D&D 5E Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA

[WayOfTheFourElements]

If Healing Word was changed to use a regular action, but to include a weapon attack, then the only thing you would still be able to do is 1.

Sounds like a great way to reintroduce the bag of rats problem. No more Help and Healing World. Only killing allowed.

 

[CubicsRube]

Sounds like a great way to reintroduce the bag of rats problem. No more Help and Healing World. Only killing allowed.

Or healing word and anything, like shove prone or withdraw

 

[Li Shenron]

Sounds like a great way to reintroduce the bag of rats problem. No more Help and Healing World. Only killing allowed.

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.

 

[Li Shenron]

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 not complex, it is just more complex than not having bonus actions at all. Mearls' point is that there is fundamental need for bonus actions for the game to work fine, they are essentially redundant, and eliminating them would decrease the complexity a little bit.

But notice how their existence creates a cascade of small but yet additive complexity increases:

- they could have just stopped with bonus actions being in addition to everything else on your turn
- immediately there's the problem: what if I have 2 special abilities that use bonus actions? hence the need to specific "maximum one per turn"
- then next issue is: what if the bonus action is a spell and I also cast a spell as my main action? so you need another patch i.e. require that the other spell be a cantrip to avoid it being too much in one turn
- then you have other unforseen consequences and corner cases such as when the PC has already cast a spell that was not a cantrip, and can't cast another bonus action spell, or when using Action Surge or other abilities that grant more actions, and you have characters with special abilities for bonus actions...

So they are not "complex" for the average seasoned RPGer who learned to play with the pointless redundancy of certain older editions, but these complication can certainly put off a lot of beginners and casual gamers, many of which can't stand the nonsense and the triviality of rules minutia.

Cunning Action As an action, you do two of the following things. You can't do one of these things twice: * Make a weapon attack * Dash * Disengage * Hide

He probably just answered on the top of his head, but this is not as good as it could be. For example it's quite unfair to Arcane Tricksters because with this change they can only either cast a spell or benefit from the improved mobility granted by Cunning Action (which is the whole point behind its design).

 

[Leatherhead]

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.

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.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

Um. There's another solution for the chealbot problem: Don't play with d*cks (no, not ducks).

 

[Ancalagon]

It's hard trying to keep up with this AMA. Need to take a break ...

Thank you for doing this!

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Charlaquin]

His example of allowing you to make an attack with healing word is straight out of the 4e cleric powers.

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree that in general bonus actions aren't strictly needed in the game, but I am concerned about whether they can really remove them and maintain backward compatibility.

The main benefit of bonus actions is that they provide a simple rule to prevent using multiple special abilities in the same turn.

But of course, if each and every one of those special abilities became a new specific "action" (in the standard sense of the word), then you'd still be prevented to use more than one in the same turn. What you would lose, is the ability to combine the special ability with other basic actions.

Let's see the case for a bonus action spell.

In 5e you can:

1- attack and cast a bonus action spell
2- cast a cantrip and cast a bonus action spell
3- dash/dodge/disengage/help/hide/use an object/else and cast a bonus action spell

If Healing Word was changed to use a regular action, but to include a weapon attack, then the only thing you would still be able to do is 1.

If maintaining the current functionality of Healing Word in a system without Bonus Actions was the goal, it could easily be done. Just include in the spell description, “When you use your Action to cast this spell, you can use another Action on your turn. This Action cannot be used to cast another spell, other than a Cantrip.”

It’s entirely possible to exactly reproduce every Bonus Action effect in 5th Edition as an Action that allows you to do something else on your turn as well. You just have to specifically call our in the ability what else it allows you to do.

 

[Tormyr]

It is not complex, it is just more complex than not having bonus actions at all. Mearls' point is that there is fundamental need for bonus actions for the game to work fine, they are essentially redundant, and eliminating them would decrease the complexity a little bit.

But notice how their existence creates a cascade of small but yet additive complexity increases:

- they could have just stopped with bonus actions being in addition to everything else on your turn
- immediately there's the problem: what if I have 2 special abilities that use bonus actions? hence the need to specific "maximum one per turn"
- then next issue is: what if the bonus action is a spell and I also cast a spell as my main action? so you need another patch i.e. require that the other spell be a cantrip to avoid it being too much in one turn
- then you have other unforseen consequences and corner cases such as when the PC has already cast a spell that was not a cantrip, and can't cast another bonus action spell, or when using Action Surge or other abilities that grant more actions, and you have characters with special abilities for bonus actions...

So they are not "complex" for the average seasoned RPGer who learned to play with the pointless redundancy of certain older editions, but these complication can certainly put off a lot of beginners and casual gamers, many of which can't stand the nonsense and the triviality of rules minutia.



He probably just answered on the top of his head, but this is not as good as it could be. For example it's quite unfair to Arcane Tricksters because with this change they can only either cast a spell or benefit from the improved mobility granted by Cunning Action (which is the whole point behind its design).

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.

The mere existence of the bonus action mechanic having only 1 per turn cleans up so much of this and saves column inches because it consolidates the "half actions" and their interactions to only a few spaces. It also makes the half actions loosely coupled instead of being tightly coupled to the other actions they work with.

Some spells can be rewritten. The smite spells could reasonably be integrated with just the attack action. Some spells like divine word could be actions on their own. Other spells, like expeditious retreat, could be written to allow you to take the Dash action along with another action each turn.

Other spells might not work as well, and I think green flame blade is an example of what a world without bonus actions would look like. The language has been confusing for some, and it could have been easily changed to a bonus action with a duration of 1 minute that took effect the next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack. The adjacent creature then needs a dex save to avoid taking the fire damage. This would work with two weapon fighting and extra attack to have additional opportunities to use it instead of turning your entire turn into an all or nothing affair. Only the fire damage becomes all or nothing on a save.

Still other spells and half-actions turn into a case of, "now what?" in terms of what they allow. I think spiritual weapon is a good example of where things can get out of hand. It is too weak to be a full action. So now does the extra text say that you can just use any other action? Does it restrict what the other action can be? If not, a creature could use spiritual weapon with any number of other actions that allowed any other action to be used, or its power is increased to be on par with a full action spell and controlling it takes your action on subsequent turns. Other bonus actions like Cunning Action should not be restricted in what the main action should be. So then a creature could cast spiritual weapon, Dash, take any other number of half actions that shouldn't be restricted in what the other action should be, and finally finish with the real action, or we can just have bonus actions restrict this to 1 half action a turn.

There are any number of ways to deal with this interaction of actions and "half-actions", but I consider the bonus action mechanic to be elegant in its means to consolidate rules and column inches rather than a kludge. I use bonus actions for several of the abilities in the 5e version of War of the Burning Sky, and it works really well to allow a bonus perk while keeping the flexibility of the main thing the player wants to do.