Ohhhh, that "North instead of 'right'" thing is such a huge pet peeve of mine! We have this super useful compass plot of directions that everybody knows and which eliminates ambiguity, and nobody uses it! That should absolutely be a rule in D&D books - directions are always in regards to compass directions, not subjective 'left/right' directions. That would be a very nice improvement, yes.
But a lot of people don’t know how to read compass directions. Like I’m sitting here in my room and it takes actual mental effort to remember which way is north. Left and right are easy.
The real problem is when the maps are aligned in a way other than 'north=top of page'. You don't need to know personal compass directions, you need to know directions relative to the map.
They should just call Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc."species" since some people get their noses twisted ot of joint over the traditional fantasy name of "race."
I was actually hoping the Gothic Lineages was announcing a system wide shift from race to lineage. Not sure why it didn't. Especially when, if you think about it the Gothic lineages Hexblood, Damper and Reborn aren't at least in two cases more made than born. Lineages actually seems more appropriate to everything else in the game currently organized under "race." I guess it could still happen.
“Lineage” to my mind traces to culture. But, different species should have different physical characteristics such as dark vision.
Your mind may trace it to culture, but the dictionary provides correcting guidance: lineage does speak to common ancestry, it's very close in concept to "bloodlines". It's also used biologically to talk about a species' ancestry. The only thing really cultural about the concept would be whether birth records are maintained by a culture.
...which is why "Gothic Lineages" were a weird false promise. If lineage was stepping in and dancing with Tasha's to replace "race" with a less static concept, that would have made more sense than just keeping the Gothic Lineages as something regarded separately from races, especially since the manifestations of Gothic Lineages aren't so much lineages in and of themselves, but interventions into a character's preexisting lineage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
wdym... I LOVE ranger! Killed 3 zombies with a boomerang!
Are you playing that the boomerang returns even if it hits the target?
Fantasy is fantasy. It is not a real world boomerang being thrown
I realize that. I didn’t criticize how the boomerang was being played. I asked how the boomerang is being played. I’m wondering if they are using it RAW.
It has been said before in the thread. Pathfinder 2 EoA is simpler to understand and more flexible.
I find the whole aray of free, bonus, reaction, movement, actions clunky and not always coherent. Why can this guy launch an offensive spell and attack and move and I cant launch 2 spells but I can move? Why can I attack 2 time but I cant attack once and disengage or dodge? etc
I would prefer for actions and movement to have a cost in action points and a gain or a cost in initiative and to have a pool of action points and let players do more things.
I would also prefer monsters to have more actions and capacity, especially big ones. So that they can do special moves, gain actions and also gains or lose initiative.
So that fights dont look the same and are more dynamic with more tactical possibilities and that fights with big bad ones feel unique and not just let's throw them with creeps/give them more HP so that they stay alive a few rounds.
It's wishfull thinking because I'd like all this while staying as simple and fast and balanced as it is right now.
It has been said before in the thread. Pathfinder 2 EoA is simpler to understand and more flexible.
I find the whole aray of free, bonus, reaction, movement, actions clunky and not always coherent. Why can this guy launch an offensive spell and attack and move and I cant launch 2 spells but I can move? Why can I attack 2 time but I cant attack once and disengage or dodge? etc
I would prefer for actions and movement to have a cost in action points and a gain or a cost in initiative and to have a pool of action points and let players do more things.
I would also prefer monsters to have more actions and capacity, especially big ones. So that they can do special moves, gain actions and also gains or lose initiative.
So that fights dont look the same and are more dynamic with more tactical possibilities and that fights with big bad ones feel unique and not just let's throw them with creeps/give them more HP so that they stay alive a few rounds.
It's wishfull thinking because I'd like all this while staying as simple and fast and balanced as it is right now.
For me it helps organize to have a list saying "Action, bonus action, movement, reaction."
I do agree with you on the fact that switching some of monsters abilities would be good.
About the bold text though, people should not be able to cast a spell and attack on the same turn seeing as both are actions.
With the dodge and disengage stuff you said, that is only because monks can unarmed strike as a bonus action and step of the wind for disengaging, and patient defense for dodging, each of these abilities take a bonus action to use. These are rare abilities and exceptions to the rules for that class (monk) only with their additional bonus action options, it is not the norm.
It has been said before in the thread. Pathfinder 2 EoA is simpler to understand and more flexible.
I find the whole aray of free, bonus, reaction, movement, actions clunky and not always coherent. Why can this guy launch an offensive spell and attack and move and I cant launch 2 spells but I can move? Why can I attack 2 time but I cant attack once and disengage or dodge? etc
I would prefer for actions and movement to have a cost in action points and a gain or a cost in initiative and to have a pool of action points and let players do more things.
I would also prefer monsters to have more actions and capacity, especially big ones. So that they can do special moves, gain actions and also gains or lose initiative.
