Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7304505" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>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 <em>and</em> maintain backward compatibility.</p><p></p><p>The main benefit of bonus actions is that they provide a simple rule to prevent using multiple special abilities in the same turn. </p><p></p><p>But of course, if each and every one of those special abilities became a <em>new</em> 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 <em>combine</em> the special ability with other basic actions.</p><p></p><p>Let's see the case for a <strong>bonus action spell</strong>.</p><p></p><p>In 5e you can:</p><p></p><p>1- attack and cast a bonus action spell</p><p>2- cast a cantrip and cast a bonus action spell</p><p>3- dash/dodge/disengage/help/hide/use an object/else and cast a bonus action spell</p><p></p><p>If <em>Healing Word</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>To be honest, I wouldn't mind if that was the case. Sure it would be tactically more limited, but it would also be more simple, like in 3.0 and older editions where spells were always at least a standard action (except maybe <em>Feather Fall</em> and other reactive spells, but that's another matter). It would also get rid of the "cantrip only" additional rule, which frankly always slightly bothered me.</p><p></p><p>What about non-spell <strong>special abilities</strong> using a bonus action?</p><p></p><p>There is for example the Rogue's <em>Cunning Action</em> or the Bard's <em>Inspiration</em>. I am afraid they would all need to be addressed one by one, and decide whether each one should be turned into a non-action and thus stack with everything (this might be fine for single-classed PC, but may become overpowered in multiclassed PC), or an action and thus stack with nothing (but then it would become underpowered, so the current version of the ability would need a bump), or something more unique and thus stack with something only.</p><p></p><p>Then there are also some <strong>non-special abilities</strong> which use a bonus action.</p><p></p><p>Notably <em>two-weapon fighting</em>: maybe this should simply become a new regular combat "action", that allows a secondary attack in addition to your normal number of attacks.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 7304505, member: 1465"] 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 [I]and[/I] 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 [I]new[/I] 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 [I]combine[/I] the special ability with other basic actions. Let's see the case for a [B]bonus action spell[/B]. 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 [I]Healing Word[/I] 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. To be honest, I wouldn't mind if that was the case. Sure it would be tactically more limited, but it would also be more simple, like in 3.0 and older editions where spells were always at least a standard action (except maybe [I]Feather Fall[/I] and other reactive spells, but that's another matter). It would also get rid of the "cantrip only" additional rule, which frankly always slightly bothered me. What about non-spell [B]special abilities[/B] using a bonus action? There is for example the Rogue's [I]Cunning Action[/I] or the Bard's [I]Inspiration[/I]. I am afraid they would all need to be addressed one by one, and decide whether each one should be turned into a non-action and thus stack with everything (this might be fine for single-classed PC, but may become overpowered in multiclassed PC), or an action and thus stack with nothing (but then it would become underpowered, so the current version of the ability would need a bump), or something more unique and thus stack with something only. Then there are also some [B]non-special abilities[/B] which use a bonus action. Notably [I]two-weapon fighting[/I]: maybe this should simply become a new regular combat "action", that allows a secondary attack in addition to your normal number of attacks. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA
Top