D&D 5E Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA

[Tormyr]

At the very least, bonus action spells should be eliminated. The bonus action spell rules are a mess. I gave up even trying to enforce them; my players simply could not wrap their heads around the limitation. Replace all bonus action spells with regular action spells that say "When you cast this spell, you can also cast a cantrip or take the Attack action."

I'd also like to see dual wielding folded into the Attack action. That would be a trivial change that would simplify dual wielding and remove a number of arbitrary "oops, bonus action limit means your concept doesn't work" pitfalls. (For instance, berserker with two axes should be a thing in D&D.)

Of course, at this point, the two most common sources of bonus actions are gone, and the case for keeping them is that much weaker. Most of the remaining bonus actions are of the "Super Combat Mode Activate!" type, like barbarian rage or the hexblade's curse. I'm not necessarily opposed to keeping it that way: There's a good case that you shouldn't be able to power up half a dozen Super Combat Modes in a single round. But if it turns out most characters don't have more than one or two Super Combat Modes available, the rule may not be doing enough work to justify its existence.

Why restrict a former bonus action spell to only allowing a cantrip or attack? Why cannot someone Dash, Ready an Action, Use an Object, etc.?

 

[Dausuul]

Why restrict a former bonus action spell to only allowing a cantrip or attack? Why cannot someone Dash, Ready an Action, Use an Object, etc.?

Because then you have to include a catalog of actions in the spell, and some of those actions (like Ready) are themselves replaceable with other actions, and you end up replacing the bonus-action-spell mess with another mess.

To be clear, there is a tradeoff here. To eliminate bonus action spells requires getting rid of some options that you could theoretically exercise. If we replace bows with assault rifles, we'll no longer be able to use our ammunition as emergency firewood. I'm not real fussed about that.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's still weird to me that you can't use your action to Take A Bonus Action. Because there exist things where you have two things you could do as a bonus action, and you'd rather do both of them than take any regular action and do one of them, and that's annoying. They're faster and easier to do except when they're not.

It’s part of the attempt to pretend 5e doesn’t have an action economy. Having a hierarchy of actions in which higher Actions can be traded down for lower Actions was too “game-y” for a lot of people’s taste. This is just one of the ways Bonus Actions were tweaked to make them feel less like the Minor Actions whose effects they replicate.

At the very least, bonus action spells should be eliminated. The bonus action spell rules are a mess. I gave up even trying to enforce them; my players simply could not wrap their heads around the limitation. Replace all bonus action spells with regular action spells that say "When you cast this spell, you can also cast a cantrip or take the Attack action."

Honestly, I don’t see why they feel it’s so important to only allow one non-Cantrip spell per turn. Like, what’s the big problem with casting Hex and Witch Bolt in the same turn, or Healing Word and Cure Wounds? If a Spell is balanced to be usable on the same turn as an Attack, shouldn’t it theoretically be balanced to use in the same turn as another Spell?

I'd also like to see dual wielding folded into the Attack action. That would be a trivial change that would simplify dual wielding and remove a number of arbitrary "oops, bonus action limit means your concept doesn't work" pitfalls. (For instance, berserker with two axes should be a thing in D&D.)

I agree. I wonder if the reason they had it be a bonus action was just to avoid awkward interactions with the rules for Extra Attack.

Of course, at this point, the two most common sources of bonus actions are gone, and the case for keeping them is that much weaker. Most of the remaining bonus actions are of the "Super Combat Mode Activate!" type, like barbarian rage or the hexblade's curse. I'm not necessarily opposed to keeping it that way: There's a good case that you shouldn't be able to power up half a dozen Super Combat Modes in a single round. But if it turns out most characters don't have more than one or two Super Combat Modes available, the rule may not be doing enough work to justify its existence.

I think that’s ok. Bonus Actions are a useful part of the system framework, even if they are used very sparingly. In fact, I kind of think it’s better if they are. One thing I liked about Bonus Actions as opposed to Minor Actions is that there are fewer things to use Bonus Actions on by default. The question becomes, “Should I use a Bonus Action this turn?” Instead of “What should I use my Bonus Action on this turn?”

Personally, my fix to Bonus Actions would be:
- Change the name to “Lesser Action” or “Minor Action” or something. Remove the line about you not having a Bonus Action to spend unless you have an ability to spend it on. This will remove confusion around why they’re limited to once per turn.
- Remove the restriction on spellcasting so that you can use any spell you want on the same turn you use a Bonus Action. This eliminates an unusual interaction that makes Bonus Actions seem more confusing than they are with no real benefit.
- Fold dual-wielding into the Attack Action. This removes the primary source of fustration around Bonus Actions, where you realize using a Bonus Action will deprive you of one of your Attacks you normally get every turn.
- Allow players to use an Action to do anything they could do with a Bonus/Minor Action. If you’re a multiclass Barbarian/Warlock and you want to give up your Attack so you can cast Hex and enter Rage on the same turn, you should be allowed to do that.

I think these small tweaks would clean Bonus Actions up significantly. It makes their function more transparent, eliminates the places where they get in the way of letting you do what you want to do on your turn, and it differentiates them from regular Actions by making sure there are no universal ways to use them. Everythinh that uses a Bonus Action comes from a Race/Class/Subclass Feature, a Spell, or a Feat, so it preserves the “Can and Should I use a Bonus Action?” thought process as opposed to “What do I use my Bonus Action for?”

 

[neobolts]

I don't understand the view that bonus actions are complicated.

