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]

Bonus actions are best when using one isn't contingent on anything else, like Cunning Action or a Bonus Action spell.

I do like, however, that even in situations where a Bonus Action is a rider upon some Action that Bonus Actions keep the Action economy from spiraling out of control. I can do a cool thing a secondary cool thing and maybe a reactive cool thing. Sure , you can get decision paralysis trying to mix and match Actions and Bonus Actions but it's not any worse than a spell caster having lots of spells to choose from.

Bonus Actions is the worst form of kludge except for all the other kludges they could have added.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I find it incredibly amusing seeing the people saying "No 6th edition! But if you do do it, at least get rid of Mike Mearls!" Because if you don't want a new edition because you love 5E that much... the VERY LAST THING you should want is someone OTHER than Mike Mearls in charge with designing 6E. Cause you're going to get a MUCH WIDER divergence of 6E from 5E under new leadership than you would if Mike was in charge of "cleaning up" 5E into 6th.

I mean come on... you got the 5E you wanted and love BECAUSE Mike Mearls was the lead designer on it. And now you want to throw him to the curb? Yeah, that makes sense. Talk about baby and bathwater and all that.

Unless of course those of you who want Mike thrown overboard are the 4E diehardists... in which case yeah, I can understand why you'd want him gone. Cause the only way you're ever going to see a return to a 4E style game IS IF you replace Mike with someone who aligns more closely to 4E. If that's the case, then sure, demand Mike's head all you want. It's really your only hope.

 

[Jer]

Unless of course those of you who want Mike thrown overboard are the 4E diehardists... in which case yeah, I can understand why you'd want him gone. Cause the only way you're ever going to see a return to a 4E style game IS IF you replace Mike with someone who aligns more closely to 4E. If that's the case, then sure, demand Mike's head all you want. It's really your only hope.

Meh - 4e is never coming back. It was a marketing mistake that they're never going to go back to. It doesn't matter that it had some really good innovations (especially on the DM's side of things) - the way the edition was handled means that it doesn't matter who you get in that lead designer role - 4e won't be back.

 

[TallIan]

...SNIP...
I can understand mearls though. Abilities like the orc aggressive could easily written as: as an action the orc may move 30 ft when taking the attack action.
Charger feat could be when taking the dash action you may make a single attack with a +5 bonus. OR You can spend your action to...
Putting the extra into a special attack action has two advantages: the dreaded double dash is gone and it is a lot safer for multiclassing because it is attached to a class specific thing.
...SNIP...

This is why I think that bonus action is a good concept, yes it adds a level of complexity to the game, but removing the bonus action just moves that complexity from the basic system to the specific abilities.

With a bonus action mechanic you can say: this mechanic is a bonus action; that mechanic is a bonus action; the other mechanic is a bonus action. It makes all three mechanics mutually exclusive without each one taking up 3 pages of rulebook.

If you removed the bonus action then your rules become: this mechanic can be done if, and, but; that mechanic can be done if, and, but; the other mechanic can be done if, and, but.

Stopping a rogue from hiding while moving at the speed of an Olympic sprinter while being untouchable by foes he runs past suddenly requires a LOT of careful language, rather than just saying you only get one bonus action.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

Wel this started wit Mike being asked bout doing something like Star Frontiers in 5th edition.

So if they would do a sci-fi or modern game based on 5th edition, do people here think they should stay as close as posible to the DnD 5th edition rules including the bonus actions ?
Or would we want to see experimentation with the system if they do spinof games

 

[abirdcall]

Indeed he is wrong... in fact I would greatly disagree with everything he has suggested lately. His Initiative system is a ridiculous idea -- taking us back in time where we have to pre-declare actions. 6th Edition? No... 5th is working perfectly fine thanks (with a little room for tweaking here or there). Bonus actions are also working fine.

I think his new initiative system is brilliant (and I haven't even seen the full version of it). Our table loves it.

While I am skeptical about how complicated it would be to overhaul Bonus Actions in 5e, I am curious to see his proposal.

Maybe its time for Mike to retire because he has clearly lost touch with what makes the game great again.

This is pretty quick to ask for his resignation. He hasn't even done anything yet, just put out some tweets. Also, he is the source of why the game is great. He is the lead designer of 5e.

 

[ccs]

Listen to us, He Who Shall Not Be Named!
We are now two, who ask you for a new edition. Hear our word, Lord of Backwards Nostalgia, and release your grip on D&D, which has cursed this finde game for far too long. Great Traitor of 4E, I banish you by the name of Heinsoo (blessed shall be Heinsoo)! Your poisonous deeds, which hinder progress in roleplaying games, must cease. Brake the seal which binds all the developments that were made in other RPGs in the last ten years and make D&D a game that thrives on narrativity and heroic actions! Thrice cursed be your Hatin' of Fighters. Thrice cursed be your oldschoolness. Repent and give way to the blessings of newschool RPGs! The Gods of Hasbro shall install a New One in your place!
In the name of the Cook, the Heinsoo and the Schwalb - begone!

Well the gods of Hasbro require heaps of $ be sacrificed to them.
What you want (a new 4e) won't get them that & they know it.
So with or without Mearls you won't be getting what you want.

 

[The Fighter-Cricket]

If that's the case, then sure, demand Mike's head all you want. It's really your only hope.

The mob has spoken! Come brethren, we bring ruin and despair to the House of Mearls! Our judgement will be harsh, our reign eternal! We will rule by Saying Yes, our language will be game-istic, we will ride on the backs of dragonborn and disperse law through Holy Skill Challenges because that is a very nice conflict resolution mechanic!

Unless of course those of you who want Mike thrown overboard are the 4E diehardists... in which case yeah, I can understand why you'd want him gone. Cause the only way you're ever going to see a return to a 4E style game IS IF you replace Mike with someone who aligns more closely to 4E.

"4E diehardists" is a clumsy term. We like to call ourselves "4vengers". That's better for the brand, you know.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Wel this started wit Mike being asked bout doing something like Star Frontiers in 5th edition.

So if they would do a sci-fi or modern game based on 5th edition, do people here think they should stay as close as posible to the DnD 5th edition rules including the bonus actions ?
Or would we want to see experimentation with the system if they do spinof games

I would expect experimentation. After all... didn't the Saga Edition update for WotC's Star Wars d20 game include ideas that were being bandied about for 4E? They were advancing ideas for the new D&D game they were going to make, found a lot of them to be very worthwhile, and "playtested" a bunch of them by using them first in the Star Wars Saga edition.

So if they were to make a Star Frontiers game that was ostensibly based off the 5E engine, I'd fully expect them to try out or "fix" some things that would be a precursor to an eventual 5E update or 6E edition.

 

[DEFCON 1]

"4E diehardists" is a clumsy term. We like to call ourselves "4vengers". That's better for the brand, you know.

You are absolutely right. I deeply apologize. I did not realize that the term '4venger' was reclaimed by the 4E community.