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.

 

[Lord Twig]

I feel like the thread is a bit misleading on the idea of '6th edition' - the current product release process points towards a long run for this edition. I would be surprised to see 6th edition before 2025 - and nothing in Mearl's words makes me think he believes otherwise. His comments, IMO, are along the lines of, "I have a better idea than bonus actions now, but I can't put them in the game until we get a new edition and that isn't going to happen until players demand it - which we're not even close to seeing, yet."

One of the good things that Mearls has said in the past is that he recognizes that there are quite a few things that he thinks would be great for the game, but found out were not popular with the player base. So, even though he liked the rule or whatever, they left it out of the game. I think his initiative system and his bonus action replacement falls into those categories. Sure he might like it, and there may be a minority of other players that like it as well, but the majority don't want it, so it will not be added to the base game.

They can always be put out in an Unearthed Arcana or added as optional rules.

Or I could be wrong in my assessment of the rules acceptance by D&D players at large. Either or both of those systems could prove to be wildly popular. In which case I will just have to suck it up and realize that I'm the one in the minority.

 

[schnee]

I think a whole bunch of people who are resisting what he's talking about should be prepared to eat their words later on.

I've seen plenty of this in my work as a designer. People get really attached to what they know. They resist change.

They won't know how good something is until they see it.

It is hacky, and it's a sticking point with new players. It also has weird exceptions like some things being able to happen in either bonus OR normal actions, triggered only with different, arbitrary-seeming situations.

I would love to see him solve this problem and make the system even more elegant.

 

[Argyle King]

I hate to say it, but I think I am actually ready for a 6th edition.

Out of the gate, I was excited about 5th, but the design has some limitations that continue to bother me. Yes, I can homebrew and tweak things, but a lot of the things I'd like to change are core parts of the design, and I'm honestly not sure how to change them without essentially breaking the game and rebuilding it into something else.


edit: I'm not entirely sold on MM being the person who leads the design of a 6th edition though. He's a well respected designer, and he does good work, but I feel that his views on how the game should work appear to be quite a bit different than what I'd like to see happen. I see some of the same problems, but what I'd like the solutions to be end up being significantly different.

edit 2: While it may be a while before 6th edition, I would not be surprised to see some of the future books include rules-changes and clarifications which are essentially a 5.5. That happened with both 3rd Edition and 4th Edition. My prediction is that 5th will hit a point where that is deemed necessary earlier in its life cycle than the previous two editions. I'm not saying there is anything which I'd say is exactly wrong with the game, but I do feel there were a few core design choices which worked well in the beginning but are now starting to buckle a little under the weight of added game elements.

 

[Lord Twig]

I think a whole bunch of people who are resisting what he's talking about should be prepared to eat their words later on.

I've seen plenty of this in my work as a designer. People get really attached to what they know. They resist change.

They won't know how good something is until they see it.

It is hacky, and it's a sticking point with new players. It also has weird exceptions like some things being able to happen in either bonus OR normal actions, triggered only with different, arbitrary-seeming situations.

I would love to see him solve this problem and make the system even more elegant.

Or they could come out with a new version that still uses the current initiative system and bonus actions and you will need to eat your words.

Just sayin' it's possible. I mentioned in my own post that I could be wrong. But I might be right and you could be wrong. Or they could come up with something totally different. Best to keep an open mind.

 

[lkj]

Currently you can preform any standard action and perform a Cunning Action as a bonus action. Your method would exclude everything but an attack. Your bonus action spell would exclude everything but an attack or cantrip. If you don't want to reduce the players options you still need standard actions.

So something like "When you use Cunning Action you may use the Hide, Disengage or Use an Object action in addition to a second standard action." Or something like that.

But really why bother? This will just lead to a thousand and one "special actions" when bonus actions already account for all of those one thousand and one cases.

And are bonus actions really that hard? Or is it all the limitations that are stacked on top of them. Really it is stupid simple. You get one bonus action. Can you use Cunning Action and Second Wind on the same turn? No, they are both bonus actions.

You get a bonus attack from two weapon fighting and a bonus attack from flurry of blows. They are both bonus actions. You can only use one. Second Wind is also a bonus action. You only have one bonus action per turn. So you can not use Second Wind and get a bonus attack from either two weapon fighting or flurry of blows. Or use any other bonus action. Because you can only use one per turn. Honestly I just don't comprehend how it could get any simpler.

You cast a bonus action spell and still have your regular action. So go head and take any standard action in addition to it... Except another standard spell, you can only cast a cantrip if you use a bonus action spell. Okay this is a corner case and can be hard to remember and I get that. But the problem is not the bonus action. It is the limit on additional spell casting.

