# Mike Mearls “…it’s now obvious how to live without Bonus Actions”' And 6th Edition When Players Ask



## dagger

Mike Mearls, following up on his comments on how he would change initiative, is talking more about how he would change bonus actions in D&D 5E. He says that "Bonus actions are fairly hacky, and with 3+ years running the final game under my belt it's now obvious how to live without them." In the same conversation, he also brings up the concept of a new edition, implying that 5E is not necessarily an evergreen edition and that WotC will produce a 6th Edition "when players and DMs ask for it". This is the second time he's recently seeded ideas of core rule changes out there, so something's in the air!






"I love Star Frontiers, but my I have to admit that if I did this it would be like 40% to do a 5e-driven game w/o bonus actions. Bonus actions are fairly hacky, and with 3+ years running the final game under my belt it's now obvious how to live without them.

You just need to glue the appropriate actions together - for instance, Two-Weapon Fighting is just a special attack action. Instead of there being an Attack action, you'd have Attack as a category with new class-exclusive options added to it. Cleaner design.

With all that said, nothing that requires a new edition. We'll do that when players and DMs ask for it. No where near that now."
​


----------



## pukunui

I don't have a problem with bonus actions either.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

Bonus actions in 5E ARE hacky and too decoupled from the fictional world. There's a lot of places in 5E where you get to do something "as a bonus action" but no consideration is given to what you are actually DOING. Bardic Inspiration is a poster child for this kind of ugliness. If bonus actions didn't exist, presumably the bard would have some kind of ability like "When you cast a spell through song, you can weave your words in such a way that [the ally gets bardic inspiration]." That would make it clear that (1) yes, Bardic Inspiration is compatible with spells that have verbal components; (2) you can't inspire others while gagged (even though you can cast spells while gagged, e.g. Hypnotic Pattern, because it has no Verbal components); (3) it would make it clear you can't inspire others with song while you are busy drinking a potion (Action: drink a potion) because your mouth is busy. The ability could be written in such a way as to be compatible or not compatible with other actions like hiding, attacking, or extra object manipulation as desired. The designer would be encouraged to consider in advance what the ability is really doing from a fictional perspective instead of just lazily slapping gamist "bonus action" jargon on the ability and ignoring the fiction, leaving it all for the DM to fix during gameplay.

Also, bonus actions have weird interactions with other rules like Readying actions: technically, you cannot ready Bardic Inspiration or a Misty Step, although it isn't at all clear from a fictional perspective why that should be the case.

I agree with Mearls that bonus actions in 5E are poorly designed. I might not agree with him on a given proposed solution, but he's right about the problem. They encourage lazy and poor design.


----------



## Thurmas

I'd have to see a UA on it to get a better feel for it, but I think so many things benefit from bonus actions. Specifically, actions that certain classes turn into bonus actions, such as the Rogue and Dash, or spells that allow you to do continuing effects or cast as bonus actions, like Bigby's Hand or Smites. I agree that some things don't work as well, such as the Two Weapon Fighting example, but overall, I like the concept of having the ability to do mini-actions during a turn that shouldn't take a full action. I would prefer to keep them, but just clean them up.


----------



## darjr

I'm just fine with 5th.


----------



## darjr

Star frontiers 5e would be cool! Bonus actions and all.


----------



## TheSwartz

Seriously. we're already talking about another edition? uugghhhh....


----------



## vpuigdoller

I would live Star Frontiers 5e!


----------



## Valetudo

These things he says makes me hope mearls isnt around for 6th edition. I like bonus actions, can they see some improvements? Sure, but mearls definately wants adifferent game than I do at this point.


----------



## SkidAce

Prakriti said:


> With all due respect to Mike Mearls, he is wrong. The action economy in 5th Edition is beautifully designed, and I wouldn't change a thing about it.




I also respect Mike Mearls, and agree with  [MENTION=6855149]Prakriti[/MENTION] that Mike is wrong on this issue.

Bonus actions are fine.  You only have one if something gives it to you, so in effect, its already "attached".


----------



## Over the Hill Gamer

Bonus actions are fun! They are intrinsic to 5e. 

That being said hemlock is correct when he said:  


Hemlock said:


> Bonus actions in 5E ARE .... too decoupled from the fictional world.




But it's too late to fix it now!

I would love to see a 6th edition of the game under Mearl's direction.  He's a genius, second only to GG himself.

I am sure his corporate masters are looking at the sales figures from the 5e PHB and saying, let's do that again, that was fun!


----------



## darjr

I'm not convinced either. If you had a category and then every bonus action would be a complicated thing that says (hey you can do this while you do another action, except this one, oh and that one, oh and that new one, at the same time).

Bonus action may be a hack, but it's a freaking brilliant one.


----------



## James Mullen

There is no need for a new edition, it's part of the appeal of this version that it can incorporate elements from all previous editions pretty well. There is room for a decent Unearthed Arcana book with variant or optional rules. There are things that could be expanded, like feats, but most of the game structure is beautiful for its efficiency as is. I'd like to see some options for bonus actions, but there's no need for a wholesale revamping or discarding of that system, and they work nicely as they are.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Hemlock said:


> Bonus actions in 5E ARE hacky and too decoupled from the fictional world. There's a lot of places in 5E where you get to do something "as a bonus action" but no consideration is given to what you are actually DOING. Bardic Inspiration is a poster child for this kind of ugliness. If bonus actions didn't exist, presumably the bard would have some kind of ability like "When you cast a spell through song, you can weave your words in such a way that [the ally gets bardic inspiration]." That would make it clear that (1) yes, Bardic Inspiration is compatible with spells that have verbal components; (2) you can't inspire others while gagged (even though you can cast spells while gagged, e.g. Hypnotic Pattern, because it has no Verbal components); (3) it would make it clear you can't inspire others with song while you are busy drinking a potion (Action: drink a potion) because your mouth is busy. The ability could be written in such a way as to be compatible or not compatible with other actions like hiding, attacking, or extra object manipulation as desired. The designer would be encouraged to consider in advance what the ability is really doing from a fictional perspective instead of just lazily slapping gamist "bonus action" jargon on the ability and ignoring the fiction, leaving it all for the DM to fix during gameplay.



When you write the effect that way, you're still _"leaving it all for the DM to fix during gameplay"_. You say your wording makes it "clear" that you can't inspire while drinking a potion, but that's not actually what the words say: it's an interpretation which you're assuming the DM will make based on your notion of what constitutes common sense. And if we're assuming common sense, why can't we just say that it's common sense to figure out _"what you are actually DOING"_ when you use this ability?

But set that aside -- let's grant for the sake of argument that your wording is as clear as you claim. I can improve on it and get the best of both worlds simply by appending _"As a bonus action on your turn..._" to the beginning. The ability is still spelling out what-you're-actually-doing to precisely the same extent, but now it's also keeping straight the timing and the action economy and providing all the other conveniences of the bonus action mechanic. Bonus actions mean DMs don't have to figure out for themselves whether a bard/rogue can cast a spell and inspire and dash all in the same turn.

Look at the history here. The 5E team, including one Mike Mearls, tried _really hard_ in the playtest to design an edition without what were then called "minor actions". The results were circumlocutious and awful. In the end, as you can see, bonus actions made their way back into the design. They are simply the cleanest and simplest way yet discovered to handle a wide variety of effects. Now, Mearls is saying he's figured out a better way, but I'll believe that when I see it.

I'm not going to deny that bonus actions could be better integrated into rules like readying, etc. But it's wildly overkill to burn down the whole concept of the bonus action just because it's not clear that you can ready an inspiration. The rules simply need to make explicit that a bonus action -- being, y'know, _an action_ -- can be performed any time a regular action can. That's how it worked in 4E, after all.

In short, I don't think your complaint is really about bonus actions at all. I think it's about the vague way in which bardic inspiration (and perhaps some other abilities you may have in mind) are written. You can improve the writing there without ditching bonus actions. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

After all, if we really took your logic seriously, it would also seem to imply that we ought to get rid of _actions_.


----------



## lyle.spade

Prakriti said:


> With all due respect to Mike Mearls, he is wrong. The action economy in 5th Edition is beautifully designed, and I wouldn't change a thing about it.




I agree with you completely.


----------



## Jester David

Bonus actions are very much a child of swift actions and minor actions. They're okay but definitely a little kludge. They pretty much only exist because, late in the playtest, they wanted a way to limit extra attacks granted by various classes. 
They snuck back into the edition that way and got used for a whole bunch of extra stuff in the process. 

It might have worked just as well to tie bonus action abilities to things like making an attack or casting a spell or moving. Or just having some be non-actions taken once per turn. Using bardic inspiration or raging or making an off-hand attack all don't really require a "bonus action" limitation. 

The point of bonus actions was to remove the "standard, move, minor" turn, where you look for something to do with each type of action. The idea being since bonus actions only appeared when you had a power that granted one, they were less in play and not as much of something to worry about "spending" or wasting. 
But with so much that uses a bonus action, that desire not to waste your bonus action pops up again...


----------



## ad_hoc

I do agree that bonus actions are 'hacky' and they are unintuitive. Probably because they don't directly relate to things that you are doing. 

Players at my table often have trouble differentiating between bonus actions and reactions. This was a particular problem for a bard who had bardic inspiration, cutting words, and healing word. The bonus action spell thing with only allowing a follow up cantrip was probably the worst of it. It's fast enough that you can do an action on your turn too, except that 1 action, even though in all other circumstances that action is the same amount of effort as all other actions.

Now that these are the rules we have I'm fine with them. I'm skeptical about Mearls' ideas for removing them but I am curious. He is a great designer, I just suspect inertia will keep me using the current rules.


----------



## Vampyr3

seems like a broken record here on Enworld, but can we get a source on this? as Just posting this does mean anyhting without some source for the words he said, sigh...


----------



## SkidAce

Vampyr3 said:


> seems like a broken record here on Enworld, but can we get a source on this? as Just posting this does mean anyhting without some source for the words he said, sigh...




It does mean something.

It gives us stuff to talk about and discuss.


----------



## SkidAce

Vampyr3 said:


> seems like a broken record here on Enworld, but can we get a source on this? as Just posting this does mean anyhting without some source for the words he said, sigh...




However, here yah go...

https://twitter.com/mikemearls


----------



## Vampyr3

SkidAce said:


> However, here yah go...
> 
> https://twitter.com/mikemearls





Thanks, at least it has context now, other then jumbled text with red letters...

Keep forgetting to drink the koolaid before I browse here.. must correct that...


----------



## Caliban

Vampyr3 said:


> Thanks, at least it has context now, other then jumbled text with red letters...
> 
> Keep forgetting to drink the koolaid before I browse here.. must correct that...




At the very least, it would make you less needy and whiny when you don't get what you want right away.


----------



## Caliban

Prakriti said:


> With all due respect to Mike Mearls, he is wrong. The action economy in 5th Edition is beautifully designed, and I wouldn't change a thing about it.




Yeah.  You can live without a lot of stuff, doesn't mean everyone else wants to.


----------



## Andrew C

I like the bonus action. I can all to easily see special attack manoeuvre, and the special movement manoeuvre feature, and then racial or class special manoeuvre creeping in and making some complex.

The iniative system on the table Mike Mentioned added up for more to players and DMs to remember thereby increasing the barrier of entry to D&D.


----------



## Desh-Rae-Halra

I'm ready and formally asking for 6th Edition


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

Desh-Rae-Halra said:


> I'm ready and formally asking for 6th Edition




Whereas I'm on the verge of going back to AD&D (2nd ed).


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk

you can sense in places that the Bonus action has been taged onto the system.

For example if you look at class abilities they often use the wording using *a bonus action on your turn.* but other only refer to *as a bonus action*
This diference in wording seems to sugest you mght be able to use bonus actions outside of your turn, why else state that certain bonus actions can only be taken on your turn?.

But the rules for bonus actions already say that bonus actions are taken on your turn, meaning that for example you can't ready a bonus action.


----------



## Hussar

I do see what he's saying.  It's not always readily apparent what's going on in the game when things get confused between action and bonus action.  It gets particularly problematic when you have classes that sometimes juggle their bonus action.  A two weapon fighting rogue, for example.  Hardly a rare thing.  But, if you make your second attack, you can't take your rogue bonus action.  We've tripped on that one more than a few times where the rogue has tried to take too many actions.

It's not as clear cut as it could be.  Imagine rogues where it says, "After you attack, you may, if you wish, do X, Y or Z".  Simply remove the competition for bonus actions.

Even things like extra attacks.  Ok, Barbarian gets multiple attacks.  Cool.  Then he gets a bonus action attack because of his Frenzy.  No problem.   But, wait!  He has Great Weapon Fighting, which grants bonus action attacks when you kill something.  It can get confusing.


----------



## Dragonblade

To be fair, Mearls said "We are nowhere near that now" in referring to a new edition.

My biggest issue with 5e is the lack of self-contained stat blocks. Monsters and NPCs with spells I have a look up is just poor design, IMO. I'd love to see a variant Monster Manual with self-contained stat blocks, an official Tome of Battle 5e conversion, and a 5e book on crafting, kingdom/domain management, and castle-building. Then I would truly have the ultimate perfect edition that I would play until the end of time.


----------



## Olaf the Stout

We're not even 3 years into and so far WotC have released a 1-2 player focused books (depends if you count Volo's as a player or a DM book) outside of the PHB.

With that in mind, I'd much prefer if Mearls didn't start making 6E comments just yet. I know he didn't say 6E is coming, but there wasn't even a need to mention it.


----------



## Zardnaar

You don't really need the bonus/minor actions in D&D and it basically complicates the game.


----------



## Fandabidozi

This is what house rules are for. No new edition WotC!


----------



## machineelf

Bonus actions work fine, and I don't like his initiative system proposal. There are some things that can be improved, but these are not them.


----------



## machineelf

Zardnaar said:


> You don't really need the bonus/minor actions in D&D and it basically complicates the game.




Sure it complicates the game. Having magic in the game as opposed to just martial fighting complicates the game. The question is, "what's the right balance of complication?" 

Bonus/minor actions allow you to not waste a whole action on something that shouldn't take that long. They give more space in the rules to allow classes to do more interesting things and combos of things. I'm willing to listen to any suggestions, but I'm worried taking out bonus actions would remove too many interesting options.


----------



## Dausuul

Vampyr3 said:


> Thanks, at least it has context now, other then jumbled text with red letters...



Right, it's a Twitter conversation. That means it's jumbled text with _black_ letters.

(Seriously, I cannot fathom how anyone can bear to follow anything on Twitter. I am deeply grateful to y'all who follow Mearls and repost his stuff here, because otherwise I'd never know about it.)

Bonus actions don't necessarily have to be eliminated, but they are _massively_ overused. If I were in charge of overhauling 5E, I would make a list of all the bonus actions, and think hard about whether each one really needs to be a bonus action or whether it could be reworked to be part of a standard action, or not an action at all.

Two-weapon fighting is the poster child for bonus actions gone wrong. It could be trivially merged into the regular Attack action (if you have two weapons, when you make the Attack action, you can attack once with the off hand), and having it as a bonus action is a major penalty for dual wielders. That one would definitely go.

Bonus action spells would be trickier, though. Those might have to stay.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I guess the college of swords blade flourish is some kind of playtest for that. And I do like it. I even like it competing with TWF. (Until level 6 but that is a different problem). It has about the same effect as TWF competing with cunning action. A little bit more limited but still ok.
If the rogue had a special attack that allows him to disengage dash or hide again it would still work well.


----------



## Leatherhead

The action economy is complicated. But that's mostly because it's obfuscated with Natural Language. 

Bonus Actions are a good game-play element, at their core. The concept of being able to do something important on your turn and still attack is a good idea. It's just that some of the auxiliary mechanics attached to them are lacking (yes, everyone is looking at you, Two-Weapon fighting). It may be a better idea if Bonus Actions ever granted attacks to start with, but it's a bit late for that.


----------



## Yazgan

there is no need for a 6th edition right now.


----------



## Kor

Prakriti said:


> With all due respect to Mike Mearls, he is wrong. The action economy in 5th Edition is beautifully designed, and I wouldn't change a thing about it.




Indeed he is wrong... in fact I would greatly disagree with everything he has suggested lately.  His Initiative system is a ridiculous idea -- taking us back in time where we have to pre-declare actions.   6th Edition? No... 5th is working perfectly fine thanks (with a little room for tweaking here or there).  Bonus actions are also working fine.   Maybe its time for Mike to retire because he has clearly lost touch with what makes the game great again.


----------



## Zardnaar

Kor said:


> Indeed he is wrong... in fact I would greatly disagree with everything he has suggested lately.  His Initiative system is a ridiculous idea -- taking us back in time where we have to pre-declare actions.   6th Edition? No... 5th is working perfectly fine thanks (with a little room for tweaking here or there).  Bonus actions are also working fine.   Maybe its time for Mike to retire because he has clearly lost touch with what makes the game great again.




He likes 2E and its how initiative used to work. A large part of rocket tag in modern D&D comes from the initiative system.

 Its one thing I noticed playing the retroclones and AD&D again.  Modern D&D heavily rewards 1st strike/nova abilities.


----------



## Enendill

What Mearls implies that bonus actions economy is a huge thing in 5e, especially in bigger levels, where a PC has a plethora of class options, spells, whatevers available. And this in turn means that a PC must choose what and what not to do as a bonus action. 

This contradicts with basic aspects of 5e; ease of use and speed. 

For me personally, this is not a bad thing; action economy is one factor that can help players make strategy in the game and I like that. But on the other hand it is not that cool from a designer's level to prepare class options that you know will contest each other on what will happen within each round.


----------



## Baumi

I often see Decision Paralysis in my groups do to Bonus Action, so I'm all for eliminating these. Combat would be far faster if you you just have one Action to think about. But as he said, it would be a massive overhaul, which is hard to do in this Edition.


----------



## Zardnaar

Enendill said:


> What Mearls implies that bonus actions economy is a huge thing in 5e, especially in bigger levels, where a PC has a plethora of class options, spells, whatevers available. And this in turn means that a PC must choose what and what not to do as a bonus action.
> 
> This contradicts with basic aspects of 5e; ease of use and speed.
> 
> For me personally, this is not a bad thing; action economy is one factor that can help players make strategy in the game and I like that. But on the other hand it is not that cool from a designer's level to prepare class options that you know will contest each other on what will happen within each round.




This. I have seen newbs for example doing trap options tripping over to many bonus action options. The Monk class is also not very newb friendly. I had to break the ice on that one before the other players got the class.


----------



## The_Gunslinger658

Wotc is a publishing company, so it is only natural that they have plans to put out a 6th edition. So now lets further split the hobby apart, we will have 1E, 2E, 3.5/ pathfinder, 4e (worst edition ever), 5E and now 6E.  Not to my liking at all.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Guys, you did see that he specified there are _no_ plans for 6E anytime soon, right?


----------



## Jhaelen

Desh-Rae-Halra said:


> I'm ready and formally asking for 6th Edition



Ditto!

Ideally without Mr. Mearls at the helm.


----------



## Sands999

Please DO NOT come out with another edition of D&D!!!!!!! That would infuriate me to no end!


----------



## Li Shenron

I don't have problems with the current action economy, it's a lot better than the overly complicated action economy of 3e and 4e, but I do agree that it could be even simpler without bonus actions.



Jester David said:


> They pretty much only exist because, late in the playtest, they wanted a way to limit extra attacks granted by various classes.
> They snuck back into the edition that way and got used for a whole bunch of extra stuff in the process.




My own feeling during the playtest was that the main motivation was "attack and cast a healing spell" for Clerics. There have always been a lot of people complaining about nobody wanting to play healers because to waste your turn healing someone else is not fun. Personally I think this is more often an _imagined_ problem than a real one.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Li Shenron said:


> Personally I think this is more often an _imagined_ problem than a real one.




