log in or register to remove this ad

 

6E 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.
 

Comments

Hussar

Legend
I would never explain that to a casual player because it's wrong.

I get my reaction back on my turn. If I cast a spell and it gets countered I can use my reaction to cast counter spell.
But, it does get wonkier.

On PC's Turn, PC casts a bonus spell and the Opponent casts Counterspell. The PC uses his reaction to cast Counterspell of the Counterspell. PC's turn ends. Opponent then casts spell on PC, but, PC cannot counter spell because he's already used his reaction on his turn and it won't refresh until his next turn. It can be a bit confusing.

To be fair though, this is a pretty rare thing to come up.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

But, it does get wonkier.

On PC's Turn, PC casts a bonus spell and the Opponent casts Counterspell. The PC uses his reaction to cast Counterspell of the Counterspell. PC's turn ends. Opponent then casts spell on PC, but, PC cannot counter spell because he's already used his reaction on his turn and it won't refresh until his next turn. It can be a bit confusing.

To be fair though, this is a pretty rare thing to come up.
You can't do the part in bold. It's illegal to cast another spell on the turn when you've cast a bonus action spell. Dausuul is correct.
 


Henry

Autoexreginated
I'm still not sure why people are getting tripped up on bonus actions, or these anecdotes with people accidentally tyrong to take too many bonus actions - you get ONE. If it says, "bonus action" you can't do another one your turn.

One thing that makes me worry about the way Mike Mearls words the removal of bonus actions is where he says that they can be worded into other abilities. It makes me worry about re-introducing the 4th Edition "special power" problem, where if I have this special ability I can do this special thing -but what if I don't have the special ability? Can I no longer trip somebody because I don't have the "trip somebody" power? What about two-weapon attacks, if I don't have the "dual wield" ability? I'd have to see it in play, but I'm afraid replacing ONE variable thing with 1,092 hard-coded things would lead to a much more complicated game than intended. It would be like in a computer program removing the variable reference for a file name and replacing with hard-coded instances of that file name in every location, leaving a bigger mess when trying to remove complexity.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
You can't do the part in bold. It's illegal to cast another spell on the turn when you've cast a bonus action spell. Dausuul is correct.
Both wrong. If both spellls were cantrips you can counterspell IIRC. Now I have to reread the phb as I could be wrong.
 

Both wrong. If both spellls were cantrips you can counterspell IIRC. Now I have to reread the phb as I could be wrong.
You might want to check the rules BEFORE loudly proclaiming other people to be wrong. In this case, you're wrong.

http://www.5esrd.com/spellcasting/ said:
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
Counterspell is not a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action, therefore it cannot be cast in the same turn as a bonus action spell.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
You might want to check the rules BEFORE loudly proclaiming other people to be wrong. In this case, you're wrong.



Counterspell is not a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action, therefore it cannot be cast in the same turn as a bonus action spell.

Counterspell is not cast on your turn though. Same round maybe thats why I said I wanted to check the rules.
 

schnee

First Post
Fine. Weasel out of it. ;)

And personally I am not attached to the bonus action. I'm just not willing to get rid of it, just for the sake of getting rid of it. His current suggestion of "Just make a bunch if individual actions" doesn't sound like a good solution to me. Instead of learning a couple general rules, you will need to learn potentially hundreds of separate special rules, some with their own little corner case.

Here are so other suggestions.

1. Don't get rid of bonus actions, but reduce where not needed. Two weapon fighting seems like one of the biggest offenders*.
2. Make a clear list of actions and bonus actions. Include a chart in the book. Make space on the character sheet to list the action type.
3. Eliminate special exceptions. Do you really need to limit casters to a cantrip with a bonus action spell? I have yet to see a really broken combo. And it will just burn you spell slots faster.

*The real problem with removing the bonus action from two weapon fighting is that they added a style and a feat to boost it up to make up for the fact that it requires a bonus action. Now if you take it away it is unbalanced. If you just tone down the power of the style and feat you can get rid of the bonus action requirement and it is fine.
Yeah, those are all legit criticisms / considerations.

Two weapon fighting has never really worked well enough from what I can tell (I missed 4E so take that for what it's worth) so if this forces a re-write of that as well it'd be worth it.

But, #2... a clear chart? In one place? With organized information in one place? This is D&D we're talking about. It's not the game unless you have to string together a chain of five page flips and two glossary cross-references to understand what's actually going on.
 


Engstrom

First Post
I've only just got back into D&D after 20+ years away. I splurged on the 5e PHB, DMG and MM. By doing this I can GUARANTEE you there will be a new version within a year :)
 

Enendill

Villager
Well, he did say we would get a 6th edition when GMs and players ask for it.....maybe Mearls should walk that back a little :)
He has responded in Twitter already (link for that in the previous comments) that this will NOT happen anytime soon. So, there you go.

