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.

 

[Sunseeker]

Seriously. we're already talking about another edition? uugghhhh....

My thoughts exactly. Not much faith in the current run if we're talking about a new edition "when people ask for it". I mean what does that even mean? Does it mean WOTC has completely lost faith in 5E and is just waiting for the consumers to start calling? Does it mean the consumers are already calling in demanding a new edition and that has prompted WOTC to start developing something?

It sounds like the sort of thing I tell my players "We'll start a new campaign just as soon as you tell me you're ready to play." and I only say those things when I've already got a new campaign ready to run.

On the subject of bonus actions though, there are areas where bonus actions are wonky. Fury of Blows for example, why does this need to use a bonus action? Why not just say once the class gains the feature they can make it as part of their Action? There's an illusion of choice there which doesn't need to exist. If you take the Great Weapon Master feat, you get one extra attack if you hit with any one primary attack during your Action?

Really it's not necessary for a lot of what they use it for. Bonus Actions I think had their best deal as "Minor" actions in 4E.

 

[Mercule]

I think people need to see the full details of Mike Mearl proposal before anyone can fully judge it, so hopefully it ends up a UA, but so far I'm intrigued.

I don't really have any issues with the Bonus Action, but I also think there's always room for improvement and would love to see his ideas.

 

[lkj]

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.

I liked proficiency dice too. So it goes.

You know, had a lengthy discussion about granularity during 4e and into 5e with one of my players who leans toward more fine scale control. We chatted about converting the number of skill proficiencies (and expertise) a character gets into points that you could spend freely (basically 3e ranks). Never did go far with it. But the idea was to let him have the fine scale character building control while still being compatible with other 5e characters. If everyone at the table had wanted that, there are probably better game systems to play. But most didn't. And he didn't want it badly enough work it out. Though I wonder if it's as simple-- with skills-- as just breaking the proficiency bonuses into points that you can spend. Feats would require more thought.

AD

 

[schnee]

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.

What words will I eat?

Where did I say he would succeed?

Please quote them and explain how I was making a claim. Thanks

 

[Krachek]

The impression I get is that you would just make Cunning Action an action you can take. "As a Cunning Action you can make a weapon atttack as well as do one of the following: hide, disengage, etc'"

Two weapon fighting would be its own action. "As an action, you can attack with two weapons."

So, the player just chooses an Action for his character during a given round, from a short list of actions. There's no wondering about how a bonus action might be tied to it. No trying to figure out if you can use one of your bonus actions. You just take the action and everything you can do with it is built in.

Another example: A bonus action spell rather than referring to other rules would just say. "When you cast this spell, you can also cast a cantrip or make an attack" No need for extra rules where the bonus action spells have their own subsystem.

Honestly, the more I think about it the more I like it.

AD

If they allow the same actions timing without the bonus action it is fine. Wording used should precise that you can take your "other" action before, after or in between.
If you need to cast misty step first before allowed to do something else it is not 100% equal to the actual rule.

 

[Lord Twig]

What words will I eat?

Where did I say he would succeed?

Please quote them and explain how I was making a claim. Thanks

Ugh... Fine...

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.

Again, I'm not saying that you are wrong here. Just that you could be, and then it will be up to you to eat your words.

If you want to tell others they have to do something, then you should be prepared to do it yourself if you are wrong. Fair is fair.

 

[pukunui]

My thoughts exactly. Not much faith in the current run if we're talking about a new edition "when people ask for it". I mean what does that even mean? Does it mean WOTC has completely lost faith in 5E and is just waiting for the consumers to start calling? Does it mean the consumers are already calling in demanding a new edition and that has prompted WOTC to start developing something?

To quote him in full: "With all that said, nothing that requires a new edition. We'll do that when players and DMs ask for it. No where near that now." (My emphasis)

I think people are blowing up unnecessarily.

EDIT: Also: View attachment 84649

If you take the Great Weapon Master feat, you get one extra attack if you hit with any one primary attack during your Action?

I think the main reason for the bonus action is that it helps to limit what extra things you can do. If you had a bunch of different freebies that triggered off the same thing (like making an attack), you might end up with people trying to use all of them at once. Making them bonus actions, and specifying that you can only take one bonus action per turn, stops that sort of thing from happening.

I liked proficiency dice too. So it goes.

I enjoyed them too, but I can also see why they removed them as default.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I think the main reason for the bonus action is that it helps to limit what extra things you can do. If you had a bunch of different freebies that triggered off the same thing (like making an attack), you might end up with people trying to use all of them at once. Making them bonus actions, and specifying that you can only take one bonus action per turn, stops that sort of thing from happening.

Exactly. A tight action economy keeps D&D from turning into a game of Magic where one guy's combo deck is going off. Don't get me wrong, I love a good combo deck, but D&D is the wrong game for that.

And it seems strange that the critiques of the bonus action here are coming from people who think it makes D&D too gamist. The bonus action is like an inoculation for gamism.

 

[Elderbrain]

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.

Oh, gods, no! I do not and will not buy a .5 edition of 5th edition D&D - I didn't buy 3.5, and stopped buying 4th edition when they came out with the Essentials material, which was 4.5 without admitting it. If it's really that broke, make a 6th edition, don't sell me what I already have with a few tweaks along the lines of "Hey, 'Animals' and 'Beasts' are two creature types in 3e - let's drop one of them and dump 'em all in one category for 3.5, disregarding that previous books players might want to use employs the distinction." Leave my core books alone, and if you want to fiddle with the Ranger or whatever, release a supplement! (And besides, isn't that the plan already?) I had 3e, and when 4e came out it was a new rules set (I'm disregarding the fluff here, and solely considering game mechanics), so it was worth buying whereas 3.5 was too close to what I already had, game-mechanically, while being just different enough to be only semi-compatible - the worst of both worlds, IMO.

 

[Argyle King]

I think the main reason for the bonus action is that it helps to limit what extra things you can do. If you had a bunch of different freebies that triggered off the same thing (like making an attack), you might end up with people trying to use all of them at once. Making them bonus actions, and specifying that you can only take one bonus action per turn, stops that sort of thing from happening.

I enjoyed them too, but I can also see why they removed them as default.

...which is what happened a lot during playtest.