You have one action per turn. You have one bonus action per turn. Abilities are clearly labeled which one they use. If you cast two spells, the main one has to be a cantrip.

How complex is that? Am I missing something?

I completely agree. The action economy is well controlled in 5e. The most you can ever do from the start of one turn to the next is 4 things...
-Move (can be split up during your turn)
-1 Standard Action
-1 Bonus Action (cannot use both standard and bonus for spells, unless standard is cantrip)
-1 Reaction

This is not overly complex in the context of all RPG out there. It's an elegant system where you mix-and-match something you do as a basic thing with a little extra. Combining standard and bonus actions into single "jazzed-up standard actions" (for lack of a better term) solves nothing, it will just lead to a creep of jazzed-up standard actions instead of a creep of bonus actions. And it will be less intuitive for players b/c it brings the natural gameplay of mix-and-match into conflict with the restrictions created by the jazzed-up standard actions. As someone pointed out, "making an "Attack + bonus spell" jazzed-up standard action leaves the player wondering why they can't "disengage + bonus spell" or "dash + bonus spell". And then those eventually get added as jazzed-up standard actions too, and we end up with MMO-style play again, where rigid mechanics determine your combat options.

 

[neobolts]

It's still weird to me that you can't use your action to Take A Bonus Action. Because there exist things where you have two things you could do as a bonus action, and you'd rather do both of them than take any regular action and do one of them, and that's annoying. They're faster and easier to do except when they're not.

I think the designers are worried about situations where bonus actions interact in unexpected ways. As a DM, I'd allow two bonus action in place of a standard and a bonus if they made sense and weren't game-breaking.

 

[darjr]

I’m so glad that forums are not the main source for D&D design considerations or feedback any more. My only real world problem with bonus action has been explaining to folks that your character only gets to use one bonus action thing a round. I which it was explained that way.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m so glad that forums are not the main source for D&D design considerations or feedback any more.

I don’t think they ever really were. Forum-goers just have a tendency to assume that their feedback carries more weight than it does, particularly when it’s on “official” forums. But they always relied more on survey data than forum posts, IIRC.

 

[darjr]

I don’t think they ever really were. Forum-goers just have a tendency to assume that their feedback carries more weight than it does, particularly when it’s on “official” forums. But they always relied more on survey data than forum posts, IIRC.

I think it was Mearls who said they are not giving forums as much weight anymore. Which I think means they still look and considered forum feedback more heavily before. I love forums and think there has been tons of great ideas and feedback but I also think it can look distorted from the real world, which I do think is also important sometimes. As a way to really focus on some things. But I’ve stated my other option too.

 

[MoonSong]

Healing Word isn't redundant. It flat-out obsoletes Cure Wounds. Even if it wasn't a bonus action, it would still be more practical, due to actually having a significant range and the mechanics of bleeding out. If we are going to drop one, please drop Cure Wounds. That way we can finally retire that silly design hangup where healers need to be armored just so they can survive the front lines long enough to do their job.

I find these ideas like horrifying. NO wonder no one wants to play healer anymore. You know the running to your fallen teammate is an engaging and fun experience on itself. Armored healers are an integral part of D&D lore. And if you don't want to be armored check the Divine Soul. Something being more efficient and expedient doesn't mean all other options should be excised. They are fun and have value on their own, and maybe more new players would try them up if older players stopped badmouthing them as something undesirable and that is only done reluctantly.

Yes, I agree. I just think it’s important that the critique of Mearls’ ideas about removing bonus actions not be misplaced. This is a strong argument in favor of Bonus Actions. “But you wouldn’t be able to do anything other than Attack alongside Healing Word” isn’t.

I don't see how it isn't an argument, Healing Word as it is right now is already pushing it. A little more of it is the kind of stuff that could break the game for some of us.

Because then you have to include a catalog of actions in the spell, and some of those actions (like Ready) are themselves replaceable with other actions, and you end up replacing the bonus-action-spell mess with another mess.

To be clear, there is a tradeoff here. To eliminate bonus action spells requires getting rid of some options that you could theoretically exercise. If we replace bows with assault rifles, we'll no longer be able to use our ammunition as emergency firewood. I'm not real fussed about that.

Well, those "options that you could theoretically exercise" for you, are important to others you know? Maybe you don't enjoy playing healer characters, and you don't care at all, but being forced to cause damage in order to heal a teammate causes a strong disconnect that distracts you from the game and ultimately makes healing less engaging, less rewarding and overall less fun.

 

[ad_hoc]

I think it was Mearls who said they are not giving forums as much weight anymore. Which I think means they still look and considered forum feedback more heavily before. I love forums and think there has been tons of great ideas and feedback but I also think it can look distorted from the real world, which I do think is also important sometimes. As a way to really focus on some things. But I’ve stated my other option too.

One thing that has struck me with forums is that a lot of people don't realize the scope and popularity of 5e.

I play mostly with people whose sole interaction with the game is when they sit down at the table. They just want to play and 5e is great at letting them. In the first few levels they learn their character's abilities, and then by level 5 they're ready to go.

One thing I tell people who are into reading the rules and come from other editions is that 5e plays differently than it reads. Play is smooth and quick...and fun.

It's this kind of accessibility that has made 5e so popular. I have even seen some people at my tables get interested in DMing for their other friends who don't play RPGs. They have no interest in poring through rules but they don't mind reading a bit of an adventure book at a time and having a go of it. And the thing is, they can do it. Rules mastery is not required. Just a good attitude.

WotC want to avoid, rightly, anything that takes away from that.