D&D 5E Action Types - Rules As Written

[Yaarel]

Of course, there's the other question of what do you mean by speaking. If it's a couple of words, fair enough, but if you're reciting the entire text of the Iliad that's something else.

I think the ruling about talking comes from the idea of allowing the DM to cut short endless planning in the middle of combat. Nothing drags the game out worse than watching a group get analysis paralysis every single round as everyone tries to weigh in on the absolute optimal tactical plan for every single action.

So, this cuts through that and says, "Look, if you want to shout a warning, fair enough, that's a non-action, but, stopping the action to have an extensive conversation about the merits of magic missile vs burning hands for the next fifteen minutes is off the bloody table. OK?!?!?"

Thats why it seems ok to group speaking in with other kinds of Flourish. If its just one word or short phrase, no problem, it is free. But if it seems more like a conversation, then it uses up the one Flourish, and some DMs might even require an Action or Reaction after a certain point.

 

[Azzy]

Of course, there's the other question of what do you mean by speaking. If it's a couple of words, fair enough, but if you're reciting the entire text of the Iliad that's something else.

I think the ruling about talking comes from the idea of allowing the DM to cut short endless planning in the middle of combat. Nothing drags the game out worse than watching a group get analysis paralysis every single round as everyone tries to weigh in on the absolute optimal tactical plan for every single action.

So, this cuts through that and says, "Look, if you want to shout a warning, fair enough, that's a non-action, but, stopping the action to have an extensive conversation about the merits of magic missile vs burning hands for the next fifteen minutes is off the bloody table. OK?!?!?"

Of course, villain monologueing is exempt from this.

 

[Li Shenron]

And there are plenty of times at plenty of tables where players carry on at excruciating length over what they should do with their action, bonus action, movement, and interaction with an object in 5e, so what’s your point? Both action economies provide the player with roughly the same number of decisions to make on each of their turns. There’s no accounting for how long some players may take to make those decisions.

Ok, I think I want to give my 2cp here...

I don't remember at all the options in 4e since I've ever played it only a couple of nights.

In 5e in most cases only spell and special abilities use bonus actions and reactions, and many of those which use a bonus action are actually limited resources (e.g. spells), while reactions are by nature triggered by an external event. This means that in 5e you don't really spend your turn thinking "what can I do with my bonus action", instead it makes more sense that you just focus on your main action, or whatever you want to focus on this turn, and if it turns out that you are going to cast a spell that takes a bonus action then you take advantage of it and also do an attack or cast a cantrip. With reactions, it's only a matter of be aware of what can trigger something you can do, but again you're not stopping the game to think what can you do with your reaction...

There are some important exceptions such as two-weapon fighting, but the idea is normally that if you are interested in 2WFing then you keep your PC configured for that i.e. you wield two appropriate weapons and try to use the bonus action for a secondary weapon attack every turn.

I suppose that it is possible for a character to stack up several special abilities that use a bonus action, and then slog the game down when you still have all your uses available and need to choose which one, but I think it's going to take some intent to put yourself into that difficult situation by multiclassing and feats. I seem to remember that maybe the Monk has many different bonus actions abilities, but IIRC normal classes get 1-2.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok, I think I want to give my 2cp here...

I don't remember at all the options in 4e since I've ever played it only a couple of nights.

In 5e in most cases only spell and special abilities use bonus actions and reactions, and many of those which use a bonus action are actually limited resources (e.g. spells), while reactions are by nature triggered by an external event. This means that in 5e you don't really spend your turn thinking "what can I do with my bonus action", instead it makes more sense that you just focus on your main action, or whatever you want to focus on this turn, and if it turns out that you are going to cast a spell that takes a bonus action then you take advantage of it and also do an attack or cast a cantrip. With reactions, it's only a matter of be aware of what can trigger something you can do, but again you're not stopping the game to think what can you do with your reaction...

There are some important exceptions such as two-weapon fighting, but the idea is normally that if you are interested in 2WFing then you keep your PC configured for that i.e. you wield two appropriate weapons and try to use the bonus action for a secondary weapon attack every turn.