Not in my experience. I know several people who 1) play clerics now, who wouldn't prior to 4E, or 2) have always loved clerics, but were ready to abandon them prior to 4E, precisely because they were sick of spending so much of their time in combat healing and doing nothing else.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Bonus action is do work. It worked without bonsu action for quite a long time in the playtest.

But it does work well enough with them. TWF is a bit lacking but in a rules upgrade there might be a feat on par with polearm master.
I can understand mearls though. Abilities like the orc aggressive could easily written as: as an action the orc may move 30 ft when taking the attack action.
Charger feat could be when taking the dash action you may make a single attack with a +5 bonus. OR You can spend your action to...
Putting the extra into a special attack action has two advantages: the dreaded double dash is gone and it is a lot safer for multiclassing because it is attached to a class specific thing.

That is also a lot less rules interaction and a revised 5e could easily do without bonis action.

TWF could be: as an action you make an attack with both weapons. If you habe the extra attack feature you can do that attacks twice.
With cunning action attached to the standard attack action wich you can't use with two weapons, the intersting decisions are still there.


----------



## wedgeski

I loved that one guy on Twitter: "I'm ready and formally asking for 6E." Get over yourself, pal.


----------



## Evenglare

I'd like to see 5e built out a bit more. Or.. well any more. We don't even have a proper splatbook of things to add to the game that isn't tied to story which I have absolutely no desire to have. Just give me a "Pathfinder Advanced players guide" version of 5th edition to add to 5e what it did for pathfinder.


----------



## Li Shenron

Mouseferatu said:


> Not in my experience. I know several people who 1) play clerics now, who wouldn't prior to 4E, or 2) have always loved clerics, but were ready to abandon them prior to 4E, precisely because they were sick of spending so much of their time in combat healing and doing nothing else.




Not here. I skipped 4e but Clerics were the most common class in 3e IMXP.


----------



## Aldarc

Li Shenron said:


> Not here. I skipped 4e but Clerics were the most common class in 3e IMXP.



I played mostly clerics and druids in 3E. They were an überclass in 3e, but a bit of a boring one, as they were mostly reactive.


----------



## Kramodlog

Mearls is downplaying the psychological aspect a "bonus" can have on people. A bonus makes you feel like you have something more. Something special. Even if people get to do the same thing they use to do, but the "bonus" is taken away, you'll get a lot of complaints that 5e was nerfed for no good reason. 

Mearls says bonus actions are hacky, he is right, but he forgets people like to be able to hack stuff. We like to find hacks and loopholes, even baked in hacks. It is rewarding. Fiddling with bonus actions might create a backlash. 

Better leave it for 6e that is coming out in two years cause "people asked for it".


----------



## The Fighter-Cricket

Desh-Rae-Halra said:


> I'm ready and formally asking for 6th Edition




Listen to us, He Who Shall Not Be Named! 
We are now two, who ask you for a new edition. Hear our word, Lord of Backwards Nostalgia, and release your grip on D&D, which has cursed this finde game for far too long. Great Traitor of 4E, I banish you by the name of Heinsoo (blessed shall be Heinsoo)! Your poisonous deeds, which hinder progress in roleplaying games, must cease. Brake the seal which binds all the developments that were made in other RPGs in the last ten years and make D&D a game that thrives on narrativity and heroic actions! Thrice cursed be your Hatin' of Fighters. Thrice cursed be your oldschoolness. Repent and give way to the blessings of newschool RPGs! The Gods of Hasbro shall install a New One in your place! 
In the name of the Cook, the Heinsoo and the Schwalb - begone!


----------



## Hussar

Mouseferatu said:


> Guys, you did see that he specified there are _no_ plans for 6E anytime soon, right?




Shhh. You're getting in the way of people getting all upset about nothing. Watch the rumours fly and giggle.


----------



## JeffB

I'm OK with a 6th Edition. Bring it on.


----------



## Mephista

Yes, its clear as day that two weapon fighting as a bonus action is hacky.  Lots of people thought that when you did it the first time.  You made it a bonus action specifically to balance out the rogue and make two weapon fighting not the default for all rogues.  You hacked the game as a whole so you could get a desired result that ends up crappy for everyone else.   The problem isn't necessarily the bonus action.  Its trying to make it do more things than it should.  Concentration is another mechanic that does too much.

That said?  Yes.  The game can actually work without bonus actions.  There are plenty of games that just make them "reflexive" abilites that don't take up your action.  

Perhaps eliminating  bonus actions and just let all these bonus actions be reflexive, once a turn things that don't take up your action.  If we're assuming that multi-classing isn't a balance thing, and its something fiddly GMs have to deal with individually, then forget about that bonus action entirely?  It could work.  Other games make it work out.   Could be a problem if people load up on all these reflexive actions at once, but if you have other systems in place?  Should be fine.


Do we need a sixth edition?  Not really.  But, honestly, a rules update with some of the problem children of 5e such as TWFing, non-eldritch blast warlocks, the Ranger, Gishing without Con bonuses, non-story-based fighters, etc?   More than welcome.


----------



## Osgood

I think bonus actions are fine. The idea was a little tricky for my players to grasp at first (and conflated with minor/swift actions) but everyone gets it now. I certainly don't think we need a 6th edition anytime soon--frankly, in a lot of ways I don't feel like even fully realized yet (plenty of character, story, and especially setting options yet to be explored). 

I get that there are things in the rules they want to tweak, but I think it's a bit like George Lucas wanting to fiddle with Star Wars... some things may be a good idea (refreshing some bad fx, windows in Cloud City) other things not so much (Greedo and Han, Bad CGI-Jabba and Han, musical number). If only there was a way to present optional rule variations without changing the edition, like a book of arcana that had been unearthed...


----------



## CydKnight

Desh-Rae-Halra said:


> I'm ready and formally asking for 6th Edition



Be careful what you wish for.....


----------



## techno

wedgeski said:


> I loved that one guy on Twitter: "I'm ready and formally asking for 6E." Get over yourself, pal.




Mearls just responded to this guy saying: Alas, you have quite a long while to wait. Not on the horizon. #wotcstaff


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Scott_Holst said:


> So now lets further split the hobby apart, we will have 1E, 2E, 3.5/ pathfinder, 4e *(worst edition ever)*, 5E and now 6E.



Oh, the irony.


----------



## ZeshinX

Mearls is like the Steward of Gondor.  He's done well, but now he's losing his mind.  Time for him to step aside and let another take up the mantle, lest he meet a similar, though metaphorical, end as Denethor.


----------



## Alchemist's Fire

To be fair, he said "_nowhere near that now_" in regards to a new edition.  I think 3 years is too short a lifespan for any edition, and he just meant that Wizards has no intentions to make an edition-to-end-all-editions.  I believe the point of his message is that anyone who wants to do-away with bonus actions can *without* needing a 6th Edition to remove them - in essence, he's just saying you can homebrew-them out and still enjoy 5th Edition, not wait for the next generation.


----------



## MonkeezOnFire

I can see what he's saying with regards to bonus actions that require a trigger. If a feature has to be triggered by something specific like attacking why does that require an action? If the trigger has been met that thing should just happen. But I do like bonus actions how they appear in other parts of the system. Bonus action spells and things like the rogue's cunning action are all great.


----------



## chibi graz'zt

beware hubris with talk of a 6th edition...


----------



## Warpiglet

I cannot be too critical.  I think the game is a masterpiece.  I have been buying up things I may or may not use.

However, if they move to a new edition well before the market is saturated with product, I am out.  I will keep my 5e books, buy any I missed and be done with it.  My group would not tolerate a new edition any time in the anywhere near future.  I am talking a significant number of years ahead and maybe even then, this may be the end of the trail for me.

How can I say this?  We played AD&D into the nineties/early 2000 and then switched to third for a while.  A good game can last.  We house ruled in spell points, critical hits, max hit points at first level and a few other things in 5e.  

I am hoping his qualifier of being nowhere near a new edition is not hyperbole.  

If they wanted to do an updated player's handbook that incorporated some new tweaks and the books remain compatible, then fine.  I could buy that.  But this is coming from the guy that DID NOT by a single 3.5 product (and did collect but rarely played 4e---just was not a good fit for me).

Time will tell.  I have been very surprisingly pleased with their releases the last few years.  For my, 5e is really just taking hold in our group and gearing up...looking for long support for it...


----------



## CapnZapp

Dragonblade said:


> My biggest issue with 5e is the lack of self-contained stat blocks. Monsters and NPCs with spells I have a look up is just poor design, IMO.



It's not right at the top of my list, but yeah, it's annoying. 


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## guachi

Bonus actions are best when using one isn't contingent on anything else, like Cunning Action or a Bonus Action spell. 

I do like, however, that even in situations where a Bonus Action is a rider upon some Action that Bonus Actions keep the Action economy from spiraling out of control. I can do a cool thing a secondary cool thing and maybe a reactive cool thing. Sure , you can get decision paralysis trying to mix and match Actions and Bonus Actions but it's not any worse than a spell caster having lots of spells to choose from.

Bonus Actions is the worst form of kludge except for all the other kludges they could have added.


----------



## DEFCON 1

I find it incredibly amusing seeing the people saying "No 6th edition!  But if you do do it, at least get rid of Mike Mearls!"  Because if you don't want a new edition because you love 5E that much... the VERY LAST THING you should want is someone OTHER than Mike Mearls in charge with designing 6E.  Cause you're going to get a MUCH WIDER divergence of 6E from 5E under new leadership than you would if Mike was in charge of "cleaning up" 5E into 6th.

I mean come on... you got the 5E you wanted and love BECAUSE Mike Mearls was the lead designer on it.  And now you want to throw him to the curb?  Yeah, that makes sense.  Talk about baby and bathwater and all that.

Unless of course those of you who want Mike thrown overboard are the 4E diehardists... in which case yeah, I can understand why you'd want him gone.  Cause the only way you're ever going to see a return to a 4E style game IS IF you replace Mike with someone who aligns more closely to 4E.  If that's the case, then sure, demand Mike's head all you want.  It's really your only hope.


----------



## Jer

DEFCON 1 said:


> Unless of course those of you who want Mike thrown overboard are the 4E diehardists... in which case yeah, I can understand why you'd want him gone.  Cause the only way you're ever going to see a return to a 4E style game IS IF you replace Mike with someone who aligns more closely to 4E.  If that's the case, then sure, demand Mike's head all you want.  It's really your only hope.




Meh - 4e is never coming back.  It was a marketing mistake that they're never going to go back to.  It doesn't matter that it had some really good innovations (especially on the DM's side of things) - the way the edition was handled means that it doesn't matter who you get in that lead designer role - 4e won't be back.


----------



## TallIan

UngeheuerLich said:


> ...SNIP...
> I can understand mearls though. Abilities like the orc aggressive could easily written as: as an action the orc may move 30 ft when taking the attack action.
> Charger feat could be when taking the dash action you may make a single attack with a +5 bonus. OR You can spend your action to...
> Putting the extra into a special attack action has two advantages: the dreaded double dash is gone and it is a lot safer for multiclassing because it is attached to a class specific thing.
> ...SNIP...




This is why I think that bonus action is a good concept, yes it adds a level of complexity to the game, but removing the bonus action just moves that complexity from the basic system to the specific abilities.

With a bonus action mechanic you can say: this mechanic is a bonus action; that mechanic is a bonus action; the other mechanic is a bonus action.  It makes all three mechanics mutually exclusive without each one taking up 3 pages of rulebook.

If you removed the bonus action then your rules become: this mechanic can be done if, and, but; that mechanic can be done if, and, but; the other mechanic can be done if, and, but.

Stopping a rogue from hiding while moving at the speed of an Olympic sprinter while being untouchable by foes he runs past suddenly requires a LOT of careful language, rather than just saying you only get one bonus action.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk

Wel this started wit Mike being asked bout doing something like Star Frontiers in 5th edition.

So if they would do a sci-fi or modern game based on 5th edition, do people here think they should stay as close as posible to the DnD 5th edition rules including the bonus actions ?
Or would we want to see experimentation with the system if they do spinof games


----------



## ad_hoc

Kor said:


> Indeed he is wrong... in fact I would greatly disagree with everything he has suggested lately.  His Initiative system is a ridiculous idea -- taking us back in time where we have to pre-declare actions.   6th Edition? No... 5th is working perfectly fine thanks (with a little room for tweaking here or there).  Bonus actions are also working fine.




I think his new initiative system is brilliant (and I haven't even seen the full version of it). Our table loves it.

While I am skeptical about how complicated it would be to overhaul Bonus Actions in 5e, I am curious to see his proposal.



> Maybe its time for Mike to retire because he has clearly lost touch with what makes the game great again.




This is pretty quick to ask for his resignation. He hasn't even done anything yet, just put out some tweets. Also, he is the source of why the game is great. He is the lead designer of 5e.


----------



## ccs

The Fighter-Cricket said:


> Listen to us, He Who Shall Not Be Named!
> We are now two, who ask you for a new edition. Hear our word, Lord of Backwards Nostalgia, and release your grip on D&D, which has cursed this finde game for far too long. Great Traitor of 4E, I banish you by the name of Heinsoo (blessed shall be Heinsoo)! Your poisonous deeds, which hinder progress in roleplaying games, must cease. Brake the seal which binds all the developments that were made in other RPGs in the last ten years and make D&D a game that thrives on narrativity and heroic actions! Thrice cursed be your Hatin' of Fighters. Thrice cursed be your oldschoolness. Repent and give way to the blessings of newschool RPGs! The Gods of Hasbro shall install a New One in your place!
> In the name of the Cook, the Heinsoo and the Schwalb - begone!




Well the gods of Hasbro require heaps of $ be sacrificed to them.
What you want (a new 4e) won't get them that & they know it.
So with or without Mearls you won't be getting what you want.


----------



## The Fighter-Cricket

DEFCON 1 said:


> If that's the case, then sure, demand Mike's head all you want.  It's really your only hope.




The mob has spoken! Come brethren, we bring ruin and despair to the House of Mearls! Our judgement will be harsh, our reign eternal! We will rule by Saying Yes, our language will be game-istic, we will ride on the backs of dragonborn and disperse law through Holy Skill Challenges because that is a very nice conflict resolution mechanic!  





DEFCON 1 said:


> Unless of course those of you who want Mike thrown overboard are the 4E diehardists... in which case yeah, I can understand why you'd want him gone.  Cause the only way you're ever going to see a return to a 4E style game IS IF you replace Mike with someone who aligns more closely to 4E.




"4E diehardists" is a clumsy term. We like to call ourselves "4vengers". That's better for the brand, you know.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> Wel this started wit Mike being asked bout doing something like Star Frontiers in 5th edition.
> 
> So if they would do a sci-fi or modern game based on 5th edition, do people here think they should stay as close as posible to the DnD 5th edition rules including the bonus actions ?
> Or would we want to see experimentation with the system if they do spinof games




I would expect experimentation.  After all... didn't the Saga Edition update for WotC's Star Wars d20 game include ideas that were being bandied about for 4E?  They were advancing ideas for the new D&D game they were going to make, found a lot of them to be very worthwhile, and "playtested" a bunch of them by using them first in the Star Wars Saga edition.

So if they were to make a Star Frontiers game that was ostensibly based off the 5E engine, I'd fully expect them to try out or "fix" some things that would be a precursor to an eventual 5E update or 6E edition.


----------



## DEFCON 1

The Fighter-Cricket said:


> "4E diehardists" is a clumsy term. We like to call ourselves "4vengers". That's better for the brand, you know.




You are absolutely right.  I deeply apologize.  I did not realize that the term '4venger' was reclaimed by the 4E community.


----------



## Kramodlog

DEFCON 1 said:


> I would expect experimentation.  After all... didn't the Saga Edition update for WotC's Star Wars d20 game include ideas that were being bandied about for 4E?  They were advancing ideas for the new D&D game they were going to make, found a lot of them to be very worthwhile, and "playtested" a bunch of them by using them first in the Star Wars Saga edition.



My understanding is that this is partially correct. Saga was a playtesting ground, but at some point during 4e's design they decided to move away from those ideas and came up with other stuff.


----------



## seebs

Prakriti said:


> With all due respect to Mike Mearls, he is wrong. The action economy in 5th Edition is beautifully designed, and I wouldn't change a thing about it.




I would change that you can't use your regular action for a bonus action. That means that, depending on your specific build, the cost of a "bonus action" varies.


----------



## DaedalusX51

I'm down for a 5.5E but not an entire new edition.  At this point some of 5E's warts are showing and it would be nice to have the game cleaned up a bit.  I wouldn't want the game math to be changed though, other than saving throws, that is pretty on point.  Plus I need a new PHB as mine has fallen apart already.


----------



## Doctor Futurity

Add me to the "I like bonus action mechanic" list. It's worked very well in my experience.


----------



## Thurmas

I would not support a 6th edition yet, but a 5.5 PHB in the next year or two would be great. It would not be that difficult to keep it backwards compatible so that all other 5th Edition products work with it. Keep the 5th structure there, just update some of the classes, feats, mechanics and spells. None of those things should affect the published adventures, or even the MM or DMG. You could probably do the entire 5.5E line with just a PHB upgrade.


----------



## Sir Brennen

I'm in favor of keeping Bonus Actions as they are. I can see that you'd be reducing complexity of the turn structure _in general_ by eliminating them, but when describing the individual features that are currently bonus actions as being wrapped into an action all their own, I think complexity will go _up_, especially when paired with the natural language push of 5e. Depending on how it's worded, you'd either introduce new limitations on what you can do with those new actions, and/or introduce more confusion on what you can do during you action.

Basically, it sounds like he's proposing that something like Cunning Action is actually an action unto itself. A Class Feature Action, if you will. I'd imagine it'd be something like "When you perform a Cunning Action on your turn, you can Dash, Disengage or Hide in addition to X". 

"X" is where I see a problem. Either it's very specific - "making an attack or moving" - or it's very broad - "taking another action".

Specific starts limiting what you can do with your special action. 

Broad opens up things like "can I use Cunning Action with the Grant Inspiration action, or my Two Weapon Fighting Action?" You could start doubling up on special actions, which would open up balance issues as you have to start looking at the interaction between them now.

A compromise might be "x" being more like a "taking a Standard Action", where Standard Actions defined for everyone outside of their class features.  Specific Standard Actions could mentioned, like a "standard melee attack" or a "standard spell casting". However, to me that's just relabeling/re-categorizing and moving the complexity somewhere else.

Of course, what he's talking about is already part of 5E in some places. Look at Green Flame Blade, for example. Making an attack is actually part of the casting of the spell, rather than having casting the spell be a bonus action, which would seem more consistent with the rest of the rules.

Tangentially, you know what'd I'd really like to see? The Attack Action renamed to something else. All attack actions are attacks, but not all attacks are attack actions (i.e., bonus attacks like two weapon fighting, extra attack, flurry of blows, etc.) How about it get renamed to something like the Strike Action. Works well enough for ranged and melee, and you know you're talking about a specific action, not just an attack, which could be part of a different action (especially if we do away with bonus actions.)

But really, keep bonus actions.


----------



## lkj

I have not had a problem with bonus actions. However, I am fortunate enough to play with a bunch of newbies, and it does cause confusion. Heck, even one of my more experienced players still messes up the 'if you cast a bonus action spell you only get a cantrip' rule. 

Having the bonus actions built into the abilities would be easier for a lot of players, especially folks learning the game.  This isn't really about 'action economies'. It's about presentation. You still have bonus actions. You just don't have them as a generic system that sits on top of everything else. While the generic system applied to many situations appeals to me on some basic nerd level, I've seen that it isn't always the most elegant approach in play. 

Just my two cents. 

AD

P.S. It is similar to how I liked having everything you needed for a monster right in the stat block in 4e. I recognize that DM's are usually operating at a higher level rules-wise and can handle a bit of page flipping. But I still liked it.