You're right that I was careless in how I put that together. The whole thing would require some careful, playtested crafting. Just trying to give an idea of the general direction that I think they would be going in.

In answer to your question-- I don't find it that hard. But I've seen that others do find it confusing-- just in terms of understanding which things are bonus actions and which aren't. For example, I've frequently had to remind a rogue that he can either attack with an offhand weapon OR dart away. Not both. Such things happen often enough so that I can see Mike's point that it would be nice to simplify it for the player. I've also had combats stop a few times while a player tries to figure out if he's got a bonus action he can use. Which is something I think they were trying to avoid.

To be clear-- I don't think it's some huge flaw in 5e (any more than I think Mike does, as he clearly states it's nothing worth starting a new edition over). I just think it's an area that could run a little smoother in play. And I'm open to them messing around with it to see if they can find something that works.

Now, in the actual implementation, could it end up being just as complicated and not worth the effort? Absolutely. (I'd definitely want to see how they fully implemented it) But, in principle, I can see how folding bonus actions in to existing actions might work well.

Cheers,
AD

 

[lkj]

I hate to say it, but I think I am actually ready for a 6th edition.

Out of the gate, I was excited about 5th, but the design has some limitations that continue to bother me. Yes, I can homebrew and tweak things, but a lot of the things I'd like to change are core parts of the design, and I'm honestly not sure how to change them without essentially breaking the game and rebuilding it into something else.


edit: I'm not entirely sold on MM being the person who leads the design of a 6th edition though. He's a well respected designer, and he does good work, but I feel that his views on how the game should work appear to be quite a bit different than what I'd like to see happen. I see some of the same problems, but what I'd like the solutions to be end up being significantly different.

edit 2: While it may be a while before 6th edition, I would not be surprised to see some of the future books include rules-changes and clarifications which are essentially a 5.5. That happened with both 3rd Edition and 4th Edition. My prediction is that 5th will hit a point where that is deemed necessary earlier in its life cycle than the previous two editions. I'm not saying there is anything which I'd say is exactly wrong with the game, but I do feel there were a few core design choices which worked well in the beginning but are now starting to buckle a little under the weight of added game elements.

I'm not at all ready for 6e. Not even a little. 5e working just fine for me.

But in the hypothetical-- The thing I like about Mike is that he's wholly invested in getting community feedback and using it. He's perfectly willing to kill his babies if the playtest feedback doesn't support it. Example-- Proficiency dice rather than a flat bonus. He'll still make a case for it when it comes up, but he didn't force it into the game.

Anyway, I think he combines a couple things that make for a good lead. He sees things that he thinks could be better. He's willing to go out on a limb to try new ideas to improve things. But then he's willing to get feedback and go with it, rather than stubbornly forcing things through.

Again. Just my opinion. I don't always agree with him (a few examples recently). But I like his approach.

AD

 

[Kite474]

In terms of a new addition, my issue is that it's too early to switch because NOTHING has really been done with 5e outside of some repurposed adventures.

As for the bonus action stuff, I can sympathize the whole "You know we probably could have done this differently" but alas that's publishing for you. Not the biggest fan with what he describing.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm not at all ready for 6e. Not even a little. 5e working just fine for me.

But in the hypothetical-- The thing I like about Mike is that he's wholly invested in getting community feedback and using it. He's perfectly willing to kill his babies if the playtest feedback doesn't support it. Example-- Proficiency dice rather than a flat bonus. He'll still make a case for it when it comes up, but he didn't force it into the game.

Anyway, I think he combines a couple things that make for a good lead. He sees things that he thinks could be better. He's willing to go out on a limb to try new ideas to improve things. But then he's willing to get feedback and go with it, rather than stubbornly forcing things through.

Again. Just my opinion. I don't always agree with him (a few examples recently). But I like his approach.

AD

I would have actually preferred proficiency dice being the default.


What I'm unsure how to change about 5th without breaking the game is to add more granularity to character creation and choices. I do not want to go back to how 3rd was, but I would like more moving parts than what 5th has. I've said in other threads that sometimes I wish 5th would have kept 4th's idea of 30 levels. That would allow for feats and other character choices to be broken down into smaller pieces, made more numerous, and spread out more.

While not exactly a mechanics issue, I would also prefer that the game style lean a little more toward sword & sorcery.

 

[Klataubarada]

The last 3 things I want in life

3. A hole in my head
2. Castration
1. DnD 6th Edition

 

[Sir Brennen]

Another way to think about it; Mearls is proposing bonus actions get folded into special, self-contained actions, generally accessible by class features. The description of what you can or can't do with the special action is all within the action itself, like Magic cards.