D&D (2024) Things You Think Would Improve the Game That We WON'T See

[Horwath]

Oh god yes! It took me way too long to understand Bonus action when I first read it. It's like 'you don't have minor actions but actually you do!' thing is dumb.

doesn't matter to me,
Bonus action, Minor action, Swift action, it's still just an addition to your main action for the round you are taking, no matter the name.

 

[Undrave]

doesn't matter to me,
Bonus action, Minor action, Swift action, it's still just an addition to your main action for the round you are taking, no matter the name.

It's the woding that's needlessly clunky. Why specify that an ability needs to 'Grant you' a bonus action? Just say you have one and that certain action require it. Seems needlessly obtuse.

 

[Horwath]

It's the woding that's needlessly clunky. Why specify that an ability needs to 'Grant you' a bonus action? Just say you have one and that certain action require it. Seems needlessly obtuse.

maybe.
but it would be nice to have some default thing to do with Bonus action in 5E without feats, special features or spells except dual wield.

Popular house rule for drinking potions could be one, taking extra 1 or 2 object interactions for the round, donning/doffing a shield.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

doesn't matter to me,
Bonus action, Minor action, Swift action, it's still just an addition to your main action for the round you are taking, no matter the name.

Yes, but the way it is presented is extremely convoluted and clunky--and it forces every new thing that uses them to be equally clunky. "As a bonus action, you can..." rather than just saying "Minor Action: <action.>"

maybe.
but it would be nice to have some default thing to do with Bonus action in 5E without feats, special features or spells except dual wield.

Popular house rule for drinking potions could be one, taking extra 1 or 2 object interactions for the round, donning/doffing a shield.

...which would literally defeat the one and only (alleged) selling-point the "Bonus Action" structure had, which was that it would avoid people thinking they "needed" to be using one. That's why it's "you can take a Bonus Action" and all these other convoluted phrases, rather than the much more straightforward "you have a Bonus Action, which you can use to do various things."

 

[KYRON45]

Again, you want to refute something I said? Be specific.

I don't. Thank you.

 

[KYRON45]

With respect, your statement is absolutely an insult...and I think most people would take it that way.

While I disagree with Micah in this debate, I do agree on this point.

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Horwath]

...which would literally defeat the one and only (alleged) selling-point the "Bonus Action" structure had, which was that it would avoid people thinking they "needed" to be using one. That's why it's "you can take a Bonus Action" and all these other convoluted phrases, rather than the much more straightforward "you have a Bonus Action, which you can use to do various things."

that only works until one person can utilize Bonus action, then everyone will scramble how they also can be as effective as the 1st one with bonus action.

 

[Stalker0]

this is a false dichotomy. You can make a game which supports a whole space of options in this sense. That's....kind of the whole point of having such a big, chonky system, isn't it? If simplicity uber alles was the name of the game, we should be getting by with ten or twelve page ultralite games, not this "three books with around a thousand pages between them" nonsense.

Sure you could, and then you would have people constantly irritated that so much design and book effort goes to aspects of the game they will never use.

And then it’s a question of balance support, how many options do you need to factor in when you consider balance? Look at a mukticlassing for example, a lot of decisions in the playtest looked to address certain multiclassing “exploits”…but multiclassing is an optional rule! Feats and magic items are the same way. How about encounter balancing, do i need multiple systems to account for players that use the simplest options versus those that use all the complex ones?

On paper, having a slew of dials and options sounds amazing. In practice, it’s a huge drain to support. It’s more efficient to pick a design model and stick with it, and then if you want a different slice…build a different game

 

[Stalker0]

that only works until one person can utilize Bonus action, then everyone will scramble how they also can be as effective as the 1st one with bonus action.

Yeah i do think it would be cleaner to just have minor actions, have a few defaults that are really minor and innocuous (like +5 feet speed or something), and then add to those options when it makes sense.

 

[Argyle King]

A complete overhaul of how HP is calculated -especially for monsters.