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.

 

[Kramodlog]

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.

My understanding is that this is partially correct. Saga was a playtesting ground, but at some point during 4e's design they decided to move away from those ideas and came up with other stuff.

 

[seebs]

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.

I would change that you can't use your regular action for a bonus action. That means that, depending on your specific build, the cost of a "bonus action" varies.

 

[DaedalusX51]

I'm down for a 5.5E but not an entire new edition. At this point some of 5E's warts are showing and it would be nice to have the game cleaned up a bit. I wouldn't want the game math to be changed though, other than saving throws, that is pretty on point. Plus I need a new PHB as mine has fallen apart already.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Add me to the "I like bonus action mechanic" list. It's worked very well in my experience.

 

[Thurmas]

I would not support a 6th edition yet, but a 5.5 PHB in the next year or two would be great. It would not be that difficult to keep it backwards compatible so that all other 5th Edition products work with it. Keep the 5th structure there, just update some of the classes, feats, mechanics and spells. None of those things should affect the published adventures, or even the MM or DMG. You could probably do the entire 5.5E line with just a PHB upgrade.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I'm in favor of keeping Bonus Actions as they are. I can see that you'd be reducing complexity of the turn structure in general by eliminating them, but when describing the individual features that are currently bonus actions as being wrapped into an action all their own, I think complexity will go up, especially when paired with the natural language push of 5e. Depending on how it's worded, you'd either introduce new limitations on what you can do with those new actions, and/or introduce more confusion on what you can do during you action.

Basically, it sounds like he's proposing that something like Cunning Action is actually an action unto itself. A Class Feature Action, if you will. I'd imagine it'd be something like "When you perform a Cunning Action on your turn, you can Dash, Disengage or Hide in addition to X".

"X" is where I see a problem. Either it's very specific - "making an attack or moving" - or it's very broad - "taking another action".

Specific starts limiting what you can do with your special action.

Broad opens up things like "can I use Cunning Action with the Grant Inspiration action, or my Two Weapon Fighting Action?" You could start doubling up on special actions, which would open up balance issues as you have to start looking at the interaction between them now.

A compromise might be "x" being more like a "taking a Standard Action", where Standard Actions defined for everyone outside of their class features. Specific Standard Actions could mentioned, like a "standard melee attack" or a "standard spell casting". However, to me that's just relabeling/re-categorizing and moving the complexity somewhere else.

Of course, what he's talking about is already part of 5E in some places. Look at Green Flame Blade, for example. Making an attack is actually part of the casting of the spell, rather than having casting the spell be a bonus action, which would seem more consistent with the rest of the rules.

Tangentially, you know what'd I'd really like to see? The Attack Action renamed to something else. All attack actions are attacks, but not all attacks are attack actions (i.e., bonus attacks like two weapon fighting, extra attack, flurry of blows, etc.) How about it get renamed to something like the Strike Action. Works well enough for ranged and melee, and you know you're talking about a specific action, not just an attack, which could be part of a different action (especially if we do away with bonus actions.)

But really, keep bonus actions.

 

[lkj]

I have not had a problem with bonus actions. However, I am fortunate enough to play with a bunch of newbies, and it does cause confusion. Heck, even one of my more experienced players still messes up the 'if you cast a bonus action spell you only get a cantrip' rule.

Having the bonus actions built into the abilities would be easier for a lot of players, especially folks learning the game. This isn't really about 'action economies'. It's about presentation. You still have bonus actions. You just don't have them as a generic system that sits on top of everything else. While the generic system applied to many situations appeals to me on some basic nerd level, I've seen that it isn't always the most elegant approach in play.

Just my two cents.

AD

P.S. It is similar to how I liked having everything you needed for a monster right in the stat block in 4e. I recognize that DM's are usually operating at a higher level rules-wise and can handle a bit of page flipping. But I still liked it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I have zero interest in a 6E anytime soon, but I wouldn't at all mind a book of alternate rules and suggestions. Something to be included in the forthcoming Big Book o' Mechanical Doodads, perhaps.

 

[bmfrosty]

Bonus actions work fine, and I don't like his initiative system proposal. There are some things that can be improved, but these are not them.

I think I know what I'd improve. I would have proficiency infer reliability for ability checks.

A 1st level character with proficiency with thieves tools would also have a minimum roll of 2 when doing an ability check with thieves tools. A 17th level character would have a minimum roll of 6 when doing the same.

I'm unsure if I'd extend the same to Attack Rolls or Saving Throws.

If I were to do a 2nd revision of 5e, it would be to add keyword blocks to abilities, spells, and other things. Copy some information that's contained in prose into tables, lists, and blocks. Specific wording is nice, but once you're proficient with blocks, they can be *way* faster.

 

[The Fighter-Cricket]

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

The community (we are legion and one day we will have our revenge) accepts your apology. We hold the deep belief that what does not kill us makes us stronger. Therefore we re-appropriated the term. By the way, our official motto is "Killing D&D since 2008". I made some bumper stickers and t-shirts if you are interested.