It seems that much of the purpose of 1D&D is to make the game easier to run, by clarifying obscure rules or complex situations. So, what are your priorities for cleanup? By cleanup, I don't mean rules you merely dislike, I mean it's one of
This rule is unclear -- I can't figure out how I'm even supposed to play this.
This rule is nonsensical (e.g. the interaction of see invisible and invisibility)
This rule is really hard to actually use.
I would say my first priority for adjustments would be the rules for obscurement
If you're in an obscured area, can you see out? Does this depend on the type of obscurement?
If there's an obscured area between you and your target, can you see through it? Does this depend on the type of obscurement?
Very first thing I thought of, even before I finished reading, was the Obscurement thing and the game's vision rules. If you don't ignore them entirely and just run your game on real-world common sense, it descends into madness quickly. Can't bring any others to mind right off, but there's doubtless tons of it. I'll sleep on it and see what occurs to my dreams.
Kind of tied to obscurement the hiding rules based on obscurement are really weird to me. You can only hide when fully obscured. Yeah, yeah sound, but anyone who exists in reality knows that is absurd on both how easy it is to hide with far less obscurement side and on the side that while basically blind you somehow instantly know the location of everyone who isn't hiding. It makes so little sense its hard to run without basically saying ignore any hints of realism and accept its a game.
What can you actually do with medicine, other than stuff that a cantrip can do way better?
A lot of people seem to have issues with the rules for bonus action spells. Either write them more clearly, or change them (such as 'no more than one leveled spell per turn')
What qualifies as cover? (this came up recently in a thread about whether a blanket was cover). Can you blast through cover?
When do you actually know the position of enemies? The simple version is "always unless they hide", but that tends towards weird enough results that people often don't use it.
Kind of tied to obscurement the hiding rules based on obscurement are really weird to me. You can only hide when fully obscured. Yeah, yeah sound, but anyone who exists in reality knows that is absurd on both how easy it is to hide with far less obscurement side and on the side that while basically blind you somehow instantly know the location of everyone who isn't hiding. It makes so little sense its hard to run without basically saying ignore any hints of realism and accept its a game.
I tend to prefer requiring light concealment or partial cover, which is what both 3e and 4e did.
Kind of tied to obscurement the hiding rules based on obscurement are really weird to me. You can only hide when fully obscured. Yeah, yeah sound, but anyone who exists in reality knows that is absurd on both how easy it is to hide with far less obscurement side and on the side that while basically blind you somehow instantly know the location of everyone who isn't hiding. It makes so little sense its hard to run without basically saying ignore any hints of realism and accept its a game.
I tend to prefer requiring light concealment or partial cover, which is what both 3e and 4e did.
I generally prefer that as well but I also like to allow people to move with stealth outside of any cover/concealement as long as they start and end their movement in it or end it with an attack. You should be able to sneak across a open space by timing when people are looking, or sneak up on someone and shank them.
edit to add I'd aslo say if you are blind whether from total darkness or some other sort you should need to make perception tests to navigate, to know where people are, to even know that someone is there assuming they aren't being absurd about making noise. Similarly invisibility should well make you invisible from the get go. Bump the spells levels to make it feel like invisibility, like normal invisibility is level 4, improved level 6.
There should be no difference between a melee weapon attack and an attack with a melee weapon. Figure out glass windows and other transparent things which simultaneously provide full cover and allow you to see the target. Also, what happens when a mount is uncontrolled, does the DM decide where it goes or what? I don’t think it quite fits the OP, but I could do with 30-60 percent fewer kinds of elves.
I'd like to see something addressing the fact that "The Attack Action" and "An Attack" are two separate things. I know that would be a little tricky to fix at this point, since it's kind of hard baked into the structure of this edition of D&D, and if OneD&D is meant to remain backwards compatible with 5e it could lead to some confusion if suddenly attacks are called "strikes" or something.
I'd like to see something addressing the fact that "The Attack Action" and "An Attack" are two separate things. I know that would be a little tricky to fix at this point, since it's kind of hard baked into the structure of this edition of D&D, and if OneD&D is meant to remain backwards compatible with 5e it could lead to some confusion if suddenly attacks are called "strikes" or something.
