D&D 5E Action Econ 101

Andor · Sep 1, 2014

transtemporal said:
Oh, I see. Good point. They're kind of clarifying something that doesn't need to be clarified. Why would I assume an additional action would consume my bonus action unless it said "As a bonus action, you can..."?

There are several extra attacks in the game which do use Bonus actions, Barbarians frenzying or Monk martial arts for example. 5e makes a real effort to use natural language with some elegance buried in the specific terminology. Sometimes it works beautifully like with the concentration rules, sometimes it's less succesfull like the Hiding rules, and sometimes it's good but with occasional awkwardness like this sentence.

Now I will say that if the intent of the ability had been to grant an additional action and bonus action it could have been written to unambiguously state that. For example: On your turn you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and an additional bonus action is available allowing you to potentially take two bonus actions.

Lalato · Sep 1, 2014

Uchawi said:
The term bonus lends itself to a reward for effort, where some bonus actions are just another action you can do every round. I am not sure if minor is any better, or even the term reaction. But the action economy is important in a game, even if you call it something different. But over all the ability in use should state when or when it can not be used, i.e. at-will, or x times per day, etc. It is not clear with bonus action whether the intent was to limit it to combat, and you have to be careful, because why can something only be done in combat and not outside of it? Duration or frequency of use would be straight forward and easy to understand across the board.

I don't get where you're going with this. I can use bonus actions whenever it makes sense to do so. For most of them, it makes most sense to use them during combat (like a Monk's Martial Arts class feature). For some, like Healing Word, it can happen whenever I want it to, assuming I have a spell slot available. I'm not limited by the fact that during combat it's a bonus action. Outside of combat, it's just something I decide to do... and it just happens.

Sadrik · Sep 2, 2014

Lalato said:
In 5e it seems that these non-mundane things have been relabeled as "bonus" actions. Because they truly are a bonus above and beyond the normal action you get. There are different bonus actions, but they appear to be limited to class features and attack maneuvers... and not everyone has access to them. So to me, at least, they're not "minor" actions. They're something else. Perhaps "bonus" isn't the perfect word for it, but "minor" is definitely the wrong word for it. "Swift" is another word used before. It doesn't quite fit either. At least with "bonus" I can understand that this is above and beyond the normal action. As for extra actions from Haste or Action Surge... I think "extra" fits just fine there.

Yes, I do see the distinction by pulling out the trivial things of minor actions and honing in to more like a "swift" action of 3e splats. Prior to the slpats though there was no such thing as a swift action. I likely would have preferred that approach. Swift spells could just be as part of the touch attack for a touch spell. Healing word could have said on your turn you can cast this spell and take another action (and list the limitations right in the spell description). I am uncertain what you gain by codifying the bonus action. Clearly it is a limitation. So why is that limitation in place? Why did 3e splats want it, and 4e want it, and 5e want it? Does it limit for balance? Why would natural wording of abilities not be enough?

Other possible words: limited action, possible action, contingent action, causal action, and minor and swift are not bad too. It could also be defined as a reaction too.

Sadrik · Sep 2, 2014

Lalato said:
I don't get where you're going with this. I can use bonus actions whenever it makes sense to do so. For most of them, it makes most sense to use them during combat (like a Monk's Martial Arts class feature). For some, like Healing Word, it can happen whenever I want it to, assuming I have a spell slot available. I'm not limited by the fact that during combat it's a bonus action. Outside of combat, it's just something I decide to do... and it just happens.

I think he is talking about things like the rogue's cunning action where as a bonus action the rogue gets to move again. So rogues are just faster than everyone else. How does that affect marching. etc. etc. etc.

Sir Brennen · Sep 2, 2014

Sadrik said:
Yes, I do see the distinction by pulling out the trivial things of minor actions and honing in to more like a "swift" action of 3e splats. Prior to the slpats though there was no such thing as a swift action. I likely would have preferred that approach. Swift spells could just be as part of the touch attack for a touch spell. Healing word could have said on your turn you can cast this spell and take another action (and list the limitations right in the spell description). I am uncertain what you gain by codifying the bonus action. Clearly it is a limitation. So why is that limitation in place? Why did 3e splats want it, and 4e want it, and 5e want it? Does it limit for balance? Why would natural wording of abilities not be enough?