----------



## Mouseferatu

I have zero interest in a 6E anytime soon, but I wouldn't at all mind a book of alternate rules and suggestions. Something to be included in the forthcoming Big Book o' Mechanical Doodads, perhaps.


----------



## bmfrosty

secondhander said:


> Bonus actions work fine, and I don't like his initiative system proposal. There are some things that can be improved, but these are not them.




I think I know what I'd improve.  I would have proficiency infer reliability for ability checks.

A 1st level character with proficiency with thieves tools would also have a minimum roll of 2 when doing an ability check with thieves tools.  A 17th level character would have a minimum roll of 6 when doing the same.  

I'm unsure if I'd extend the same to Attack Rolls or Saving Throws.

If I were to do a 2nd revision of 5e, it would be to add keyword blocks to abilities, spells, and other things.  Copy some information that's contained in prose into tables, lists, and blocks.  Specific wording is nice, but once you're proficient with blocks, they can be *way* faster.


----------



## The Fighter-Cricket

DEFCON 1 said:


> You are absolutely right.  I deeply apologize.  I did not realize that the term '4venger' was reclaimed by the 4E community.




The community (we are legion and one day we will have our revenge) accepts your apology. We hold the deep belief that what does not kill us makes us stronger. Therefore we re-appropriated the term. By the way, our official motto is "Killing D&D since 2008". I made some bumper stickers and t-shirts if you are interested.


----------



## discosoc

What do bonus actions actually do to enhance the game?  I see most people here seem to like them, but I don't really understand what problem they solve.


----------



## Krachek

MM talk about wording of the rules with bonus action. 
I'm very curious to see how he would write down the "cunning action" rule without bonus action!
Maybe a rogue will to able to hide, disengage, make a off-hand attack, all in the same round!
Until we see the most complex case we cant tell much about its 'better and simpler solution'.


----------



## gyor

I think people need to see the full details of Mike Mearl proposal before anyone can fully judge it,  so hopefully it ends up a UA,  but so far I'm intrigued.


----------



## lkj

Krachek said:


> MM talk about wording of the rules with bonus action.
> I'm very curious to see how he would write down the "cunning action" rule without bonus action!
> Maybe a rogue will to able to hide, disengage, make a off-hand attack, all in the same round!
> Until we see the most complex case we cant tell much about its 'better and simpler solution'.




The impression I get is that you would just make Cunning Action an action you can take. "As a Cunning Action you can make a weapon atttack as well as do one of the following: hide, disengage, etc'"

Two weapon fighting would be its own action. "As an action, you can attack with two weapons." 

So, the player just chooses an Action for his character during a given round, from a short list of actions. There's no wondering about how a bonus action might be tied to it. No trying to figure out if you can use one of your bonus actions. You just take the action and everything you can do with it is built in.

Another example: A bonus action spell rather than referring to other rules would just say. "When you cast this spell, you can also cast a cantrip or make an attack" No need for extra rules where the bonus action spells have their own subsystem.

Honestly, the more I think about it the more I like it. 

AD


----------



## jgsugden

While you can use bonus actions as a mechanic, as Mearls suggests, they're not necessary.  All we're talking about is the packaging of the activities PCs are allowed to take and - as he implicitly notes - there is no reason to muddy the waters with multiple types of actions when you can just make more packages that include the right activities.

Making packages that explicitly include all the combinations of activities that a PC can take gives the game designers greater control and less risk of abusive combinations.  As such, I prefer the simplicity of it to the status quo.

However, I also think there is room to go to the other extreme and also improve on the status quo.  Instead of simplifying, give players 'action points' to use each round which can be used to move, attack, cast spells, etc.. on your turn - or saved to do reactions on another creature's turn if the qualifying trigger is met.  

Then give actions and reactions action point costs that may change as PCs gain levels and gets better at doing things.  Let's say that moving 5' costs 1 AP.  Attacking with a heavy weapon takes 11 AP - unless you've a fighting class that has advanced to the point where the cost is reduced.  Attacking with a dagger might take 8 AP.  If the dagger is in your off hand and you attack with the main hand, that second AP cost is reduced by 4.  Casting a spell has a specified AP - some of our weaker combat spells in the PHB could be buffed with low APs to make them competitive.  Each turn you get X AP to spend - which might be increased by a haste spell, reduced by a slow spell, reduced by exhaustion, etc...  This gets really complex, which usually means harder to balance to avoid abusive combinations, but it offers a more comprehensive situation as well with more detail.  

I prefer both approaches to the current, but they're pretty far in opposite directions.


----------



## Warpiglet

I would be more than happy to purchase some rules modules that could be bolted on as optional rules to include those concerning bonus actions.

I would not be able to support a new addition in order to incorporate this.

I want and need backward compatibility if any of this sees light of day.  

I find it almost incomprehensible that anyone is pushing for a new edition at this point.  As such, I hope "when players ask for it" is analogous to when  "Phlegethos freezes over."   

I am a fanboy on some level but for St. Cuthbert's sake already!


----------



## jgsugden

I feel like the thread is a bit misleading on the idea of '6th edition' - the current product release process points towards a long run for this edition.  I would be surprised to see 6th edition before 2025 - and nothing in Mearl's words makes me think he believes otherwise.  His comments, IMO, are along the lines of, "I have a better idea than bonus actions now, but I can't put them in the game until we get a new edition and that isn't going to happen until players demand it - which we're not even close to seeing, yet."


----------



## Staffan

jgsugden said:


> His comments, IMO, are along the lines of, "I have a better idea than bonus actions now, but I can't put them in the game until we get a new edition and that isn't going to happen until players demand it - which we're not even close to seeing, yet."




Exactly. I mean, I'm sure they have a 6th ed product file over at Wizards, and have had one since before the release of the 5e PHB, but right now it's just a bin where they put crazy ideas they think would be cool but not fit as add-ons to the current game.


----------



## Lord Twig

lkj said:


> The impression I get is that you would just make Cunning Action an action you can take. "As a Cunning Action you can make a weapon atttack as well as do one of the following: hide, disengage, etc'"
> 
> Two weapon fighting would be its own action. "As an action, you can attack with two weapons."
> 
> So, the player just chooses an Action for his character during a given round, from a short list of actions. There's no wondering about how a bonus action might be tied to it. No trying to figure out if you can use one of your bonus actions. You just take the action and everything you can do with it is built in.
> 
> Another example: A bonus action spell rather than referring to other rules would just say. "When you cast this spell, you can also cast a cantrip or make an attack" No need for extra rules where the bonus action spells have their own subsystem.
> 
> Honestly, the more I think about it the more I like it.
> 
> AD




Currently you can preform any standard action and perform a Cunning Action as a bonus action. Your method would exclude everything but an attack. Your bonus action spell would exclude everything but an attack or cantrip. If you don't want to reduce the players options you still need standard actions.

So something like "When you use Cunning Action you may use the Hide, Disengage or Use an Object action in addition to a second standard action." Or something like that.

But really why bother? This will just lead to a thousand and one "special actions" when bonus actions already account for all of those one thousand and one cases.

And are bonus actions really that hard? Or is it all the limitations that are stacked on top of them. Really it is stupid simple. You get one bonus action. Can you use Cunning Action and Second Wind on the same turn? No, they are both bonus actions.

You get a bonus attack from two weapon fighting and a bonus attack from flurry of blows. They are both bonus actions. You can only use one. Second Wind is also a bonus action. You only have one bonus action per turn. So you can not use Second Wind and get a bonus attack from either two weapon fighting or flurry of blows. Or use any other bonus action. Because you can only use one per turn. Honestly I just don't comprehend how it could get any simpler.

You cast a bonus action spell and still have your regular action. So go head and take any standard action in addition to it... Except another standard spell, you can only cast a cantrip if you use a bonus action spell. Okay this is a corner case and can be hard to remember and I get that. But the problem is not the bonus action. It is the limit on additional spell casting.


----------



## ccs

jgsugden said:


> I feel like the thread is a bit misleading on the idea of '6th edition' - the current product release process points towards a long run for this edition.  I would be surprised to see 6th edition before 2025 - and nothing in Mearl's words makes me think he believes otherwise.  His comments, IMO, are along the lines of, "I have a better idea than bonus actions now, but I can't put them in the game until we get a new edition and that isn't going to happen until players demand it - which we're not even close to seeing, yet."




2024.  D&D turns 50.  You'll see something then.


----------



## Lord Twig

jgsugden said:


> I feel like the thread is a bit misleading on the idea of '6th edition' - the current product release process points towards a long run for this edition.  I would be surprised to see 6th edition before 2025 - and nothing in Mearl's words makes me think he believes otherwise.  His comments, IMO, are along the lines of, "I have a better idea than bonus actions now, but I can't put them in the game until we get a new edition and that isn't going to happen until players demand it - which we're not even close to seeing, yet."




One of the good things that Mearls has said in the past is that he recognizes that there are quite a few things that he thinks would be great for the game, but found out were not popular with the player base. So, even though he liked the rule or whatever, they left it out of the game. I think his initiative system and his bonus action replacement falls into those categories. Sure he might like it, and there may be a minority of other players that like it as well, but the majority don't want it, so it will not be added to the base game.

They can always be put out in an Unearthed Arcana or added as optional rules.

Or I could be wrong in my assessment of the rules acceptance by D&D players at large. Either or both of those systems could prove to be wildly popular. In which case I will just have to suck it up and realize that I'm the one in the minority.


----------



## schnee

I think a whole bunch of people who are resisting what he's talking about should be prepared to eat their words later on.

I've seen plenty of this in my work as a designer. People get _really_ attached to what they know. They resist change.

They won't know how good something is until they see it.

It is hacky, and it's a sticking point with new players. It also has weird exceptions like some things being able to happen in either bonus OR normal actions, triggered only with different, arbitrary-seeming situations.

 I would love to see him solve this problem and make the system even _more_ elegant.


----------



## Argyle King

I hate to say it, but I think I am actually ready for a 6th edition.

Out of the gate, I was excited about 5th, but the design has some limitations that continue to bother me.  Yes, I can homebrew and tweak things, but a lot of the things I'd like to change are core parts of the design, and I'm honestly not sure how to change them without essentially breaking the game and rebuilding it into something else.


edit: I'm not entirely sold on MM being the person who leads the design of a 6th edition though.  He's a well respected designer, and he does good work, but I feel that his views on how the game should work appear to be quite a bit different than what I'd like to see happen.  I see some of the same problems, but what I'd like the solutions to be end up being significantly different.

edit 2: While it may be a while before 6th edition, I would not be surprised to see some of the future books include rules-changes and clarifications which are essentially a 5.5.  That happened with both 3rd Edition and 4th Edition.  My prediction is that 5th will hit a point where that is deemed necessary earlier in its life cycle than the previous two editions.  I'm not saying there is anything which I'd say is exactly wrong with the game, but I do feel there were a few core design choices which worked well in the beginning but are now starting to buckle a little under the weight of added game elements.


----------



## Lord Twig

schnee said:


> I think a whole bunch of people who are resisting what he's talking about should be prepared to eat their words later on.
> 
> I've seen plenty of this in my work as a designer. People get _really_ attached to what they know. They resist change.
> 
> They won't know how good something is until they see it.
> 
> It is hacky, and it's a sticking point with new players. It also has weird exceptions like some things being able to happen in either bonus OR normal actions, triggered only with different, arbitrary-seeming situations.
> 
> I would love to see him solve this problem and make the system even _more_ elegant.




Or they could come out with a new version that still uses the current initiative system and bonus actions and _you_ will need to eat your words.

Just sayin' it's possible. I mentioned in my own post that I could be wrong. But I might be right and you could be wrong. Or they could come up with something totally different. Best to keep an open mind.


----------



## lkj

Lord Twig said:


> Currently you can preform any standard action and perform a Cunning Action as a bonus action. Your method would exclude everything but an attack. Your bonus action spell would exclude everything but an attack or cantrip. If you don't want to reduce the players options you still need standard actions.
> 
> So something like "When you use Cunning Action you may use the Hide, Disengage or Use an Object action in addition to a second standard action." Or something like that.
> 
> But really why bother? This will just lead to a thousand and one "special actions" when bonus actions already account for all of those one thousand and one cases.
> 
> And are bonus actions really that hard? Or is it all the limitations that are stacked on top of them. Really it is stupid simple. You get one bonus action. Can you use Cunning Action and Second Wind on the same turn? No, they are both bonus actions.
> 
> You get a bonus attack from two weapon fighting and a bonus attack from flurry of blows. They are both bonus actions. You can only use one. Second Wind is also a bonus action. You only have one bonus action per turn. So you can not use Second Wind and get a bonus attack from either two weapon fighting or flurry of blows. Or use any other bonus action. Because you can only use one per turn. Honestly I just don't comprehend how it could get any simpler.
> 
> You cast a bonus action spell and still have your regular action. So go head and take any standard action in addition to it... Except another standard spell, you can only cast a cantrip if you use a bonus action spell. Okay this is a corner case and can be hard to remember and I get that. But the problem is not the bonus action. It is the limit on additional spell casting.




You're right that I was careless in how I put that together.  The whole thing would require some careful, playtested crafting. Just trying to give an idea of the general direction that I think they would be going in.

In answer to your question-- _I_ don't find it that hard. But I've seen that others do find it confusing-- just in terms of understanding which things are bonus actions and which aren't. For example,  I've frequently had to remind a rogue that he can either attack with an offhand weapon OR dart away. Not both. Such things happen often enough so that I can see Mike's point that it would be nice to simplify it for the player. I've also had combats stop a few times while a player tries to figure out if he's got a bonus action he can use. Which is something I think they were trying to avoid.

To be clear-- I don't think it's some huge flaw in 5e (any more than I think Mike does, as he clearly states it's nothing worth starting a new edition over). I just think it's an area that could run a little smoother in play. And I'm open to them messing around with it to see if they can find something that works.

Now, in the actual implementation, could it end up being just as complicated and not worth the effort? Absolutely. (I'd definitely want to see how they fully implemented it) But, in principle, I can see how folding bonus actions in to existing actions might work well.

Cheers,
AD


----------



## lkj

Johnny3D3D said:


> I hate to say it, but I think I am actually ready for a 6th edition.
> 
> Out of the gate, I was excited about 5th, but the design has some limitations that continue to bother me.  Yes, I can homebrew and tweak things, but a lot of the things I'd like to change are core parts of the design, and I'm honestly not sure how to change them without essentially breaking the game and rebuilding it into something else.
> 
> 
> edit: I'm not entirely sold on MM being the person who leads the design of a 6th edition though.  He's a well respected designer, and he does good work, but I feel that his views on how the game should work appear to be quite a bit different than what I'd like to see happen.  I see some of the same problems, but what I'd like the solutions to be end up being significantly different.
> 
> edit 2: While it may be a while before 6th edition, I would not be surprised to see some of the future books include rules-changes and clarifications which are essentially a 5.5.  That happened with both 3rd Edition and 4th Edition.  My prediction is that 5th will hit a point where that is deemed necessary earlier in its life cycle than the previous two editions.  I'm not saying there is anything which I'd say is exactly wrong with the game, but I do feel there were a few core design choices which worked well in the beginning but are now starting to buckle a little under the weight of added game elements.




I'm not at all ready for 6e. Not even a little. 5e working just fine for me.

But in the hypothetical-- The thing I like about Mike is that he's wholly invested in getting community feedback and using it. He's perfectly willing to kill his babies if the playtest feedback doesn't support it. Example-- Proficiency dice rather than a flat bonus. He'll still make a case for it when it comes up, but he didn't force it into the game. 

Anyway, I think he combines a couple things that make for a good lead. He sees things that he thinks could be better. He's willing to go out on a limb to try new ideas to improve things. But then he's willing to get feedback and go with it, rather than stubbornly forcing things through.

Again. Just my opinion. I don't always agree with him (a few examples recently). But I like his approach.

AD


----------



## Kite474

In terms of a new addition, my issue is that it's too early to switch because NOTHING has really been done with 5e outside of some repurposed adventures.

As for the bonus action stuff, I can sympathize the whole "You know we probably could have done this differently" but alas that's publishing for you. Not the biggest fan with what he describing.


----------



## Argyle King

lkj said:


> I'm not at all ready for 6e. Not even a little. 5e working just fine for me.
> 
> But in the hypothetical-- The thing I like about Mike is that he's wholly invested in getting community feedback and using it. He's perfectly willing to kill his babies if the playtest feedback doesn't support it. Example-- Proficiency dice rather than a flat bonus. He'll still make a case for it when it comes up, but he didn't force it into the game.
> 
> Anyway, I think he combines a couple things that make for a good lead. He sees things that he thinks could be better. He's willing to go out on a limb to try new ideas to improve things. But then he's willing to get feedback and go with it, rather than stubbornly forcing things through.
> 
> Again. Just my opinion. I don't always agree with him (a few examples recently). But I like his approach.
> 
> AD




I would have actually preferred proficiency dice being the default.  


What I'm unsure how to change about 5th without breaking the game is to add more granularity to character creation and choices.  I do not want to go back to how 3rd was, but I would like more moving parts than what 5th has.  I've said in other threads that sometimes I wish 5th would have kept 4th's idea of 30 levels.  That would allow for feats and other character choices to be broken down into smaller pieces, made more numerous, and spread out more.  

While not exactly a mechanics issue, I would also prefer that the game style lean a little more toward sword & sorcery.


----------



## Klataubarada

The last 3 things I want in life

3. A hole in my head
2. Castration
1. DnD 6th Edition


----------



## Sir Brennen

Another way to think about it; Mearls is proposing bonus actions get folded into special, self-contained actions, generally accessible by class features. The description of what you can or can't do with the special action is all within the action itself, like Magic cards.


----------



## Sunseeker

DrGerm said:


> Seriously. we're already talking about another edition? uugghhhh....




My thoughts exactly.  Not much faith in the current run if we're talking about a new edition "when people ask for it".  I mean what does that even mean?  Does it mean WOTC has completely lost faith in 5E and is just waiting for the consumers to start calling?  Does it mean the consumers are already calling in demanding a new edition and that has prompted WOTC to start developing something?

It sounds like the sort of thing I tell my players "We'll start a new campaign just as soon as you tell me you're ready to play." and I only say those things when I've already got a new campaign ready to run.

On the subject of bonus actions though, there _are_ areas where bonus actions are wonky.  Fury of Blows for example, why does this need to use a bonus action?  Why not just say once the class gains the feature they can make it as _part of their Action_?  There's an illusion of choice there which doesn't need to exist.  If you take the Great Weapon Master feat, you get one extra attack _if_ you hit with any one primary attack during your Action?  

Really it's not necessary for a lot of what they use it for.  Bonus Actions I think had their best deal as "Minor" actions in 4E.


----------



## Mercule

gyor said:


> I think people need to see the full details of Mike Mearl proposal before anyone can fully judge it,  so hopefully it ends up a UA,  but so far I'm intrigued.



I don't really have any issues with the Bonus Action, but I also think there's always room for improvement and would love to see his ideas.


----------



## lkj

Johnny3D3D said:


> I would have actually preferred proficiency dice being the default.
> 
> 
> What I'm unsure how to change about 5th without breaking the game is to add more granularity to character creation and choices.  I do not want to go back to how 3rd was, but I would like more moving parts than what 5th has.  I've said in other threads that sometimes I wish 5th would have kept 4th's idea of 30 levels.  That would allow for feats and other character choices to be broken down into smaller pieces, made more numerous, and spread out more.
> 
> While not exactly a mechanics issue, I would also prefer that the game style lean a little more toward sword & sorcery.




I liked proficiency dice too. So it goes.

You know, had a lengthy discussion about granularity during 4e and into 5e with one of my players who leans toward more fine scale control. We chatted about converting the number of skill proficiencies (and expertise) a character gets into points that you could spend freely (basically 3e ranks). Never did go far with it. But the idea was to let him have the fine scale character building control while still being compatible with other 5e characters. If everyone at the table had wanted that, there are probably better game systems to play. But most didn't. And he didn't want it badly enough work it out. Though I wonder if it's as simple-- with skills-- as just breaking the proficiency bonuses into points that you can spend. Feats would require more thought.

