they just work in isolation they really do not... I want flanking and burst effect higher multi-target effects for martial types but flanking and positioning need to be more difficult to obtain or more dependent on application of special abilities. So adding one little thing or 2 is a huge cascade affecting every class potentially not the triviality it is presented as.

Sounds like you should write one up and make some money! I know we are using 4e powers in our 5e game it is working great, so it can at least be done on a case by case basis

 

[Garthanos]

You want to be able to make changes to the system but not have those changes impact anything else in the system?

No pretending an option is simplistically added is ridiculous... the desire is obviously to make position more important and doing that means it needs to create risks and significant choices too

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah I don't consider races, classes, subclasses, spells and monsters to be 'new rule'. It's like saying a new booster pack of M:TG is 'new rules'.

Expansions to M:TG have included new abilities and a large number of things associated with those abilities. There is even environments where those new abilities are an overwhelming impact on play because you are only playing that expansion.

 

[Undrave]

Expansions to M:TG have included new abilities and a large number of things associated with those abilities. There is even environments where those new abilities are an overwhelming impact on play because you are only playing that expansion.

Of course, they add new keywords or those weird double cards... but new keywords are introduced at the start of a block, so consequent boosters aren't 'new rules' anymore.

 

[Garthanos]

Of course, they add new keywords or those weird double cards... but new keywords are introduced at the start of a block, so consequent boosters aren't 'new rules' anymore.

Sure have you seen the game Fluxx now that one actually has every third card add new win conditions or changes behaviors like how many cards in your hand etc but they are all in well defined ways already so does that count as a new rule?

 

[Imaro]

Sure it did. To be modular, you need to be able to pull out an entire system, such as combat or spellcasting and insert a completely different system and have it work seamlessly. If it can do that, it's modular. If it can't and you have to bang it around a bit to make it work, it's not modular.

To be modular you should be able to pull out an entire system such as combat or spellcasting and insert a completely different system that operates on the same framework. Can you give me a system that is modular by your definition...and I'll show you a completely different system that doesn't work with it. In other words your definition is impossible... By your definition combat from any and every rpg would have to be compatible and work seamlessly for something to be considered modular.

 

[Imaro]

Problem the customization options are presented simplistically like they just work in isolation they really do not... I want flanking and burst effect higher multi-target effects for martial types but flanking and positioning need to be more difficult to obtain or more dependent on application of special abilities. So adding one little thing or 2 is a huge cascade affecting every class potentially not the triviality it is presented as.

Why do they NEED to be?

 

[Imaro]

No pretending an option is simplistically added is ridiculous... the desire is obviously to make position more important and doing that means it needs to create risks and significant choices too

Emphasis mine... that's a pretty broad desire that could be accomplished in numerous ways... it's something I don't think a single change would get you so yes you would have to change more than just one thing.

 

[tetrasodium]

.

5e was designed to make D&D an entry level rpg again, just like it used to be with the Red box Basic. That is why D&D is so popular these days. The bonus is that, unlike many entry level games, it also offers customization options in the DMG to tune the game between semi-gritty to super heroic fantasy. That is very generous.

If you want a super detailed combat systems with loads of feats, à la 3e or 4e and such, 5e will never be that game. The system was not build with that intention to begin with. You are barking up the wrong tree. There is no cat hiding in the branches.

Your argument assumes that tactical combat would be too complicated for a new player to gather organically, there is no evidence to suggest that is true just because 3.5 presented it in what could be considered a poorly arranged fashion of needing to look up any individual action along with any class/PrC features or feats that might change the action. Even wotc agreed that they could not entirely eliminate AoO's any more than they couldredice the number of saves & feats to 1 or limit spells to one each level for each class (or less). The fact that they left in AoOs for ranged attacks in melee, moving away without disengage & things like sentinel/warcaster proves that wotc believed they needed to at least pretend AoOs were a thing.

Problem the customization options are presented simplistically like they just work in isolation they really do not... I want flanking and burst effect higher multi-target effects for martial types but flanking and positioning need to be more difficult to obtain or more dependent on application of special abilities. So adding one little thing or 2 is a huge cascade affecting every class potentially not the triviality it is presented as.

Why do they NEED to be?

Why do the customization options in the dmg like the multiple ones that involve positioning or changes to rest/recovery need to meet the need they present themselves for in isolation rather than need a bunch of extra homebrew work rebuilding 5e on the part of the gm? Seriously?... Those rules need to work in isolation because they present themselves as such while doing two problematic things. The first problematic thing is that they waste valuable page space that could have been devoted to a complete rule for something else. The second problem is that by pretending that the option is there with an incomplete option they make it more difficult to properly fix or complain about the omission without meeting ""butbut A rule exists, you just want the wrong thing" as this & other threads show.

Emphasis mine... that's a pretty broad desire that could be accomplished in numerous ways... it's something I don't think a single change would get you so yes you would have to change more than just one thing.

And yet they still bothered to waste pagespace on not one but two different variant rules that still don't meet the need they pretend to fill.