So that fights dont look the same and are more dynamic with more tactical possibilities and that fights with big bad ones feel unique and not just let's throw them with creeps/give them more HP so that they stay alive a few rounds.
It's wishfull thinking because I'd like all this while staying as simple and fast and balanced as it is right now.
Two offensive spells can be cast in a round if one of those is Hellish Rebuke.
While thencurrent system doesn't make much sense I terms of economy (if I can speed up my attacks so they take half the normal time and if I don't run 30ft, why can't I cast spell in the time that I saved), I feel a point system would make things too complicated. It's pretty easy to remember "1 Action, 1 Bonus Action, 30ft of movement and 1 Reaction". Trying to juggle a point system might be a bit too much - at least, for beginners, and 5e is designed to be accessible. It might be good for an optional alternative set of rules. Of course, that would really mess with balance and so I'm not sure it's feasible, but I wouldn't want it to replace the current setup. I'm thinking about starting a group that will probably include people brand new to the game - and what they already have to learn is quote substantial.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It has been said before in the thread. Pathfinder 2 EoA is simpler to understand and more flexible.
I find the whole aray of free, bonus, reaction, movement, actions clunky and not always coherent. Why can this guy launch an offensive spell and attack and move and I cant launch 2 spells but I can move? Why can I attack 2 time but I cant attack once and disengage or dodge? etc
Oh, I get it. Definitely agree here. I think the idea was to have bonus actions be rare and special -- the default for 90% of characters and monsters was supposed to be, one move, one action. (I think the PHB doesn't stick to this very well, but I do think it was trying to.) But the value of one extra "action" each turn is self-evident, and it's become easier and easier for just about any character to get one or two reliable bonus actions at their disposal, so... now we basically have action points, except it doesn't make any sense lol.
(In my party, we have a Paladin whose bonus actions include: channel divinity, great weapon master, misty step. A Bard whose bonus actions include: bardic inspiration, telekinetic shove, healing word. A Cleric whose bonus actions include: spiritual weapon, healing word, shield of faith. And our Artificer and Warlock, whose options are the most limited here, can still use eldritch cannon and misty step respectively. So yeah, we all basically get action surge.)
I think the simplified action was good. It's fast and a little more high-stakes because you're only getting one shot on your turn to make something work. If we could return to it, I would. But I don't expect that's possible. We're now living in the "and for my bonus action" world, and I'll agree it's a little messy. I thought the PF2 system sounded cool when it released, so I guess I wouldn't mind switching to something like that.
Action points would be a big balm to a lot of finicky issues with 5e, but I'd also argue against the idea of "one turn, one thing". It never feels good to whiff your entire turn accomplishing nothing, and at later levels it absolutely can impact decisions. One example is that I'm currently playing a thirteenth-level wizard who knows Disintegrate, but has never cast it. Any time I've been in a position where landing Disintegrate would've been awesome, the target had a significantly better than even chance of beating my DC and I would've blown my entire turn and a Greater Arcana spell slot on precisely nothing. It's never been worth the gamble when every turn's One Thing I can do is absolutely precious and I can not afford to **** up. I can not afford to drop spells or let my target succeed on a save, which makes a lot of the Cool Combat Spells people want to play a high-level wizard to try out nonstarters. As The Wizard, if I drop my turn and flub a big spell the entire combat goes south and somebody quite possibly ends up dead.
It'd be nice if I could have some cushion to accomplish things without risking that fight-ruining flub. I'm not sure if action points would give it to me, but it'd be cool if something did.
Action points would be a big balm to a lot of finicky issues with 5e, but I'd also argue against the idea of "one turn, one thing". It never feels good to whiff your entire turn accomplishing nothing, and at later levels it absolutely can impact decisions. One example is that I'm currently playing a thirteenth-level wizard who knows Disintegrate, but has never cast it. Any time I've been in a position where landing Disintegrate would've been awesome, the target had a significantly better than even chance of beating my DC and I would've blown my entire turn and a Greater Arcana spell slot on precisely nothing. It's never been worth the gamble when every turn's One Thing I can do is absolutely precious and I can not afford to **** up. I can not afford to drop spells or let my target succeed on a save, which makes a lot of the Cool Combat Spells people want to play a high-level wizard to try out nonstarters. As The Wizard, if I drop my turn and flub a big spell the entire combat goes south and somebody quite possibly ends up dead.
It'd be nice if I could have some cushion to accomplish things without risking that fight-ruining flub. I'm not sure if action points would give it to me, but it'd be cool if something did.
Woudn't that apply to most things you can do though? If their bonuses are so high that you have less than 50/50 chance of succeeding...wouldn't that be true for any offensive action, in general?