AD


----------



## schnee

Lord Twig said:


> Or they could come out with a new version that still uses the current initiative system and bonus actions and _you_ will need to eat your words.




What words will I eat?

Where did I say he would succeed?

Please quote them and explain how I was making a claim. Thanks


----------



## Krachek

lkj said:


> The impression I get is that you would just make Cunning Action an action you can take. "As a Cunning Action you can make a weapon atttack as well as do one of the following: hide, disengage, etc'"
> 
> Two weapon fighting would be its own action. "As an action, you can attack with two weapons."
> 
> So, the player just chooses an Action for his character during a given round, from a short list of actions. There's no wondering about how a bonus action might be tied to it. No trying to figure out if you can use one of your bonus actions. You just take the action and everything you can do with it is built in.
> 
> Another example: A bonus action spell rather than referring to other rules would just say. "When you cast this spell, you can also cast a cantrip or make an attack" No need for extra rules where the bonus action spells have their own subsystem.
> 
> Honestly, the more I think about it the more I like it.
> 
> AD




If they allow the same actions timing  without the bonus action it is fine. Wording used should precise that you can take your "other" action before, after or in between.
If you need to cast misty step first before allowed to do something else it is not 100% equal to the actual rule.


----------



## Lord Twig

schnee said:


> What words will I eat?
> 
> Where did I say he would succeed?
> 
> Please quote them and explain how I was making a claim. Thanks




Ugh... _Fine..._ 



schnee said:


> *I think a whole bunch of people who are resisting what he's talking about should be prepared to eat their words later on.*
> 
> I've seen plenty of this in my work as a designer. People get _really_ attached to what they know. They resist change.
> 
> *They won't know how good something is until they see it.*
> 
> It is hacky, and it's a sticking point with new players. It also has weird exceptions like some things being able to happen in either bonus OR normal actions, triggered only with different, arbitrary-seeming situations.
> 
> I would love to see him solve this problem and make the system even _more_ elegant.




Again, I'm not saying that you are wrong here. Just that you could be, and then it will be up to you to eat your words.

If you want to tell others they have to do something, then you should be prepared to do it yourself if you are wrong. Fair is fair.


----------



## pukunui

shidaku said:


> My thoughts exactly.  Not much faith in the current run if we're talking about a new edition "when people ask for it".  I mean what does that even mean?  Does it mean WOTC has completely lost faith in 5E and is just waiting for the consumers to start calling?  Does it mean the consumers are already calling in demanding a new edition and that has prompted WOTC to start developing something?



To quote him in full: _"With all that said, *nothing that requires a new edition*. We'll do that when players and DMs ask for it. *No where near that now*."_ (My emphasis)

I think people are blowing up unnecessarily.

EDIT: Also: View attachment 84649



> If you take the Great Weapon Master feat, you get one extra attack _if_ you hit with any one primary attack during your Action?



I think the main reason for the bonus action is that it helps to limit what extra things you can do. If you had a bunch of different freebies that triggered off the same thing (like making an attack), you might end up with people trying to use all of them at once. Making them bonus actions, and specifying that you can only take one bonus action per turn, stops that sort of thing from happening.  



lkj said:


> I liked proficiency dice too. So it goes.



I enjoyed them too, but I can also see why they removed them as default.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

pukunui said:


> I think the main reason for the bonus action is that it helps to limit what extra things you can do. If you had a bunch of different freebies that triggered off the same thing (like making an attack), you might end up with people trying to use all of them at once. Making them bonus actions, and specifying that you can only take one bonus action per turn, stops that sort of thing from happening.



Exactly. A tight action economy keeps D&D from turning into a game of Magic where one guy's combo deck is going off. Don't get me wrong, I love a good combo deck, but D&D is the wrong game for that.

And it seems strange that the critiques of the bonus action here are coming from people who think it makes D&D _too gamist_. The bonus action is like an inoculation for gamism.


----------



## Elderbrain

Johnny3D3D said:


> edit 2: While it may be a while before 6th edition, I would not be surprised to see some of the future books include rules-changes and clarifications which are essentially a 5.5.  That happened with both 3rd Edition and 4th Edition.  My prediction is that 5th will hit a point where that is deemed necessary earlier in its life cycle than the previous two editions.  I'm not saying there is anything which I'd say is exactly wrong with the game, but I do feel there were a few core design choices which worked well in the beginning but are now starting to buckle a little under the weight of added game elements.




Oh, gods, no! I do not and will not buy a .5 edition of 5th edition D&D - I didn't buy 3.5, and stopped buying 4th edition when they came out with the Essentials material, which was 4.5 without admitting it. If it's really that broke, make a 6th edition, don't sell me what I already have with a few tweaks along the lines of "Hey, 'Animals' and 'Beasts' are two creature types in 3e - let's drop one of them and dump 'em all in one category for 3.5, disregarding that previous books players might want to use employs the distinction."  Leave my core books alone, and if you want to fiddle with the Ranger or whatever, release a supplement! (And besides, isn't that the plan already?) I had 3e, and when 4e came out it was a new rules set (I'm disregarding the fluff here, and solely considering game mechanics), so it was worth buying whereas 3.5 was too close to what I already had, game-mechanically, while being just different enough to be only semi-compatible - the worst of both worlds, IMO.


----------



## Argyle King

pukunui said:


> *I think the main reason for the bonus action is that it helps to limit what extra things you can do. If you had a bunch of different freebies that triggered off the same thing (like making an attack), you might end up with people trying to use all of them at once. Making them bonus actions, and specifying that you can only take one bonus action per turn, stops that sort of thing from happening. *
> 
> I enjoyed them too, but I can also see why they removed them as default.





...which is what happened a lot during playtest.


----------



## schnee

Lord Twig said:


> Ugh... _Fine..._
> 
> Again, I'm not saying that you are wrong here. Just that you could be, and then it will be up to you to eat your words.
> 
> If you want to tell others they have to do something, then you should be prepared to do it yourself if you are wrong. Fair is fair.




You'd be absolutely right if I said 'I think a whole bunch of people who are resisting what he's talking about *will* eat their words later on.'

But I didn't.

I've been working in corporate environments for almost twenty years. I know how to sprinkle juuuust enough weasel words and 'could', 'maybe' and 'quite possibly' to allow me to wiggle out of almost anything. 

And, because I think we're probably more in agreement than it seems, I feel like I should restate what I said in a clearer way:

I think many people in this thread are too attached to 'bonus actions', think it's fine the way it is, and don't think it can be improved. And they're getting kind of riled up about it. Not everyone, but a significant number. (It's even worse on Giant in the Playground.)

I think he will most likely crack the problem, come up with a more elegant design, and make the game a bit less fiddly and exception-based while keeping all the goodness we have now. (I've seen far harder logic and task flow problems cracked.) 

And, if that happens, a lot of people that are dismissive or resistant now will be proven wrong. Because they were hassling him for having the audacity to try to improve the game. 

If it doesn't, (which I'd bet against), oh well.


----------



## Dausuul

TheCosmicKid said:


> Exactly. A tight action economy keeps D&D from turning into a game of Magic where one guy's combo deck is going off. Don't get me wrong, I love a good combo deck, but D&D is the wrong game for that.



Mearls's proposal takes this into account. Hardwiring the bonus action into an associated regular action means you can't stack them; you only get one action, period.

The question is how this would work with stuff like Cunning Action or bonus-action spells. I'd be interested to see how that gets addressed.

Bonus actions are hacky and clunky. They should be tolerated only so long as no one has a better idea. Mearls has an idea; whether it's better or not remains to be seen, but he should at least explore it.


----------



## pukunui

Dausuul said:


> Mearls's proposal takes this into account. Hardwiring the bonus action into an associated regular action means you can't stack them; you only get one action, period.



How would you hardwire something like Bardic Inspiration into another action? Which other action would it be? They made it a bonus action so that the bard could do more than just inspire someone on their turn, which was a big reason why bards were so weak in 3e. Sure, it doesn't always make sense in game, but it works in play.

Also, wouldn't you have to break the Attack action into a whole lot of smaller actions, one each for all the different things that let you do something extra when you would now normally take the Attack action? So like Mearls is saying with TWF, you'd just take a TWF action, instead of the Attack action + a bonus action. So then you'd probably have to make things like GWM provide its own attack action, so you couldn't stack the bonus attack from it with something else that provides something extra when you attack, and so on. The game would end up less simple.


----------



## Lord Twig

schnee said:


> You'd be absolutely right if I said 'I think a whole bunch of people who are resisting what he's talking about *will* eat their words later on.'
> 
> But I didn't.
> 
> I've been working in corporate environments for almost twenty years. I know how to sprinkle juuuust enough weasel words and 'could', 'maybe' and 'quite possibly' to allow me to wiggle out of almost anything.
> 
> And, because I think we're probably more in agreement than it seems, I feel like I should restate what I said in a clearer way:
> 
> I think many people in this thread are too attached to 'bonus actions', think it's fine the way it is, and don't think it can be improved. And they're getting kind of riled up about it. Not everyone, but a significant number. (It's even worse on Giant in the Playground.)
> 
> I think he will most likely crack the problem, come up with a more elegant design, and make the game a bit less fiddly and exception-based while keeping all the goodness we have now. (I've seen far harder logic and task flow problems cracked.)
> 
> And, if that happens, a lot of people that are dismissive or resistant now will be proven wrong. Because they were hassling him for having the audacity to try to improve the game.
> 
> If it doesn't, (which I'd bet against), oh well.




Fine. Weasel out of it. 

And personally I am not attached to the bonus action. I'm just not willing to get rid of it, just for the sake of getting rid of it. His current suggestion of "Just make a bunch if individual actions" doesn't sound like a good solution to me. Instead of learning a couple general rules, you will need to learn potentially hundreds of separate special rules, some with their own little corner case.

Here are so other suggestions.

1. Don't get rid of bonus actions, but reduce where not needed. Two weapon fighting seems like one of the biggest offenders*.
2. Make a clear list of actions and bonus actions. Include a chart in the book. Make space on the character sheet to list the action type.
3. Eliminate special exceptions. Do you really need to limit casters to a cantrip with a bonus action spell? I have yet to see a really broken combo. And it will just burn you spell slots faster.

*The real problem with removing the bonus action from two weapon fighting is that they added a style and a feat to boost it up to make up for the fact that it requires a bonus action. Now if you take it away it is unbalanced. If you just tone down the power of the style and feat you can get rid of the bonus action requirement and it is fine.


----------



## Lord Twig

pukunui said:


> How would you hardwire something like Bardic Inspiration into another action? Which other action would it be? They made it a bonus action so that the bard could do more than just inspire someone on their turn, which was a big reason why bards were so weak in 3e. Sure, it doesn't always make sense in game, but it works in play.
> 
> Also, wouldn't you have to break the Attack action into a whole lot of smaller actions, one each for all the different things that let you do something extra when you would now normally take the Attack action? So like Mearls is saying with TWF, you'd just take a TWF action, instead of the Attack action + a bonus action. So then you'd probably have to make things like GWM provide its own attack action, so you couldn't stack the bonus attack from it with something else that provides something extra when you attack, and so on. The game would end up less simple.




I think the idea is to go back to 4th edition powers. So yeah, GWM would be its own action, or power. Then you have the two weapon power, the flurry of blows power, the bonus spell/cantrip power, etc. And then you would just write each action/ability/power onto your character sheet, or have a card with it printed on it, and you have all you need to know!

Of course that is silly, because you could just write down that something is a bonus action or a regular action on the sheet and you would save yourself some time.

As an aside, I will admit that I have run into a player that sits there and tries to figure out if he can somehow get a bonus action on his turn, like he is wasting it if he doesn't do something with it. I blame this on a hold over from 4th edition. After the 3rd round of this it is blatantly obvious that he has no bonus action and he should just end his turn, but he doesn't. Everyone else didn't use a bonus action! (Except the Rogue, and he just uses it to move.) Just take your one action and move on!

But that is not a problem with bonus actions, that is a player problem. I'm sure he will get it eventually.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Dausuul said:


> Bonus actions are hacky and clunky.



I fundamentally don't understand this complaint. Like, at all. You're doing one thing on your turn, plus a discrete _bonus_ thing. What more elegant way is there to frame that? Smashing together the two things into one "action" seems a lot more hacky and clunky to me. Cunning Action would need to read something like, "As an action, you can attack, dodge, disengage, dash, cast a spell, or use an item, and then also dodge, disengage, or dash as part of the same action". And I'm probably forgetting a couple of standard actions rogues like to do in combination with Cunning Action, all of which are cleanly allowed when you just make Cunning Action a bonus action.


----------



## pukunui

Lord Twig said:


> I think the idea is to go back to 4th edition powers.



Yeah, no. I don't want to go back to 4e powers.

Bardic Inspiration is the only bonus action ability that has ever felt even remotely wonky to me. Even the bonus action spell / cantrip thing makes sense if you think about it in terms of the number of words / gestures required to cast a given spell. Perhaps bonus action spells and cantrips only require a single, monosyllabic word and/or simple gesture, whereas a levelled spell would have more and/or longer words, as well as more complex gestures. Casting one of the latter takes up the same amount of time as casting one of each of the former.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Elderbrain said:


> Oh, gods, no! I do not and will not buy a .5 edition of 5th edition D&D - I didn't buy 3.5, and stopped buying 4th edition when they came out with the Essentials material, which was 4.5 without admitting it. If it's really that broke, make a 6th edition, don't sell me what I already have with a few tweaks along the lines of "Hey, 'Animals' and 'Beasts' are two creature types in 3e - let's drop one of them and dump 'em all in one category for 3.5, disregarding that previous books players might want to use employs the distinction."  Leave my core books alone, and if you want to fiddle with the Ranger or whatever, release a supplement! (And besides, isn't that the plan already?) I had 3e, and when 4e came out it was a new rules set (I'm disregarding the fluff here, and solely considering game mechanics), so it was worth buying whereas 3.5 was too close to what I already had, game-mechanically, while being just different enough to be only semi-compatible - the worst of both worlds, IMO.



To be fair, 4E Essentials was totally compatible with all previous material. By the criteria you're stating here, it was _not_ "4.5 without admitting it".


----------



## TheCosmicKid

pukunui said:


> Bardic Inspiration is the only bonus action ability that has ever felt even remotely wonky to me. Even the bonus action spell / cantrip thing makes sense if you think about it in terms of the number of words / gestures required to cast a given spell. Perhaps bonus action spells and cantrips only require a single, monosyllabic word and/or simple gesture, whereas a levelled spell would have more and/or longer words, as well as more complex gestures. Casting one of the latter takes up the same amount of time as casting one of each of the former.



A lot of bonus actions are implicitly things that you're doing at the same time as your other action, just with other parts of your body. Like, two weapon fighting: it's not that you're attacking with one hand, and then attacking with the other hand super-fast before your turn ends. Both attacks probably take about the same amount of time, but you're performing them near-simultaneously. Or Cunning Action: you're good enough with fancy footwork that you can perform it while also doing something with your hands.

Bonus action spells seem to be a partial exception to this observation. If the rule were straight-up "you can't cast a spell as both a regular action and a bonus action", it would make sense: a bonus action spell plus, say, a sword attack means you can multitask and swing your sword while still reciting an incantation and maybe making a gesture with your off-hand. But being able to cast cantrips sort of throws a wrench in that model. Maybe if it were instead something like, you can't cast two spells in the same round _if their components overlap_? So you could cast a purely verbal spell and a purely somatic bonus spell (or vice versa), because your hands are doing one thing while your voice is doing another.


----------



## pukunui

TheCosmicKid said:


> Both attacks probably take about the same amount of time, but you're performing them near-simultaneously.



Sure, and casting two really short, quick spells one after another can still fit into that paradigm. You can point a finger and shout "Freeze ray!" and "Bamf!" near-simultaneously too. But can you shout "Bamf!" while also pointing and chanting the words to the _fireball_ spell? I guess not.


----------



## Tony Vargas

TheCosmicKid said:


> I fundamentally don't understand this complaint. Like, at all. You're doing one thing on your turn, plus a discrete _bonus_ thing. What more elegant way is there to frame that? Smashing together the two things into one "action" seems a lot more hacky and clunky to me.



 I guess neither alternative exactly displays crystalline perfection.  ;(

5e's action economy kinda shakes out to sorting actions into three buckets - OK, 6:  move, action, bonus, object-interaction, just no action-economy 'cost' (Second Wind, for instance), and the off-turn Reaction (Ok and concentration is sorta another action type all by itself).  What ends up critically important is not so much how many of each action you get in a round (1), but what all is in each bucket.  So if two completely different and un-related things both use a bonus action, you can't do both of them in the same turn, but if one is an object-interaction and the other an action, you can do them simultaneously (for instance).  Thus you have issues like 'needing too many reactions' because you have several things to do that all consume that action-economy resource, while maybe having nothing much to do with you bonus action, say.

It's not terribly intuitive what the critical resource is, and it will vary with the build - you can even optimize around getting the most of each available action if you want, I suppose.  

The complexity is ultimately similar to what was in 4e (Standard, Move, Minor, Free, OA, Immediate, not-an-action) or even 3e (Full, Standard, Partial, Move, 5'-step, Swift, Free, Immediate, AoO, not an action), just some of it's brushed into corners where you may not notice it at first.  Even so, it's at least a defined, not entirely inconsistent sort of complexity.  

But, ultimately, it shakes out to the important question not being 'which action takes longer/is more important' but 'do two things take the same action or not.'  If you have two option that take an action, you can't do them both, if you have two options that take a bonus action you can't do them both - but you can do one from column A and one from column B.  'Opportunity' cost, I suppose, is more important than 'action economy' cost.  In contrast to 3e/4e where you could generally trade actions up and down the scale, or even start an action in one round and finish it in the next, making the 'economic cost' more critical.  
FWIW.

Anyway, going to the defined-combo-action instead of Action + Bonus model would just further limit options.  Instead of being able to take a bonus action with one of several Actions or an action with one of several bonus actions, you take a specific special Action that does a typical action thing, plus the bonus action thing.  It moves the complexity around, because you probably end up with a lot of such defined actions.  Instead of one Cunning Action class ability, you have an Attack-and-Disengage-Cunningly Ability, and an Attack-and-Hide-Cunningly Ability, abd a Dash-and-Dash-again-Cunningly Ability, etc...


----------



## Sunseeker

pukunui said:


> I think the main reason for the bonus action is that it helps to limit what extra things you can do. If you had a bunch of different freebies that triggered off the same thing (like making an attack), you might end up with people trying to use all of them at once. Making them bonus actions, and specifying that you can only take one bonus action per turn, stops that sort of thing from happening.
> 
> I enjoyed them too, but I can also see why they removed them as default.




I suppose but I would think a lot of that could be handled with mutually-exclusive conditionals.  IE: you can't Fury of Blows unless you strike unarmed (or with a Monk weapon).  Great Weapon Master on the other hand wouldn't give you the extra attack unless you hit with a two-handed martial weapon.


