D&D 5E (2024) Bonus Action Conversion

[EzekielRaiden]

I remember on the forums apparently they admitted they didnt playtest past 10th level.

They converted a lot of AD&D spells and between removing concentration and changing initiative they goofed up.

They also swung the other way. I think they took forum chatter as gospel. I had 60 odd 3E books and couldn't do everything the forums were doing.

Most gamers probably played it like 2E.

Generally.

1. You needed to know how to break the fane.
2. You needed access to the right material. I suspect I owned more than most.

3. You needed a DM to say yes. Prestige classes were actually optional iirc.

4. Mostly high level as well.

We didnt really play that way but did power game to some extent.

Pun Pun was a theorycraft build and dubious rules lawyering.

Mearls addressed the difference they found between forums and players when they surveyed.

I strongly suspected most 3E players were casuals and didnt reach high levels. It leveled slower than 5E not to different to AD&D pre 2E. It would take you to much time irl to get to high level at most tables imho.

Being non-casual is not required. Pun-Pun is not required. Dubious rules-lawyering is not required.

Taking Natural Spell is all that is required. Or Leadership. Or Cloistered Cleric. Or a handful of stupidly powerful PrCs. Or, for God's sake, wish. Etc.

You act like breaking 3e took some hugantic monumental effort. It isn't; entirely the opposite, in fact. It's almost trivial to break 3e. And, in fairness, this is not true of 5e; they really did rein in the worst parts of 3e.

But they didn't actually fix the balance issues. They just reduced them. Reducing from "INSANELY HORRIFIC" to "somewhat bad" is a major leap....but isn't fixed.

If you have an insanely horrific gas leak, and you fix things enough such that it's now merely a somewhat bad gas leak, that doesn't mean the gas leak problem is solved. It just means that you aren't likely to have an enormous explosion by accident. You're just very likely to have small explosions until the gas leak is actually fixed. If you have an insanely horrific wound, that's probably lethal; if you have merely a somewhat bad wound, you can probably survive it...but you aren't healthy by any means.

The only direction they could go was up. Admittedly, they went far more than minimally up, and that does deserve some credit. You know me, you know I'm not going to compliment 5e (nor 3e for that matter) without good reason--so when I say 5e did in fact do good work beginning to fix the balance problems of 3e, I really mean it. It is a solid start on fixing them. But it is not the end.

3rd edition's ruleset is so broken, even Paizo, the champions of "we're still giving you the 3e you love!", had to abandon it. Not because they didn't like it, but because they were boxed in by how faulty its rules are. They couldn't fix things without completely upending the system anyway, so if they're going to tear out the thing's guts, they might as well go whole hog. Whether or not you like this is irrelevant--it's straight from Mr. Bulmahn himself.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not sure it is possible to design for both. Because when you design for the former, you...genuinely stop caring about whether things might interact in genuinely undesirable--as in, harmful to the play experience--ways, because such interactions will only rarely occur, if ever. When you design for the latter, you do care about that, and you put a stop to it. I...don't really see how it's possible to have a middle ground there, where you both do and do not allow easily-abused rules to stay in the game.

That isn't really the distinction, though. It's about leaving enough granularity in the system for those interested in the rules as rules to find substance, but not so granular that "vibe" character makers are left way behind.

5e definitely tried to split that difference; it's why so many of the main choices (feats, subclasses, races) are so "chunky" in the options they provide. They're intended to let players pick on the concept vibe rather than having to build the vibe from a bunch of smaller, granular options. Likewise why so many of the 5e core mechanics (things like advantage and bonus actions) are made to prevent stacking or allowing for a lot of synergistic options.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is another one of those things that for me the answer is "If you are a DM who wants it, then house rule your game so that you can have it. It is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. House ruling is great! But you don't need the actual printed rules to say it because your preferences are no more important than any others. That's why house ruling exists... so you can play the game in the manner you wish and not get caught up in 'playing RAW'."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is another one of those things that for me the answer is "If you are a DM who wants it, then house rule your game so that you can have it. It is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. House ruling is great! But you don't need the actual printed rules to say it because your preferences are no more important than any others. That's why house ruling exists... so you can play the game in the manner you wish and not get caught up in 'playing RAW'."

How does one houserule balance into something that is significantly and pervasively unbalanced?

That's literally saying that one preference--not caring one whit whether balance is present or not--does get put over another, namely, having a well-balanced experience.

And remember, when I talk about balance, I'm not talking about the crappy facsimile of """balance""" which comes from just doing the stupid thing of making everything perfectly identical. (I don't consider that "balance" at all; I consider it banal uniformity, which is always bad.) I'm talking about asymmetrical balance, where many non-identical paths end up producing approximately the same performance, but by different means.

 

[DEFCON 1]

How does one houserule balance into something that is significantly and pervasively unbalanced?

That's literally saying that one preference--not caring one whit whether balance is present or not--does get put over another, namely, having a well-balanced experience.

And remember, when I talk about balance, I'm not talking about the crappy facsimile of """balance""" which comes from just doing the stupid thing of making everything perfectly identical. (I don't consider that "balance" at all; I consider it banal uniformity, which is always bad.) I'm talking about asymmetrical balance, where many non-identical paths end up producing approximately the same performance, but by different means.

Because I do not believe you.

Your definition of "balance" is not my definition. And it is not the definition of tens of thousands of other players out there.

From everything I've seen of your posts here over the years... you think 4E is the best D&D game-- part of which is presumably because of its "balance". But I do not. It was good... got nothing against 4E... but it has never been the best D&D to me. One of the reason specifically because of the "balance" that came from things like the AEDU format.

So your belief that something in 5E is 'significantly and pervasively unbalanced' is not something I believe is true. And thus your apparent desire for someone (WotC or otherwise) to "fix" this unbalanced thing is a you thing. So you can do that. Or if you don't think it's possible... then don't play 5E... that's perfectly acceptable as well. Whatever you choose to do for yourself is the way to go. Because it's not like just wishing WotC to "fix" it is actually going work.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because I do not believe you.

Your definition of "balance" is not my definition. And it is not the definition of tens of thousands of other players out there.

From everything I've seen of your posts here over the years... you think 4E is the best D&D game-- part of which is presumably because of its "balance". But I do not. It was good... got nothing against 4E... but it has never been the best D&D to me. One of the reason specifically because of the "balance" that came from things like the AEDU format.

So your belief that something in 5E is 'significantly and pervasively unbalanced' is not something I believe is true. And thus your apparent desire for someone (WotC or otherwise) to "fix" this unbalanced thing is a you thing. So you can do that. Or if you don't think it's possible... then don't play 5E... that's perfectly acceptable as well. Whatever you choose to do for yourself is the way to go. Because it's not like just wishing WotC to "fix" it is actually going work.

So your actual answer is "your playstyle doesn't matter, so WotC isn't going to include it among the ones it caters to"?

So much for the big tent...