D&D General Redesigning DnD 5e with no Bonus Actions

[Steampunkette]

This convo also made me wonder if movement is something we want more of in the game, is it worth it for monsters to have AoOs or should that be for the sole benefit of the PCs?

It's a worthwhile question. Allow me to make it fuzzier:

What if you have to have a Weapon to make Opportunity Attacks?

And not a melee weapon, either. Hand-Crossbow back-shooting would work fine. But it would mean you could run around a dragon without getting clawed on your turn. Where a Deathknight with a greatsword is stickier by default.

Combine that with folding Bonus and Reaction together... and suddenly combat is way more mobile and the decision to be sticky becomes something important.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Another thought while I'm putting down PF2's 3-Action Economy (remember: I was super excited about in on reading, but I dislike it in actual play):

I'm pretty sure that the reasons that Mike Mearls is unfond of Bonus Actions would go double for 3 Actions. Quite literally, it's the same issues, only two of them.

 

[Zaukrie]

This convo also made me wonder if movement is something we want more of in the game, is it worth it for monsters to have AoOs or should that be for the sole benefit of the PCs?

Mearls is removing them, except for melee types, iirc.

 

[TiQuinn]

It's a worthwhile question. Allow me to make it fuzzier:

What if you have to have a Weapon to make Opportunity Attacks?

And not a melee weapon, either. Hand-Crossbow back-shooting would work fine. But it would mean you could run around a dragon without getting clawed on your turn. Where a Deathknight with a greatsword is stickier by default.

Combine that with folding Bonus and Reaction together... and suddenly combat is way more mobile and the decision to be sticky becomes something important.

And a dragon still has its abilities such as Legendary Actions (or reactions?) I think that would make things simpler overall while still making the encounter challenging.

 

[TiQuinn]

Mearls is removing them, except for melee types, iirc.

Sounds like he’s gearing up for a system of his own?

 

[Zaukrie]

Sounds like he’s gearing up for a system of his own?

Yes. Odyssey is the name, iirc. A 5e based game.

 

[Steampunkette]

Yes. Odyssey is the name, iirc. A 5e based game.

The more he writes the less 5e it looks, imo.

Not that it's a -bad- thing. But it's definitely a system that won't be compatible with other 5e based systems or 5e based materials.

 

[Zaukrie]

The more he writes the less 5e it looks, imo.

Not that it's a -bad- thing. But it's definitely a system that won't be compatible with other 5e based systems or 5e based materials.

I agree, other than adventures? We'll see how easy it is to change monsters....

 

[mearls]

I agree, other than adventures? We'll see how easy it is to change monsters....

The monsters will be compatible. I'm building it based on the same math, so monsters will have an XP value that allows you to use them in vanilla 5e or 5.5. I've used the model for both 5e and Odyssey (my 5e-derived engine), and it's working well so far.

The character options are built to allow for faster play without (hopefully!) making them too simple. Ideally, players would feel they have 5e-level characters in terms of customization and unique abilities, but OSE or Shadowdark feel in terms of speed at the table. I'm working on a game design document to share on the Patreon early next week.

One note about the Odyssey engine - it drops the damage bonus to attacks. That might seem small, but especially at low levels it opens up the power budget for class abilities. For instance, an Odyssey fighter gets two attacks starting at level 3. I think that class features will end up feeling more narrow but impactful.

Multiclassing is still down the line, but my idea system would look like the class creation system from the 2e DMG. That system assigned a point cost to each class feature, and you built your custom class with a budget.

Most of my games for the past 5 years have been online sessions played one hour at a time. I'm using that experience to drive the design. One hour, online games have made ongoing campaigns much easier to keep going for me. I have three active campaigns despite working full-time, raising a kid, helping take care of elderly relatives, and doing all the other stuff that comes with home and family.

Honestly, I was surprised that removing bonus actions kicked up that much discussion. If I did, I would've dropped a more direct link to my Patreon in the thread!

 

[Steampunkette]

@mearls

It'll definitely be simpler and faster... but will it be -better-?

I don't feel like it will. A drum I've been banging on for years is that the best way to allow a Gish to exist is by letting them cast and attack in the same turn, so they're not being half a character at a time. Part of why I like the Eldritch Knight's design (though I'd have put War Magic in differently and earlier).

Not that bonus actions are a super huge part of that, thanks to the spell design for the most part.

As far as removing modifiers from damage: that's cool? Personally I'd rather see it happen the other way around. Get rid of rolling for damage and just add your modifier to a set value for a given weapon or spell as someone mentioned upthread. Doubled Randomness isn't really useful when you've already got a binary hit check.