Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 7716984" data-attributes="member: 58197">I'm not going to try to defend the specifics of Mearls's idea, because he's hardly given us any; that's why I noted Cunning Action and bonus action spells as examples of where I would like to see his proposal fleshed out. I do think that the change would have to go farther than just "mash bonus actions into regular actions"--some things, like Cunning Action, would probably have to be rethought from the ground up.But when I say bonus actions are hacky and clunky, that's not in comparison to some theoretical alternative. That's looking at them on their own merits. Bonus actions are hacky and clunky because they create complexity, confuse new/casual players, and cause unexpected breakage in all sorts of places. Berserker barbarian who wields an axe in each hand? Sorry, your 3rd-level berserker path feature is now 100% useless. If you cast a bonus action spell, and Saruvoldeminster counterspells it, you can't counterspell back... but when Saruvoldeminster casts a spell on his turn, you can counterspell that. Try explaining that one to a casual player. You can stack a bonus action with a regular action, but not another bonus action. It's an endless accumulation of these little wonky bits, none of which is a deal-breaker in itself, but collectively they're a headache.So, to reiterate: Bonus actions are hacky and clunky and should be tolerated only so long as no one has a better idea. The question now is whether Mearls's idea can be fleshed out into something better, or whether it's a dead end. It may turn out to be the latter, but people are way too quick to throw up their hands and say it'll never work. I for one want to see where it can lead.</blockquote>

Verification