D&D 5E (2014) UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative

[Zarithar]

No thanks. I'll stick with simplicity.

 

[Lord Twig]

Why are you getting all bent out of shape over this? He doesn't like Bonus actions. So what? Why do you care? Mike has already said that 5E isn't changing and getting rid of them, Bonus actions are a part of the game and will continue to be a part of the game. But him as a designer just sees why they weren't the best design choice in his opinion and that he'd design them differently now that he's worked with them.

Why is that an issue? What, are your feelings getting hurt that the D&D manager doesn't like the same things you like?



And that's precisely why Mike has said they aren't removing bonus actions from 5E. He knows that ship has sailed and he's okay with it. But if he had to do it AGAIN, knowing now what he didn't know then, he'd design it differently.

Why that BOTHERS people that a designer keeps designing in his head is kind of silly if you ask me.

Well, since you asked...

I do take some small comfort in the knowledge that it isn't changing. But there is still the future to think about. Ten or twenty years from now are we going to get a new version of D&D with a ridiculously complex initiative system that doesn't make sense and causes people to sit out for a turn? Are we going to replace the simplicity of Action + Bonus Action for 1001 unique actions each with their own rules?

It BOTHERS me because he doesn't even seem to understand what the problem really is! And at this point it almost has to be willful ignorance. Honestly the best thing about this UA is that there will be a survey afterwards where, hopefully, enough rational voices will be able to get through all the static and he can be made to see the real problem.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's entirely possible that Mearls' "willful ignorance" is, in reality, due to the fact that he derives so much entertainment from trolling the sort of player who gets his panties in a knot over these things.

Probably not, though. Presumably maturity is one reason (among many) that he is lead designer and I'm not.

 

[abirdcall]

It BOTHERS me because he doesn't even seem to understand what the problem really is! And at this point it almost has to be willful ignorance. Honestly the best thing about this UA is that there will be a survey afterwards where, hopefully, enough rational voices will be able to get through all the static and he can be made to see the real problem.

There is no problem.

It's good for some groups and not good for others.

The groups it is good for will use it, and the latter will not.

In the video interview he talks about how it is good that there is a simple initiative system for people who want that.

There is no problem with having options.

 

[SkidAce]

Why that BOTHERS people that a designer keeps designing in his head is kind of silly if you ask me.

I'm not bothered that a designer keep on designing. That would be silly.


I am perplexed by his view of bonus actions however, as I think the implementation is currently fantastic.

Which makes me wonder what he sees that I dont.

OR what I see that he has overlooked.

 

[abirdcall]

I'm not bothered that a designer keep on designing. That would be silly.


I am perplexed by his view of bonus actions however, as I think the implementation is currently fantastic.

Which makes me wonder what he sees that I dont.

OR what I see that he has overlooked.

I see it at my table.

Bonus Actions are the thing that I see players trip up on the most. This is especially true once feats are added into the mix.

I have to remind them that they can't do a lot of the stuff they intuitively think they should be able to do.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But there is still the future to think about. Ten or twenty years from now are we going to get a new version of D&D with a ridiculously complex initiative system that doesn't make sense and causes people to sit out for a turn? Are we going to replace the simplicity of Action + Bonus Action for 1001 unique actions each with their own rules?

Are you REALLY concerned about this? About the potentiality of a new ruleset that is still 10 to 20 years in the making, and which (if history is any indication) will not actually be designed by the person currently in charge because invariably the lead designer has been let go or resigned by then?

If the answer is 'No', then you're getting worked up for absolutely no reason. And if the answer is 'Yes', then you really need to widen the scope of your life out a little bit more. A game rule for a game 10 years out shouldn't be the biggest problem someone has in their life.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Which makes me wonder what he sees that I don't.

Are you a RPG game designer? The answer to your question is possibly buried in there somewhere.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not bothered that a designer keep on designing. That would be silly.


I am perplexed by his view of bonus actions however, as I think the implementation is currently fantastic.

Which makes me wonder what he sees that I dont.

OR what I see that he has overlooked.

This is exactly where my confusion and exasperation is coming from.

because I like bad analogies:

It's kind of like someone saying that they don't like the engines in cars because they don't feel quite right, so they begin looking at building a clockwork mechanical horse to pull the car along the road.


It seems like going backwards and making things worse, but is there actually a fix that is more elegant and useful that we just aren't seeing or is he just changing things for the sake of changing them because one part doesn't quite work like they wanted it to?


We've had a month or so of this discussion of bonus actions and no one has been able to show a way it works that I actually find to be a better design than our current design, but people keep insisting it would be an improvement.

Are you a RPG game designer? The answer to your question is possibly buried in there somewhere.

And this answer bugs the living crap out of me.

Does Mike Mearls have a Master's Degree in Board Game Design? How about Gygax and Arneson were they both professional Game Designers before they started work on Chainmail and DnD?


Yes, he gets paid to make games and has made a successful game, that's why when he says this stuff about Bonus Actions and we can't see the grand solution he has worked up we don't just dismiss it out of hand. He's got to have something, right? So what the heck is it?

I remember listening to the video and he was talking about "Eldritch Tactics" where instead of a cantrip as a bonus action an Eldritch Knight would have this ability that said "Cast a cantrip and make an attack". Immediately I saw a problem that if he devoted more time to his answer I'm sure he would have seen. By 11th level, as currently designed, you would be changing three attacks and a cantrip for one attack and a cantrip, which is a massive reduction. This would be fixed... unless part of the point is to weaken the Eldritch Knights offense. Unlikely, but I spotted the problem as soon as he said it, and I'm not a Lead Game Designer with a massively successful game. Clearly just from playing the game I couldn't, you know, understand some of the ways it works and the systems involved.

Of course, it is possible that those of us who have played this game and other similar games for years on end, might actually have some understanding of how they work and therefore have legitimate questions or concerns when a piece of design doesn't look quite right

 

[MagicSN]

And that's precisely why Mike has said they aren't removing bonus actions from 5E. He knows that ship has sailed and he's okay with it. But if he had to do it AGAIN, knowing now what he didn't know then, he'd design it differently

Then why doing a new initiative rule which basically is broken for specs with Bonus Actions? Or was it never proofread or such?

MagicSN