Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9545675" data-attributes="member: 7006">Bonus actions / Minor actions / Swift actions&nbsp; etc. all have been in the game because of one simple fact-- D&amp;D players cannot be trusted.The ultimate design choice would be there are things that are Actions... and then everything else.&nbsp; And everything else wouldn't need to have some sort of &quot;action&quot; appellation, they'd just be the other stuff characters could do in a turn in addition to their &quot;Action&quot;.&nbsp; But the problem is... without there being some sort of &quot;economy&quot; to imply or tell players how many of these things they logistically and realistically could do during their turn... a non-zero amount of players would break the system by wanting to do dozens upon dozens of these free activities every turn &quot;because the rules don't say I can't!&quot;&nbsp; Certain players have ruined things for everyone else.As a result... the designers needed a way to separate non-Actions that you can do as much of as you want in your 6-second turn... and then all the stuff that you only get to do once in a 6-second turn because otherwise it becomes too unwieldy and players break the system.&nbsp; Hence the idea of a &quot;smaller action&quot; that you can only do one of on top of your actual Action of attacking or casting a spell.&nbsp; Even Pathfinder 2 has this with their &quot;three action&quot; system, but they just reverse the sizing to have &quot;bigger actions&quot; that take up more of their three action economy rather than D&amp;D's &quot;smaller actions&quot; that take up less.&nbsp; But the effect is the same... a character can do a certain number of things in their turn, with some things being bigger, some smaller, and some don't even &quot;count&quot; in terms of number of things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9545675, member: 7006"] Bonus actions / Minor actions / Swift actions etc. all have been in the game because of one simple fact-- D&D players cannot be trusted. The ultimate design choice would be there are things that are Actions... and then everything else. And everything else wouldn't need to have some sort of "action" appellation, they'd just be the other stuff characters could do in a turn in addition to their "Action". But the problem is... without there being some sort of "economy" to imply or tell players how many of these things they logistically and realistically could do during their turn... a non-zero amount of players would break the system by wanting to do dozens upon dozens of these free activities every turn "because the rules don't say I can't!" Certain players have ruined things for everyone else. As a result... the designers needed a way to separate non-Actions that you can do as much of as you want in your 6-second turn... and then all the stuff that you only get to do [I]once[/I] in a 6-second turn because otherwise it becomes too unwieldy and players break the system. Hence the idea of a "smaller action" that you can only do one of on top of your actual Action of attacking or casting a spell. Even Pathfinder 2 has this with their "three action" system, but they just reverse the sizing to have "bigger actions" that take up more of their three action economy rather than D&D's "smaller actions" that take up less. But the effect is the same... a character can do a certain number of things in their turn, with some things being bigger, some smaller, and some don't even "count" in terms of number of things. [/QUOTE]

Verification