D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[TwoSix]

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."

I guess that would be too homogenous. (That's another one!)

 

[Charlaquin]

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."

They specifically avoided doing so because the overwhelming feedback at the time was that people didn’t want an action economy. One action, 30 feet of movement, and whatever flourishes seemed reasonable (like drawing weapons and the like) was all most people wanted. Except they also liked that the rogue could do an extra thing once per turn. And they liked that you could Healing Word and still attack. So, WotC just did 4e action economy again and obfuscated the language. And it worked! The common refrain was “maybe it’s similar to minor actions, but it doesn’t feel like you’re letting a resource go to waste if you don’t use a Bonus Action every turn.” I still think it’s dumb, but it’s hard to argue with results.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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 would much prefer a resource so named.

I have played D&D for many years and war games and fiddle games.

the one thing I don’t like in design is the bonus action as some sort of exception available sometimes in very specific circumstances.

free actions? Cool. Action is cool. But the bonus action is the worst thing for new players. Hasn’t hurt sales but reworking it to be standardized would not hurt my feelings.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would much prefer a resource so named.

I have played D&D for many years and war games and fiddle games.

the one thing I don’t like in design is the bonus action as some sort of exception available sometimes in very specific circumstances.

free actions? Cool. Action is cool. But the bonus action is the worst thing for new players. Hasn’t hurt sales but reworking it to be standardized would not hurt my feelings.

I agree. I wish more people had felt as we do and given feedback to that effect during the 5e playtest process.

 

[fearsomepirate]

It seems like the original idea of "bonus action" seems to be that it was a true bonus granted by doing something else. But then they introduced free-standing bonus actions, like the Rogues' class feature, Hex, and so on, and it just became the 4e action economy without the conversion rule. The result is, in fact, that players do tend to hunt through their character sheets to find a bonus action they can do on any given turn.

I think the reason they kept the name is that people who hated 4e would throw a fit if it were called "minor action," and people who hated 3e would throw a fit if it were called "swift action."

 

[Charlaquin]

It seems like the original idea of "bonus action" seems to be that it was a true bonus granted by doing something else. But then they introduced free-standing bonus actions, like the Rogues' class feature, Hex, and so on, and it just became the 4e action economy without the conversion rule.

My memory is not perfect, but from what I remember there was never a draft where you weren’t limited to one bonus action per turn. And if I recall correctly, the first thing to make use of the bonus action was two weapon fighting. So no, they were minor/swift actions from their inception.

The result is, in fact, that players do tend to hunt through their character sheets to find a bonus action they can do on any given turn.

As I and the other folks who didn’t like the term “bonus action” said would happen. But, the point was always to make it not feel like something you had to do every turn to make optimal use of the action economy (even though it totally was).

I think the reason they kept the name is that people who hated 4e would throw a fit if it were called "minor action," and people who hated 3e would throw a fit if it were called "swift action."

People that hated 4e certainly would have thrown a fit if it were called a minor action. Hell, they threw a fit if you pointed out that it functionally was a minor action with a different name. I think most people who disliked the term “Bonus Action” wouldn’t have cared if it was called a swift action, or a minor action, or a lesser action, or a quick action, or whatever. A lot of us eventually got tired of arguing and just said, “hey, if calling them bonus actions is what it takes to get them in the rules, fine I guess.”

 

[fearsomepirate]

TWF is really a wreck. God forbid that you just give people an extra attack. Then a Ranger could cast Hunter's Mark and strike with his offhand the same round, absolutely ruining the game forever.

 

[cbwjm]

I agree. I wish more people had felt as we do and given feedback to that effect during the 5e playtest process.

I'd have liked them to keep the minor action from 4e. If memory serves you could turn an action into a minor action so you could do two of them if desired. Now if you use your bonus action for something and decide you want to cast a bonus action spell, you're out of luck.

 

[Dausuul]

TWF is really a wreck. God forbid that you just give people an extra attack. Then a Ranger could cast Hunter's Mark and strike with his offhand the same round, absolutely ruining the game forever.

Yeah, TWF is a mess. I'd like to see the current dual wielding rules scrapped, and instead change the Two-Weapon fighting style to:

"When you take the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can make one additional attack using a light weapon in your other hand. If you do not have the Extra Attack feature, you do not add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage of the off-hand attack."

This would eliminate the bonus action tax and make TWF almost perfectly balanced with the Great Weapon fighting style. There would still be a number of one-off issues to resolve (dual wielding fighters at level 11+; the Great Weapon Mastery feat being way better than its counterparts; no dual wielding for people without fighting styles), but those could be addressed case by case.

 

[cbwjm]

Thinking about bonus actions some more, I keep running up against them because so many things use them. I had an idea for a dual wielding rune knight but the barbarian rage and giant's might both require a bonus action to use, as does two-weapon fighting. After reading up on the powers and realising this, I think it might be better to just make rune knight a barbarian subclass because the multiclass just doesn't work well due to all of the bonus actions needed.