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.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

On Shadow Monk/Rogues: Away from my book, but they can already shadow step and hide. If shadow step is an action, they can cunning action hide, if it is a bonus action they can just use their action to hide.

What they cannot do is shadow step, attack and hide, or something similar that requires 3 separate actions.

Yes, exactly. They cannot Shadow Step + Cunning Action (Hide). Even someone who is trained in being a sneaky ninja both magically (Shadow Monk) and nonmagically (Rogue) cannot, for some reason, prevent someone from losing track of his position while he teleports from one shadow to another shadow. It's actually easier for him to make someone lose track of his position if he physically walks from point A to point B. This despite the fact that Shadow Step even has explicit language implying the people lose track of where you're going when you teleport (you get advantage on your next melee attack). Apparently you're not automatically hidden just by Shadow Stepping, presumably because you make some noise or something, but rogues are supposed to be good at moving silently. If any two abilities ever made sense to use simultaneously, Shadow Step + Cunning Action (Hide) are those two abilities.

In a system where bonus actions didn't exist per se--if actions were written following the current UA trend--both of these would probably be compatible. Each of them would likely be written as something like, "When you move on your turn, you can Hide as part of that movement, provided you are sufficiently obscured from view (per usual Hiding rules)" or "When you move on your turn, you can instantaneously teleport between two shadows up to 60' apart as part of that movement."

The design as it stands allows the player to make decisions on what actions are compatible for them, without the game designers writing it all out and then us saying "Why can't I shadow step and then pull the lever, shouldn't I be able to do that", "Well, I used my action to try and escape and failed, but that action wasn't tied to a special action like Inspire, so I guess my turn is over", and on and on. You can't write every possible interaction in, so leave it as a piece and let the players but them together.

And yet, now you have that problem anyway with Shadow Step + Cunning Action (Hide), per above, because of bonus actions all being tied to the same resource, regardless of whether or not they should be. Being lazy in the design didn't solve anything.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Yet another example of the kind of clunkiness Mearls apparently regrets in bonus actions.

I alluded to this in my above post, but I'll state it more directly: from what you've said and what Mearls says, I do not think you two are on the same wavelength at all here.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Yes, exactly. They cannot Shadow Step + Cunning Action (Hide). Even someone who is trained in being a sneaky ninja both magically (Shadow Monk) and nonmagically (Rogue) cannot, for some reason, prevent someone from losing track of his position while he teleports from one shadow to another shadow. It's actually easier for him to make someone lose track of his position if he physically walks from point A to point B.

There are other abilities which allow you to spend movement to teleport. The fact that Shadow Step is a bonus action and not a form of movement denotes that, yes, it does take more effort to do that than just to walk. I find it odd that you're claiming this interaction is so implausible when it involves a magical ability we have no real-life basis for understanding.

Also, the rules for stealth and the Hide action are a weak point in 5E's design, so consider whether your problem here is really with them.

...Shadow Step even has explicit language implying...

Huh?

In a system where bonus actions didn't exist per se--if actions were written following the current UA trend--both of these would probably be compatible. Each of them would likely be written as something like, "When you move on your turn, you can Hide as part of that movement, provided you are sufficiently obscured from view (per usual Hiding rules)" or "When you move on your turn, you can instantaneously teleport between two shadows up to 60' apart as part of that movement."

And then players would be incentivized to stack as many "When you do X" triggers as possible on their turns, which would be more gamist and slower than the current state of affairs.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I alluded to this in my above post, but I'll state it more directly: from what you've said and what Mearls says, I do not think you two are on the same wavelength at all here.

To be clear: you don't think Mearls has noticed that the various rules for bonus actions are counterintuitive and often misunderstood, even by those who purpose to be rules experts? (Multiple bonus actions, readying bonus actions, interchanging actions and bonus actions, spells with bonus actions.) On what evidence do you base this opinion of yours? I showed part of my evidence above by juxtaposing an incorrect rules claim about bonus actions with a correction from JeremyCrawford.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, exactly. They cannot Shadow Step + Cunning Action (Hide). Even someone who is trained in being a sneaky ninja both magically (Shadow Monk) and nonmagically (Rogue) cannot, for some reason, prevent someone from losing track of his position while he teleports from one shadow to another shadow.

What the heck are you talking about?

Bonus Action: Shadow Step
Action: Hide

This is a completely legal turn. You can do this, what makes you think this is something you cannot do.

Are you forgetting that pg 192 explicitly lists “Hide” as a valid action choice? If you are, that is not a problem with bonus action, that is a problem with Actions being listed in such a far flung corner of the book that most players don’t read them.

This issue does not exist, unless you think using Cunning Action to hide is somehow better than taking the hide action. What you want exists in the game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And then players would be incentivized to stack as many "When you do X" triggers as possible on their turns, which would be more gamist and slower than the current state of affairs.

If this were true, you'd already be seeing it happen in 5E with its existing action economy. Everybody would be dipping Ranger 3 to take Horde Breaker so they could stack on extra attacks at no bonus action cost, and Paladin 2 so they could add smites.

In reality, this doesn't happen. Why do you think that is?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What the heck are you talking about?