Anyways, I do agree with you. It sucks losing an entire round of action on a single roll. It's not just high level, but low level as well, because a single hit getting through to your party that otherwise wouldn't have is enough to bring dire consequences. There's a sweet spot in between where people can tank stuff so it's more inconvenient. It would be an improvement to able to gamble and not feel that it's end of the world if you don't roll at least an 8 or so. Martial types are better for this due to extra attacks, but they are less likely to have the option to gamble for a bigger return.
I just don't want the game to get too complicated. It's hard enough to teach new people without overwhelming them as it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It'd be nice if I could have some cushion to accomplish things without risking that fight-ruining flub. I'm not sure if action points would give it to me, but it'd be cool if something did.
Well, the solution is to use things like save for half effects. Or just change spells from 'one hit for 10d6+40' to 'two hits for 5d6+20'. Of course, the cost of reliability is that the effects of success need to be lower.
I suppose they could have called it 'Extra thing' but that has the same issues. What is your grand solution?
"Every turn you may take a main action and a secondary action." Some characters won't have any options for their secondary action (though this is pretty rare by mid level) and will have to skip it.
I suppose they could have called it 'Extra thing' but that has the same issues. What is your grand solution?
"Every turn you may take a main action and a secondary action." Some characters won't have any options for their secondary action (though this is pretty rare by mid level) and will have to skip it.
I don't really see how that is different than "Every turn you may take a action and a bonus action. Some character won't have any options for their bonus action (though this is pretty rare by mid level) and will have to skip it.
I suppose they could have called it 'Extra thing' but that has the same issues. What is your grand solution?
"Every turn you may take a main action and a secondary action." Some characters won't have any options for their secondary action (though this is pretty rare by mid level) and will have to skip it.
Just make it two actions
Some things take one action (attack action, cunning action for rogue) and some things take two actions (dodge, dash, cast a spell)
Would help balance casters as they would need to take a full turn to cast a spell or have features that reduced the actions needed.
Like maybe an evocation wizard could cast an evocation spell for one action PB number of times per day.
Reactions still exist and maybe let some class features go here like Patient defense for monk
I suppose they could have called it 'Extra thing' but that has the same issues. What is your grand solution?
"Every turn you may take a main action and a secondary action." Some characters won't have any options for their secondary action (though this is pretty rare by mid level) and will have to skip it.
I don't really see how that is different than "Every turn you may take a action and a bonus action. Some character won't have any options for their bonus action (though this is pretty rare by mid level) and will have to skip it.
It isn't. The problem is that "bonus" is a bad choice for the name because it makes people think they're getting extra actions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The real problem is when the maps are aligned in a way other than 'north=top of page'. You don't need to know personal compass directions, you need to know directions relative to the map.
Your mind may trace it to culture, but the dictionary provides correcting guidance: lineage does speak to common ancestry, it's very close in concept to "bloodlines". It's also used biologically to talk about a species' ancestry. The only thing really cultural about the concept would be whether birth records are maintained by a culture.
...which is why "Gothic Lineages" were a weird false promise. If lineage was stepping in and dancing with Tasha's to replace "race" with a less static concept, that would have made more sense than just keeping the Gothic Lineages as something regarded separately from races, especially since the manifestations of Gothic Lineages aren't so much lineages in and of themselves, but interventions into a character's preexisting lineage.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
wdym... I LOVE ranger! Killed 3 zombies with a boomerang!
Are you playing that the boomerang returns even if it hits the target?
I realize that. I didn’t criticize how the boomerang was being played. I asked how the boomerang is being played. I’m wondering if they are using it RAW.
Not original but here it is: the economy of action.
Care to explain what you mean?
It has been said before in the thread. Pathfinder 2 EoA is simpler to understand and more flexible.
I find the whole aray of free, bonus, reaction, movement, actions clunky and not always coherent. Why can this guy launch an offensive spell and attack and move and I cant launch 2 spells but I can move? Why can I attack 2 time but I cant attack once and disengage or dodge? etc
I would prefer for actions and movement to have a cost in action points and a gain or a cost in initiative and to have a pool of action points and let players do more things.
I would also prefer monsters to have more actions and capacity, especially big ones. So that they can do special moves, gain actions and also gains or lose initiative.
So that fights dont look the same and are more dynamic with more tactical possibilities and that fights with big bad ones feel unique and not just let's throw them with creeps/give them more HP so that they stay alive a few rounds.
It's wishfull thinking because I'd like all this while staying as simple and fast and balanced as it is right now.
For me it helps organize to have a list saying "Action, bonus action, movement, reaction."
I do agree with you on the fact that switching some of monsters abilities would be good.
About the bold text though, people should not be able to cast a spell and attack on the same turn seeing as both are actions.
With the dodge and disengage stuff you said, that is only because monks can unarmed strike as a bonus action and step of the wind for disengaging, and patient defense for dodging, each of these abilities take a bonus action to use. These are rare abilities and exceptions to the rules for that class (monk) only with their additional bonus action options, it is not the norm.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Two offensive spells can be cast in a round if one of those is Hellish Rebuke.