I suppose that it is possible for a character to stack up several special abilities that use a bonus action, and then slog the game down when you still have all your uses available and need to choose which one, but I think it's going to take some intent to put yourself into that difficult situation by multiclassing and feats. I seem to remember that maybe the Monk has many different bonus actions abilities, but IIRC normal classes get 1-2.

Maybe I’m the odd one, but I always consider when making a character how to maximize their action efficiency. That’s part of why rogue is one of my favorite classes because they always have something useful to do as a bonus action every turn. Do I dash, disengage, hide, attack with an off-hand weapon? Usually this doesn’t slow down play at all because the optimal choice is obvious. As a Warlock I’m probably not using my bonus action every turn, but I’m using it to cast and transfer Hex pretty often. Same for Rangers and Hunter’s Mark. If my class doesn’t have a reliable Bonus Action feature, I seriously consider taking a Feat like Polearm Master to give me one. Actually Polearm Master is one of the best Feats in my opinion because it not only gives you a Bonus Action attack to use every turn, it also gives you more opportunities to use your Reaction too.

All this is beside the point though. Semantics about “you don’t otherwise have a bonus action to spend” aside, as a design element, Bonus Actions are no different than Minor Actions. There are just fewer universal abilities that cost one, most of those having been shifted either to actions or flourishes. That’s a difference in how the game uses the mechanic, not in the mechanic itself.

 

[redrick]

Maybe I’m the odd one, but I always consider when making a character how to maximize their action efficiency. That’s part of why rogue is one of my favorite classes because they always have something useful to do as a bonus action every turn. Do I dash, disengage, hide, attack with an off-hand weapon? Usually this doesn’t slow down play at all because the optimal choice is obvious. As a Warlock I’m probably not using my bonus action every turn, but I’m using it to cast and transfer Hex pretty often. Same for Rangers and Hunter’s Mark. If my class doesn’t have a reliable Bonus Action feature, I seriously consider taking a Feat like Polearm Master to give me one. Actually Polearm Master is one of the best Feats in my opinion because it not only gives you a Bonus Action attack to use every turn, it also gives you more opportunities to use your Reaction too.

All this is beside the point though. Semantics about “you don’t otherwise have a bonus action to spend” aside, as a design element, Bonus Actions are no different than Minor Actions. There are just fewer universal abilities that cost one, most of those having been shifted either to actions or flourishes. That’s a difference in how the game uses the mechanic, not in the mechanic itself.

I think you identified the distinction between Bonus Actions, yourself, though. A character who is set up to use Bonus Actions, a Rogue with cunning action or a Fighter two-weapon fighting or pole-arm mastering, has a limited number of obvious Bonus Actions that they can take. Rarely do I hear players say, "What should I do with my bonus action?" Instead it is, "Ok, do I take another stab with two-weapon-fighting and hope I get the sneak attack, or do I disengage and get behind the Fighter?" (Famous last words of the Assassin.) It's not a resource to be spent, it's a cap on how many of your Bonus Actions you can use. And yes, people still agonize over it from time to time, but most often, there is one obvious choice, and if none of those choices are available, that's obvious too.

The Minor Action, as I remember it, by being much broader, invited the question of, "Ok, I still have this Minor Action left. How should I spend it? I don't want to leave actions on the table."

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you identified the distinction between Bonus Actions, yourself, though. A character who is set up to use Bonus Actions, a Rogue with cunning action or a Fighter two-weapon fighting or pole-arm mastering, has a limited number of obvious Bonus Actions that they can take. Rarely do I hear players say, "What should I do with my bonus action?" Instead it is, "Ok, do I take another stab with two-weapon-fighting and hope I get the sneak attack, or do I disengage and get behind the Fighter?" (Famous last words of the Assassin.) It's not a resource to be spent, it's a cap on how many of your Bonus Actions you can use. And yes, people still agonize over it from time to time, but most often, there is one obvious choice, and if none of those choices are available, that's obvious too.

The Minor Action, as I remember it, by being much broader, invited the question of, "Ok, I still have this Minor Action left. How should I spend it? I don't want to leave actions on the table."