While we're at it, "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon". Davyd explained it once and it made sense why they did it that way from a design evolution POV...but man, when your rules have two different but related meanings but read as being the same thing under normal English rules, it's got to be changed.
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.
What can you actually do with medicine, other than stuff that a cantrip can do way better?
I don't want to be a jerk about this but...
The answer to all of these is pretty clear from the descriptions of the skills themselves (also I'll assume one of those 'acrobatics' is supposed to be 'athletics') and from the general way that all skills work in 5e and (presumably therefore) 1D&D.
The difference between investigation and perception is that for investigation you use your intellect and reasoning to investigate things, while for perception you use your senses and experience to perceive things. They can achieve a lot of the same results, but in subtly different ways.
What I conclude from context on that third and fourth question is that you seem to want a discrete list of options that come with a skill that a player can choose to perform. That's (mostly) not how skills in 5e work... It's certainly not how they're supposed to work.
How skills are supposed to work in 5e, according to the PHB and DMG is that a player says what they want their character to do and then the DM decides which skill (if any) they should use for that and what DC they need to beat to succeed. So the answer to any question along the lines of 'What can I do with <skill>?' is 'whatever the DM deems appropriate for that skill'.
What can you actually do with medicine, other than stuff that a cantrip can do way better?
I don't want to be a jerk about this but...
The answer to all of these is pretty clear from the descriptions of the skills themselves (also I'll assume one of those 'acrobatics' is supposed to be 'athletics') and from the general way that all skills work in 5e and (presumably therefore) 1D&D.
The difference between investigation and perception is that for investigation you use your intellect and reasoning to investigate things, while for perception you use your senses and experience to perceive things. They can achieve a lot of the same results, but in subtly different ways.
What I conclude from context on that third and fourth question is that you seem to want a discrete list of options that come with a skill that a player can choose to perform. That's (mostly) not how skills in 5e work... It's certainly not how they're supposed to work.
How skills are supposed to work in 5e, according to the PHB and DMG is that a player says what they want their character to do and then the DM decides which skill (if any) they should use for that and what DC they need to beat to succeed. So the answer to any question along the lines of 'What can I do with <skill>?' is 'whatever the DM deems appropriate for that skill'.
There are legitimate questions about them.
For example:
Many DMs use Perception tons but rarely Investigation. One instance I've seen is when asking if there are traps - do you use Perception to notice the mechenism or do you use Investigation to find it? You could go either way. Either choice heavily values one ability over the other, so it's not merely academic either - or hypothetical.
Is Insight really only about talking to people? You can't use it to, say, figure out, Sherlock style, a series of events that occurred in a room by positioning of various objects etc?
Is Medicine really just Spare the Dying but with a skill check that has not far off 50% fail rate? In an official adventure (Candlekeep Mysteries) last night, the book called to use Medicine to identify a shrivelled pancreas as such. That's a completely logical use of the skill and the best choice for the task...yet not even remotely hinted at by the skill description.
The point of handbooks is that they give a good enough understanding of how to use the various tools they provide that you have to be familiar with the game understand how to use them. It makes sense to you, but there are a lot of people who don't understand it, or do but by virtue of having learnt the game and then read the manual. That's...a failing on the part of the manual.
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.
I'd like to see something addressing the fact that "The Attack Action" and "An Attack" are two separate things. I know that would be a little tricky to fix at this point, since it's kind of hard baked into the structure of this edition of D&D, and if OneD&D is meant to remain backwards compatible with 5e it could lead to some confusion if suddenly attacks are called "strikes" or something.
While we're at it, "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon". Davyd explained it once and it made sense why they did it that way from a design evolution POV...but man, when your rules have two different but related meanings but read as being the same thing under normal English rules, it's got to be changed.
I wish I remember what they said at this point but I remember thinking that more was lost than gained from their methods.
There are a lot of questions about them, sure, but how many of those questions are legitimate (in the sense that the people who ask them read the appropriate section of the PHB and are still confused, rather than just assuming they know what it means) is quite uncertain.