While thencurrent system doesn't make much sense I terms of economy (if I can speed up my attacks so they take half the normal time and if I don't run 30ft, why can't I cast spell in the time that I saved), I feel a point system would make things too complicated. It's pretty easy to remember "1 Action, 1 Bonus Action, 30ft of movement and 1 Reaction". Trying to juggle a point system might be a bit too much - at least, for beginners, and 5e is designed to be accessible. It might be good for an optional alternative set of rules. Of course, that would really mess with balance and so I'm not sure it's feasible, but I wouldn't want it to replace the current setup. I'm thinking about starting a group that will probably include people brand new to the game - and what they already have to learn is quote substantial.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Oh, I get it. Definitely agree here. I think the idea was to have bonus actions be rare and special -- the default for 90% of characters and monsters was supposed to be, one move, one action. (I think the PHB doesn't stick to this very well, but I do think it was trying to.) But the value of one extra "action" each turn is self-evident, and it's become easier and easier for just about any character to get one or two reliable bonus actions at their disposal, so... now we basically have action points, except it doesn't make any sense lol.
(In my party, we have a Paladin whose bonus actions include: channel divinity, great weapon master, misty step. A Bard whose bonus actions include: bardic inspiration, telekinetic shove, healing word. A Cleric whose bonus actions include: spiritual weapon, healing word, shield of faith. And our Artificer and Warlock, whose options are the most limited here, can still use eldritch cannon and misty step respectively. So yeah, we all basically get action surge.)
I think the simplified action was good. It's fast and a little more high-stakes because you're only getting one shot on your turn to make something work. If we could return to it, I would. But I don't expect that's possible. We're now living in the "and for my bonus action" world, and I'll agree it's a little messy. I thought the PF2 system sounded cool when it released, so I guess I wouldn't mind switching to something like that.
Action points would be a big balm to a lot of finicky issues with 5e, but I'd also argue against the idea of "one turn, one thing". It never feels good to whiff your entire turn accomplishing nothing, and at later levels it absolutely can impact decisions. One example is that I'm currently playing a thirteenth-level wizard who knows Disintegrate, but has never cast it. Any time I've been in a position where landing Disintegrate would've been awesome, the target had a significantly better than even chance of beating my DC and I would've blown my entire turn and a Greater Arcana spell slot on precisely nothing. It's never been worth the gamble when every turn's One Thing I can do is absolutely precious and I can not afford to **** up. I can not afford to drop spells or let my target succeed on a save, which makes a lot of the Cool Combat Spells people want to play a high-level wizard to try out nonstarters. As The Wizard, if I drop my turn and flub a big spell the entire combat goes south and somebody quite possibly ends up dead.
It'd be nice if I could have some cushion to accomplish things without risking that fight-ruining flub. I'm not sure if action points would give it to me, but it'd be cool if something did.
Please do not contact or message me.
I would like it if "bonus action" were renamed, because it's not actually a bonus (it doesn't add an action, it lets you make use of an action).
Woudn't that apply to most things you can do though? If their bonuses are so high that you have less than 50/50 chance of succeeding...wouldn't that be true for any offensive action, in general?
Anyways, I do agree with you. It sucks losing an entire round of action on a single roll. It's not just high level, but low level as well, because a single hit getting through to your party that otherwise wouldn't have is enough to bring dire consequences. There's a sweet spot in between where people can tank stuff so it's more inconvenient. It would be an improvement to able to gamble and not feel that it's end of the world if you don't roll at least an 8 or so. Martial types are better for this due to extra attacks, but they are less likely to have the option to gamble for a bigger return.
I just don't want the game to get too complicated. It's hard enough to teach new people without overwhelming them as it is.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well, the solution is to use things like save for half effects. Or just change spells from 'one hit for 10d6+40' to 'two hits for 5d6+20'. Of course, the cost of reliability is that the effects of success need to be lower.
"Every turn you may take a main action and a secondary action." Some characters won't have any options for their secondary action (though this is pretty rare by mid level) and will have to skip it.
I don't really see how that is different than "Every turn you may take a action and a bonus action. Some character won't have any options for their bonus action (though this is pretty rare by mid level) and will have to skip it.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Just make it two actions
Some things take one action (attack action, cunning action for rogue) and some things take two actions (dodge, dash, cast a spell)
Would help balance casters as they would need to take a full turn to cast a spell or have features that reduced the actions needed.
Like maybe an evocation wizard could cast an evocation spell for one action PB number of times per day.
Reactions still exist and maybe let some class features go here like Patient defense for monk
It isn't. The problem is that "bonus" is a bad choice for the name because it makes people think they're getting extra actions.