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.

 

[SkidAce]

seems like a broken record here on Enworld, but can we get a source on this? as Just posting this does mean anyhting without some source for the words he said, sigh...

However, here yah go...

https://twitter.com/mikemearls

 

[Vampyr3]

However, here yah go...

https://twitter.com/mikemearls

Thanks, at least it has context now, other then jumbled text with red letters...

Keep forgetting to drink the koolaid before I browse here.. must correct that...

 

[Caliban]

Thanks, at least it has context now, other then jumbled text with red letters...

Keep forgetting to drink the koolaid before I browse here.. must correct that...

At the very least, it would make you less needy and whiny when you don't get what you want right away.

 

[Caliban]

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.

Yeah. You can live without a lot of stuff, doesn't mean everyone else wants to.

 

[Andrew C]

I like the bonus action. I can all to easily see special attack manoeuvre, and the special movement manoeuvre feature, and then racial or class special manoeuvre creeping in and making some complex.

The iniative system on the table Mike Mentioned added up for more to players and DMs to remember thereby increasing the barrier of entry to D&D.

 

[Desh-Rae-Halra]

I'm ready and formally asking for 6th Edition

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm ready and formally asking for 6th Edition

Whereas I'm on the verge of going back to AD&D (2nd ed).

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

you can sense in places that the Bonus action has been taged onto the system.

For example if you look at class abilities they often use the wording using a bonus action on your turn. but other only refer to as a bonus action
This diference in wording seems to sugest you mght be able to use bonus actions outside of your turn, why else state that certain bonus actions can only be taken on your turn?.

But the rules for bonus actions already say that bonus actions are taken on your turn, meaning that for example you can't ready a bonus action.

 

[Hussar]

I do see what he's saying. It's not always readily apparent what's going on in the game when things get confused between action and bonus action. It gets particularly problematic when you have classes that sometimes juggle their bonus action. A two weapon fighting rogue, for example. Hardly a rare thing. But, if you make your second attack, you can't take your rogue bonus action. We've tripped on that one more than a few times where the rogue has tried to take too many actions.

It's not as clear cut as it could be. Imagine rogues where it says, "After you attack, you may, if you wish, do X, Y or Z". Simply remove the competition for bonus actions.

Even things like extra attacks. Ok, Barbarian gets multiple attacks. Cool. Then he gets a bonus action attack because of his Frenzy. No problem. But, wait! He has Great Weapon Fighting, which grants bonus action attacks when you kill something. It can get confusing.

 

[Dragonblade]

To be fair, Mearls said "We are nowhere near that now" in referring to a new edition.

My biggest issue with 5e is the lack of self-contained stat blocks. Monsters and NPCs with spells I have a look up is just poor design, IMO. I'd love to see a variant Monster Manual with self-contained stat blocks, an official Tome of Battle 5e conversion, and a 5e book on crafting, kingdom/domain management, and castle-building. Then I would truly have the ultimate perfect edition that I would play until the end of time.