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.

 

[guachi]

The example someone used on Twitter when they asked Crawford was the Misty Step spell. I guess if you really, really needed to get away and had nothing else?

I'm not certain what the RAI is. I assume it was the intent and not adding "can also cast a spell as a reaction" was an oversight. But they didn't change it in the errata. Instead, we get a rule that's illogical.

 

[Zardnaar]

It is cast on your turn if you're counter-countering to protect your own spell.

1. You cast a spell on your turn.
2. Saruvoldeminster casts counterspell to stop you.
3. You counterspell the counterspell, allowing the spell from #1 to take effect normally.

All this happens in a single turn, and is perfectly normal spell-dueling tactics, unless the spell you cast in #1 is a bonus-action spell. In that case, you can't do #3 because counterspell is not a cantrip.

Anyway, this whole debate is proving my point about the bonus action rules being hacky and clunky. If the folks on this board are confused, what hope is there for Joe Average Player?

Yeah I think the intent was to stop some of the shenanigans of 3.5 in terms of casting multiple spells or with Sorcerers using the quicken option.

Has flow on effects so using the counterspell example you can cast the bonus action spell after you have done the counterspelling thing but not at the start of the turn.

I saw 1 newb dig a hole for himself with PAM+Rage+hex (Barbartian/Warlock) and my players do not really understand the Monk that well for example.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I'm intrigued by the idea of getting rid of bonus actions I'd like to see a UA about it.

As of right now, I'd settle for making some things that don't make sense as bonus actions just made into things you do for free. For example, entering a Rage.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

There is no need for a new edition, it's part of the appeal of this version that it can incorporate elements from all previous editions pretty well.

We have everyone more-or-less agreeing again. I utterly fail to see what good another edition would bring, other than Hasbro making more money from everyone buying new copies of the core books. Even that is a mixed blessing, since doing that constantly turns off buyers. First edition AD&D lasted from 1978 (when the DMG was at last out) to 1989, second edition from 1989 to 2000, then third from 2000 to 2008. Granted that fourth was a failure and the plug pulled on it early, we're talking about ten years between editions. So please, no new editions until 2024.

 

[Zardnaar]

We have everyone more-or-less agreeing again. I utterly fail to see what good another edition would bring, other than Hasbro making more money from everyone buying new copies of the core books. Even that is a mixed blessing, since doing that constantly turns off buyers. First edition AD&D lasted from 1978 (when the DMG was at last out) to 1989, second edition from 1989 to 2000, then third from 2000 to 2008. Granted that fourth was a failure and the plug pulled on it early, we're talking about ten years between editions. So please, no new editions until 2024.

1E argueably lasted 1977 to 1990 as it was reprinted after 2E launched.

BECMI in various versions lasted 77 to 96.

 

[Argyle King]

I feel like the way 4E's action economy was broken down would fit 5E pretty well.

Instead of bonus actions, bring back Minor actions. Then allow trading actions down, but not up. For example, an action can be turned into either a move or a minor. A move can be turned into a minor. A minor cannot be turned into a move. A move cannot be turned into an action.

 

[Olive]

I liked the Unearthed Arcana book for 3.5e and while it's way to early for that in this game, I would be happy with a big book of possible rules that included getting rid of bonus actions, new initiative etc. But I'm not interested in a 5.5 that makes those part of the rules and I don't think we'll see that.

 

[Zardnaar]

I feel like the way 4E's action economy was broken down would fit 5E pretty well.

Instead of bonus actions, bring back Minor actions. Then allow trading actions down, but not up. For example, an action can be turned into either a move or a minor. A move can be turned into a minor. A minor cannot be turned into a move. A move cannot be turned into an action.

Thats a thing 5E improves on over 4th. Multiple bonus actions would break 5E.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Thats a thing 5E improves on over 4th. Multiple bonus actions would break 5E.

Would it? I've been wondering if I allowed people to use a bonus action instead of an action if it would harm anything. I haven't thought of a single thing that being allowed to use two bonus actions, instead of an action and bonus action would break (especially since you still can't do two bonus action spells and most mundane bonus actions are actions anyways)


Unless you are talking people being able to use five or six bonus action, then yeah, that'd start breaking things right quick

 

[briggart]

It is cast on your turn if you're counter-countering to protect your own spell.

1. You cast a spell on your turn.
2. Saruvoldeminster casts counterspell to stop you.
3. You counterspell the counterspell, allowing the spell from #1 to take effect normally.

All this happens in a single turn, and is perfectly normal spell-dueling tactics, unless the spell you cast in #1 is a bonus-action spell. In that case, you can't do #3 because counterspell is not a cantrip.

Anyway, this whole debate is proving my point about the bonus action rules being hacky and clunky. If the folks on this board are confused, what hope is there for Joe Average Player?

It seems to me that the confusion here is mostly about Reactions, not Bonus Actions, so not sure it actually proves your point

Kidding aside, I personally agree that Bonus Actions can create some confusing situations, but I don't think it has to do with the idea itself, rather with the specific design choices of 5e. Sticking to the example you are discussing, Bonus Action spells could have been worded to limit what spells you can cast with your Action, rather than limit the spells you can cast on your turn. And I think this was done on purpose, it's not some unexpected consequence of having Bonus Actions in the game.