Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6646397" data-attributes="member: 82106">No, it isn't. There are no specific rules in 5e for ad-hoc actions. Certainly none that are in any way shape or form more explicit or useful than 4e's.No it doesn't, not unless you are so utterly fixated on perfect balance that you aren't playing the same game, and then you're comparing some balance-obsessed 4e player to someone who doesn't give a crud in 5e. Obviously one attitude is easier to houserule for than the other, but that's NOT THE SYSTEM. Bah humbug! The characters in my 4e campaigns (I've run I think now about 7 4e campaigns to at least paragon tier) did all sorts of crazy off-the-wall stuff. Sometimes they did it by using a power, sometimes they did it by stunting pure and simple. Sometimes they did other things that are not clearly one or the other, or that involved some weird creative use of a ritual, etc. I play 5e as well, there's no magical increased 'creativity' in 5e. In fact I find that the players and GM in my 5e game are more inhibited by the lack of real understanding of the tactical situation at hand than they are inspired. Furthermore the non-casting characters options are highly constrained and stereotyped, so they rarely get to do much that isn't stock moves, while the wizard (my character) does all sorts of crazy stuff. Clearly, in our experience, having an additional repertoire of 'powers' is quite helpful. 4e's mechanism of insuring that you couldn't just always spam the most effective ones was also pretty ingenious. Besides, nothing really stops you from playing 4e largely 'in your head'. Many, if not most, situations don't have to be straight up fights, or often a fight is simple enough that you really don't need a grid anyway. There's a whole world of stuff that happens in a game that isn't detailed tactical combat, so just how much difference does it really make?</blockquote>

Verification