D&D 5E UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative

[ad_hoc]

So how about it? What problem is there with Bonus Actions that is not TWF or a rider to other actions when using a Bonus Action? Please tell me, because I really want to understand.

It's just not intuitive.

Bonus Actions are the thing I've seen players trip up on the most. They want to do the things but instead of just having a choice of things to do (action) they have a choice of things (action) then variable sub actions (bonus action) of that Action.

Plus then there is the Reaction which people also confuse for their Bonus Action.

It's not the worst design choice and it's mostly fine. It's just a bit clunky. It is inelegant.

 

[Lord Twig]

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.

False equivalency. In the grand scheme of things D&D in general, and individual rules specifically are unimportant. But for the game of D&D feedback is important.

If I am spending time on my hobby I will spend it however I wish. If I want to spend it advocating for certain rules in a game system I enjoy, then what is wrong with that? I am a life-long gamer. I will be playing some kind of RPG for the past 35+ years and I will still be playing RPGs 20 or more years from now. Why wouldn't I want to influence the direction that games may go over those years?

Even if the most I accomplish is that the next time the designers sit to discuss rules they bring up that a "small but vocal minority really doesn't like this rule" then I am satisfied. And maybe my voice will join with others and it will turn out to be in the majority. Who knows?

When I am not engaged in my hobby there are many things of more importance. Life and death kind of stuff. I have a wife and kids. I have a mortgage. I have a full time job. All of those things take precedence over a hobby, but that doesn't mean that my hobby is entirely unimportant. I need to take some time to do what I enjoy.

 

[lkj]

I'm not questioning why a game designer makes new game rules. I totally understand it. What I don't understand is coming to a conclusion (Bonus Actions are bad) before even analyzing what the real problem is.

As has been said, this conversation has been going on for a long time and I still have not heard a single problem with Bonus Actions that didn't turn out to be a problem with different rule that just happened to use Bonus Actions. Two Weapon Fighting being the main culprit, but follow right after is that they are confusing with the immediate example of Spells with a Bonus Action casting cost.

But the confusion was never that they didn't understand that you can cast a spell as a Bonus Action and then still have a standard Action left to use. It was that standard Action was now limited to a Cantrip. Remove that limitation and 90% of the confusion goes away.

So how about it? What problem is there with Bonus Actions that is not TWF or a rider to other actions when using a Bonus Action? Please tell me, because I really want to understand.

The argument isn't that they are 'bad'. They work fine (though, as you and Mike point out, they can lead to unnecessary restrictions, as in the case of two weapon fighting). I think ad_hoc just put it best: "Bonus Actions are a little clunky and unintuitive. More elegant design was possible but what we have is good enough."

No problem if you don't agree. My experience has been that they fairly regularly lead to minor 'hiccups' at the gaming table-- generally just people figuring out what they can do on their turn. With a more 'elegant' design, things might run a bit more smoothly. Nothing to go run and make another edition over, however.

AD

 

[Lord Twig]

It's just not intuitive.

Bonus Actions are the thing I've seen players trip up on the most. They want to do the things but instead of just having a choice of things to do (action) they have a choice of things (action) then variable sub actions (bonus action) of that Action.

Plus then there is the Reaction which people also confuse for their Bonus Action.

It's not the worst design choice and it's mostly fine. It's just a bit clunky. It is inelegant.

So still no specific example then?

Not intuitive and inelegant are not evidence. Those are opinions. They are perfectly valid opinions, but my opposing opinion is equally valid. I think (honestly) that Bonus Actions are an intuitive and elegant way to allow for a mix of actions in a single turn. Seriously! I haven't come up with something better yet and I have given it a lot of thought. Including thinking about Mearls' suggestion of combining Actions and Bonus Actions into hundreds of unique actions. Which in my opinion would be an unnecessary hack. [shrug]

What you are basically saying is that it is hard for people because they can do more than one thing in a turn. That is putting the bar pretty low. I understand the goal of making the game simple, but at a certain point you have to have some complexity to make it interesting. Otherwise you are just playing Candy Land. (Which I totally want to see turned into an RPG, btw. )

 

[Lord Twig]

The argument isn't that they are 'bad'. They work fine (though, as you and Mike point out, they can lead to unnecessary restrictions, as in the case of two weapon fighting). I think ad_hoc just put it best: "Bonus Actions are a little clunky and unintuitive. More elegant design was possible but what we have is good enough."

No problem if you don't agree. My experience has been that they fairly regularly lead to minor 'hiccups' at the gaming table-- generally just people figuring out what they can do on their turn. With a more 'elegant' design, things might run a bit more smoothly. Nothing to go run and make another edition over, however.

AD

And I basically agree with all of this except the "Bonus Actions are a little clunky and unintuitive" part. There might be a more elegant design. I just haven't heard one yet.

 

[lkj]

So still now specific example then?

Not intuitive and inelegant are not evidence. Those are opinions. They are perfectly valid opinions, but my opposing opinion is equally valid. I think (honestly) that Bonus Actions are an intuitive and elegant way to allow for a mix of actions in a single turn. Seriously! I haven't come up with something better yet and I have given it a lot of thought. Including thinking about Mearls' suggestion of combining Actions and Bonus Actions into hundreds of unique actions. Which in my opinion would be an unnecessary hack. [shrug]

What you are basically saying is that it is hard for people because they can do more than one thing in a turn. That is putting the bar pretty low. I understand the goal of making the game simple, but at a certain point you have to have some complexity to make it interesting. Otherwise you are just playing Candy Land. (Which I totally want to see turned into an RPG, btw. )

So, eh, it is just an opinion. And yours is absolutely just as valid. Presumably surveys and research by WotC would determine how many feel one way or another and whether it would be worth addressing in another edition-- presumably by playtesting alternatives as a comparison.

