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.

 

[Enendill]

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]

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.

 

[Cyvris]

So...4e's "Attacks" more or less then? Because that's pretty much what this sounds like: Attack+Effect.

 

[Horwath]

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]

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?

 

[MechaTarrasque]

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.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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]

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.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Whereas I'm on the verge of going back to AD&D (2nd ed).

I'd go back to 1e if I could talk my players into it. Alas...

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?