Yes, but that’s not a product of the design of Bonus Actions versus Minor Actions, it’s just a product of there being fewer things to use Bonus Actions for, and in particular fewer universal things. If you made drawing or sheathing a weapon a free action in 5e and cut down the number of Minor Action using Powers to only a few per Class, you’d have the same situation. What I’m getting at is, if you hated Minor Actions but like Bonus Actions, what you dislike about Minor Actions is most likely how many things used them, not the mechanic itself. From a game design perspective, they’re no different.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think it's why Mearls has said he would eliminate bonus actions if he had it to do over again. Not because they aren't useful, but because you shouldn't want to care so much about the action economy.

From a streamlining point of view, eliminating the bonus action makes sense. However, this is one of 5e's interesting tactical considerations in combat (what should I do to get a bonus action, if I have multiple choices which one do I take etc etc) and I fear that removing it may be *too* simplified.

 

[Ancalagon]

Of course, there's the other question of what do you mean by speaking. If it's a couple of words, fair enough, but if you're reciting the entire text of the Iliad that's something else.

I think the ruling about talking comes from the idea of allowing the DM to cut short endless planning in the middle of combat. Nothing drags the game out worse than watching a group get analysis paralysis every single round as everyone tries to weigh in on the absolute optimal tactical plan for every single action.

So, this cuts through that and says, "Look, if you want to shout a warning, fair enough, that's a non-action, but, stopping the action to have an extensive conversation about the merits of magic missile vs burning hands for the next fifteen minutes is off the bloody table. OK?!?!?"

I allow a bit of "kibitzing" at the table, but it has to be fairly efficient. Something like "Should I push ahead? " "Ok but stay near the corner that way only one of them can hit you, I'll cast bless on my turn just hold them back!" is fine. But if this takes more than 2-3 minutes, as a GM I'll cut it short. If people are completely paralyzed, well... so is their PC, and they spend the turn dodging.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A round is 6 seconds. A PC can verbalize "in-character" as much as he can actually do in 6 seconds.

If you are a DM for whom the amount a PC speaks is important to you... just keep track of the number of sentences the PC speaks on each player's turn and cut the player off after like the second one.

Sent from my SM-J320V using EN World mobile app

 

[Li Shenron]

Maybe I’m the odd one, but I always consider when making a character how to maximize their action efficiency. That’s part of why rogue is one of my favorite classes because they always have something useful to do as a bonus action every turn. Do I dash, disengage, hide, attack with an off-hand weapon? Usually this doesn’t slow down play at all because the optimal choice is obvious. As a Warlock I’m probably not using my bonus action every turn, but I’m using it to cast and transfer Hex pretty often. Same for Rangers and Hunter’s Mark. If my class doesn’t have a reliable Bonus Action feature, I seriously consider taking a Feat like Polearm Master to give me one. Actually Polearm Master is one of the best Feats in my opinion because it not only gives you a Bonus Action attack to use every turn, it also gives you more opportunities to use your Reaction too.

All this is beside the point though. Semantics about “you don’t otherwise have a bonus action to spend” aside, as a design element, Bonus Actions are no different than Minor Actions. There are just fewer universal abilities that cost one, most of those having been shifted either to actions or flourishes. That’s a difference in how the game uses the mechanic, not in the mechanic itself.

Yes but that's what I was trying to say after all... that the rukes may be quite equivalent but the fact that most characters don't have at-will abilities using bonus actions makes most people play without thinking too much about the action economy, unless they actually want to.

Again, I don't know 4e, maybe everyone had many minor action abilities or maybe not. In 3e however it was easy to get into the mindset of having to combine actions to fully utilise your round worth, and if you didn't then you started to feel like you were losing something. I never had the same feeling in 5e, because those bonus actions really feel like an occasional bonus.

It's certainly different for the Rogue's Cunning Action. In that case the idea was to really encourage the player towards a more mobile combat all the time. IMHO you are indeed supposed to look around for opportunities to use that extra movement in interesting ways.