Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
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
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Bonus Action Conversion
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9849553" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I'd say there's no "seems" about it. It <em>is</em> a wild stance. Bonus actions serve a vital function, just as their predecessors, Minor and Swift actions, did. Sometimes, you want to be able to do a thing as a ride-along thing people can attempt to do, but you don't want to allow 17 different ride-along effects. It's extremely useful to be able to say "this is something that happens <em>around</em> your Proper Action, but doesn't take up your whole ability to do stuff."</p><p></p><p>Doing it any other way creates enormous headaches and needless complexity. Are Bonus Actions more complicated than simply not having them at all, and nixing anything that would need such a thing? Yes, of course, <em>doing</em> something is always going to be more complex than <em>not</em> doing anything at all. But it is a very small step up in complexity, in exchange for simplifying a BAZILLION other things that would've been horribly clunky and ugly.</p><p></p><p>This just gets to the heart of my criticisms of the hyperminimalist design stance. That is, just as it is true that "less is more" sometimes--that is, you can <em>occasionally</em> make gains by making do with fewer components--it's also true that sometimes <em>more is less</em>, that is, by adding just a little bit of complexity in one space, you can eliminate ENORMOUS amounts of complexity in a bunch of other places. Removing the Bonus/Minor/Swift action would be penny-wise, pound-foolish design--and if Mearls cannot recognize that, I need to re-evaluate my already not-super-great opinion of his design chops.</p><p></p><p>Incidentally, I personally think the preoccupation with bending over backward to emphasize that Bonus Actions aren't required is silly. The simpler way is to give everyone a really obvious, basic, but useful Bonus Action they can always fall back on if they don't have any other option. BG3's "Prepare" action (specific to greataxes) is a solid option, just make it add (say) half your proficiency bonus to damage on one single damage roll you inflict during the turn, rather than every hit. Instant useful bonus action, modest but clear benefit, very straightforward. "When in doubt, Prepare; but if you have some other use for your Bonus Action, you probably want to use it."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9849553, member: 6790260"] I'd say there's no "seems" about it. It [I]is[/I] a wild stance. Bonus actions serve a vital function, just as their predecessors, Minor and Swift actions, did. Sometimes, you want to be able to do a thing as a ride-along thing people can attempt to do, but you don't want to allow 17 different ride-along effects. It's extremely useful to be able to say "this is something that happens [I]around[/I] your Proper Action, but doesn't take up your whole ability to do stuff." Doing it any other way creates enormous headaches and needless complexity. Are Bonus Actions more complicated than simply not having them at all, and nixing anything that would need such a thing? Yes, of course, [I]doing[/I] something is always going to be more complex than [I]not[/I] doing anything at all. But it is a very small step up in complexity, in exchange for simplifying a BAZILLION other things that would've been horribly clunky and ugly. This just gets to the heart of my criticisms of the hyperminimalist design stance. That is, just as it is true that "less is more" sometimes--that is, you can [I]occasionally[/I] make gains by making do with fewer components--it's also true that sometimes [I]more is less[/I], that is, by adding just a little bit of complexity in one space, you can eliminate ENORMOUS amounts of complexity in a bunch of other places. Removing the Bonus/Minor/Swift action would be penny-wise, pound-foolish design--and if Mearls cannot recognize that, I need to re-evaluate my already not-super-great opinion of his design chops. Incidentally, I personally think the preoccupation with bending over backward to emphasize that Bonus Actions aren't required is silly. The simpler way is to give everyone a really obvious, basic, but useful Bonus Action they can always fall back on if they don't have any other option. BG3's "Prepare" action (specific to greataxes) is a solid option, just make it add (say) half your proficiency bonus to damage on one single damage roll you inflict during the turn, rather than every hit. Instant useful bonus action, modest but clear benefit, very straightforward. "When in doubt, Prepare; but if you have some other use for your Bonus Action, you probably want to use it." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Bonus Action Conversion
Top