D&D 5E Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA

[Charlaquin]

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.

“Removing Bonus Actions would be a bad thing because Mearls’ suggestion for how to reproduce the functionality of Healing Word without them doesn’t adequately reproduce the functionality of Healing Word” is not a strong argument against the removal of Bonus Actions for a variety of reasons. Primarily, it fails as a counter-argument to Mearls’ proposal because it disputes his specific example, rather than the concept it illustrates. This makes it very easy to form a rebuttal against, simply by tweaking the design of a No-Bonus-Action Healing Word, as I did in my earlier post. It also fails as a counter-argument to the more general suggestion of removing Bonus Actions from the game, because it focuses on the places where a system without Bonus Actions fails to function like a system with Bonus Actions does, which for those who don’t like Bonus Actions probably isn’t seen as a flaw.

To be clear, I do support the inclusions of Bonus Actions in the game. But poking holes in Mearls’ specific suggestions for how to model specific 5e features that utilize Bonus Actions in a hypothetical system without Bonus Actions is not an effective defense of Bonus Actions. Rather, I think it is more effective to argue that Mearls’ proposed design strategy (only one type of Action and exceptions to that rule always spelled out explicitly by the features that make such exceptions) does not meet his stated design goal (keeping the game as simple and streamlined as possible.) What it does is slightly simplify the base rules, while requiring a greater number of more complex exceptions to those base rules, for a net increase in complexity, though that complexity is less front-loaded. YMMV on if that’s a worthwhile tradeoff. It wouldn’t be for me.

 

[Dausuul]

[double post]

 

[Dausuul]

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.

That's why I am not aboard the "get rid of cure wounds" train. Healing word is specifically for people who do not want to spend their whole turn healing. If you do want to spend your whole turn healing, cast cure wounds.

 

[pukunui]

Healing Word is already straight out of 4e now. In fact, since Healing Word was a Minor Action Power in 4e, the spell as it is now is more like the 4e Power of the same name than Mearls’ proposed redesign is.

I was thinking specifically of Healing Strike (just couldn't remember the name).

 

[Li Shenron]

I think you highlight why having bonus actions as a defined game mechanic is so useful. The bonus action interaction with other game mechanics does take a few column inches of space, but the alternative is that the interactions for each bonus action are built into the bonus action text themselves. This multiplies out the same interactions over and over and over again, especially with bonus action spells.

...

Well it depends on what directions you are looking from

If you're looking at it from the point of view of the current edition which already has quite a number of special abilities leveraging the bonus actions framework to make them usable in combination with other actions on the same turn, indeed the framework is useful.

But try looking as if you were designing a new edition or ruleset. There is no fundamental reason why you should necessarily allow combinations of multiple actions per round in the first place (not considering movement or trivial actions here). In fact, editions older than 3.5 as well as other RPG systems don't allow a character to combine special abilities with spells or attacks in the same round, and they still worked well.

That's why I am not really sold into either opinion. I am fine with bonus actions as they are in 5e, just as I was fine without them in the past. Eventually, only the 3.5/4e action economies irritated me because they were too complex compared to the reward for my own tastes.

 

[neobolts]

Well, let's remember that the whole reason why we got Healing Word (or whatever it was called in the edition it first appeared) in the first place, is because some players were forced by the others to play healers against their will, and then out of pity they were given a spell that lets them heal but also attack. And I suspect that this is the spell which caused the game to have the bonus actions mechanics at all. So if it was really for me, I'd have just not included this redundant spell in the game. It only caused problems complications, and apparently any attempt at solving those is met with more problems.

Your take on why Healing Word was introduced was interesting, as I had a different take. While I can sympathize with 1e/2e old-school healbot players, I hadn't thought of Healing Word as a reaction to that. BY 3e, I was happy as a cleric getting to toss out Flamestrike or a offensive/debuff domain spell it the early rounds of a fight before the party's HP started suffering.

Instead, the addition of Healing Word struck me as an added layer of tactical depth for the healer's toolkit: trading the safety of ranged healing w/ Healing Word for the additional potency of touch healing w/ Cure Wounds. I always carry both on a cleric so I can adapt to the situation.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was thinking specifically of Healing Strike (just couldn't remember the name).

Sure, but you could just as easily say that Two Weapon Fighting is just the Scout’s Dual Weapon Attack, or that Hex is just the Warlock’s Curse. Like, a ton of stuff in 5e directly reproduces 4e Powers. I’m not seeing where the suggestion of removing Bonus Actions in favor of the abilities that let you use a Bonus Action explicitly stating what they allow you to do is any more like 4e than those abilities already are.

 

[pukunui]

Yeah, I guess. To me, at least, having a spell that is just a quick heal, so you can still do something else on your turn, is fine. Having a spell that lets you attack *and* heal at the same time as a single package is just a little too 4e for my tastes. I know it's a very fine distinction, but it makes a difference to me.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

That is an interesting critique of paladins. It seems like healing touch could be the drag--maybe change it so it is different for subclasses: conquest touch provides temp hp's and the subject is frightened of you until it runs out of temp hp's, oathbreaker touch sucks hp's out of the victim and gives them to the OB, redemption touch gives you a lot of temp hp's, but you lose them if you attack something, etc.

 

[ad_hoc]

Instead, the addition of Healing Word struck me as an added layer of tactical depth for the healer's toolkit: trading the safety of ranged healing w/ Healing Word for the additional potency of touch healing w/ Cure Wounds. I always carry both on a cleric so I can adapt to the situation.

Sadly Cure Wounds is only 2hp more than Healing Word which is a ranged bonus action heal.

Administering a Potion of Healing is an action for 2d4+2 HP and doesn't use a spell slot.

I don't see much use for Cure Wounds.