Yes, it is a limit for balance. If something is common enough, why not give it a common name and definition? Otherwise adding it to the natural wording of each spell and ability becomes incredibly redundant. It's much easier to say "X is a bonus action" rather than try and restate over and over that you can do this action in addition to another action during your turn, but not in combination with some other spell or ability which you can do as an action in addition to another action.

I mean, you don't restate the mechanics for a target to avoid or reduce the effects of a spell within each spell's description; you simply say they have to make a saving throw of type X.

I'm not sure about your reference to touch-range spells - those haven't changed. You cast and touch the target as part of the same action; it's not a bonus action or swift action (you could say the touch is part of the somatic component.)

Sadrik · Sep 2, 2014

Sir Brennen said:
I'm not sure about your reference to touch-range spells - those haven't changed. You cast and touch the target as part of the same action; it's not a bonus action or swift action (you could say the touch is part of the somatic component.)

I was using that as an example of how natural language works effectively for those types of spells and clearly they could have been all codified to be bonus actions with a 1 round duration or some such. Applying that approach to many of the other spells, abilities, and effects could have been an approach and one I might have liked. Less gamey anyway.

Lalato · Sep 2, 2014

Sadrik said:
I think he is talking about things like the rogue's cunning action where as a bonus action the rogue gets to move again. So rogues are just faster than everyone else. How does that affect marching. etc. etc. etc.

As I stated above, you use bonus actions when it makes sense to do so. Does it make sense for the rogue to use cunning action all the time? Probably not... so don't do it. I'm still not understanding where this is going. It's a choice the rogue makes. It's not always turned on.

Let's take a look at an ability that IS always turned on. The Monk can move faster than the rest of the party. All the time. No bonus action required. Does the Monk always just move their normal rate or do they slow down to the party speed? It's a choice the Monk makes. It's no different than choosing to use a bonus action when appropriate to do so.

Sir Brennen · Sep 2, 2014

Sadrik said:
I was using that as an example of how natural language works effectively for those types of spells and clearly they could have been all codified to be bonus actions with a 1 round duration or some such. Applying that approach to many of the other spells, abilities, and effects could have been an approach and one I might have liked. Less gamey anyway.

Except touch-range spells also carry a level of codification, and always have. It's defined in the explanation of Range of the general rules of spells, and then presented in the very gamey portion of the spell block. It's not repeatedly described in the natural language section of the spell's description except to describe the spell's effect on the creature touched. So, not a good example.

And I really don't see how describing in the individual spells in question that it can be cast and you can take another action is any less gamey. You're still talking about actions on your turn in a game. And by describing the abilities separately, you either run into confusion when interacting with other such abilities, exploits, or end up repeating the rules of their interaction for each instance.

Say I'm a rogue/cleric. Can I attack, use Cunning Action and cast Healing Word all on the same turn? Or do all those and cast Sanctuary and Magic Weapon, too? If not, then you have to clarify that for each and every one of those ability/spell descriptions.

What I hear you asking for is this:

Apple: An apple is type of sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food. If you have an apple, you can't eat another sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food at the same time.

Orange: An orange is a type of sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food. If you have an orange, you can't eat another sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food at the same time..

As opposed to:

fruit: the sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food. You can only eat one fruit at a time.

Apple: An apple is a fruit.

Orange: An orange is a fruit.

Is classifying things as "fruit" too gamey? No, I don't think so. Natural language and efficient language aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Pseudopsyche · Sep 2, 2014

The name "bonus action" seems apt to me and was likely chosen with great deliberation. A new 4E player learns about minor actions the first time they enter combat. A new 5E player doesn't need to know anything about bonus actions until they gain a class feature that provides one.

Thaumaturge · Sep 2, 2014

I like grapes.

Thaumaturge.

D&D 5E Action Econ 101

Andor

First Post

Lalato

Adventurer

Sadrik

First Post

Sadrik

First Post

Sir Brennen

Legend

Sadrik

First Post

Lalato

Adventurer

Sir Brennen

Legend

Pseudopsyche

First Post

Thaumaturge

Wandering. Not lost. (He/they)

Similar Threads