Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6373069" data-attributes="member: 14506">Yes, I do see the distinction by pulling out the trivial things of minor actions and honing in to more like a &quot;swift&quot; action of 3e splats. Prior to the slpats though there was no such thing as a swift action. I likely would have preferred that approach. Swift spells could just be as part of the touch attack for a touch spell. Healing word could have said on your turn you can cast this spell and take another action (and list the limitations right in the spell description). I am uncertain what you gain by codifying the bonus action. Clearly it is a limitation. So why is that limitation in place? Why did 3e splats want it, and 4e want it, and 5e want it? Does it limit for balance? Why would natural wording of abilities not be enough?Other possible words: limited action, possible action, contingent action, causal action, and minor and swift are not bad too. It could also be defined as a reaction too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sadrik, post: 6373069, member: 14506"] Yes, I do see the distinction by pulling out the trivial things of minor actions and honing in to more like a "swift" action of 3e splats. Prior to the slpats though there was no such thing as a swift action. I likely would have preferred that approach. Swift spells could just be as part of the touch attack for a touch spell. Healing word could have said on your turn you can cast this spell and take another action (and list the limitations right in the spell description). I am uncertain what you gain by codifying the bonus action. Clearly it is a limitation. So why is that limitation in place? Why did 3e splats want it, and 4e want it, and 5e want it? Does it limit for balance? Why would natural wording of abilities not be enough? Other possible words: limited action, possible action, contingent action, causal action, and minor and swift are not bad too. It could also be defined as a reaction too. [/QUOTE]

Verification