Many DMs use Perception tons but rarely Investigation. One instance I've seen is when asking if there are traps - do you use Perception to notice the mechenism or do you use Investigation to find it? You could go either way. Either choice heavily values one ability over the other, so it's not merely academic either - or hypothetical
The description of both skills makes it pretty clear which actions fit which skill, so on the whole whether you use Perception or Investigation to find a trap depends on how you describe the actions your character takes in order to ascertain whether there are traps. Many DMs use Perception tons because Perception is about noticing things, while Investigation is about deducing things.
You can use both to try and detect traps, but if you only tell your DM 'My character looks for traps', then most of the time they're going to have you roll Perception, because based on that description your character is trying to perceive where any traps might be based on their sense alone, rather than trying to find clues that there is a trap and then trying to deduce where it is based on that.
Is Insight really only about talking to people? You can't use it to, say, figure out, Sherlock style, a series of events that occurred in a room by positioning of various objects etc?
It's not only about talking to people. But it is only about creatures. The skill's description says Insight is what you use to tell things about a creature (such as whether they're lying) from their body language, speech patterns and the like. The answer to the second question is 'no', because what you're describing there doesn't involve trying to discern the true intentions of a creature. And besides the description (Sherlock scan and all) is explicitly what Investigation is.
And at the risk (again) of sounding like a jerk... The skill descriptions give a relatively loose description of roughly what the skill is relevant for, not a complete and exhaustive list of the only things you can do with a skill... So when someone asks 'can I use <skill> for..' and then describes an action that even a cursory read of the skill description indicates is totally unrelated to that skill, that's a problem of their reading comprehension, not the skill's description.
The description of both skills makes it pretty clear which actions fit which skill, so on the whole whether you use Perception or Investigation to find a trap depends on how you describe the actions your character takes in order to ascertain whether there are traps. Many DMs use Perception tons because Perception is about noticing things, while Investigation is about deducing things.
Whether or not you think the distinction is clear, enough questions come up about it that it obviously isn't actually clear.
My general standard is that if a dog can do it, it's perception. Thus, in the case of a trap, perception might allow spotting a pressure plate, but it won't tell you what it does.
There should be no difference between a melee weapon attack and an attack with a melee weapon. - I don’t think it quite fits the OP, but I could do with 30-60 percent fewer kinds of elves.
1: This is my main one. All attacks should be melee or ranged, physical or magical. And that's it. Get rid of unarmed attacks or natural weapons being a special thing. For a edition that was supposed to keep things simple & have a low barrier to entry, WotC went out of thier way to make some things complicated for no good reason.
2: People like elves. People like homebrew. People do not like other people's homebrew.
What can you actually do with medicine, other than stuff that a cantrip can do way better?
A lot of people seem to have issues with the rules for bonus action spells. Either write them more clearly, or change them (such as 'no more than one leveled spell per turn')
What qualifies as cover? (this came up recently in a thread about whether a blanket was cover). Can you blast through cover?
When do you actually know the position of enemies? The simple version is "always unless they hide", but that tends towards weird enough results that people often don't use it.
Really? Most of these have never been confusing to me.
Explain the difference between investigation and perception : Perception is generally looking around at everything around you, investigation is focusing your attention on one specific area or item and trying to draw conclusions from what you find. E.g. if in a dungeon and a player is generally on the look out for signs of traps that is Perception, and a success gets them "you notice one floor tile is a slightly different colour than the others." If they then look closer at the floor tile that is Investigation and success gets them: "This floor tile appears to be able to move up and down, and could be a pressure-plate trap."
Explain the difference between acrobatics and athletics : Athletics is a catch-all for Strength-based physical activity, whereas Acrobatics is a catch-all for Dexterity-based physical activity. E.g. if a PC wants to get to the top of a wall, if they just run, jump and pull themselves up that is Athletics, if they get a board or stick and put it at an angle to make a ramp up to the top of the wall and then try to run up it that is Acrobatics.
What can you actually do with insightYou can read someone's tone of voice or body language to determine their emotional state or intentions. E.g. "this person seems to be frightened and just wants to get away from you" or "Despite this person smiling at you, you can see in their eyes that they don't mean it and have a hostile intent." or "this person is utterly terrified of you, and is trying to say anything that will appease you." or "While this person seems sincere in their offer, you can tell they have an ulterior motive for doing so."
What can you actually do with medicine, other than stuff that a cantrip can do way better? You can determine the cause of death from a body and the type of weapons that created the wounds you observe on someone/a corpse, diagnose diseases, determine the kind of poison afflicting someone, identify if a malady is likely to be magical in nature, you can create splints, crutches, and other temporary fixes to sever injuries such as broken bones. You can identify sources of outbreaks and methods of transmission.
What qualifies as cover? (this came up recently in a thread about whether a blanket was cover). Can you blast through cover? Cover is a large rigid object between you and the source of an attack or spell - a simple rule of thumb is if the object would stop an arrow fired at it then it provides cover, if it doesn't it provides obscurement. A blanket, clothing, branches / thin vegetation, water, a piece of paper, or some spider web grant you obscurement but not cover, whereas a barrel, wall, compacted pile of dirt, glass window, or sufficienctly large tree trunk do provide cover. Yes you can blast through cover, a cover is an object thus has an HP/AC/Damage Threshold as determined by the DM and can be destroyed (see DMG rules on objects).
What I would like to see is clarification on:
- vision, lighting, obscurement, hiding, and invisibility (and please make them actually make sense!).
- mounts switching from controlled / uncontrolled mid-combat if e.g. a rider mounts / dismounts them.
- interactions between holding actions and surprise. (can the party hold actions, and get a second round of surprise?)
- explanations of how Blindsight, tremorsense, and telepathy works
- somekind of rules about hearing especially with how it interacts with hiding & obscurement. Can I hear an invisible dragon breathing 120 ft away and know where it is? Can every monster hear equally well - including things like animated swords that can only see with their blindsight?
You can't use it to, say, figure out, Sherlock style, a series of events that occurred in a room by positioning of various objects etc?
Correct deducing what occurred in a room by the positioning of various objects is like the definition of Investigation. However, if you want to determine if a suspect is hiding something or want to make a guess at the motive for why someone would murder someone that would be Insight.
I'd like to see something addressing the fact that "The Attack Action" and "An Attack" are two separate things. I know that would be a little tricky to fix at this point, since it's kind of hard baked into the structure of this edition of D&D, and if OneD&D is meant to remain backwards compatible with 5e it could lead to some confusion if suddenly attacks are called "strikes" or something.
I was going to post this actually; I really wish they'd just rename the Attack action to Fight, so to make a weapon attack or unarmed strike you must take the Fight action (or any other special action that also lets you do it). Simply not reusing the same word would help to make it a lot clear what is meant each time, as the current convention seems to just be that the Attack action is always referred to as "the Attack action" but that doesn't disambiguate it from "attack" for most new (and many existing) players.
Maybe there's a better name than "Fight", but the key is to make it a word that doesn't already mean something else. I'd also argue that they should really rename "attack roll" to "hit roll" but this would require so many more changes. Though I really don't know what the plan is for legacy content given the changes we're already seeing, it may be enough just to say "the Attack action is now the Fight action, attack rolls are now called hit rolls" or such.
But with these changes "attack" would only refer to the actual steps for resolving an attack.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
A lot of people seem to have issues with the rules for bonus action spells. Either write them more clearly, or change them (such as 'no more than one leveled spell per turn')
What qualifies as cover? (this came up recently in a thread about whether a blanket was cover). Can you blast through cover?
When do you actually know the position of enemies? The simple version is "always unless they hide", but that tends towards weird enough results that people often don't use it.
I don’t understand the issue with bonus action spells. The wording tells you what you can and cannot do. People honestly might have issue with the action surge spellcaster who breaks what they want to believe the wording should be. The flaw with “one leveled spell per turn” is it doesn’t address the metamagic issue WotC knew could happen with quickened spell. They didn’t want players using quickened spell on cantrips freeing them up to use other metamagics on leveled spells on the same turn. Also “one leveled spell per turn” kills the counterspell their counterspell with your reaction on your turn.
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. So it depends on if the DM believes a blanket is an obstacle. I go by the rule of if I can walk through it then it’s not cover.
Once combat starts you know the location of all enemies you can see unless they are hidden from you.
A lot of people seem to have issues with the rules for bonus action spells. Either write them more clearly, or change them (such as 'no more than one leveled spell per turn')
What qualifies as cover? (this came up recently in a thread about whether a blanket was cover). Can you blast through cover?
