Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7126932" data-attributes="member: 1465">With regard to bonus actions, I also think their main issue is with their presentation. They deliver the feeling that with a bonus action your are doing something in addition to the rest of your turn. So the overall feel is like you are granted a longer turn. This can trigger discussions on "how many seconds does a bonus action take".What bonus actions should really say instead, is that they represent doing more things simultaneously. This is for example how Bardic Inspiration really works: the Bard is not first doing an attack and then inspiring the allies, he's doing both things at the same time. Which is by the way very consistent with how movement also works. So the Bard is using her legs to move and her arms to attack and her voice to inspire, which naturally make sense to imagine as simultaneous.For other cases it's not so easy... additional attacks (e.g. TWF) are always sequential, as are additional spells. So there you can't really enforce the narrative of simultaneity, you can at best imagine that the character is "squeezing" more acts in the same time. Still, I think it's better than presenting bonus actions as a general option in the action economy. And in a way I think this might be what Mearls have in mind: to remove the feeling of bonus actions being a "third building block" of your turn, and instead let special abilities modify your main Action, to enforce the feeling that the turn is always the same length.I must say that I have also been unsatisfied with the "object interaction" rule since it was added during the playtest. I usually just either decide that an action is important enough to be using up your turn's Action or otherwise be free. The "maximum one object interaction" rules IMHO gets in the way and still doesn't clear up all cases.</blockquote>

Verification