Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Accidental cheating due to forgetting action economies?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 6756978" data-attributes="member: 12377"><p>Personally, I think this is a flaw in the 5e rules. In fact, the "bonus" action is so confusing that after a year of playing, I've concluded that it's my biggest gripe with 5e.</p><p></p><p>"Bonus" just sounds like, a free add-on with no strings attached. "One per turn" is a pretty significant string, so that's a failure of natural language. I think they could have done better by replacing the term "bonus action" with "second action," since it's clearer that it won't stack (because then it would be a third action). For example, rogue's Cunning Action could say, "You can take a second action on each of your turns, but at least one of your actions must be Dash, Disengage or Hide." A second-action spell could instead read, "On a turn when you cast this spell, you can take a second action, but you can't use it to cast another spell unless that other spell is a cantrip." This language would also allow second-action effects to substitute for your main action, which is something players expect (and I see no reason why a person shouldn't be allowed to, e.g., cast <em>healing word</em> and initiate barbarian rage in the same turn).</p><p></p><p>It's also not very intuitive which things are bonus actions and which are regular actions, and the way Extra Attack interacts with TWF is especially confusing. Players don't expect an off-hand attack to trade off with Dash/Disengage/Hide, especially when they see the warrior classes making multiple attacks every round without limit. The fact that TWF is one of the few bonus actions you can take without a special class feature makes it extra confusing; it would be easier to remember the bonus action if it were listed as a rogue feature right next to Cunning Action. (I'm not suggesting they should have buried TWF in a class feature -- that would be bad in other ways -- just saying that it would be less confusing if they did.)</p><p></p><p>None of this really helps you solve your immediate problem, but maybe it's something you could talk about with the players. Once they understand how the rule works and why it is confusing, they won't feel bad for having messed it up (or messing it up in the future) but they'll be more aware of it. Most people take some small amount of pride in being "smart" and doing things "right" so understanding the rule might prompt them to try to follow it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="77IM, post: 6756978, member: 12377"] Personally, I think this is a flaw in the 5e rules. In fact, the "bonus" action is so confusing that after a year of playing, I've concluded that it's my biggest gripe with 5e. "Bonus" just sounds like, a free add-on with no strings attached. "One per turn" is a pretty significant string, so that's a failure of natural language. I think they could have done better by replacing the term "bonus action" with "second action," since it's clearer that it won't stack (because then it would be a third action). For example, rogue's Cunning Action could say, "You can take a second action on each of your turns, but at least one of your actions must be Dash, Disengage or Hide." A second-action spell could instead read, "On a turn when you cast this spell, you can take a second action, but you can't use it to cast another spell unless that other spell is a cantrip." This language would also allow second-action effects to substitute for your main action, which is something players expect (and I see no reason why a person shouldn't be allowed to, e.g., cast [I]healing word[/I] and initiate barbarian rage in the same turn). It's also not very intuitive which things are bonus actions and which are regular actions, and the way Extra Attack interacts with TWF is especially confusing. Players don't expect an off-hand attack to trade off with Dash/Disengage/Hide, especially when they see the warrior classes making multiple attacks every round without limit. The fact that TWF is one of the few bonus actions you can take without a special class feature makes it extra confusing; it would be easier to remember the bonus action if it were listed as a rogue feature right next to Cunning Action. (I'm not suggesting they should have buried TWF in a class feature -- that would be bad in other ways -- just saying that it would be less confusing if they did.) None of this really helps you solve your immediate problem, but maybe it's something you could talk about with the players. Once they understand how the rule works and why it is confusing, they won't feel bad for having messed it up (or messing it up in the future) but they'll be more aware of it. Most people take some small amount of pride in being "smart" and doing things "right" so understanding the rule might prompt them to try to follow it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Accidental cheating due to forgetting action economies?
Top