----------



## SkidAce

Lord Twig said:


> Currently you can preform any standard action and perform a Cunning Action as a bonus action. Your method would exclude everything but an attack. Your bonus action spell would exclude everything but an attack or cantrip. If you don't want to reduce the players options you still need standard actions.
> 
> So something like "When you use Cunning Action you may use the Hide, Disengage or Use an Object action in addition to a second standard action." Or something like that.
> 
> But really why bother? This will just lead to a thousand and one "special actions" when bonus actions already account for all of those one thousand and one cases.
> 
> And are bonus actions really that hard? Or is it all the limitations that are stacked on top of them. Really it is stupid simple. You get one bonus action. Can you use Cunning Action and Second Wind on the same turn? No, they are both bonus actions.
> 
> You get a bonus attack from two weapon fighting and a bonus attack from flurry of blows. They are both bonus actions. You can only use one. Second Wind is also a bonus action. You only have one bonus action per turn. So you can not use Second Wind and get a bonus attack from either two weapon fighting or flurry of blows. Or use any other bonus action. Because you can only use one per turn. Honestly I just don't comprehend how it could get any simpler.
> 
> You cast a bonus action spell and still have your regular action. So go head and take any standard action in addition to it... Except another standard spell, you can only cast a cantrip if you use a bonus action spell. Okay this is a corner case and can be hard to remember and I get that. But the problem is not the bonus action. It is the limit on additional spell casting.




This sums up my thoughts as well.


----------



## happyhermit

Johnny3D3D said:


> ...
> My prediction is that 5th will hit a point where that is deemed necessary earlier in its life cycle than the previous two editions. ...




I think your prediction has already been proven wrong though, or will be very shortly. Give or take a few months depending on when editions were officially deemed released we are already at or past the point in the life cycle that 3.5 and essentials were released let alone announced. It could possibly be close I suppose but I don't see how it could be earlier.

Now, I suppose it's possible that the upcoming book could qualify as something along the line of a .5. If that happens it will probably be time for me and mine to check out of D&D mainstream at least for awhile.


----------



## Mercurius

I really wouldn't worry about a new edition coming out anytime soon, and I don't think anything's "in the air" (naught [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]). BUT...while I haven't worked in game design, I imagine that as soon as you publish a new edition, you start a new folder called "Ideas for the Next Edition," and that over three plus years, things start adding up. So if you're Mearls, _of __course _you're thinking about the next edition, at least on the back burner. But there are a lot of steps between _here _and _there, _like the alleged Unearthed Arcana book, for one. 

I could see something like:
2014: 5E core rules
2017/18: first expansion - planes/psionics/odds and ends
2021/22: second expansion - epic play
2024: 50th Anniversary Edition


----------



## Dausuul

*duplicate post*


----------



## Dausuul

TheCosmicKid said:


> I fundamentally don't understand this complaint. Like, at all. You're doing one thing on your turn, plus a discrete _bonus_ thing. What more elegant way is there to frame that? Smashing together the two things into one "action" seems a lot more hacky and clunky to me. Cunning Action would need to read something like, "As an action, you can attack, dodge, disengage, dash, cast a spell, or use an item, and then also dodge, disengage, or dash as part of the same action". And I'm probably forgetting a couple of standard actions rogues like to do in combination with Cunning Action, all of which are cleanly allowed when you just make Cunning Action a bonus action.




I'm not going to try to defend the specifics of Mearls's idea, because he's hardly given us any; that's why I noted Cunning Action and bonus action spells as examples of where I would like to see his proposal fleshed out. I do think that the change would have to go farther than just "mash bonus actions into regular actions"--some things, like Cunning Action, would probably have to be rethought from the ground up.

But when I say bonus actions are hacky and clunky, that's not in comparison to some theoretical alternative. That's looking at them on their own merits. Bonus actions are hacky and clunky because they create complexity, confuse new/casual players, and cause unexpected breakage in all sorts of places. Berserker barbarian who wields an axe in each hand? Sorry, your 3rd-level berserker path feature is now 100% useless. If you cast a bonus action spell, and Saruvoldeminster _counterspells_ it, you can't _counterspell_ back... but when Saruvoldeminster casts a spell on _his_ turn, you can _counterspell_ that. Try explaining that one to a casual player. You can stack a bonus action with a regular action, but not another bonus action. It's an endless accumulation of these little wonky bits, none of which is a deal-breaker in itself, but collectively they're a headache.

So, to reiterate: Bonus actions are hacky and clunky and should be tolerated only so long as no one has a better idea. The question now is whether Mearls's idea can be fleshed out into something better, or whether it's a dead end. It may turn out to be the latter, but people are _way_ too quick to throw up their hands and say it'll never work. I for one want to see where it can lead.


----------



## Hrothgar Rannúlfr

Hemlock said:


> Whereas I'm on the verge of going back to AD&D (2nd ed).



I'm torn between playing 5E with a bunch of stuff from prior editions (except 4th, which I don't own) or playing PF/3x and importing what I want from 5E and pre-3E.

I really think 5E is winning the fight, in my mind at this moment.

6E would have to be practically perfect for me to consider it.  I tend to favor odd editions, so 7E probably has a greater chance of acceptance from me... though I do own quite a bit of 2E books.


----------



## Chaosmancer

shidaku said:


> I suppose but I would think a lot of that could be handled with mutually-exclusive conditionals.  IE: you can't Fury of Blows unless you strike unarmed (or with a Monk weapon).  Great Weapon Master on the other hand wouldn't give you the extra attack unless you hit with a two-handed martial weapon.




And then the Kensei can use both because he can wield two-handed martial weapons (longswords) and make them monk weapons. 

No matter how mutually exclusive you try and make things, it's going to run into problems, until you end up with class abilities that read "Do this thing and a standard action" which then new players are going to ask what a standard action is and you're going to need a list of them handy because half the time they do something the ability is "Do this and a standard action"

One of the more common things that I forget when running the game? The fact that my players don't know they can take the Dodge action. After a few years most people have gotten dash and disengage figured out, but monk's are the only ones who generally even know the dodge action is present in the game. 

That's because people read their class abilities, not the section in the back that lists the standard actions that anyone can take. So, I think we'd end up with a bigger problem than we have now if the main concern is player confusion.


----------



## guachi

Dausuul said:


> If you cast a bonus action spell, and Saruvoldeminster _counterspells_ it, you can't _counterspell_ back... but when Saruvoldeminster casts a spell on _his_ turn, you can _counterspell_ that. Try explaining that one to a casual player.




I would never explain that to a casual player because it's wrong.

I get my reaction back on my turn. If I cast a spell and it gets countered I can use my reaction to cast counter spell.


----------



## Hussar

guachi said:


> I would never explain that to a casual player because it's wrong.
> 
> I get my reaction back on my turn. If I cast a spell and it gets countered I can use my reaction to cast counter spell.




But, it does get wonkier.

On PC's Turn, PC casts a bonus spell and the Opponent casts Counterspell.  The PC uses his reaction to cast Counterspell of the Counterspell.  PC's turn ends.  Opponent then casts spell on PC, but, PC cannot counter spell because he's already used his reaction on his turn and it won't refresh until his next turn.  It can be a bit confusing.

To be fair though, this is a pretty rare thing to come up.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

Hussar said:


> But, it does get wonkier.
> 
> On PC's Turn, PC casts a bonus spell and the Opponent casts Counterspell.  *The PC uses his reaction to cast Counterspell of the Counterspell.*  PC's turn ends.  Opponent then casts spell on PC, but, PC cannot counter spell because he's already used his reaction on his turn and it won't refresh until his next turn.  It can be a bit confusing.
> 
> To be fair though, this is a pretty rare thing to come up.




You can't do the part in bold. It's illegal to cast another spell on the turn when you've cast a bonus action spell. Dausuul is correct.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

It's possible to live without bonus actions, sure. It's also possible to live without playing D&D. Doesn't mean you want to do either.


----------



## Henry

I'm still not sure why people are getting tripped up on bonus actions, or these anecdotes with people accidentally tyrong to take too many bonus actions - you get ONE. If it says, "bonus action" you can't do another one your turn. 

One thing that makes me worry about the way Mike Mearls words the removal of bonus actions is where he says that they can be worded into other abilities. It makes me worry about re-introducing the 4th Edition "special power" problem, where if I have this special ability I can do this special thing -but what if I don't have the special ability? Can I no longer trip somebody because I don't have the "trip somebody" power? What about two-weapon attacks, if I don't have the "dual wield" ability? I'd have to see it in play, but I'm afraid replacing ONE variable thing with 1,092 hard-coded things would lead to a much more complicated game than intended. It would be like in a computer program removing the variable reference for a file name and replacing with hard-coded instances of that file name in every location, leaving a bigger mess when trying to remove complexity.


----------



## Zardnaar

Hemlock said:


> You can't do the part in bold. It's illegal to cast another spell on the turn when you've cast a bonus action spell. Dausuul is correct.




Both wrong. If both spellls were cantrips you can counterspell IIRC. Now I have to reread the phb as I could be wrong.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

Zardnaar said:


> Both wrong. If both spellls were cantrips you can counterspell IIRC. Now I have to reread the phb as I could be wrong.




You might want to check the rules BEFORE loudly proclaiming other people to be wrong. In this case, you're wrong.



			
				http://www.5esrd.com/spellcasting/ said:
			
		

> A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. *You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.*




Counterspell is not a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action, therefore it cannot be cast in the same turn as a bonus action spell.


----------



## Zardnaar

Hemlock said:


> You might want to check the rules BEFORE loudly proclaiming other people to be wrong. In this case, you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Counterspell is not a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action, therefore it cannot be cast in the same turn as a bonus action spell.





Counterspell is not cast on your turn though. Same round maybe thats why I said I wanted to check the rules.


----------



## schnee

Lord Twig said:


> Fine. Weasel out of it.
> 
> And personally I am not attached to the bonus action. I'm just not willing to get rid of it, just for the sake of getting rid of it. His current suggestion of "Just make a bunch if individual actions" doesn't sound like a good solution to me. Instead of learning a couple general rules, you will need to learn potentially hundreds of separate special rules, some with their own little corner case.
> 
> Here are so other suggestions.
> 
> 1. Don't get rid of bonus actions, but reduce where not needed. Two weapon fighting seems like one of the biggest offenders*.
> 2. Make a clear list of actions and bonus actions. Include a chart in the book. Make space on the character sheet to list the action type.
> 3. Eliminate special exceptions. Do you really need to limit casters to a cantrip with a bonus action spell? I have yet to see a really broken combo. And it will just burn you spell slots faster.
> 
> *The real problem with removing the bonus action from two weapon fighting is that they added a style and a feat to boost it up to make up for the fact that it requires a bonus action. Now if you take it away it is unbalanced. If you just tone down the power of the style and feat you can get rid of the bonus action requirement and it is fine.




Yeah, those are all legit criticisms / considerations. 

Two weapon fighting has never really worked well enough from what I can tell (I missed 4E so take that for what it's worth) so if this forces a re-write of that as well it'd be worth it.

But, #2... a clear chart? In one place? With organized information in one place? This is D&D we're talking about. It's not the game unless you have to string together a chain of five page flips and two glossary cross-references to understand what's actually going on.


----------



## Desh-Rae-Halra

Well, he did say we would get a 6th edition when GMs and players ask for it.....maybe Mearls should walk that back a little


----------



## Engstrom

I've only just got back into D&D after 20+ years away. I splurged on the 5e PHB, DMG and MM. By doing this I can GUARANTEE you there will be a new version within a year


----------



## Enendill

Desh-Rae-Halra said:


> Well, he did say we would get a 6th edition when GMs and players ask for it.....maybe Mearls should walk that back a little




He has responded in Twitter already (link for that in the previous comments) that this will NOT happen anytime soon. So, there you go.

I'm surprised by the fact that there are so many people wanting a new edition already (not only in this thread). We are three years into 5e and even 4e (that has received so much hate) has survived a hefty seven years in the market. There has not been any "expanded rules" book yet (this might be "Midway", coming in late Fall) and generally the official content is low. So, why the hate? Especially for an edition that agility and ease of use are it core characteristics and after the OGL has been out, there have been a LOT of third party content.


----------



## Osgood

While I wholly reject the idea of a 6th editions, I'm not opposed to a 5th edition update... but not a "5.5"! 

I think 3.5 really ruined the idea for an official edition update: It was a new edition, they just didn't want to call it such. I think the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 were on par with the differences between 1e and 2e, but it was too soon to change editions. The .5 moniker doesn't help; it implies significant changes (which 3.5 certainly had). 

I think it would be better to put out a 5.1 PHB, with an updated Ranger, revised downtime rules, some rule clarifications, etc., but was still fully compatible with the previous version, it would be better received than a whole new set of core rules. Maybe 10 years down the line we're working off MM 5.1 and PHB 5.3, but the fundamental game is the same, so someone can still use the original 2014 rule books with the latest classic Dark Sun or Planescape adventure that they've wedged into the Forgotten Realms somehow.


----------



## Cyvris

So...4e's "Attacks" more or less then? Because that's pretty much what this sounds like: Attack+Effect.


----------



## Horwath

Prakriti said:


> With all due respect to Mike Mearls, he is wrong. The action economy in 5th Edition is beautifully designed, and I wouldn't change a thing about it.




action economy is more or less the same as 4E and 3.5e

Bonus action=4E minor action=3.5e swift action.

only difference that Attack of opportunity "eats" reaction while in 3.5e and 4E was on separate action counter(IMHO better solution before, helped melee characters to hold the line better).

it's too early for 6th edition. But some revamp of the rules could happen into so-called D&D 5.5E. With the more or less same framework but better balance and more/better options for characters.

5E is great and IMHO best edition ever, but as with all things, it can get better.


----------



## Dausuul

Zardnaar said:


> Counterspell is not cast on your turn though. Same round maybe thats why I said I wanted to check the rules.




It _is_ cast on your turn if you're counter-countering to protect your own spell.

1. You cast a spell on your turn.
2. Saruvoldeminster casts _counterspell_ to stop you.
3. You _counterspell_ the _counterspell_, allowing the spell from #1 to take effect normally.

All this happens in a single turn, and is perfectly normal spell-dueling tactics, *unless* the spell you cast in #1 is a bonus-action spell. In that case, you can't do #3 because _counterspell_ is not a cantrip.

Anyway, this whole debate is proving my point about the bonus action rules being hacky and clunky. If the folks on this board are confused, what hope is there for Joe Average Player?


----------



## MechaTarrasque

The bonus action spells part interests me.   For paladin, you could go "you get X divine smites per day [X changes by level], and the divine smite does Y damage or Y-Z damage plus some other effect [Y, Z, and list of other effect options vary by level]" and then make the other paladin spells oath boons (example, kill an undead, and you get a horse), since there won't be many spells left (not enough to be worth it as a half caster).  For warlock, I would make hex move automatically to the closest enemy to the one you hexed if the target drops to 0 hit points.  I will have to think about hunter's mark.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

Zardnaar said:


> Counterspell is not cast on your turn though. Same round maybe thats why I said I wanted to check the rules.




It's not normally cast on your turn, but in this context it is: you're Counter-Counterspelling a Counterspell against a spell that you're casting. This is legal if you're casting a spell with an action, but if you're casting it with a bonus action (e.g. Misty Step, Sanctuary, Quickened anything). Your turn has not ended, so it occurs on your turn.


----------



## guachi

Hemlock said:


> You can't do the part in bold. It's illegal to cast another spell on the turn when you've cast a bonus action spell. Dausuul is correct.




It's what I get for posting late at night. The reasoning in the rules makes no sense, though. Bonus Action spells are "especially swift". So fast you have enough time to cast a cantrip. Action spells are slower, so you can't cast a cantrip. But you still have enough time to cast a Reaction spell, implying Reaction spells are faster than cantrips. So if you cast a Bonus Action spell you can cast a slower Cantrip but not faster Reaction spell.

Though the presence or absence of bonus actions doesn't have bearing on rules that are illogically applied.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Hemlock said:


> Whereas I'm on the verge of going back to AD&D (2nd ed).





I'd go back to 1e if I could talk my players into it.  Alas...


----------



## Chaosmancer

guachi said:


> It's what I get for posting late at night. The reasoning in the rules makes no sense, though. Bonus Action spells are "especially swift". So fast you have enough time to cast a cantrip. Action spells are slower, so you can't cast a cantrip. But you still have enough time to cast a Reaction spell, implying Reaction spells are faster than cantrips. So if you cast a Bonus Action spell you can cast a slower Cantrip but not faster Reaction spell.
> 
> Though the presence or absence of bonus actions doesn't have bearing on rules that are illogically applied.





Which is why in my case (I've never seen a PC cast counterspell in one of my games, and even if they did I rarely have them go up against magic-users so I've rarely had to have NPCs use Counterspell.) and I'll assume quite a few others, we just set reaction spells  off to the side and have them castable as long as you have a reaction and ignore the whole bonus action/action distinction. 

It is the intent I'd say, because bonus action spell limits are only meant to prevent spellcasters from doubling up on spells. 

Though, I also wonder what bonus action spell is so important to counter and counter-counter, for a wizard most bonus action spells aren't worth also loosing as counterspell are they?


----------



## guachi

The example someone used on Twitter when they asked Crawford was the Misty Step spell. I guess if you really, really needed to get away and had nothing else?

I'm not certain what the RAI is. I assume it was the intent and not adding "can also cast a spell as a reaction" was an oversight. But they didn't change it in the errata. Instead, we get a rule that's illogical.


----------



## Zardnaar

Dausuul said:


> It _is_ cast on your turn if you're counter-countering to protect your own spell.
> 
> 1. You cast a spell on your turn.
> 2. Saruvoldeminster casts _counterspell_ to stop you.
> 3. You _counterspell_ the _counterspell_, allowing the spell from #1 to take effect normally.
> 
> All this happens in a single turn, and is perfectly normal spell-dueling tactics, *unless* the spell you cast in #1 is a bonus-action spell. In that case, you can't do #3 because _counterspell_ is not a cantrip.
> 
> Anyway, this whole debate is proving my point about the bonus action rules being hacky and clunky. If the folks on this board are confused, what hope is there for Joe Average Player?




Yeah I think the intent was to stop some of the shenanigans of 3.5 in terms of casting multiple spells or with Sorcerers using the quicken option.

 Has flow on effects so using the counterspell example you can cast the bonus action spell after you have done the counterspelling thing but not at the start of the turn. 

 I saw 1 newb dig a hole for himself with PAM+Rage+hex (Barbartian/Warlock) and my players do not really understand the Monk that well for example.


----------



## BookBarbarian

I'm intrigued by the idea of getting rid of bonus actions I'd like to see a UA about it.

As of right now, I'd settle for making some things that don't make sense as bonus actions just made into things you do for free. For example, entering a Rage.


----------



## Lord Rasputin

James Mullen said:


> There is no need for a new edition, it's part of the appeal of this version that it can incorporate elements from all previous editions pretty well.



We have everyone more-or-less agreeing again. I utterly fail to see what good another edition would bring, other than Hasbro making more money from everyone buying new copies of the core books. Even that is a mixed blessing, since doing that constantly turns off buyers. First edition AD&D lasted from 1978 (when the DMG was at last out) to 1989, second edition from 1989 to 2000, then third from 2000 to 2008. Granted that fourth was a failure and the plug pulled on it early, we're talking about ten years between editions. So please, no new editions until 2024.


----------



## Zardnaar

Lord Rasputin said:


> We have everyone more-or-less agreeing again. I utterly fail to see what good another edition would bring, other than Hasbro making more money from everyone buying new copies of the core books. Even that is a mixed blessing, since doing that constantly turns off buyers. First edition AD&D lasted from 1978 (when the DMG was at last out) to 1989, second edition from 1989 to 2000, then third from 2000 to 2008. Granted that fourth was a failure and the plug pulled on it early, we're talking about ten years between editions. So please, no new editions until 2024.




1E argueably lasted 1977 to 1990 as it was reprinted after 2E launched.

 BECMI in various versions lasted 77 to 96.


----------



## Argyle King

I feel like the way 4E's action economy was broken down would fit 5E pretty well.

Instead of bonus actions, bring back Minor actions.  Then allow trading actions down, but not up.  For example, an action can be turned into either a move or a minor.  A move can be turned into a minor.  A minor cannot be turned into a move.  A move cannot be turned into an action.


----------



## Olive

I liked the Unearthed Arcana book for 3.5e and while it's way to early for that in this game, I would be happy with a big book of possible rules that included getting rid of bonus actions, new initiative etc. But I'm not interested in a 5.5 that makes those part of the rules and I don't think we'll see that.


