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

[tetrasodium]

.

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.

Not only that, another system could require adapting it to or building a whole new game world that the one a gm has been building over months or even years of gm'ing.

 

[dave2008]

.

Not only that, another system could require adapting it to or building a whole new game world that the one a gm has been building over months or even years of gm'ing.

Possibly, but I think you can run a D&D type game in a lot of different systems.

EDIT: I just noticed you said "could," very true.

 

[jeffh]

Further, its implied that there are actions that require different amounts of time but reside within the same action length class. Example: non cantrip spells of 1 action time length and cantrip spells of 1 action time length. 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. Is there a classification for an action that is short enough it could occur in tge difference of time between the two clearly different time length standards of 1 standard action? There should be a classified brief time length for that but there doesnt directoy seem to be. If not, sloppy. If there is one though, also sloppy. Why? Because if there is then there should have been a differentiation between what is functionally two different action types that got lumped into "standard action". But there isnt.

I haven't read nearly all 26 pages of replies, so maybe this point has already been made, but why assume it's a question of time, rather than, say, effort, or how different magical energies interact, or which things it is and isn't physically possible to do simultaneously? If this is a major problem for you, it's hard not to suspect you're just looking for things to have issues with.

 

[Stormonu]

@jeffh - You're talking to a year-old dead horse.

 

[Nefermandias]

I disagree.
The action economy system of 5e is way better then any other previous edition.

Hard disagree on this one. While 5e isn't terrible by any length, 4e did it better.

 

[Garthanos]

Hard disagree on this one. While 5e isn't terrible by any length, 4e did it better.

shhhhh the edition that will not be named cannot have done anything better the regressives have won.

 

[Umbran]

shhhhh the edition that will not be named cannot have done anything better the regressives have won.

Mod note:
Because calling people names for having different preferences is okay, or something? Come on, dude. Be better.

 

[auburn2]

I love the action system in 5e, it is one of the best features of the game compared to previous editions. I have been playing since 1981 and I think it is the best we have had so far.

That said, if you don't like it in your game replace it.

 

[CleverNickName]

My favorite was the open-ended action economy of the B/X system, where your movement and actions on your turn were limited only by what you and the DM regarded as reasonable and fun. There were no squares to count, no fiddling with board position, no fussing over whether or not you "could" do something. You just described what you wanted to do, and your DM would make the call. It was simple and efficient.

And the polar opposite of that for me was the 3.5E/Pathfinder rules, where you had several different types of actions that you could take in a round, and that list changed depending on the order you took them: standard action, full action, move action, swift action, partial action, free action, immediate action, ugh. New players really struggled to grasp these...heck, some seasoned veterans still do.

I guess that 5th Edition is a decent compromise between the two. You have an Action and Movement, and you might also have a Bonus Action or Reaction, depending on circumstances. It's simple enough to pick up quickly, but nuanced enough to allow for situational adjustments. So nah, I don't think it "sucks." I think it's a big step up from the past three editions.

 

[cbwjm]

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the designers looked at the 3 action system of PF2 and thought "Damn, wish we'd thought of that!"

Also, this thread was posted a year ago, back with covid was only just starting to take off and people weren't all that worried about it. It's been a crazy year since the opening post.