And I don't think the bar is too low. People fiddling through their character sheets trying to figure out if they can do 'one more thing this turn' isn't entertaining. And it isn't uncommon for gamers that aren't as hard core as you and I. But if your experience is different, that's fine with me.

AD

 

[ad_hoc]

So still now specific example then?

Not intuitive and inelegant are not evidence. Those are opinions. They are perfectly valid opinions, but my opposing opinion is equally valid. I think (honestly) that Bonus Actions are an intuitive and elegant way to allow for a mix of actions in a single turn. Seriously! I haven't come up with something better yet and I have given it a lot of thought. Including thinking about Mearls' suggestion of combining Actions and Bonus Actions into hundreds of unique actions. Which in my opinion would be an unnecessary hack. [shrug]

What you are basically saying is that it is hard for people because they can do more than one thing in a turn. That is putting the bar pretty low. I understand the goal of making the game simple, but at a certain point you have to have some complexity to make it interesting. Otherwise you are just playing Candy Land. (Which I totally want to see turned into an RPG, btw. )

Your Slippery Slope is ridiculous.

Also, my friends aren't dumb. This isn't a matter of what complexity they can understand. It's about intuitive and seamless design.

This isn't a matter of evidence, it is a matter of opinion.

Mearls also said that he wouldn't want to hack the game. He would have just preferred if they weren't designed that way to begin with.

 

[Lord Twig]

So, eh, it is just an opinion. And yours is absolutely just as valid. Presumably surveys and research by WotC would determine how many feel one way or another and whether it would be worth addressing in another edition-- presumably by playtesting alternatives as a comparison.

And I don't think the bar is too low. People fiddling through their character sheets trying to figure out if they can do 'one more thing this turn' isn't entertaining. And it isn't uncommon for gamers that aren't as hard core as you and I. But if your experience is different, that's fine with me.

AD

I have seen people looking to see if they can squeeze more out of their action, and the problem is not the rules but the player. Them and the DM that allows it. I will politely wait for the first time, maybe saying "Unless you have an item I don't know about you don't get a bonus action" after a minute. Or maybe suggesting "You're a Bard. Do you want to grant inspiration to someone?" The next round I don't even wait. I just go to the next turn. There really aren't that many Bonus Actions to take.

Your Slippery Slope is ridiculous.

Also, my friends aren't dumb. This isn't a matter of what complexity they can understand. It's about intuitive and seamless design.

This isn't a matter of evidence, it is a matter of opinion.

Mearls also said that he wouldn't want to hack the game. He would have just preferred if they weren't designed that way to begin with.

I'm not saying that anyone is dumb, I'm just saying that Bonus Actions are not that hard, and I don't think they are unintuitive. But now we are back to opinions.

I will say that there are people that feel that if they aren't using a Bonus Action that they are somehow missing out on something. That is a drawback I understand. And that is what leads people to desperately search for something they can use it on. For them you just have to convince them that it is fine to not use a Bonus Action. As a matter of fact it is expected that most of the time you won't, and that's okay.

 

[lkj]

I have seen people looking to see if they can squeeze more out of their action, and the problem is not the rules but the player. Them and the DM that allows it. I will politely wait for the first time, maybe saying "Unless you have an item I don't know about you don't get a bonus action" after a minute. Or maybe suggesting "You're a Bard. Do you want to grant inspiration to someone?" The next round I don't even wait. I just go to the next turn. There really aren't that many Bonus Actions to take.



I'm not saying that anyone is dumb, I'm just saying that Bonus Actions are not that hard, and I don't think they are unintuitive. But now we are back to opinions.

I will say that there are people that feel that if they aren't using a Bonus Action that they are somehow missing out on something. That is a drawback I understand. And that is what leads people to desperately search for something they can use it on. For them you just have to convince them that it is fine to not use a Bonus Action. As a matter of fact it is expected that most of the time you won't, and that's okay.

I think we are probably at the 'agree to disagree' stage. It is my opinion that the mechanic isn't as intuitive as it could be, and I also think that it's possible to design something that works more smoothly. I further think that Mearls might be on the right track. Obviously, as a DM, I can manage bonus actions as is and a player can figure them out. But it's not a mechanic that, to me, proceeds as smoothly as most of the rest of the system. It'd be nice if the system were such that it simply didn't lead to having to explain that bonus actions aren't expected to be a regular thing.

But at this point, it's probably not worth more discussion (at least to me). The next step would be to have a fully fleshed out alternative to compare the current system with. And it is totally not worth my time to design one for a forum discussion. Nor, it seems, is it worth Mearls' time at the moment.

So there we are!

AD

P.S. Can I just emphasize here that I think we all agree that, as a whole, it isn't that big a deal?

 

[Lord Twig]

I think we are probably at the 'agree to disagree' stage. It is my opinion that the mechanic isn't as intuitive as it could be, and I also think that it's possible to design something that works more smoothly. I further think that Mearls might be on the right track. Obviously, as a DM, I can manage bonus actions as is and a player can figure them out. But it's not a mechanic that, to me, proceeds as smoothly as most of the rest of the system. It'd be nice if the system were such that it simply didn't lead to having to explain that bonus actions aren't expected to be a regular thing.

But at this point, it's probably not worth more discussion (at least to me). The next step would be to have a fully fleshed out alternative to compare the current system with. And it is totally not worth my time to design one for a forum discussion. Nor, it seems, is it worth Mearls' time at the moment.

So there we are!

AD

P.S. Can I just emphasize here that I think we all agree that, as a whole, it isn't that big a deal?

Indeed. Thanks for the discussion!