----------



## Zardnaar

Johnny3D3D said:


> I feel like the way 4E's action economy was broken down would fit 5E pretty well.
> 
> Instead of bonus actions, bring back Minor actions.  Then allow trading actions down, but not up.  For example, an action can be turned into either a move or a minor.  A move can be turned into a minor.  A minor cannot be turned into a move.  A move cannot be turned into an action.




Thats a thing 5E improves on over 4th.  Multiple bonus actions would break 5E.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Zardnaar said:


> Thats a thing 5E improves on over 4th.  Multiple bonus actions would break 5E.




Would it? I've been wondering if I allowed people to use a bonus action instead of an action if it would harm anything. I haven't thought of a single thing that being allowed to use two bonus actions, instead of an action and bonus action would break (especially since you still can't do two bonus action spells and most mundane bonus actions are actions anyways)


Unless you are talking people being able to use five or six bonus action, then yeah, that'd start breaking things right quick


----------



## briggart

Dausuul said:


> It _is_ cast on your turn if you're counter-countering to protect your own spell.
> 
> 1. You cast a spell on your turn.
> 2. Saruvoldeminster casts _counterspell_ to stop you.
> 3. You _counterspell_ the _counterspell_, allowing the spell from #1 to take effect normally.
> 
> All this happens in a single turn, and is perfectly normal spell-dueling tactics, *unless* the spell you cast in #1 is a bonus-action spell. In that case, you can't do #3 because _counterspell_ is not a cantrip.
> 
> Anyway, this whole debate is proving my point about the bonus action rules being hacky and clunky. If the folks on this board are confused, what hope is there for Joe Average Player?




It seems to me that the confusion here is mostly about Reactions, not Bonus Actions, so not sure it actually proves your point  

Kidding aside, I personally agree that Bonus Actions can create some confusing situations, but I don't think it has to do with the idea itself, rather with the specific design choices of 5e. Sticking to the example you are discussing, Bonus Action spells could have been worded to limit what spells you can cast with your Action, rather than limit the spells you can cast on your turn. And I think this was done on purpose, it's not some unexpected consequence of having Bonus Actions in the game.


----------



## Zardnaar

Chaosmancer said:


> Would it? I've been wondering if I allowed people to use a bonus action instead of an action if it would harm anything. I haven't thought of a single thing that being allowed to use two bonus actions, instead of an action and bonus action would break (especially since you still can't do two bonus action spells and most mundane bonus actions are actions anyways)
> 
> 
> Unless you are talking people being able to use five or six bonus action, then yeah, that'd start breaking things right quick




Eldritch blast and hex onteractions come to mind or twf+hunters quarry or crossbow expert and hex and hunters quarry.

 Polearm master and great weapon master is even more OP 4 attacks a round potentially +40 damage at level 5 to 10.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Zardnaar said:


> Eldritch blast and hex onteractions come to mind or twf+hunters quarry or crossbow expert and hex and hunters quarry.
> 
> Polearm master and great weapon master is even more OP 4 attacks a round potentially +40 damage at level 5 to 10.




I find the answer more confusing than before. I think perhaps my question was poorly worded. 

I've been thinking on allowing a person to take their action, and instead of their action do a thing that normally requires a bonus action. 

For example, A bard might using their inspiration dice and healing word in the same turn, but that would be their entire turn. They could not attack or cast another spell. 

Under those circumstances I can't think of anything that begins to break in the game. 



Your answer seems more towards the part I agree begins breaking things, which is when someone can do their action and then follow it with 2 or more bonus actions. Like casting Hunter's MArk, Attacking and using a bonus action attack. 

Though I don't know what bonus action is associated with Eldritch blast, unless you meant casting hex, blasting something, and then moving hex on the same turn. 

No matter though, because I agree once you can use your action and multiple bonus actions, things begin to have problems.


----------



## Zardnaar

Chaosmancer said:


> I find the answer more confusing than before. I think perhaps my question was poorly worded.
> 
> I've been thinking on allowing a person to take their action, and instead of their action do a thing that normally requires a bonus action.
> 
> For example, A bard might using their inspiration dice and healing word in the same turn, but that would be their entire turn. They could not attack or cast another spell.
> 
> Under those circumstances I can't think of anything that begins to break in the game.
> 
> 
> 
> Your answer seems more towards the part I agree begins breaking things, which is when someone can do their action and then follow it with 2 or more bonus actions. Like casting Hunter's Mark, Attacking and using a bonus action attack.
> 
> Though I don't know what bonus action is associated with Eldritch blast, unless you meant casting hex, blasting something, and then moving hex on the same turn.
> 
> No matter though, because I agree once you can use your action and multiple bonus actions, things begin to have problems.




Sorlock quickening eldritch blast and combining bonus action attacks such as GWM cleave + PAM buttstrike ability.
 The little I played of 4E and a lot more played of SWSE convinced me being able to swap actions is a bad idea. Bonus actions are not perfect but better than minor/swift actions imho.

 A stationary monk using flurry of blow twice (6 aatacks a round at level 5) or flurry+dodge+standard action also seems good.


----------



## clearstream

Hemlock said:


> Bonus actions in 5E ARE hacky and too decoupled from the fictional world. There's a lot of places in 5E where you get to do something "as a bonus action" but no consideration is given to what you are actually DOING. Bardic Inspiration is a poster child for this kind of ugliness. If bonus actions didn't exist, presumably the bard would have some kind of ability like "When you cast a spell through song, you can weave your words in such a way that [the ally gets bardic inspiration]." That would make it clear that (1) yes, Bardic Inspiration is compatible with spells that have verbal components; (2) you can't inspire others while gagged (even though you can cast spells while gagged, e.g. Hypnotic Pattern, because it has no Verbal components); (3) it would make it clear you can't inspire others with song while you are busy drinking a potion (Action: drink a potion) because your mouth is busy. The ability could be written in such a way as to be compatible or not compatible with other actions like hiding, attacking, or extra object manipulation as desired. The designer would be encouraged to consider in advance what the ability is really doing from a fictional perspective instead of just lazily slapping gamist "bonus action" jargon on the ability and ignoring the fiction, leaving it all for the DM to fix during gameplay.
> 
> Also, bonus actions have weird interactions with other rules like Readying actions: technically, you cannot ready Bardic Inspiration or a Misty Step, although it isn't at all clear from a fictional perspective why that should be the case.
> 
> I agree with Mearls that bonus actions in 5E are poorly designed. I might not agree with him on a given proposed solution, but he's right about the problem. They encourage lazy and poor design.



At this point I'm not ready to agree with that mechanical analysis. Let's take your Bardic Inspiration example. Forcing Bards to expend a spell slot on every occasion that they want to inspire an ally profoundly reduces the number of times they can influence the narrative per day. And every time they do, it has to be two pronged: they either need to influence the narrative in two ways (the spell effect, the inspiration effect), or they throw away the spell. The potential to cost more resources in turn typically means an effect has to be stronger in order to be as useful in play, leading to spikier game balance. We can colour our mechanical choices with the fluff of our choosing of course, but for me some Bards are not singers, they are musicians, and some are both: whether their mouth is free or not is irrelevant to Bardic Inspiration (and in fact that's what the current rule says in the first sentence).

Mechanically, a structure like Bonus Actions that allows players to combine different effects in the same turn, flexibly, yields richer gameplay at lower design and learning cost. Once we start stitching effects together we pay a greater overhead for fewer usable cases. Where you say "lazy" design I would say "efficient" design. Also potentially more materially costly to players because the more each possible combination is separately cased, the more splatbooks you need to enumerate all the combinations.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk

I Personaly think naming it Bonus action was a bad choice, it sounds like something you can do extra for free but are still limited to 1.
They should have called them minor actions keeping the rules axactly the same.
The word bonus action would refer to things that could be considered a action but to not interact with the action economy ((like a paladin using his smite)) and your not limited to one per round

To me the only reason they changed the wording from minor action to bonus action is that whey wanted to get rid of as much of the 4th edition wording as they could.


----------



## Argyle King

Zardnaar said:


> Sorlock quickening eldritch blast and combining bonus action attacks such as GWM cleave + PAM buttstrike ability.
> The little I played of 4E and a lot more played of SWSE convinced me being able to swap actions is a bad idea. Bonus actions are not perfect but better than minor/swift actions imho.
> 
> A stationary monk using flurry of blow twice (6 aatacks a round at level 5) or flurry+dodge+standard action also seems good.




...which further convinces me that maybe I actually am ready for a new edition.

(Edit: or that maybe my tastes would be better served by a different game)

There seems to be a growing list of conversations I follow which get to a point where I think the underlying core assumptions that the game is built upon need to change for any of the "fixes" which make sense to me to work without causing more problems.  Granted, that might also mean that what I have in mind consists of bad ideas; I'm admittedly not a game a designer.  

I like a lot of 5E's general concepts.  However, as I've said in some other threads, I'm unsure how to make some of the changes I would like to make without causing more problems.  I think it's cool that products are (supposedly) being created to add more things to the game, but more options -while likely very cool- still do not help me.

In a way, I feel much like I did during some of 4E.  I felt like changes needed to be made, but Essentials and the changes which came to 4E went in a different direction than I had hoped and never actually addressed the issues I had with that edition.

But, I'm just one guy.  In the grand scheme of things, my opinion doesn't have much weight; I don't expect it to.  I'm aware that my tastes tend to be quite different than what most people want.  The common consensus seems to be that most people think 5E is the best edition of D&D.  Much of the time, I enjoy playing it too.  There are just a few things about it that bug me, and I'm currently unsure how to change those things.  That being said, if the majority of people are enjoying it as-is, that is a positive thing, and I'm thankful for a healthy environment for ttrpgs.


----------



## Zardnaar

Johnny3D3D said:


> ...which further convinces me that maybe I actually am ready for a new edition.
> 
> (Edit: or that maybe my tastes would be better served by a different game)
> 
> There seems to be a growing list of conversations I follow which get to a point where I think the underlying core assumptions that the game is built upon need to change for any of the "fixes" which make sense to me to work without causing more problems.  Granted, that might also mean that what I have in mind consists of bad ideas; I'm admittedly not a game a designer.
> 
> I like a lot of 5E's general concepts.  However, as I've said in some other threads, I'm unsure how to make some of the changes I would like to make without causing more problems.  I think it's cool that products are (supposedly) being created to add more things to the game, but more options -while likely very cool- still do not help me.
> 
> In a way, I feel much like I did during some of 4E.  I felt like changes needed to be made, but Essentials and the changes which came to 4E went in a different direction than I had hoped and never actually addressed the issues I had with that edition.
> 
> But, I'm just one guy.  In the grand scheme of things, my opinion doesn't have much weight; I don't expect it to.  I'm aware that my tastes tend to be quite different than what most people want.  The common consensus seems to be that most people think 5E is the best edition of D&D.  Much of the time, I enjoy playing it too.  There are just a few things about it that bug me, and I'm currently unsure how to change those things.  That being said, if the majority of people are enjoying it as-is, that is a positive thing, and I'm thankful for a healthy environment for ttrpgs.




 We stress tested it a lot when it landed and have recently changed the way we play it and let some 3pp be used.

 AD&D and retroclone talk has started up again, some of the players want to try 1E as they never played it and I have never DMed it. They bought some of the DMguild bundles and real books in a few cases. We have a 5E game on Sunday, might run an OSR one off on Monday (public holiday).

 Main problem with bonus actions is complexity, they work better than say minor actions and the only 1 hard limit is a good thing IMHO. I did not like how they added extra attacks as a bonus action though via feats and some class abilities.


----------



## SkidAce

Johnny3D3D said:


> I feel like the way 4E's action economy was broken down would fit 5E pretty well.
> 
> Instead of bonus actions, bring back Minor actions.  Then allow trading actions down, but not up.  For example, an action can be turned into either a move or a minor.  A move can be turned into a minor.  A minor cannot be turned into a move.  A move cannot be turned into an action.




I dont want move being turned into an action type again.

We like the "you have X movement, use it whenever you want" concept.


----------



## Warpiglet

So if we get 6e "When we ask for it," can we also just keep 5e a long time "if we ask for it?" 

There are a lot of people asking for the latter.

I will sweeten the pot.  If WOTC grants this request, I will keep buying and recommending my friends buy the actual product.  I will give 5e as gifts.  I will support it with my loving little hands for a long time.

Deal?

If everyone who is "asking for this" did this they might get their wish. 

Mearls and other have some interesting rules ideas.  How about a whole book of optional rules you can tack on or IGNORE without invalidating your whole library?  It would be extra nice.


----------



## hejtmane

I have no problems with the bonus actions yes it takes new players a while to grasp it some times but so would most anything. People call it cluncky and I read why I just do not agree with that stance. I have no problems with the bonus action it self sometimes I wonder why they made some things bonus actions. I get the spell bonus action and yes it makes being a cleric more fun to play instead of feeling like a heal bot.

I will say some of the decisions on bouns action baffle me like two weapon fighting; I always thought it should be you get one off hand attack per turn much like colossus slayer.

Me personally I do not see an issue with the bonus action itself but with some of what they made bonus actions. That is what needed to be cleaned up


----------



## Chaosmancer

Zardnaar said:


> Sorlock quickening eldritch blast and combining bonus action attacks such as GWM cleave + PAM buttstrike ability.
> The little I played of 4E and a lot more played of SWSE convinced me being able to swap actions is a bad idea. Bonus actions are not perfect but better than minor/swift actions imho.
> 
> A stationary monk using flurry of blow twice (6 aatacks a round at level 5) or flurry+dodge+standard action also seems good.





I must really be dense, because I don't see how some of those are possible or how they are different from what can already be done.


A sorlock can already quicken Eldritch blast and then cast eldritch blast again with their action. The only limit on bonus action spells is they can only be cast with cantrips, so a bonus action cantrip can be spammed.

The Great Weapon Cleave only works if you crit or kill an enemy. If you bonus action a strike with the 1d4 butt of a weapon, and then use your action to strike with the weapon itself using the cleave... how is that any different from using your action to attack and then bonus action strike



Looking through them again, you are talking about something that I am not.

You are talking about a turn that looks like *Action+Bonus Action+Bonus Action*. That has obvious problems.

I'm talking about a turn that looks like *Bonus Action+Bonus Action*. And I can't see a broken combo there, Flurrying Twice, even if you could, gives the same number of strikes as Attacking and Flurrying. Obviously Attacking and Flurrying Twice breaks things, but that is not what I'm looking at in any way.


----------



## Dausuul

SkidAce said:


> I dont want move being turned into an action type again.
> 
> We like the "you have X movement, use it whenever you want" concept.



Agreed, abolishing the move action was one of 5E's big improvements.


----------



## Salamandyr

Interesting thought...

One could actually tie this in with a modified form of the initiative system Mearls debuted.

Each action has an initiative die associated with it, and you determine all the actions you want to take in a round, and then roll those dice.  For extra complication, you could have each action take place on its initiative roll.

So someone who wanted to move, attack with his sword and again with his dagger, might roll d6 for the move, d8 for the sword and d6 for the dagger, attack on 9, lets say.

Or to get really complicated, someone rolls each die and acts on that number, moving on 3, attacking with the sword on 7 and attacking with the dagger on 9.

Wanna take more actions in a round? Just more initiative dice to roll.  One would either need a hard cap for initiative (any actions above that line are lost), or some other way to limit number of actions (one can only attack one time with any weapon for instance).


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

vonklaude said:


> At this point I'm not ready to agree with that mechanical analysis. Let's take your Bardic Inspiration example. Forcing Bards to expend a spell slot on every occasion that they want to inspire an ally profoundly reduces the number of times they can influence the narrative per day. And every time they do, it has to be two pronged: they either need to influence the narrative in two ways (the spell effect, the inspiration effect), or they throw away the spell.




I also wrote <<The ability could be written in such a way as to b compatible or not compatible with other actions like hiding, attacking, or extra object manipulation as desired.>> Key point: you shouldn't assume from what I wrote that there is a concrete proposal which makes spellcasting the ONLY way to inspire allies. Indeed, if you're going to assume anything, you should assume that the Bard has at least two choices: (1) cast a spell while inspiring others; (2) inspire others. There should not be any throwaway spells.



> Mechanically, a structure like Bonus Actions that allows players to combine different effects in the same turn, flexibly, yields richer gameplay at lower design and learning cost. Once we start stitching effects together we pay a greater overhead for fewer usable cases. Where you say "lazy" design I would say "efficient" design. Also potentially more materially costly to players because the more each possible combination is separately cased, the more splatbooks you need to enumerate all the combinations.




That isn't really a statement about Bonus Actions: you're just saying you want extra actions to be orthogonal to each other, which is specifically the thing that I object to. 5E designers like to just slap "bonus action" on a thing to make them compatible from a gamist point of view (all consuming a shared resource though), without actually considering whether the actual actions are in fact compatible with each other. What you call "richer gameplay" I call "poorer gameplay." "Everything and the kitchen sink all plugged into the same power cord [bonus action]" isn't good design OR efficient design, it's just lazy design.

If combinations were considered separately you could have sensible combinations like Rogue/Shadow Monks who can Shadow Step and also Cunning Action (Hide) while they are doing so (try to tell me that doesn't make 100% logical sense), or Valor Bards who fight with two weapons while still inspiring their comrades, instead of being forced to use greatswords for the same effect. You're trying to paint that design work as pure waste, an unnecessary cost obviated by the existence of bonus actions--but I think the game would be better off if that design work had occurred.

Clearly you disagree.


----------



## schnee

This thread is fun, because I see my entire career as a designer flashing before me.

"Hey, I think we can make this thing simpler. I'll show a design later."

--

The replies - without even seeing the design:

"No, it's FINE as is!"

"I thought of the way I'd design it, and it's dumb, so your design is dumb too."

"Yeah, let's bring back the way we did it three versions ago. I'll conveniently forget all the reasoning and evidence we used to change away from that one, because I always liked it."

"Why wouldn't anyone use the one we have? It's the best possible. Don't bother."

"I'd totally make it simpler by (proceeds to spend half an hour explaining a way more complicated thing)."

--


----------



## Chaosmancer

Hemlock said:


> I also wrote <<The ability could be written in such a way as to b compatible or not compatible with other actions like hiding, attacking, or extra object manipulation as desired.>> Key point: you shouldn't assume from what I wrote that there is a concrete proposal which makes spellcasting the ONLY way to inspire allies. Indeed, if you're going to assume anything, you should assume that the Bard has at least two choices: (1) cast a spell while inspiring others; (2) inspire others. There should not be any throwaway spells.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't really a statement about Bonus Actions: you're just saying you want extra actions to be orthogonal to each other, which is specifically the thing that I object to. 5E designers like to just slap "bonus action" on a thing to make them compatible from a gamist point of view (all consuming a shared resource though), without actually considering whether the actual actions are in fact compatible with each other. What you call "richer gameplay" I call "poorer gameplay." "Everything and the kitchen sink all plugged into the same power cord [bonus action]" isn't good design OR efficient design, it's just lazy design.
> 
> If combinations were considered separately you could have sensible combinations like Rogue/Shadow Monks who can Shadow Step and also Cunning Action (Hide) while they are doing so (try to tell me that doesn't make 100% logical sense), or Valor Bards who fight with two weapons while still inspiring their comrades, instead of being forced to use greatswords for the same effect. You're trying to paint that design work as pure waste, an unnecessary cost obviated by the existence of bonus actions--but I think the game would be better off if that design work had occurred.
> 
> Clearly you disagree.





On Shadow Monk/Rogues: Away from my book, but they can already shadow step and hide. If shadow step is an action, they can cunning action hide, if it is a bonus action they can just use their action to hide. 

What they cannot do is shadow step, attack and hide, or something similar that requires 3 separate actions. 



