D&D 5E (2014) Mike Mearls on 5e design he regrets. Bonus Actuons.

[DEFCON 1]

Any type of party with any combination of PCs is possible... but in all cases it just means the DM has to work at it in a specific way for the combination to be compelling / fun.

But just like we see in a lot of complaints about the game... asking the DM to put in the effort to make an "off-brand" way of playing work is verboten for a lot of people (for some reason). As though every single way to play the game should be available for every DM to just put it on auto-pilot with little thought and effort and have it run exactly the way they want it. Which I think is silly.

Some styles of D&D require more work on the part of the DM. And if the DM really wants to play in those styles... then they have to bite the bullet. Otherwise... just play the baseline Dungeons & Dragons that we found in the 5E14 Basic Rules with four classes with one subclass each and a handful of monsters and the DM take it as easy as they might wish.

 

[dave2008]

Note he loves 5e so the title is a bit tongue in cheek.

He goes into the idea and design behind bonus actions and why he retreats the feature he added to the game.

Wait...has the title of this thread always been: "...Bonus Actuons" and I just missed it?!

@darjr please tell me you changed it somewhere down the line as a joke. Did I really miss that typo this whole time!

 

[darjr]

Wait...has the title of this thread always been: "...Bonus Actuons" and I just missed it?!

View attachment 448112

@darjr please tell me you changed it somewhere down the line as a joke. Did I really miss that typo this whole time!

Uh, no cement.

 

[DEFCON 1]

'Actuons' are those quantum particles that we definitely, 100% KNOW exist.

 

[CreamCloud0]

me when i take my actuons...

 

[mearls]

I was wondering why my take on quantum physics touched off a long discussion about 5e's action economy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I was wondering why my take on quantum physics touched off a long discussion about 5e's action economy.

Ya cannae change the laws of physics...
...laws of physics
...laws of physics
Ya cannae change the laws of physics...
...laws of physics, Mike.

They're Actions, Mike, but not as we know them...
...not as we know them
...not as we know them
They're Actions, Mike, but not as we know them...
...not as we know them, Cap'n.

 

[Zardnaar]

So...

You're now doing even more than what I just said.

You're now choosing feats for it. You're picking specific subclasses. You're predicating your spell list decisions based on whether or not they're compatible with Twinned.

In other words, you are building around it. Which is exactly what I said before, that you argued against, and told me I was wrong, you don't have to build around it.

So yes, you do in fact have to build around Twinned in order for Twinned to be particularly useful or beneficial. You yourself have just shown that you have to do so in order to get much benefit. I mean, for God's sake, you gave a list of, my GOD, SEVEN WHOLE SPELLS! God in Heaven, how will we deal with this absolute cornucopia of spells to choose from!? We won't. Because even with the seven whole spells you could muster, more than half aren't even on the Sorcerer list, so you have to carefully choose your subclass or pre-build with various feats.

Wasn't an ally inclusive list. Just saying this is what one can di with common phb feats.

It does feed into why I think the other classes are better early on. Wizard soell list isnt that exclusive anymore.

I'm seeing clerics and druid packing shield spell for example. Warlocks with all 3 magic initiate feats using their class abilities.
Warlocks best cast tier 1 imho because of those invocations.

Higher level (through 12-13) im seeing bards plunder the wizard spell list as well. Well any spell list as they took conjure celestial as well.

So theyre using S tier spells married up to A and S tier class abilities . PHB wizard class abilities are comparatively weak.

They got buffed in AU.

 

[Willie the Duck]

'Actuons' are those quantum particles that we definitely, 100% KNOW exist.

Now if only they would Act like it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think from a realism standpoint, a bonus action for a potion is a bit too easy – at least unless you have something like a potion bracer which I think was a 3e item (letting you keep some potions ready to drink in bracers on your forearms). But I do think that if drinking a potion is a full action, it has to be worth it. If you're drinking a potion of strength, it should give you the same boost Asterix gets, not a piddly +1 or +2 to hit and damage. A healing potion should give you back like 75% of your hit points.

Another method of making potions and other buffs viable would be to lengthen combats overall. If the default length of a combat is 3 rounds, spending one of them buffing up needs to have an exceptionally strong impact to be worth it – at least 50% just to break even, and perhaps up to 100% when considering that impact in an earlier round is worth more than impact in a later round (because if you take out someone in round 2, they aren't doing anything back to you on round 3). But if your typical combat is more like 5 or 7 rounds, buffs can be a bit more chill and still be worth it.



I don't think they're bad, but I think there could be some stronger guardrails around them. For example, I would prefer it if anything that gave extra attacks was just folded into a main action, perhaps creating special main actions for those things (along the lines of what Mearls suggests). For example, instead of monks having half a dozen options of what to do with their bonus actions (baseline 1 unarmed attack, disengage, or dash, Flurry of Blows 2 unarmed attacks for 1 focus, Patient Defense disengage + dodge for 1 focus, Step of the Wind disengage + dash + longer jump for 1 focus), those could be folded into a single Martial Arts action. Generally speaking, I think bonus actions work best when they're spent on setup rather than throughput.

Well, the guard rail could be named "bonus action" or "minor action". Because when you introduce a mechanic that says: "You can do Y together with X", it becomes challenging once you introduce another thing you can do together with X. You need to word out how it interacts, or you must never ever introduce such a thing.
If you denote it clearly as a type of action you can take, it means similar abilities can reuse that mechanic, and that action, and you don't end up with people doing 4 things with one action and others only 1. It also sets a baseline to how powerful this "extra" is supposed to be.