Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
“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.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.
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.
Last edited: