D&D 5E Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA

[ad_hoc]

I still think Mike is barking up the wrong tree with respect to bonus actions, but I’m willing to be convinced. I just think it would lead to a more confusing and bloated set of rules defining explicit extra actions than defining bonus actions once, as it is now. It would be like having to explain hand size every time you described a given Poker hand. Healing Word is more than just “take an extra attack along with this spell.” What if you want to dash, or dodge? What if you want to take second wind while casting that healing word, how would you write it to limit one or the other? There’s a lot of corner cases that would require a lot of extra words to explain that aren’t needed because bonus actions are defined. If it could be pulled off, I’m all for it, because they are indeed a pain to explain to new players, but i’m Still doubtful.

You're looking at it through the lens of removing Bonus Actions from the current game. That won't work.

If the game were created without Bonus Actions to start though then it would be fine.

 

[Phazonfish]

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?

 

[flametitan]

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?

The only confusing ones I can think of is "when you make X action" vs "after you make X action" are different timings (as the former lets you do the bonus action before the action but the latter doesn't) and the spell one (As Action surge lets you ignore the rule, but doesn't if you cast with a bonus action and your two actions)

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

It’s (very slightly) more complex than:

You have one action per turn. Abilities are clearly labeled when they allow you to do extra stuff on your turn.

Of course, those abilities will need to be more complex. So, the question is, do you prefer a simpler system with more complex exceptions, or a more complex system with simpler exceptions. Personally, I prefer the former, but there is an argument to be made that the latter is preferable because it lowers the barrier for entry - the bare minimum no you need to learn before you can start playing.

 

[Ancalagon]

I like bonus actions, but I've recently encountered problem because one of my player is playing a monk and is *completely baffled* by them, and I can't seem to explain it in a way that makes it click :/

 

[Phazonfish]

It’s (very slightly) more complex than:

You have one action per turn. Abilities are clearly labeled when they allow you to do extra stuff on your turn.

Of course, those abilities will need to be more complex. So, the question is, do you prefer a simpler system with more complex exceptions, or a more complex system with simpler exceptions. Personally, I prefer the former, but there is an argument to be made that the latter is preferable because it lowers the barrier for entry - the bare minimum no you need to learn before you can start playing.

I think I see what you mean, but for bonus actions that are only allowed when the ability says so the complexity is an aspect of that ability, not of the concept of bonus actions. Hypothetically they could have just not made bonus action abilities with complex conditions.

 

[Kurotowa]

My take is that the problem with Bonus Actions is that you can easily get competing options for them. One issue from this is that it can confuse new players or lead them intro traps. Another issue is that while it's sometimes clear that the design intent is to force you to choose between them, other times it feels like it's unintended and simply a side effect of only having the one option to plug non-Action actions into the game.

As an example of the first, Rogues really don't want to dual wield because it doesn't synergize with Sneak Attack and competes with Cunning Action. Nowhere is this directly explained by the PHB and more than once I've had to tell people that you want Fighter or Ranger for a dual wielding character, not Rogue.

As an example of the second, my Hexblade Warlock currently has the spell Hex, the class feature Hexblade's Curse, and the feat Shield Mastery all competing for the Bonus Action slot. Was that the intended result? Probably not, but with the current design that's how it has to end up.

I can see both of those bothering a game designer for 5e. The second especially constrains your design space depending on how many routine Bonus Actions a class already wants to do with its base kit.

 

[ad_hoc]

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?

It is the one thing that I've seen new players get tripped up on. In my experience they pick up everything else just fine. Most rules are straightforward and easy to explain thematically.

Bonus Actions are game constructs which distract from the theme.

I like bonus actions, but I've recently encountered problem because one of my player is playing a monk and is *completely baffled* by them, and I can't seem to explain it in a way that makes it click :/

I encountered this with a new player who played a Monk. They quickly became overwhelmed and just stuck to an attack plus an unarmed attack each turn. At first it really disrupted the flow of the game to explain to them what they can do on each turn until it became easier to just stick to the default option.

The other one that has come up a lot are Bonus Action spells. It again bogs the game down when I need to tell them they can't cast Healing Word and a 1st level spell in the same turn. It's just an extra thing to learn that is really not necessary.

Those aren't the only instances of bonus action confusion but they are the most prominent in my experience.

 

[Charlaquin]

I like bonus actions, but I've recently encountered problem because one of my player is playing a monk and is *completely baffled* by them, and I can't seem to explain it in a way that makes it click :/

Have you tried discarding the pretense of the Bonus Actions not existing unless you have something to spend them on?

Each turn you have one Action and one Bonus Action. The various Things You Can Do On Your Turn require you to expend these resources.

Examples of Things You Can Do On Your Turn that cost an Action:
- Attack
- Cast a Spell with a casting time of 1 action
- Dash
- Disengage
- Help
- Hide
- Ready
- Search
- Use an Item
- Improvise something not listed above

Examples of Things You Can Do On Your Turn that cost a Bonus Action:
- Off-hand Attack (requires two Light weapons)
- Cast a Spell with a casting time of 1 Bonus Action

Various features from your Race, Class, Subclass, Feats, and Magic Items grant you other Things You Can Do On Your Turn, which specify whether they cost an Action or a Bonus Action.

Ultimately, the name Bonus Action and the insistence that they exist in a quantum state where you don’t have one unless an ability says you can use one (and you can only use one) is just needlessly confusing and serves no purpose except to make it look like there aren’t multiple types of action when there are.

 

[neobolts]

AMA has more hints of revisiting classic settings or a multi-setting book.