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

[dave2008]

That was my point, put crudely "put up or shut up" You & others keep saying complex bad simple good so justify that it's complex or show how it's a bad complexity

I did not, and I am not, saying complex is bad and simple is good. I have a preference for a simple base. I could have, should have, and typically do qualify my posts with IMO, but I did say: "I think that...," implying that it was my opinion and not a fact. I was just stating what I like, I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so aggressive / defensive with me.

To be clear again: I like a simple base, that is not a statement on whether that is good or bad, it is my personal preference. Heck, I wish it was more simple (no AoOs among other things). I also like the idea of a tactical module (something similar to 4e). I would prefer the tactical elements be separate from the base.

PS: I also don't like condiments - I'm just weird that way

 

[Don Durito]

... I prefer the WotC approach of a simple base that is added too vs your suggestion of a more complex base that is subtract from. I also said that WotC didn't do a good job. I think we both agree the result was not the best, we just disagree on the approach to getting to a better solution.

I don't think anyone was necessarily suggesting the base should be complex as published. I think the point was that if you want to scale from simple to complex you need to design with the complex first. And then you can strip it back.

The published base can then be simple, but the space to scale up has been pre-accounted for.

To be clear, I think a "tactical module" should be/could have been a separate set of options that you can select to add to your game. These options would be / should have been integrated into the system from the beginning, but completely optional and more separate than multi-classing and feats.

This would then be the result. (Except it might actually work.)

 

[dave2008]

I don't think anyone was necessarily suggesting the base should be complex as published. I think the point was that if you want to scale from simple to complex you need to design with the complex first. And then you can strip it back.

The published base can then be simple, but the space to scale up has been pre-accounted for.


This would then be the result. (Except it might actually work.)

That is basically what I said as well. I have no disagreement with that. However, I still think a tactical module could be written for 5e, it is just that WotC hasn't done it. That is why I said I might.

 

[B1okHead]

I don't like D&D 5e in general, partly because of issues outlined here, so I don't play it. I also don't care about any future D&D 6e. It's staggering to me how attached people are to playing an rpg that says Dungeons and Dragons on the cover.

 

[dave2008]

I don't like D&D 5e in general, partly because of issues outlined here, so I don't play it. I also don't care about any future D&D 6e. It's staggering to me how attached people are to playing an rpg that says Dungeons and Dragons on the cover.

It seems odd to dismiss a future product for the same reason.

 

[B1okHead]

It seems odd to dismiss a future product for the same reason.

It's more that that the design goals of D&D don't match what I want out of a game and I don't see these design goals changing as they are doing very well by WotC; I've found other games that are more to my liking.

 

[dave2008]

It's more that that the design goals of D&D don't match what I want out of a game and I don't see these design goals changing as they are doing very well by WotC; I've found other games that are more to my liking.

Do you see the design goals of 2e, 3e, 4e, & 5e being the same? If not, then it might stand to reason that 6e could be different than 5e. However, I think you will need to wait a long time for that. Not worth the wait IMO, and it seems you agree.

 

[B1okHead]

Do you see the design goals of 2e, 3e, 4e, & 5e being the same? If not, then it might stand to reason that 6e could be different than 5e. However, I think you will need to wait a long time for that. Not worth the wait IMO, and seems you agree.

Good point about D&D changing over time. I just think there's too many great RPGs out there to spend a lot of time hacking 5e into a system one is happy with instead of trying a different game entirely.

 

[dave2008]

Good point about D&D changing over time. I just think there's too many great RPGs out there to spend a lot of time hacking 5e into a system one is happy with instead of trying a different game entirely.

That is probably true. For me, trying new systems takes more time and effort than it does for me to hack an edition of D&D. I just don't really have the time to try new systems anymore. I tried to get into PF2e, but after about a month of looking for a group I gave up, and honestly I don't have the time two play in two groups anyway.

 

[Garthanos]

Good point about D&D changing over time. I just think there's too many great RPGs out there to spend a lot of time hacking 5e into a system one is happy with instead of trying a different game entirely.

Well some do seem to just like Hacking too...