When do you actually know the position of enemies? The simple version is "always unless they hide", but that tends towards weird enough results that people often don't use it.
I don’t understand the issue with bonus action spells. The wording tells you what you can and cannot do. People honestly might have issue with the action surge spellcaster who breaks what they want to believe the wording should be. The flaw with “one leveled spell per turn” is it doesn’t address the metamagic issue WotC knew could happen with quickened spell. They didn’t want players using quickened spell on cantrips freeing them up to use other metamagics on leveled spells on the same turn. Also “one leveled spell per turn” kills the counterspell their counterspell with your reaction on your turn.
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. So it depends on if the DM believes a blanket is an obstacle. I go by the rule of if I can walk through it then it’s not cover.
Once combat starts you know the location of all enemies you can see unless they are hidden from you.
Whether or not you think people should be confused, the reality is that people are. If they want to restrict metamagic spell plus metamagic cantrip (which is, honestly, not a big deal) they can also add once per turn to metamagic. As for counterspell, I don't think they actually like counterspell wars, or counterspell game play in general. I wouldn't be surprised to see counterspell change dramatically.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It seems that much of the purpose of 1D&D is to make the game easier to run, by clarifying obscure rules or complex situations. So, what are your priorities for cleanup? By cleanup, I don't mean rules you merely dislike, I mean it's one of
I would say my first priority for adjustments would be the rules for obscurement
What are other people's issues?
Very first thing I thought of, even before I finished reading, was the Obscurement thing and the game's vision rules. If you don't ignore them entirely and just run your game on real-world common sense, it descends into madness quickly. Can't bring any others to mind right off, but there's doubtless tons of it. I'll sleep on it and see what occurs to my dreams.
Please do not contact or message me.
Kind of tied to obscurement the hiding rules based on obscurement are really weird to me. You can only hide when fully obscured. Yeah, yeah sound, but anyone who exists in reality knows that is absurd on both how easy it is to hide with far less obscurement side and on the side that while basically blind you somehow instantly know the location of everyone who isn't hiding. It makes so little sense its hard to run without basically saying ignore any hints of realism and accept its a game.
Some more thoughts:
I tend to prefer requiring light concealment or partial cover, which is what both 3e and 4e did.
I generally prefer that as well but I also like to allow people to move with stealth outside of any cover/concealement as long as they start and end their movement in it or end it with an attack. You should be able to sneak across a open space by timing when people are looking, or sneak up on someone and shank them.
edit to add I'd aslo say if you are blind whether from total darkness or some other sort you should need to make perception tests to navigate, to know where people are, to even know that someone is there assuming they aren't being absurd about making noise. Similarly invisibility should well make you invisible from the get go. Bump the spells levels to make it feel like invisibility, like normal invisibility is level 4, improved level 6.
There should be no difference between a melee weapon attack and an attack with a melee weapon.
Figure out glass windows and other transparent things which simultaneously provide full cover and allow you to see the target.
Also, what happens when a mount is uncontrolled, does the DM decide where it goes or what?
I don’t think it quite fits the OP, but I could do with 30-60 percent fewer kinds of elves.
I'd like to see something addressing the fact that "The Attack Action" and "An Attack" are two separate things. I know that would be a little tricky to fix at this point, since it's kind of hard baked into the structure of this edition of D&D, and if OneD&D is meant to remain backwards compatible with 5e it could lead to some confusion if suddenly attacks are called "strikes" or something.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
While we're at it, "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon". Davyd explained it once and it made sense why they did it that way from a design evolution POV...but man, when your rules have two different but related meanings but read as being the same thing under normal English rules, it's got to be changed.
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.
I don't want to be a jerk about this but...
The answer to all of these is pretty clear from the descriptions of the skills themselves (also I'll assume one of those 'acrobatics' is supposed to be 'athletics') and from the general way that all skills work in 5e and (presumably therefore) 1D&D.
The difference between investigation and perception is that for investigation you use your intellect and reasoning to investigate things, while for perception you use your senses and experience to perceive things. They can achieve a lot of the same results, but in subtly different ways.
There are legitimate questions about them.