Bonus Action: Shadow Step
Action: Hide

This is a completely legal turn. You can do this, what makes you think this is something you cannot do.

Are you forgetting that pg 192 explicitly lists “Hide” as a valid action choice? If you are, that is not a problem with bonus action, that is a problem with Actions being listed in such a far flung corner of the book that most players don’t read them.

This issue does not exist, unless you think using Cunning Action to hide is somehow better than taking the hide action. What you want exists in the game.

There's some kind of disconnect here. Every time I write "Cunning Action (Hide)", you seem to think that I've written "Hide", and you refute that misinterpretation. I'm sure it's unintentional on your part, but that's still a form of attacking a strawman.

Let me use your own example and see if that gets through.

Action: Attack
Bonus Action: Shadow Step
Bonus Action: Cunning Action (Hide)

This is a completely illegal turn because bonus actions are a global resource; however, from a fictional perspective it makes perfect sense. (Indeed, from a fictional perspective it's hard to justify enemies not losing track of your position even with Shadow Step alone, particularly if you teleport out of their line of sight. If the shadow monk is also skilled at moving silently in tandem with other activities (Cunning Action (Hide)) it strains credibility even more.)

Shadow Step already even includes something akin to hiding: you get advantage on your next melee attack, presumably because you're attacking from an unexpected direction. Therefore, the idea that Shadow Stepping makes your Cunning Action (Hide) less effective (inoperable) instead of more effective is counterintuitive from an in-world perspective. It only makes sense if you are thinking at a metagame level and counting Bonus Actions because that's what the rules say to do.

This curious anti-synergy would not naturally emerge if the rules team had not already been thinking in terms of Bonus Actions and one Bonus Action per turn.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There's some kind of disconnect here. Every time I write "Cunning Action (Hide)", you seem to think that I've written "Hide", and you refute that misinterpretation. I'm sure it's unintentional on your part, but that's still a form of attacking a strawman.

Let me use your own example and see if that gets through.

Action: Attack
Bonus Action: Shadow Step
Bonus Action: Cunning Action (Hide)

This is a completely illegal turn because bonus actions are a global resource; however, from a fictional perspective it makes perfect sense. (Indeed, from a fictional perspective it's hard to justify enemies not losing track of your position even with Shadow Step alone, particularly if you teleport out of their line of sight. If the shadow monk is also skilled at moving silently in tandem with other activities (Cunning Action (Hide)) it strains credibility even more.)

Shadow Step already even includes something akin to hiding: you get advantage on your next melee attack, presumably because you're attacking from an unexpected direction. Therefore, the idea that Shadow Stepping makes your Cunning Action (Hide) less effective (inoperable) instead of more effective is counterintuitive from an in-world perspective. It only makes sense if you are thinking at a metagame level and counting Bonus Actions because that's what the rules say to do.

This curious anti-synergy would not naturally emerge if the rules team had not already been thinking in terms of Bonus Actions and one Bonus Action per turn.

I never saw you mention using your action to attack. You just kept talking about Cunning Action and Shadow Step, neither of which necessarily involves the attack action. If I missed it, I apologize.


Now your argument makes more sense, but I think this falls more under stealth rules being wonky than bonus actions being wonky.

Someone hits you and disappears in a cloud of smoke. You cannot see them, where did they go?

Personally, I'm not going to have the enemy know they reappeared behind pillar #3 out of sight, because logically, they have no way to know that information. Giving Shadow Step a free hide in that situation seems perfectly legitimate to me, but I can see where it causes problems.

You could even say it is a problem with Shadow step, perhaps it should have been written that you get advantage on your next attack or you can make a stealth roll to hide, to allow for the ninja who attacks and disappears without a trace. None of that makes bonus actions not work.

 

[briggart]

This curious anti-synergy would not naturally emerge if the rules team had not already been thinking in terms of Bonus Actions and one Bonus Action per turn.

You seem to think that bonus actions competing against each other is a bug of the system, I believe that the designers (at least Crawford, based on some comments he made) see it as a feature, as it keep the spotlight moving around between players. In that case, I don't think that a different system would actually solve the issue, as there would still be rules in place to limit how many things a character can do in a single turn, and prevent players taking too long.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If this were true, you'd already be seeing it happen in 5E with its existing action economy. Everybody would be dipping Ranger 3 to take Horde Breaker so they could stack on extra attacks at no bonus action cost, and Paladin 2 so they could add smites.

In reality, this doesn't happen. Why do you think that is?

I'm not just talking about optimized multiclass builds (although that does happen, and would happen a lot more if every non-action ability worked like this instead of costing the bonus action). I'm talking about players stopping every turn to think, "Okay, I've acted with my main hand, but now what can I do with my off-hand? My voice? My feet?" This pause-to-ponder was a common complaint about the 4E action economy -- "What can I do with my minor action? What can I do with my reaction?" -- and it's probably the single biggest reason Mearls & Co. tried so hard to banish the minor/bonus action from 5E. Mearls' vision of the ideal D&D round seems to be everyone saying, "I do this one thing, I move, next!" quick, quick, quick. You, on the other hand, are effectively saying that one bonus action per turn is not enough. You may have similar complaints about the status quo, but you're advocating pushing the system in diametrically opposite directions.