Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Does anyone else feel like the action economy and the way actions work in general in 5e both just suck?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7941775" data-attributes="member: 93670"><p>You are overstating things still ignoring the fact that wotc felt certain playstyles & needs were important enough to include variant rules but didn't bother to make sure those rules work as is. There's been a lot of back & forth between people about things like tactical combat AoOs & the half baked Facing/Flanking rules with one side simply chanting what amounts to "that isn't the niche that the rule is supposed to fill" rather than addressing the obvious unfinished & massively lacking state of those variant rules, but it's impossible to read the</p><p>[spoiler="Gritty Realism Variant Rule"]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]119895[/ATTACH][/spoiler]</p><p>and think that any sane interpretation of those words should expect the intent was to turn</p><p>[spoiler="these"]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]119894[/ATTACH][/spoiler]</p><p>into what amounts to at will cantrips, screw with the long/short rest class balance, or break/invalidate a bunch of spells/class abilities . Of course that was not the intent, that is just the result of a half baked unfinished & poorly thought out variant rule wasting pagespace that could have been used for literally anything else that was complete or devoted to completing something else. The idea that gritty realism was intended to do that is so absurd that nobody is willing to even give it a halfhearted defense other than blaming people for wanting too much.</p><p></p><p>Since it's been a while lets go back to</p><p>[spoiler="Flanking"][ATTACH=full]119896[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]119897[/ATTACH][/spoiler]</p><p>[spoiler="facing"][ATTACH=full]119898[/ATTACH][/spoiler]</p><p>If you <em>read</em> those optional rules they amount to "optionally you can automatically always give players advantage on attacks and allow them to ignore an opponent's shield by walking behind the opponent each time their turn comes around". Much like gritty realism, those rules are an absurd waste of space that could have been devoted to literally anything else.</p><p>edit:typo</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 7941775, member: 93670"] You are overstating things still ignoring the fact that wotc felt certain playstyles & needs were important enough to include variant rules but didn't bother to make sure those rules work as is. There's been a lot of back & forth between people about things like tactical combat AoOs & the half baked Facing/Flanking rules with one side simply chanting what amounts to "that isn't the niche that the rule is supposed to fill" rather than addressing the obvious unfinished & massively lacking state of those variant rules, but it's impossible to read the [spoiler="Gritty Realism Variant Rule"] [ATTACH type="full" alt="1584133885271.png"]119895[/ATTACH][/spoiler] and think that any sane interpretation of those words should expect the intent was to turn [spoiler="these"] [ATTACH type="full" alt="1584133806019.png"]119894[/ATTACH][/spoiler] into what amounts to at will cantrips, screw with the long/short rest class balance, or break/invalidate a bunch of spells/class abilities . Of course that was not the intent, that is just the result of a half baked unfinished & poorly thought out variant rule wasting pagespace that could have been used for literally anything else that was complete or devoted to completing something else. The idea that gritty realism was intended to do that is so absurd that nobody is willing to even give it a halfhearted defense other than blaming people for wanting too much. Since it's been a while lets go back to [spoiler="Flanking"][ATTACH type="full" alt="1584134369336.png"]119896[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full" alt="1584134382932.png"]119897[/ATTACH][/spoiler] [spoiler="facing"][ATTACH type="full" alt="1584134414896.png"]119898[/ATTACH][/spoiler] If you [I]read[/I] those optional rules they amount to "optionally you can automatically always give players advantage on attacks and allow them to ignore an opponent's shield by walking behind the opponent each time their turn comes around". Much like gritty realism, those rules are an absurd waste of space that could have been devoted to literally anything else. edit:typo [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Does anyone else feel like the action economy and the way actions work in general in 5e both just suck?
Top