For example:
The point of handbooks is that they give a good enough understanding of how to use the various tools they provide that you have to be familiar with the game understand how to use them. It makes sense to you, but there are a lot of people who don't understand it, or do but by virtue of having learnt the game and then read the manual. That's...a failing on the part of the manual.
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.
I wish I remember what they said at this point but I remember thinking that more was lost than gained from their methods.
There are a lot of questions about them, sure, but how many of those questions are legitimate (in the sense that the people who ask them read the appropriate section of the PHB and are still confused, rather than just assuming they know what it means) is quite uncertain.
The description of both skills makes it pretty clear which actions fit which skill, so on the whole whether you use Perception or Investigation to find a trap depends on how you describe the actions your character takes in order to ascertain whether there are traps. Many DMs use Perception tons because Perception is about noticing things, while Investigation is about deducing things.
You can use both to try and detect traps, but if you only tell your DM 'My character looks for traps', then most of the time they're going to have you roll Perception, because based on that description your character is trying to perceive where any traps might be based on their sense alone, rather than trying to find clues that there is a trap and then trying to deduce where it is based on that.
It's not only about talking to people. But it is only about creatures. The skill's description says Insight is what you use to tell things about a creature (such as whether they're lying) from their body language, speech patterns and the like. The answer to the second question is 'no', because what you're describing there doesn't involve trying to discern the true intentions of a creature. And besides the description (Sherlock scan and all) is explicitly what Investigation is.
And at the risk (again) of sounding like a jerk... The skill descriptions give a relatively loose description of roughly what the skill is relevant for, not a complete and exhaustive list of the only things you can do with a skill... So when someone asks 'can I use <skill> for..' and then describes an action that even a cursory read of the skill description indicates is totally unrelated to that skill, that's a problem of their reading comprehension, not the skill's description.
Whether or not you think the distinction is clear, enough questions come up about it that it obviously isn't actually clear.
My general standard is that if a dog can do it, it's perception. Thus, in the case of a trap, perception might allow spotting a pressure plate, but it won't tell you what it does.
1: This is my main one. All attacks should be melee or ranged, physical or magical. And that's it. Get rid of unarmed attacks or natural weapons being a special thing. For a edition that was supposed to keep things simple & have a low barrier to entry, WotC went out of thier way to make some things complicated for no good reason.
2: People like elves. People like homebrew. People do not like other people's homebrew.
Really? Most of these have never been confusing to me.
What I would like to see is clarification on:
- vision, lighting, obscurement, hiding, and invisibility (and please make them actually make sense!).
- mounts switching from controlled / uncontrolled mid-combat if e.g. a rider mounts / dismounts them.
- interactions between holding actions and surprise. (can the party hold actions, and get a second round of surprise?)
- explanations of how Blindsight, tremorsense, and telepathy works
- somekind of rules about hearing especially with how it interacts with hiding & obscurement. Can I hear an invisible dragon breathing 120 ft away and know where it is? Can every monster hear equally well - including things like animated swords that can only see with their blindsight?
Correct deducing what occurred in a room by the positioning of various objects is like the definition of Investigation. However, if you want to determine if a suspect is hiding something or want to make a guess at the motive for why someone would murder someone that would be Insight.
I was going to post this actually; I really wish they'd just rename the Attack action to Fight, so to make a weapon attack or unarmed strike you must take the Fight action (or any other special action that also lets you do it). Simply not reusing the same word would help to make it a lot clear what is meant each time, as the current convention seems to just be that the Attack action is always referred to as "the Attack action" but that doesn't disambiguate it from "attack" for most new (and many existing) players.
Maybe there's a better name than "Fight", but the key is to make it a word that doesn't already mean something else. I'd also argue that they should really rename "attack roll" to "hit roll" but this would require so many more changes. Though I really don't know what the plan is for legacy content given the changes we're already seeing, it may be enough just to say "the Attack action is now the Fight action, attack rolls are now called hit rolls" or such.
But with these changes "attack" would only refer to the actual steps for resolving an attack.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Whether or not you think people should be confused, the reality is that people are. If they want to restrict metamagic spell plus metamagic cantrip (which is, honestly, not a big deal) they can also add once per turn to metamagic. As for counterspell, I don't think they actually like counterspell wars, or counterspell game play in general. I wouldn't be surprised to see counterspell change dramatically.