And, just because you find that drinking a potion and inspiring someone is incompatible, doesn't mean the rest of us do. Taking only an action to drink, I imagine potions contain about as much liquid as a shot glass, actually, I'm cool with potions being a bonus action frankly, because that doesn't take that long to drink. So, hold the glass, shout "Fight on for Victory" and down the shot. Not incompatible for myself. 

Now, TWF does seem to be a major problem in the action economy for a lot of people, but the more I see people talking about this issue, the more I wonder if it is really the only problem most people agree on, besides the "it's too much like a game" complaint which I... I just don't agree with.

We are playing a game, we have to make some concessions. And I think having things say "use a bonus action" is easier and flows better than having a lot of actions that are unique and break down to "do this thing and take a standard action". Also, a lot of things which are bonus actions are not powerful enough to make full actions as they are, like inspiration. 

The design as it stands allows the player to make decisions on what actions are compatible for them, without the game designers writing it all out and then us saying "Why can't I shadow step and then pull the lever, shouldn't I be able to do that", "Well, I used my action to try and escape and failed, but that action wasn't tied to a special action like Inspire, so I guess my turn is over", and on and on. You can't write every possible interaction in, so leave it as a piece and let the players but them together.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Johnny3D3D said:


> I feel like the way 4E's action economy was broken down would fit 5E pretty well.
> 
> Instead of bonus actions, bring back Minor actions.  Then allow trading actions down, but not up.  For example, an action can be turned into either a move or a minor.  A move can be turned into a minor.  A minor cannot be turned into a move.  A move cannot be turned into an action.



I think you may be letting some 4E conventions creep into your thinking about 5E if you assume you _can't_ do this. In 4E, it wasn't an "action", it was a "standard action", which was a clearly separate category than "minor action". But in 5E, it's just an "action". By my reading, a "bonus action" _is a type of_ "action", and can be performed whenever you could perform an "action". It simply has the the added property that it can be performed as a bonus on your turn on top of another action. There's no need for a rule explicitly allowing you to trade actions for bonus actions because the typology is different.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

TheCosmicKid said:


> I think you may be letting some 4E conventions creep into your thinking about 5E if you assume you _can't_ do this. In 4E, it wasn't an "action", it was a "standard action", which was a clearly separate category than "minor action". But in 5E, it's just an "action". By my reading, a "bonus action" _is a type of_ "action", and can be performed whenever you could perform an "action". It simply has the the added property that it can be performed as a bonus on your turn on top of another action. There's no need for a rule explicitly allowing you to trade actions for bonus actions because the typology is different.




Your reading is reasonable, but contrary to 5E rules, at least as expressed by the official WotC rules answerer, Jeremy Crawford, here on Twitter.



			
				Lauciann said:
			
		

> @JeremyECrawford hi! i have a question. can i use a bonus action as an actual action? like cast healing word as my action, or a barb rage?






			
				JeremyECrawford said:
			
		

> @Lauciann No.




Yet another example of the kind of clunkiness Mearls apparently regrets in bonus actions.


----------



## ad_hoc

schnee said:


> This thread is fun, because I see my entire career as a designer flashing before me.
> 
> "Hey, I think we can make this thing simpler. I'll show a design later."




Don't forget that he also announced that we're getting a new edition next month.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Hemlock said:


> That isn't really a statement about Bonus Actions: you're just saying you want extra actions to be orthogonal to each other, which is specifically the thing that I object to. 5E designers like to just slap "bonus action" on a thing to make them compatible from a gamist point of view (all consuming a shared resource though), without actually considering whether the actual actions are in fact compatible with each other. What you call "richer gameplay" I call "poorer gameplay." "Everything and the kitchen sink all plugged into the same power cord [bonus action]" isn't good design OR efficient design, it's just lazy design.
> 
> If combinations were considered separately you could have sensible combinations like Rogue/Shadow Monks who can Shadow Step and also Cunning Action (Hide) while they are doing so (try to tell me that doesn't make 100% logical sense), or Valor Bards who fight with two weapons while still inspiring their comrades, instead of being forced to use greatswords for the same effect. You're trying to paint that design work as pure waste, an unnecessary cost obviated by the existence of bonus actions--but I think the game would be better off if that design work had occurred.
> 
> Clearly you disagree.



The game would be worse off in at least two concrete ways.

First, it would shift a lot of the burden of figuring out whether a given action combination was legal to round-by-round rulings. Either the actions are described vaguely and the DM has to interpret them, or what's compatible with what is spelled out explicitly and the DM has to memorize them or look them up. Both ways, this slows down the game. This is not worth the price of verisimilitude in the same way that expansive weapon-vs-armor tables or hit location tables are not worth the price of verisimilitude. The bonus action is an acceptable abstraction which keeps the rules for what you can do on your turn clear and consistent.

Second, it would _exacerbate_ the problem that Mearls perceived in the 4E action economy and seems to be trying very hard to avoid: players incentivized to get the most out of the action economy by cramming as many actions as they can into their turn, thus bogging down the game. With the bonus action, a player can do at most one extra thing. With what you propose, the player can do as many extra things as they can justify. If a valor bard can attack with his main hand, attack with his off hand, and inspire with his voice all at the same time, that tells other players, "You need to find something to be doing with your voice every turn or else you're missing out!" And what about the characters' feet? Surely they could find something to do with their feet as well. And so on.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

Chaosmancer said:


> On Shadow Monk/Rogues: Away from my book, but they can already shadow step and hide. If shadow step is an action, they can cunning action hide, if it is a bonus action they can just use their action to hide.
> 
> What they cannot do is shadow step, attack and hide, or something similar that requires 3 separate actions.




Yes, exactly. They cannot Shadow Step + Cunning Action (Hide). Even someone who is trained in being a sneaky ninja both magically (Shadow Monk) and nonmagically (Rogue) cannot, for some reason, prevent someone from losing track of his position while he teleports from one shadow to another shadow. It's actually _easier_ for him to make someone lose track of his position if he physically walks from point A to point B. This despite the fact that Shadow Step even has explicit language implying the people lose track of where you're going when you teleport (you get advantage on your next melee attack). Apparently you're not automatically hidden just by Shadow Stepping, presumably because you make some noise or something, but rogues are supposed to be good at moving silently. If any two abilities ever made sense to use simultaneously, Shadow Step + Cunning Action (Hide) are those two abilities.

In a system where bonus actions didn't exist per se--if actions were written following the current UA trend--both of these would probably be compatible. Each of them would likely be written as something like, "When you move on your turn, you can Hide as part of that movement, provided you are sufficiently obscured from view (per usual Hiding rules)" or "When you move on your turn, you can instantaneously teleport between two shadows up to 60' apart as part of that movement." 



> The design as it stands allows the player to make decisions on what actions are compatible for them, without the game designers writing it all out and then us saying "Why can't I shadow step and then pull the lever, shouldn't I be able to do that", "Well, I used my action to try and escape and failed, but that action wasn't tied to a special action like Inspire, so I guess my turn is over", and on and on. You can't write every possible interaction in, so leave it as a piece and let the players but them together.




And yet, now you have that problem anyway with Shadow Step + Cunning Action (Hide), per above, because of bonus actions all being tied to the same resource, regardless of whether or not they should be. Being lazy in the design didn't solve anything.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Hemlock said:


> Yet another example of the kind of clunkiness Mearls apparently regrets in bonus actions.



I alluded to this in my above post, but I'll state it more directly: from what you've said and what Mearls says, I do not think you two are on the same wavelength at all here.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Hemlock said:


> Yes, exactly. They cannot Shadow Step + Cunning Action (Hide). Even someone who is trained in being a sneaky ninja both magically (Shadow Monk) and nonmagically (Rogue) cannot, for some reason, prevent someone from losing track of his position while he teleports from one shadow to another shadow. It's actually _easier_ for him to make someone lose track of his position if he physically walks from point A to point B.



There are other abilities which allow you to spend movement to teleport. The fact that Shadow Step is a bonus action and not a form of movement denotes that, yes, it does take more effort to do that than just to walk. I find it odd that you're claiming this interaction is so implausible when it involves a _magical ability we have no real-life basis for understanding_.

Also, the rules for stealth and the Hide action _are_ a weak point in 5E's design, so consider whether your problem here is really with them.



Hemlock said:


> ...Shadow Step even has explicit language implying...



Huh?



Hemlock said:


> In a system where bonus actions didn't exist per se--if actions were written following the current UA trend--both of these would probably be compatible. Each of them would likely be written as something like, "When you move on your turn, you can Hide as part of that movement, provided you are sufficiently obscured from view (per usual Hiding rules)" or "When you move on your turn, you can instantaneously teleport between two shadows up to 60' apart as part of that movement."



And then players would be incentivized to stack as many "When you do X" triggers as possible on their turns, which would be _more_ gamist and _slower_ than the current state of affairs.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

TheCosmicKid said:


> I alluded to this in my above post, but I'll state it more directly: from what you've said and what Mearls says, I do not think you two are on the same wavelength at all here.




To be clear: you don't think Mearls has noticed that the various rules for bonus actions are counterintuitive and often misunderstood, even by those who purpose to be rules experts? (Multiple bonus actions, readying bonus actions, interchanging actions and bonus actions, spells with bonus actions.) On what evidence do you base this opinion of yours? I showed part of my evidence above by juxtaposing an incorrect rules claim about bonus actions with a correction from JeremyCrawford.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Hemlock said:


> Yes, exactly. They cannot Shadow Step + Cunning Action (Hide). Even someone who is trained in being a sneaky ninja both magically (Shadow Monk) and nonmagically (Rogue) cannot, for some reason, prevent someone from losing track of his position while he teleports from one shadow to another shadow.




What the heck are you talking about? 

Bonus Action: Shadow Step
Action: Hide

This is a completely legal turn. You can do this, what makes you think this is something you cannot do.

Are you forgetting that pg 192 explicitly lists “Hide” as a valid action choice? If you are, that is not a problem with bonus action, that is a problem with Actions being listed in such a far flung corner of the book that most players don’t read them. 

This issue does not exist, unless you think using Cunning Action to hide is somehow better than taking the hide action. What you want exists in the game.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

TheCosmicKid said:


> And then players would be incentivized to stack as many "When you do X" triggers as possible on their turns, which would be _more_ gamist and _slower_ than the current state of affairs.




If this were true, you'd already be seeing it happen in 5E with its existing action economy. Everybody would be dipping Ranger 3 to take Horde Breaker so they could stack on extra attacks at no bonus action cost, and Paladin 2 so they could add smites.

In reality, this doesn't happen. Why do you think that is?


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

Chaosmancer said:


> What the heck are you talking about?
> 
> Bonus Action: Shadow Step
> Action: Hide
> 
> This is a completely legal turn. You can do this, what makes you think this is something you cannot do.
> 
> Are you forgetting that pg 192 explicitly lists “Hide” as a valid action choice? If you are, that is not a problem with bonus action, that is a problem with Actions being listed in such a far flung corner of the book that most players don’t read them.
> 
> This issue does not exist, unless you think using Cunning Action to hide is somehow better than taking the hide action. What you want exists in the game.




There's some kind of disconnect here. Every time I write "Cunning Action (Hide)", you seem to think that I've written "Hide", and you refute that misinterpretation. I'm sure it's unintentional on your part, but that's still a form of attacking a strawman.

Let me use your own example and see if that gets through.

*Action:* Attack
*Bonus Action:* Shadow Step
*Bonus Action:* Cunning Action (Hide)

This is a completely illegal turn because bonus actions are a global resource; however, from a fictional perspective it makes perfect sense. (Indeed, from a fictional perspective it's hard to justify enemies _not_ losing track of your position even with Shadow Step alone, particularly if you teleport out of their line of sight. If the shadow monk is also skilled at moving silently in tandem with other activities (Cunning Action (Hide)) it strains credibility even more.)

Shadow Step already even includes something akin to hiding: you get advantage on your next melee attack, presumably because you're attacking from an unexpected direction. Therefore, the idea that Shadow Stepping makes your Cunning Action (Hide) _less_ effective (inoperable) instead of _more_ effective is counterintuitive from an in-world perspective. It only makes sense if you are thinking at a metagame level and counting Bonus Actions because that's what the rules say to do.

This curious anti-synergy would not naturally emerge if the rules team had not already been thinking in terms of Bonus Actions and one Bonus Action per turn.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Hemlock said:


> There's some kind of disconnect here. Every time I write "Cunning Action (Hide)", you seem to think that I've written "Hide", and you refute that misinterpretation. I'm sure it's unintentional on your part, but that's still a form of attacking a strawman.
> 
> Let me use your own example and see if that gets through.
> 
> *Action:* Attack
> *Bonus Action:* Shadow Step
> *Bonus Action:* Cunning Action (Hide)
> 
> This is a completely illegal turn because bonus actions are a global resource; however, from a fictional perspective it makes perfect sense. (Indeed, from a fictional perspective it's hard to justify enemies _not_ losing track of your position even with Shadow Step alone, particularly if you teleport out of their line of sight. If the shadow monk is also skilled at moving silently in tandem with other activities (Cunning Action (Hide)) it strains credibility even more.)
> 
> Shadow Step already even includes something akin to hiding: you get advantage on your next melee attack, presumably because you're attacking from an unexpected direction. Therefore, the idea that Shadow Stepping makes your Cunning Action (Hide) _less_ effective (inoperable) instead of _more_ effective is counterintuitive from an in-world perspective. It only makes sense if you are thinking at a metagame level and counting Bonus Actions because that's what the rules say to do.
> 
> This curious anti-synergy would not naturally emerge if the rules team had not already been thinking in terms of Bonus Actions and one Bonus Action per turn.





I never saw you mention using your action to attack. You just kept talking about Cunning Action and Shadow Step, neither of which necessarily involves the attack action. If I missed it, I apologize. 


Now your argument makes more sense, but I think this falls more under stealth rules being wonky than bonus actions being wonky.

Someone hits you and disappears in a cloud of smoke. You cannot see them, where did they go? 

Personally, I'm not going to have the enemy know they reappeared behind pillar #3 out of sight, because logically, they have no way to know that information. Giving Shadow Step a free hide in that situation seems perfectly legitimate to me, but I can see where it causes problems. 

You could even say it is a problem with Shadow step, perhaps it should have been written that you get advantage on your next attack or you can make a stealth roll to hide, to allow for the ninja who attacks and disappears without a trace. None of that makes bonus actions not work.


----------



## briggart

Hemlock said:


> This curious anti-synergy would not naturally emerge if the rules team had not already been thinking in terms of Bonus Actions and one Bonus Action per turn.




You seem to think that bonus actions competing against each other is a bug of the system, I believe that the designers (at least Crawford, based on some comments he made) see it as a feature, as it keep the spotlight moving around between players. In that case, I don't think that a different system would actually solve the issue, as there would still be rules in place to limit how many things a character can do in a single turn, and prevent players taking too long.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Hemlock said:


> If this were true, you'd already be seeing it happen in 5E with its existing action economy. Everybody would be dipping Ranger 3 to take Horde Breaker so they could stack on extra attacks at no bonus action cost, and Paladin 2 so they could add smites.
> 
> In reality, this doesn't happen. Why do you think that is?



I'm not just talking about optimized multiclass builds (although that _does_ happen, and would happen a lot more if every non-action ability worked like this instead of costing the bonus action). I'm talking about players stopping every turn to think, "Okay, I've acted with my main hand, but now what can I do with my off-hand? My voice? My feet?" This pause-to-ponder was a common complaint about the 4E action economy -- "What can I do with my minor action? What can I do with my reaction?" -- and it's probably the single biggest reason Mearls & Co. tried so hard to banish the minor/bonus action from 5E. Mearls' vision of the ideal D&D round seems to be everyone saying, "I do this one thing, I move, next!" quick, quick, quick. You, on the other hand, are effectively saying that _one bonus action per turn is not enough_. You may have similar complaints about the status quo, but you're advocating pushing the system in diametrically opposite directions.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Chaosmancer said:


> Now your argument makes more sense, but I think this falls more under stealth rules being wonky than bonus actions being wonky.



Agreed. Per RAW, you _have_ to take the Hide action to be hidden. That's the problem here. I think most people would intuitively rule that you are hidden any time the other guy can't perceive you, such as by walking or teleporting into an area of pitch blackness.

Now, teleporting into an area that's just _dimly lit_ -- there the other guy can still perceive you, and it makes sense that you would have to spend some additional effort trying to conceal yourself.

So patch the Hide rule for "obviously can't be seen" situations, and I for one wouldn't find anything counterintuitive about the Shadow Step + Cunning Action interaction.


----------



## Hussar

TheCosmicKid said:


> Agreed. Per RAW, you _have_ to take the Hide action to be hidden. That's the problem here. I think most people would intuitively rule that you are hidden any time the other guy can't perceive you, such as by walking or teleporting into an area of pitch blackness.
> 
> Now, teleporting into an area that's just _dimly lit_ -- there the other guy can still perceive you, and it makes sense that you would have to spend some additional effort trying to conceal yourself.
> 
> So patch the Hide rule for "obviously can't be seen" situations, and I for one wouldn't find anything counterintuitive about the Shadow Step + Cunning Action interaction.




Just to point out, if you teleported to a place of complete darkness, you would be 100% obscured, and thus, effectively invisible - cannot be targeted by direct spells, disadvantage on attacks.  Now, without that hide action, you still made enough noise that the bad guys know what square you are in, but, you would still be effectively invisible.  The problem is, in my mind, the vagueness of the hidden/unseen conditions - namely there isn't a specific hidden condition, which there really needs to be, either way, in order to clear up all these issues.


----------



## Pale_Valkyrie

I gotta say.......pretty much every idea Mr. Mearls has lately is awful.   Does he even play 5e? Because I do and his initiative idea was awful in gameplay. I mean Terribad. Bonus actions are essential. That is why the last 3 editions of the game have had an equivalent to bonus actions in the form of Minor and Swift.   
Major action, Minor action, Move action...
the three M's of dnd have been around for 20 years and through three editions because it makes sense for so many game elements.
What next he will say he hates that casters have concentration?    Stay away from DnD Mike....you have lost your mind.


----------



## ad_hoc

Holly Sharp said:


> I gotta say.......pretty much every idea Mr. Mearls has lately is awful.   Does he even play 5e?




Mearls is the lead designer of 5e. He plays regularly. His houserules are from his own game. 



> Because I do and his initiative idea was awful in gameplay. I mean Terribad.




I tried out his initiative variant last week and the group loved it. It makes combat more engaging and exciting. 

I'm excited to read an actual write up of it.



> Bonus actions are essential. That is why the last 3 editions of the game have had an equivalent to bonus actions in the form of Minor and Swift.
> Major action, Minor action, Move action...
> the three M's of dnd have been around for 20 years and through three editions because it makes sense for so many game elements.




5e has deliberately gotten away from 3.x and 4e and for good reason. It plays much more like 2e and earlier. 

Thankfully Mearls knew that if he just made a new edition of 4e (instead of the 5e we got) then D&D would have likely flopped and then that would be the end of it.

He is regretting not going far enough in some places and I don't blame him.


----------



## Zardnaar

Holly Sharp said:


> I gotta say.......pretty much every idea Mr. Mearls has lately is awful.   Does he even play 5e? Because I do and his initiative idea was awful in gameplay. I mean Terribad. Bonus actions are essential. That is why the last 3 editions of the game have had an equivalent to bonus actions in the form of Minor and Swift.
> Major action, Minor action, Move action...
> the three M's of dnd have been around for 20 years and through three editions because it makes sense for so many game elements.
> What next he will say he hates that casters have concentration?    Stay away from DnD Mike....you have lost your mind.




And D&D did without them for 26 years. Even now BECMI and AD&D still do some things better than 5E. They add complexity to the game after that its a matter of personal preference.


