Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7132253" data-attributes="member: 71699">This is some good analysis although I don't concur with your conclusions.&nbsp; You make a couple of separate arguments. One is that you can find fluff to justify your approach; that's fine, but someone can generally find fluff to justify anything. Therefore I suggest we ignore the fluff aspect for now and focus on mechanics. Regarding the mechanics, you add a complex rule (one that has multiple parts, that interact). We know that complex rules are generally not intuitive (humans, complexity, these things are troubled bed-partners). Breaking it down&quot;You can only perform any specific Action once on your turn.&quot; You note yourself the issue with this so I won't repeat it.&quot;The only exception to this rule is the fighter's 'Action Surge' feature.&quot; It's often bad idea to put an exception to a rule in the rule itself. We might be able to restructure that out, however.&quot;Additionally, you can’t benefit from two sources that grant you an extra attack as part of your Attack action.&quot; Two exceptions to the rule, in the rule!? We should work on that.&quot;The only exception to this rule is the ‘Extra Attack’ feature.&quot; My favourite thing, an exception to an exception <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> We need to work on that, too.We need to think about what you've written and compare it to Bonus Actions on PHB189. Bonus Actions do have provisions, but the provisions are not exceptions. They're essentially - if you can act and have a bonus action you can take, you're allowed to take that bonus action according to its rules for timing. Bonus Actions are a neat shell that other actions can be stuffed into, with whatever rules they require. That is layered rather than complex design: it yields emergent complexity without being complex to parse. YMMV.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7132253, member: 71699"] This is some good analysis although I don't concur with your conclusions. You make a couple of separate arguments. One is that you can find fluff to justify your approach; that's fine, but someone can generally find fluff to justify anything. Therefore I suggest we ignore the fluff aspect for now and focus on mechanics. Regarding the mechanics, you add a complex rule (one that has multiple parts, that interact). We know that complex rules are generally not intuitive (humans, complexity, these things are troubled bed-partners). