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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7717212" data-attributes="member: 71699">Agreed. I was using it in the same way i.e. to show what I feel to be an issue here. For the sake of argument lets say we have 5 bonus-actions and each is compatible with 5 combat-actions. Currently, those combinations are enumerated as two 5-element lists. If instead [bonus-actions] are stuck onto [combat-actions] then we have one list of 25-elements. That's inefficient and decreases opportunities for creative play. But perhaps we have a misunderstanding.What do you mean by "orthogonal" in this context? I feel like I have to rule out that you are directly addressing that term to combinatorial mechanics because I do not see how you could label those as bad, inefficient or lazy from a game design point of view. We know that ever since Cosmic Encounters, combinatorial design has been recognised as one of the most powerful and efficient tools in a designer's toolbox. And that many of the most successful game designs of all time, from Magic the Gathering to DOTA, use such mechanics.So I'm forced to assume you mean something that right now isn't clear to me.Shadow Monks can bonus action Shadow Step and action Hide. What they cannot do is Attack + Hide, and that makes sense because attacking stops you being hidden. Valor Bards can use Bardic Inspiration while fighting with two weapons. If they cannot in your campaign then that is a house rule. Again, I do not follow your criticism here. What putatively unnecessary cost is being obviated by bonus actions?</blockquote>

Verification