----------



## Hussar

Now, on a purely personal level, I wouldn't be able to actually use these rules.  I play on Fantasy Grounds and, without a LOT of rejiggering, this just wouldn't work.  Shame, because I think this isn't that bad of an idea.  I know we used to do this in 2e, and I think it would be a great way to engage the players around the table.

My bigger concern might be more with table dynamics.  There could be a lot of friction from alpha gamer types who might want to tell the group what to do.  Not saying that this is an insurmountable issue, but, I could see some between round planning sessions taking a lot more time than might be fun, particularly in something like Adventurers League games where you don't know the people around the table.  

Again, not saying that's a show stopper, just something that DM's need to be aware of.  That and making sure that the DM doesn't screw over the groups by listening to their plans and then taking deliberate actions to cause those plans to go wahoonie shaped.  Again, that's a table issue, but, particularly with newer groups and gamers, might be a temptation for the DM and a source of frustration for the players.  "Ok, guys, yeah, we'll set everyone up for the fireball." Roll Initiative.  DM:  "Yeah, all the bad guys, who had previously ganged up on you, scatter..."


----------



## Shasarak

Wow, never expected Mike to be talking about 6e this early into a new edition.


----------



## ad_hoc

Hussar said:


> My bigger concern might be more with table dynamics.  There could be a lot of friction from alpha gamer types who might want to tell the group what to do.  Not saying that this is an insurmountable issue, but, I could see some between round planning sessions taking a lot more time than might be fun, particularly in something like Adventurers League games where you don't know the people around the table.




Yeah, it's definitely table dependent which makes it a great variant but not necessarily a great default.

At my table there are a couple people who like the poll the group whenever it is their turn. There are also a couple people who usually just decide on their own, though sometimes like to get input. I've found that when it's time to declare actions people still do what they want, only now it's not just a couple people slowing the game down. Everyone contributes at the same time so there is less down time. 

I would say that is the main benefit. The other one which I didn't think about until we played was how cinematic fights are now. The action resolves very quickly as the decisions have been made upfront.

So instead of one action resolving, then we wait a couple minutes then the next, they happen in rapid succession which helps with the imagination of the scene.


----------



## Maxperson

TheCosmicKid said:


> Agreed. Per RAW, you _have_ to take the Hide action to be hidden. That's the problem here. I think most people would intuitively rule that you are hidden any time the other guy can't perceive you, such as by walking or teleporting into an area of pitch blackness.




Actually, per RAW you can become hidden without the hide action.  All it takes is being both unseen and unheard.

From the Unseen Attackers and Targets section...

"*If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard*—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."


----------



## Hussar

Oh gawd, please, please, please don't turn this into another stealth wank.


----------



## Zardnaar

Hussar said:


> Oh gawd, please, please, please don't turn this into another stealth wank.




Yeah add em to the list of 5E could do better.


----------



## clearstream

Hemlock said:


> I also wrote <<The ability could be written in such a way as to b compatible or not compatible with other actions like hiding, attacking, or extra object manipulation as desired.>> Key point: you shouldn't assume from what I wrote that there is a concrete proposal which makes spellcasting the ONLY way to inspire allies.



Agreed. I was using it in the same way i.e. to show what I feel to be an issue here. For the sake of argument lets say we have 5 bonus-actions and each is compatible with 5 combat-actions. Currently, those combinations are enumerated as two 5-element lists. If instead [bonus-actions] are stuck onto [combat-actions] then we have one list of 25-elements. That's inefficient and decreases opportunities for creative play. But perhaps we have a misunderstanding.



Hemlock said:


> That isn't really a statement about Bonus Actions: you're just saying you want extra actions to be orthogonal to each other, which is specifically the thing that I object to. 5E designers like to just slap "bonus action" on a thing to make them compatible from a gamist point of view (all consuming a shared resource though), without actually considering whether the actual actions are in fact compatible with each other. What you call "richer gameplay" I call "poorer gameplay." "Everything and the kitchen sink all plugged into the same power cord [bonus action]" isn't good design OR efficient design, it's just lazy design.



What do you mean by "orthogonal" in this context? I feel like I have to rule out that you are directly addressing that term to combinatorial mechanics because I do not see how you could label those as bad, inefficient or lazy from a game design point of view. We know that ever since Cosmic Encounters, combinatorial design has been recognised as one of the most powerful and efficient tools in a designer's toolbox. And that many of the most successful game designs of all time, from Magic the Gathering to DOTA, use such mechanics.

So I'm forced to assume you mean something that right now isn't clear to me.



Hemlock said:


> If combinations were considered separately you could have sensible combinations like Rogue/Shadow Monks who can Shadow Step and also Cunning Action (Hide) while they are doing so (try to tell me that doesn't make 100% logical sense), or Valor Bards who fight with two weapons while still inspiring their comrades, instead of being forced to use greatswords for the same effect. You're trying to paint that design work as pure waste, an unnecessary cost obviated by the existence of bonus actions--but I think the game would be better off if that design work had occurred.
> 
> Clearly you disagree.



Shadow Monks can bonus action Shadow Step and action Hide. What they cannot do is Attack + Hide, and that makes sense because attacking stops you being hidden. Valor Bards can use Bardic Inspiration while fighting with two weapons. If they cannot in your campaign then that is a house rule. Again, I do not follow your criticism here. What putatively unnecessary cost is being obviated by bonus actions?


----------



## Mephista

vonklaude said:


> Shadow Monks can bonus action Shadow Step and action Hide. What they cannot do is Attack + Hide, and that makes sense because attacking stops you being hidden. Valor Bards can use Bardic Inspiration while fighting with two weapons. If they cannot in your campaign then that is a house rule. Again, I do not follow your criticism here. What putatively unnecessary cost is being obviated by bonus actions?



 Valor Bards can't Bardic Inspire while using Two Weapon Fighting in the same turn.  Holding that extra sword is meaningless on any turn in which you Inspire.  You're better off using a shield or greatsword in this case, which yield either better defense for same damage, or equal damage to attacking the two weapons (greater damage after level 6).   But then, using bonus action for TWFing was a poor call in the first place.  Meaningful* for the rogue, gimped for everyone else.


* For given definitions of meaningful; I find it to be a terrible option in a lot of games, even for rogues, and that's before the lack of support options.


You are right about the shadow monks, sort of.   You can't distract with Minor Illusion, shadowstep, then hide, when it makes sense in my opinion.  But Shadow Step, all in all, was designed with the intent of combat use.  You're getting advantage on immediate attacks as part of the ability, after all.   Its a failure of D&D design to focus on combat to the detriment of exploration and social.


----------



## clearstream

Mephista said:


> Valor Bards can't Bardic Inspire while using Two Weapon Fighting in the same turn.  Holding that extra sword is meaningless on any turn in which you Inspire.



I understood Hemlock to be making a broader point, but if not, accepted: they can't make the second attack in that one turn. Inspire lasts 10 minutes.



Mephista said:


> You're better off using a shield or greatsword in this case, which yield either better defense for same damage, or equal damage to attacking the two weapons (greater damage after level 6). But then, using bonus action for TWFing was a poor call in the first place.  Meaningful* for the rogue, gimped for everyone else.



We need to differentiate between the mechanical structure, and how it has been instantiated. We could easily agree that instantiating TWF using a bonus action is a poor call, without agreeing that bonus actions are a bad structure. 5e's streamlined action economy represents decades of thoughtful experimentation and playtesting, through 3e, 3.5e and 4e. Locking current class special actions to combat general actions risks taking a clear step backwards.



Mephista said:


> You are right about the shadow monks, sort of.   You can't distract with Minor Illusion, shadowstep, then hide, when it makes sense in my opinion.  But Shadow Step, all in all, was designed with the intent of combat use. You're getting advantage on immediate attacks as part of the ability, after all.   Its a failure of D&D design to focus on combat to the detriment of exploration and social.



Agreed about that! For me it is hard to understand their persistence in doing that. Mearls can seem over-focused on skirmish-scale, table-top combat. I'd rather he expended more of his design talents on exploration and social!


----------



## Li Shenron

If you dislike bonus actions, you know what would be even simpler? To just get rid of everything that uses them.

- Instead of having a bunch of spells that use a bonus action, have all of those spells use an action. The game was fine without Healing Word.

- Do you want to fight with two weapons? Just use one weapon on your first attack, and the other weapon on your second attack. If you have only one attack per round, use a different hand/weapon each round. It's not written in the Bible that 2WF _must_ grant more than the usual number of attacks per round.

- Bard Inspiration doesn't even need to take an action at all.


----------



## Pale_Valkyrie

My husband posted with my account, probably by accident.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock

vonklaude said:


> What do you mean by "orthogonal" in this context? I feel like I have to rule out that you are directly addressing that term to combinatorial mechanics because I do not see how you could label those as bad, inefficient or lazy from a game design point of view. We know that ever since Cosmic Encounters, combinatorial design has been recognised as one of the most powerful and efficient tools in a designer's toolbox. And that many of the most successful game designs of all time, from Magic the Gathering to DOTA, use such mechanics.
> 
> So I'm forced to assume you mean something that right now isn't clear to me.




By "combinatorial mechanics" I am forced to assume that you mean "options which are interchangeable with each other, independently or in combination", in which case that is indeed what I mean by "orthogonal."

Clearly you love that style of game design, so much so that you can't imagine why anyone would object to it in an RPG.

I however don't want to play D&D: the Gathering. I want a role-playing game, not an interesting exercise in exploiting powerful combinations. If you want to show that the techniques you refer to are relevant in this space, you have to show it, not just reference some external consensus.



> Shadow Monks can bonus action Shadow Step and action Hide. *What they cannot do is Attack + Hide, and that makes sense because attacking stops you being hidden.* Valor Bards can use Bardic Inspiration while fighting with two weapons. If they cannot in your campaign then that is a house rule. Again, I do not follow your criticism here. What putatively unnecessary cost is being obviated by bonus actions?




We've already covered why this statement doesn't hold. If you attack and then teleport away, how is the enemy supposed to keep track of your position, especially if you teleport out of their line of sight? Some posters on this thread have even said they'd include a Hide attempt in Shadow Step by default. In any case, your claim here is falsified by the fact that the very same Rogue/Shadow Monk could by RAW Attack + Cunning Action (Hide). Yet somehow, teleporting makes him _easier_ to locate, not harder. The fiction you're suggesting doesn't hold water.

RE: Valor Bards, are you missing the point about TWF and Bardic Inspiration both requiring a bonus action (and thus conflicting), or are you just being pedantic about the fact that anyone can hold a second weapon in their off-hand and do nothing with it at no action cost?


----------



## MechaTarrasque

It seems like the most elegant way would be to make the actions 'free", but require concentration to maintain them.  A lot of the bonus action spells are pretty much this anyway.  It would be a big change to fighting styles, but I would propose this:  power the styles up a bit, add concentration, and then add a cycling time (if you lose concentration, it takes 2 rounds before you can gather your focus enough to concentrate on your fighting style again).   Throw in a battlemaster feat (like the war caster one), and all should be well.  That adds a little narrative focus to fighting styles--not just something you do, but something you focus on.


----------



## Litania

218 contradicting posts later it seems like it' not that obvious after all!


----------



## clearstream

Hemlock said:


> By "combinatorial mechanics" I am forced to assume that you mean "options which are interchangeable with each other, independently or in combination", in which case that is indeed what I mean by "orthogonal."
> 
> Clearly you love that style of game design, so much so that you can't imagine why anyone would object to it in an RPG.
> 
> I however don't want to play D&D: the Gathering. I want a role-playing game, not an interesting exercise in exploiting powerful combinations. If you want to show that the techniques you refer to are relevant in this space, you have to show it, not just reference some external consensus.



In D&D? Multiclassing. Ability scores. Any time one player buffs another player. Bonus actions. The Vancian spell system. Magic items. Any time players creatively combine effects. One of the basic principles of the system (as cited by its designers) - that specific trumps general - comes from the mode of rules deconstruction that yields combinatorial mechanics. An enormous part of why D&D has remained interesting to play for so long is because of its deconstructed and recombinable mechanics. I've been designing games professionally for nearly three decades and what I'm in love with are design patterns that deliver better play to gamers.



Hemlock said:


> If you attack and then teleport away, how is the enemy supposed to keep track of your position, especially if you teleport out of their line of sight? Some posters on this thread have even said they'd include a Hide attempt in Shadow Step by default. In any case, your claim here is falsified by the fact that the very same Rogue/Shadow Monk could by RAW Attack + Cunning Action (Hide). Yet somehow, teleporting makes him _easier_ to locate, not harder. The fiction you're suggesting doesn't hold water.



I feel like such arguments largely rest upon a misconstrual of how the fiction connects with the rules. I hope I'm right to say that our shared fiction presupposes a continuous flow of combat: one actor does not wait for the other actor to neatly finish up before doing anything. A great way to represent that has turned out to be a series of _I-go-you-go_ resolution steps structured using initiative and action types (move, action, bonus, reaction). _I-go-you-go_ contains some flaws, one of the more notorious being where _I-hit-you-then-become-untargetable-before-you-go_. It is basic to the balance of 5e that generally that shouldn't be possible, but we love enabling players to conditionally break even basic rules, and this is no exception. At 8th level, a Shadow Monk can break that piece of balance through taking 2 levels of Rogue. At 14th level a Ranger taking the Mobile feat can break it. At 4th level, a Rogue using Cunning Action and Mobile can break it. Rogues are best at that kind of thing. 

And then, let's also come back to the _time_ aspect of combat. A 6th level Shadow Monk can Attack and then use Shadow Step to teleport away, and then over 6 further seconds Hide. And if they truly chose a spot that their opponent can't locate, they won't be found before then. What they cannot do is deny their opponent the chance to get at least one action back in that sequence. That is reasonable because otherwise we suppose their opponent to be inert when we know in the fiction that both are acting simultaneously. To an extent here, you're simply wishing to have your cake and eat it to: you can do exactly what you want, but you can't get all the advantages you hoped for.

Your supposed problem isn't one of what is possible, it is only one of how and when it is possible, and what it overshadows.


----------



## Henry

Litania said:


> 218 contradicting posts later it seems like it' not that obvious after all!




Doesn't convince me yet because we're gamers, we can argue about almost anything.  if Mike Mearls wants to draft up an idea of what this would look like wit a little more detail I'm certainly open, but call me leery of way too many unintended powergaming consequences in the implementation. I can live with not being able to counter-counter, or not shank and sing for one round, if it means curbing other abuses from earler d20 efforts.


----------



## SigmaOne

The only problem I have with bonus actions is the name. They should have been called "fast actions". 

And I don't think anyone is seriously talking about another edition. People ask the designers about it on occasion; that's all.


----------



## thzero

Over the Hill Gamer said:


> I would love to see a 6th edition of the game under Mearl's direction.  He's a genius, second only to GG himself.





ROTFLHAO.  Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## clearstream

Henry said:


> Doesn't convince me yet because we're gamers, we can argue about almost anything.  if Mike Mearls wants to draft up an idea of what this would look like wit a little more detail I'm certainly open, but call me leery of way too many unintended powergaming consequences in the implementation. I can live with not being able to counter-counter, or not shank and sing for one round, if it means curbing other abuses from earler d20 efforts.



Care to hazard a guess what he is thinking of then


----------



## DM Howard

Well, I DM a 5th Edition game, but all this debate on action economy reminds me why I prefer B/X and AD&D; let's roleplay, *not* roll-play.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Bravesteel said:


> Well, I DM a 5th Edition game, but all this debate on action economy reminds me why I prefer B/X and AD&D; let's roleplay, *not* roll-play.




Action economy discussions are just the latest iteration of weapon speed factors, spell casting segments and "but I can do more than that in sixty seconds!" debates of AD&D. Please, with the "role-play" vs "roll-play" moralizing.


----------



## lkj

Henry said:


> Doesn't convince me yet because we're gamers, we can argue about almost anything.  if Mike Mearls wants to draft up an idea of what this would look like wit a little more detail I'm certainly open, but call me leery of way too many unintended powergaming consequences in the implementation. I can live with not being able to counter-counter, or not shank and sing for one round, if it means curbing other abuses from earler d20 efforts.




I think you've probably nailed why this might not show up as a UA. It would require a fairly major revamp of the whole system, to make sure everything still works together properly. With a lot of playtesting. It's not just an alternate subsystem. It's why, I think, Mearls mentions it only in the context of a new edition. Which he clearly states is not something that will happen anytime soon. 

I also agree with him that it's not a big enough issue, in and of itself, to warrant the effort. Something to try if they ever revamp the system.

AD


----------



## BookBarbarian

There was a time when UA was not just playtesting things that might come in later books, but also variants, or even suggestions for houserules and homebrew. In the UA on modifying Classes the spellless Ranger was just an example of how a homebrewer could remove a feature from a class and replace it with a feature from another class.

So I wouldn't say it's entirely outside the realm of possibility to see Mearls' idea in UA. I'd personally like to see it even if it's not in UA.


----------



## Henry

vonklaude said:


> Care to hazard a guess what he is thinking of then




Nope, 'cause I'm a fan of Bonus/Action+Moving!  if someone can show me a better way for d20, all good, but At first blush I see more drawbacks than benefits.



Bravesteel said:


> Well, I DM a 5th Edition game, but all this debate on action economy reminds me why I prefer B/X and AD&D; let's roleplay, *not* roll-play.



Tell that to 12 year old me, trying to figure out Surprise Rounds, Weapon Speed Factors, and conversions between yards and feet all because you've got four walls around you versus not having 'em.  

Basic/Expert D&D, I'll give you -- I run that at conventions the way some people teach Checkers or Poker - any time, any where, no rule books needed. Character death? Take these six pages of quick start rules with character levels 1-4 on them, pick a class, copy down these dozen things, and get back in there!


----------



## DM Howard

Sir Brennen said:


> Action economy discussions are just the latest iteration of weapon speed factors, spell casting segments and "but I can do more than that in sixty seconds!" debates of AD&D. Please, with the "role-play" vs "roll-play" moralizing.




I agree, I was feeling a little snarky, I apologize!  5E is actually my favorite edition by far! 



Henry said:


> Tell that to 12 year old me, trying to figure out Surprise Rounds, Weapon Speed Factors, and conversions between yards and feet all because you've got four walls around you versus not having 'em.
> 
> Basic/Expert D&D, I'll give you -- I run that at conventions the way some people teach Checkers or Poker - any time, any where, no rule books needed. Character death? Take these six pages of quick start rules with character levels 1-4 on them, pick a class, copy down these dozen things, and get back in there!




Oh definately!  I agree, I think if any versions of D&D get close to reaching that level of simplicity would certainly be B/X.  BECMI flings a little too much extra stuff in the way to confuse things.


----------



## dagger

Sir Brennen said:


> Action economy discussions are just the latest iteration of weapon speed factors, spell casting segments and "but I can do more than that in sixty seconds!" debates of AD&D. Please, with the "role-play" vs "roll-play" moralizing.




Our 1e/2e games didnt and dont have this issue, but we use a modified version of Moldvay Basic with each side rolling d6, higher roll wins, ties are simultaneous.


----------



## Sir Brennen

dagger said:


> Our 1e/2e games didnt and dont have this issue, but we use a modified version of Moldvay Basic with each side rolling d6, higher roll wins, ties are simultaneous.




Not every gaming group will have\had issues with those (and other) mechanics from earlier editions, just like many 5e groups have no problems with bonus actions. But the point of the parallels in such discussions - _when they do come up_ - remains.


----------



## bmfrosty

I didn't want to return to this thread, but I just hit another moment of wishing for keyword blocks.  I like and think we need the plain english, and it needs to be correct, but I do yearn for blocks that are easy to reference to make things programmatically easy.


----------



## Daniel Van Patten

In about 1-2 years I would be exited for a 5.5 Edition that cleaned up some of the rules like TWF, Warlocks, and other such things. If that includes a few bonus action abilities becoming baseline, that's also fine with me (just not all bonus action abilities).


----------

