D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[Charlaquin]

Does anyone actually use the daily encounter quota?

Yes

 

[Charlaquin]

XP

Unnecessary.
Too much bookkeeping.
Rewards conflict rather than achieving goals.

I mean... It rewards achieving goals if you award it for achieving goals...

 

[ART!]

This has come up a couple times in this thread. How do people get confused by this mechanism or not like it? I think it is a good mechanic - IME it is far better than minor actions in 4e.

The problem is most bonus actions are "When you X, you can Y as a bonus action," and people either don't remember X correctly, don't write it down, or WotC themselves didn't write it clearly. For example, Jeremy Crawford himself seems unsure about how the Shield Master conditions work. The way two-weapon fighting is worded, a TWF Beast Master Ranger can't use it in conjunction with his Companion attack...or can he? There was a long, inconclusive argument here about it, which proves the rule isn't clearly worded, or at least isn't intuitive. People try to Misty Step and cast a spell all the time, because the text saying they can't isn't in the spell description; it's in a rule somewhere else that they don't have memorized.

All of this. My experience has been that if anyone at the table doesn't have a real mastery of their character/NPC/monster and how BAs work, the existence of Bonus Actions really slows down combat. I'm no expert, but I'm sure there's a less fiddly way to achieve similar design goals.

Emphasis mine.

I feel exactly the opposite: alignment shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with a creature's personality or moral outlook. It should be a real force in the universe, as inexorable as Elemental Fire or Shadow. You alignment describes what cosmic morality sign you were born under, what forces have an interest in your fate, and where your soul is going to be drawn upon your death (if you are a mortal). The more tied to cosmic forces a being is (angels and demons, gods, etc...) the more powerful a hold alignment has on the being. The only thing that should determine how a PC acts ina given situation is the Player, but that doesn't mean Alignment can't be an interesting tool in play.

I wouldn't say "should", but I really like this as a setting concept!

My group is very hand-wave-y about in-game religion and deities, and I'd like to spice things up at least a bit.

 

[Mind of tempest]

All of this. My experience has been that if anyone at the table doesn't have a real mastery of their character/NPC/monster and how BAs work, the existence of Bonus Actions really slows down combat. I'm no expert, but I'm sure there's a less fiddly way to achieve similar design goals.

I wouldn't say "should", but I really like this as a setting concept!

My group is very hand-wave-y about in-game religion and deities, and I'd like to spice things up at least a bit.

objective good would be super odd and difficult to do might be fun if done well.

 

[Dausuul]

This has come up a couple times in this thread. How do people get confused by this mechanism or not like it? I think it is a good mechanic - IME it is far better than minor actions in 4e.

Huh? How is it "better" than minor actions? It's the exact same mechanic with a different name.

 

[TwoSix]

Huh? How is it "better" than minor actions? It's the exact same mechanic with a different name.

Yes, but it has better marketing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, but it has better marketing.

For a given definition of “better,” I suppose. Bonus Actions try to pretend they don’t exist unless they need to, whereas minor actions are honest about the fact that they’re a resource. So, if you have an attachment to the idea of D&D without an action economy, Bonus Actions are probably more appealing. But they’re also more confusing, because the name makes it sound like you shouldn’t be limited in how many of them you can take (otherwise it’s not really a “bonus,” it’s a resource.)

 

[TwoSix]

For a given definition of “better,” I suppose. Bonus Actions try to pretend they don’t exist unless they need to, whereas minor actions are honest about the fact that they’re a resource. So, if you have an attachment to the idea of D&D without an action economy, Bonus Actions are probably more appealing. But they’re also more confusing, because the name makes it sound like you shouldn’t be limited in how many of them you can take (otherwise it’s not really a “bonus,” it’s a resource.)

I was trying to make a subtle 4e->5e joke there, but yea, you're totally correct.

 

[Reynard]

For a given definition of “better,” I suppose. Bonus Actions try to pretend they don’t exist unless they need to, whereas minor actions are honest about the fact that they’re a resource. So, if you have an attachment to the idea of D&D without an action economy, Bonus Actions are probably more appealing. But they’re also more confusing, because the name makes it sound like you shouldn’t be limited in how many of them you can take (otherwise it’s not really a “bonus,” it’s a resource.)

It seems weird they did not make a small list of regular bonus actions that everyone can do -- dig a thing out of your pack, activate a magic item, open a door, whatever -- and then have individual abilities, items, whatever grant bonus actions more specifically. Then they could say "You get 1 move, 1 action and 1 bonus action per round."

 

[ART!]

It seems weird they did not make a small list of regular bonus actions that everyone can do -- dig a thing out of your pack, activate a magic item, open a door, whatever -- and then have individual abilities, items, whatever grant bonus actions more specifically. Then they could say "You get 1 move, 1 action and 1 bonus action per round."

This exactly. There's a default list of actions, so why not one of bonus actions and just let everyone have access to them - and then classes and whatever else grant get exclusive ones.