D&D (2024) Mike Mearls “…it’s now obvious how to live without Bonus Actions”' And 6th Edition When Players Ask

With all due respect to Mike Mearls, he is wrong. The action economy in 5th Edition is beautifully designed, and I wouldn't change a thing about it.

 

[discosoc]

What do bonus actions actually do to enhance the game? I see most people here seem to like them, but I don't really understand what problem they solve.

 

[Krachek]

MM talk about wording of the rules with bonus action.
I'm very curious to see how he would write down the "cunning action" rule without bonus action!
Maybe a rogue will to able to hide, disengage, make a off-hand attack, all in the same round!
Until we see the most complex case we cant tell much about its 'better and simpler solution'.

 

[gyor]

I think people need to see the full details of Mike Mearl proposal before anyone can fully judge it, so hopefully it ends up a UA, but so far I'm intrigued.

 

[lkj]

MM talk about wording of the rules with bonus action.
I'm very curious to see how he would write down the "cunning action" rule without bonus action!
Maybe a rogue will to able to hide, disengage, make a off-hand attack, all in the same round!
Until we see the most complex case we cant tell much about its 'better and simpler solution'.

The impression I get is that you would just make Cunning Action an action you can take. "As a Cunning Action you can make a weapon atttack as well as do one of the following: hide, disengage, etc'"

Two weapon fighting would be its own action. "As an action, you can attack with two weapons."

So, the player just chooses an Action for his character during a given round, from a short list of actions. There's no wondering about how a bonus action might be tied to it. No trying to figure out if you can use one of your bonus actions. You just take the action and everything you can do with it is built in.

Another example: A bonus action spell rather than referring to other rules would just say. "When you cast this spell, you can also cast a cantrip or make an attack" No need for extra rules where the bonus action spells have their own subsystem.

Honestly, the more I think about it the more I like it.

AD

 

[jgsugden]

While you can use bonus actions as a mechanic, as Mearls suggests, they're not necessary. All we're talking about is the packaging of the activities PCs are allowed to take and - as he implicitly notes - there is no reason to muddy the waters with multiple types of actions when you can just make more packages that include the right activities.

Making packages that explicitly include all the combinations of activities that a PC can take gives the game designers greater control and less risk of abusive combinations. As such, I prefer the simplicity of it to the status quo.

However, I also think there is room to go to the other extreme and also improve on the status quo. Instead of simplifying, give players 'action points' to use each round which can be used to move, attack, cast spells, etc.. on your turn - or saved to do reactions on another creature's turn if the qualifying trigger is met.

Then give actions and reactions action point costs that may change as PCs gain levels and gets better at doing things. Let's say that moving 5' costs 1 AP. Attacking with a heavy weapon takes 11 AP - unless you've a fighting class that has advanced to the point where the cost is reduced. Attacking with a dagger might take 8 AP. If the dagger is in your off hand and you attack with the main hand, that second AP cost is reduced by 4. Casting a spell has a specified AP - some of our weaker combat spells in the PHB could be buffed with low APs to make them competitive. Each turn you get X AP to spend - which might be increased by a haste spell, reduced by a slow spell, reduced by exhaustion, etc... This gets really complex, which usually means harder to balance to avoid abusive combinations, but it offers a more comprehensive situation as well with more detail.

I prefer both approaches to the current, but they're pretty far in opposite directions.

 

[Warpiglet]

I would be more than happy to purchase some rules modules that could be bolted on as optional rules to include those concerning bonus actions.

I would not be able to support a new addition in order to incorporate this.

I want and need backward compatibility if any of this sees light of day.

I find it almost incomprehensible that anyone is pushing for a new edition at this point. As such, I hope "when players ask for it" is analogous to when "Phlegethos freezes over."

I am a fanboy on some level but for St. Cuthbert's sake already!

 

[jgsugden]

I feel like the thread is a bit misleading on the idea of '6th edition' - the current product release process points towards a long run for this edition. I would be surprised to see 6th edition before 2025 - and nothing in Mearl's words makes me think he believes otherwise. His comments, IMO, are along the lines of, "I have a better idea than bonus actions now, but I can't put them in the game until we get a new edition and that isn't going to happen until players demand it - which we're not even close to seeing, yet."

 

[Staffan]

His comments, IMO, are along the lines of, "I have a better idea than bonus actions now, but I can't put them in the game until we get a new edition and that isn't going to happen until players demand it - which we're not even close to seeing, yet."

Exactly. I mean, I'm sure they have a 6th ed product file over at Wizards, and have had one since before the release of the 5e PHB, but right now it's just a bin where they put crazy ideas they think would be cool but not fit as add-ons to the current game.

 

[Lord Twig]

The impression I get is that you would just make Cunning Action an action you can take. "As a Cunning Action you can make a weapon atttack as well as do one of the following: hide, disengage, etc'"

Two weapon fighting would be its own action. "As an action, you can attack with two weapons."

So, the player just chooses an Action for his character during a given round, from a short list of actions. There's no wondering about how a bonus action might be tied to it. No trying to figure out if you can use one of your bonus actions. You just take the action and everything you can do with it is built in.

Another example: A bonus action spell rather than referring to other rules would just say. "When you cast this spell, you can also cast a cantrip or make an attack" No need for extra rules where the bonus action spells have their own subsystem.

Honestly, the more I think about it the more I like it.

AD

Currently you can preform any standard action and perform a Cunning Action as a bonus action. Your method would exclude everything but an attack. Your bonus action spell would exclude everything but an attack or cantrip. If you don't want to reduce the players options you still need standard actions.

So something like "When you use Cunning Action you may use the Hide, Disengage or Use an Object action in addition to a second standard action." Or something like that.

But really why bother? This will just lead to a thousand and one "special actions" when bonus actions already account for all of those one thousand and one cases.

And are bonus actions really that hard? Or is it all the limitations that are stacked on top of them. Really it is stupid simple. You get one bonus action. Can you use Cunning Action and Second Wind on the same turn? No, they are both bonus actions.

You get a bonus attack from two weapon fighting and a bonus attack from flurry of blows. They are both bonus actions. You can only use one. Second Wind is also a bonus action. You only have one bonus action per turn. So you can not use Second Wind and get a bonus attack from either two weapon fighting or flurry of blows. Or use any other bonus action. Because you can only use one per turn. Honestly I just don't comprehend how it could get any simpler.

You cast a bonus action spell and still have your regular action. So go head and take any standard action in addition to it... Except another standard spell, you can only cast a cantrip if you use a bonus action spell. Okay this is a corner case and can be hard to remember and I get that. But the problem is not the bonus action. It is the limit on additional spell casting.

 

[ccs]

I feel like the thread is a bit misleading on the idea of '6th edition' - the current product release process points towards a long run for this edition. I would be surprised to see 6th edition before 2025 - and nothing in Mearl's words makes me think he believes otherwise. His comments, IMO, are along the lines of, "I have a better idea than bonus actions now, but I can't put them in the game until we get a new edition and that isn't going to happen until players demand it - which we're not even close to seeing, yet."

2024. D&D turns 50. You'll see something then.