I'm surprised by the fact that there are so many people wanting a new edition already (not only in this thread). We are three years into 5e and even 4e (that has received so much hate) has survived a hefty seven years in the market. There has not been any "expanded rules" book yet (this might be "Midway", coming in late Fall) and generally the official content is low. So, why the hate? Especially for an edition that agility and ease of use are it core characteristics and after the OGL has been out, there have been a LOT of third party content.
 

Osgood

Explorer
While I wholly reject the idea of a 6th editions, I'm not opposed to a 5th edition update... but not a "5.5"!

I think 3.5 really ruined the idea for an official edition update: It was a new edition, they just didn't want to call it such. I think the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 were on par with the differences between 1e and 2e, but it was too soon to change editions. The .5 moniker doesn't help; it implies significant changes (which 3.5 certainly had).

I think it would be better to put out a 5.1 PHB, with an updated Ranger, revised downtime rules, some rule clarifications, etc., but was still fully compatible with the previous version, it would be better received than a whole new set of core rules. Maybe 10 years down the line we're working off MM 5.1 and PHB 5.3, but the fundamental game is the same, so someone can still use the original 2014 rule books with the latest classic Dark Sun or Planescape adventure that they've wedged into the Forgotten Realms somehow.
 


Horwath

Hero
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.
action economy is more or less the same as 4E and 3.5e

Bonus action=4E minor action=3.5e swift action.

only difference that Attack of opportunity "eats" reaction while in 3.5e and 4E was on separate action counter(IMHO better solution before, helped melee characters to hold the line better).

it's too early for 6th edition. But some revamp of the rules could happen into so-called D&D 5.5E. With the more or less same framework but better balance and more/better options for characters.

5E is great and IMHO best edition ever, but as with all things, it can get better.
 

Dausuul

Legend
Counterspell is not cast on your turn though. Same round maybe thats why I said I wanted to check the rules.
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MechaTarrasque

Adventurer
The bonus action spells part interests me. For paladin, you could go "you get X divine smites per day [X changes by level], and the divine smite does Y damage or Y-Z damage plus some other effect [Y, Z, and list of other effect options vary by level]" and then make the other paladin spells oath boons (example, kill an undead, and you get a horse), since there won't be many spells left (not enough to be worth it as a half caster). For warlock, I would make hex move automatically to the closest enemy to the one you hexed if the target drops to 0 hit points. I will have to think about hunter's mark.
 

Counterspell is not cast on your turn though. Same round maybe thats why I said I wanted to check the rules.
It's not normally cast on your turn, but in this context it is: you're Counter-Counterspelling a Counterspell against a spell that you're casting. This is legal if you're casting a spell with an action, but if you're casting it with a bonus action (e.g. Misty Step, Sanctuary, Quickened anything). Your turn has not ended, so it occurs on your turn.
 

guachi

Explorer
You can't do the part in bold. It's illegal to cast another spell on the turn when you've cast a bonus action spell. Dausuul is correct.
It's what I get for posting late at night. The reasoning in the rules makes no sense, though. Bonus Action spells are "especially swift". So fast you have enough time to cast a cantrip. Action spells are slower, so you can't cast a cantrip. But you still have enough time to cast a Reaction spell, implying Reaction spells are faster than cantrips. So if you cast a Bonus Action spell you can cast a slower Cantrip but not faster Reaction spell.

Though the presence or absence of bonus actions doesn't have bearing on rules that are illogically applied.
 


It's what I get for posting late at night. The reasoning in the rules makes no sense, though. Bonus Action spells are "especially swift". So fast you have enough time to cast a cantrip. Action spells are slower, so you can't cast a cantrip. But you still have enough time to cast a Reaction spell, implying Reaction spells are faster than cantrips. So if you cast a Bonus Action spell you can cast a slower Cantrip but not faster Reaction spell.

Though the presence or absence of bonus actions doesn't have bearing on rules that are illogically applied.

Which is why in my case (I've never seen a PC cast counterspell in one of my games, and even if they did I rarely have them go up against magic-users so I've rarely had to have NPCs use Counterspell.) and I'll assume quite a few others, we just set reaction spells off to the side and have them castable as long as you have a reaction and ignore the whole bonus action/action distinction.

It is the intent I'd say, because bonus action spell limits are only meant to prevent spellcasters from doubling up on spells.

Though, I also wonder what bonus action spell is so important to counter and counter-counter, for a wizard most bonus action spells aren't worth also loosing as counterspell are they?
 

NOW LIVE! 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement1

Latest threads

NOW LIVE! 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top