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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9851065" data-attributes="member: 6790260">They were trying. "Minor" action wasn't enough to inherently induce readers' brains to think that it wasn't something they HAD to be consuming 100% of the time. That's precisely why they called them "Bonus" actions, because they thought that would inherently make readers think that it was a Special Bonus Thing Not Expected Most Of The Time.I can promise you, linguistic gymnastics to make players not think they "should" be using a resource they have won't work. It hasn't for three editions running; it's not going to start now. Call it "special", call it "extra", call it whatever you like; players will still think it's something they have and are wasting if they don't do something with it.This is why I recommend instead making a really really simple beneficial thing players can always do with their <Insert Name Of Choice Here> Action, so that they never feel punished for not having something better to do with it. "You deal +(Prof/2) damage with one damage roll this turn" is simple, straightforward, and always usable in any context where the player, y'know, dealt damage. And if they did no damage, they're not exactly going to be hungering for a bonus action thing after that, are they? Anything else, even a mere singular attack, would be better than the aforementioned action--even when you're doing +3 extra damage, that's a pittance compared to what you're pumping out at that point, and your regular melee attacks (amongst other options) should have an expected value WELL above a mere +3.Don't try to reprogram human brains to think in a new way. Because it will never work; that's not how humans respond to information. Instead, accept what the human brains are doing, and try to find a way to short the analysis-paralysis circuit by giving an easily-memorized, basic, nice-but-not-necessary option. Is it ideal? No, but neither is the human mind. Better designers than you and I have tried to solve this problem and failed, miserably. It's not worth trying to solve. Design around it instead.</blockquote>

Verification