D&D 5E Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA

[Tormyr]

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.

So now a creature can cast healing word, Dash with Cunning Action, perform any other number of "half-actions" that allow other actions to be taken, and perform any Action that has not become restricted by the "half-actions" taken on the turn. A creatures turn can turn into a five-minute affair (yes, it's hyperbole) while everyone waits for all the Actions to be completed.

Or we can have bonus actions which cleanly consolidate things down to 1 bonus action a turn. While every bonus action could be rewritten as an action, the extra column inches this would take would take pages over the course of a book. Additionally, in certain cases, I think it would make a worse option than as a bonus action. In this case, I think the designers made the better choice already in the PHB rather than what Mearls is bandying about now. On the other hand, I appreciate that he talks about what he is thinking so that it gets out into public discussion.

 

[Parmandur]

He's basically just trying to sell us on a glacial expansion rate as if that was a good thing...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Well, so it is. Why mess with what works?

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[seebs]

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 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.

 

[Charlaquin]

So now a creature can cast healing word, Dash with Cunning Action, perform any other number of "half-actions" that allow other actions to be taken, and perform any Action that has not become restricted by the "half-actions" taken on the turn. A creatures turn can turn into a five-minute affair (yes, it's hyperbole) while everyone waits for all the Actions to be completed.

Or we can have bonus actions which cleanly consolidate things down to 1 bonus action a turn. While every bonus action could be rewritten as an action, the extra column inches this would take would take pages over the course of a book. Additionally, in certain cases, I think it would make a worse option than as a bonus action. In this case, I think the designers made the better choice already in the PHB rather than what Mearls is bandying about now. On the other hand, I appreciate that he talks about what he is thinking so that it gets out into public discussion.

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.

 

[Stalker0]

He's basically just trying to sell us on a glacial expansion rate as if that was a good thing...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Apparently it is for them. And they have the fancy business people doing the studies to tell them one way or the other.

 

[Tormyr]

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 agree, although I cannot think of a good example right at this moment. 2 Bonus Action spells cannot be done (I am okay with the restriction of the other spell being a cantrip). Cunning Action is just duplicating regular actions. Can you think of an example?

 

[Stalker0]

In terms of the Bonus Actions, people have to remember that Mearls doesn't want to remove them. This is his flight of fancy "if I could do it again, I would want to do X".

And keep in mind, if he went that route it might not make the final cut. It might be playtested and found to be worse than the current system. That's what playtesting is for.

His critiques of bonus actions are valid, but what we don't know is whether an alternative system would do it better.


Probably the note that stuck with me the most is "they focus on perceived imbalance vs mathematical imbalance". Ultimately, their goal is to create the perception of a balanced game, knowing full well that complete balance with so many different options is never 100% possible. This is important when we do our DPR analysis and the like on the boards. Most people don't need characters to be 100% fair, they just want to feel they are doing a good job contributing with their peers.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I would prefer more clear cut action options above a reduced set of overloaded action options. Right now it's 'this is an action' and 'this is a bonus action' and 'this is a reaction'. That works fine. What I don't want to see is 'this is an action and when you do this you can also do ALL these various sub-actions'. Just make those various sub-actions a bonus action and call it a day.

I like that the current action system makes you have to plan how you want to use your action options on your turn. You know, like you're playing a game. The issue I'm starting to see more of is the deconstruction of D&D as a game and more like an 'ordered experience'. While I like the some of the impact of more playtesting and surveying the player base I think it's leading to some serious navel gazing about tweaking those positive end results of the game experience at the expense of keeping the rules elegant and coherent. If we simplify too much the game starts to look too much like an X-Box controller...

 

[Dausuul]

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.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

At the very least, bonus action spells should be eliminated. The bonus action spell rules are a mess. 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 and would make dual wielders viable in a lot of areas where they currently struggle. (For instance, you really should be able to make a berserker with two axes.)

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.

I guess I just haven't seen this bonus action spell chaos much. It's pretty simple - cast a bonus action spell and you can only cast another spell if it's a 1-action cantrip. Using the method of saying, "When you cast this spell, you can also cast a cantrip or take the Attack action." means my character can't take the Dodge, Disengage, Dodge or other actions that I had the freedom to do before. Why would I want that limitation of options?

Two-weapon fighting could be tweaked a bit more but really, I don't see much of a problem with it now. As for a berserker fighting with two axes, that's a substantial edge case and frankly they can still do it, just without much game rule support to get a 3rd or 4th attack (not very balanced, anyway).