Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7304795" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>“Removing Bonus Actions would be a bad thing because Mearls’ suggestion for how to reproduce the functionality of Healing Word without them doesn’t adequately reproduce the functionality of Healing Word” is not a strong argument against the removal of Bonus Actions for a variety of reasons. Primarily, it fails as a counter-argument to Mearls’ proposal because it disputes his specific example, rather than the concept it illustrates. This makes it very easy to form a rebuttal against, simply by tweaking the design of a No-Bonus-Action Healing Word, as I did in my earlier post. It also fails as a counter-argument to the more general suggestion of removing Bonus Actions from the game, because it focuses on the places where a system without Bonus Actions fails to function like a system with Bonus Actions does, which for those who don’t like Bonus Actions probably isn’t seen as a flaw.</p><p></p><p>To be clear, I do support the inclusions of Bonus Actions in the game. But poking holes in Mearls’ specific suggestions for how to model specific 5e features that utilize Bonus Actions in a hypothetical system without Bonus Actions is not an effective defense of Bonus Actions. Rather, I think it is more effective to argue that Mearls’ proposed design strategy (only one type of Action and exceptions to that rule always spelled out explicitly by the features that make such exceptions) does not meet his stated design goal (keeping the game as simple and streamlined as possible.) What it does is slightly simplify the base rules, while requiring a greater number of more complex exceptions to those base rules, for a net increase in complexity, though that complexity is less front-loaded. YMMV on if that’s a worthwhile tradeoff. It wouldn’t be for me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7304795, member: 6779196"] “Removing Bonus Actions would be a bad thing because Mearls’ suggestion for how to reproduce the functionality of Healing Word without them doesn’t adequately reproduce the functionality of Healing Word” is not a strong argument against the removal of Bonus Actions for a variety of reasons. Primarily, it fails as a counter-argument to Mearls’ proposal because it disputes his specific example, rather than the concept it illustrates. This makes it very easy to form a rebuttal against, simply by tweaking the design of a No-Bonus-Action Healing Word, as I did in my earlier post. It also fails as a counter-argument to the more general suggestion of removing Bonus Actions from the game, because it focuses on the places where a system without Bonus Actions fails to function like a system with Bonus Actions does, which for those who don’t like Bonus Actions probably isn’t seen as a flaw. To be clear, I do support the inclusions of Bonus Actions in the game. But poking holes in Mearls’ specific suggestions for how to model specific 5e features that utilize Bonus Actions in a hypothetical system without Bonus Actions is not an effective defense of Bonus Actions. Rather, I think it is more effective to argue that Mearls’ proposed design strategy (only one type of Action and exceptions to that rule always spelled out explicitly by the features that make such exceptions) does not meet his stated design goal (keeping the game as simple and streamlined as possible.) What it does is slightly simplify the base rules, while requiring a greater number of more complex exceptions to those base rules, for a net increase in complexity, though that complexity is less front-loaded. YMMV on if that’s a worthwhile tradeoff. It wouldn’t be for me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA
Top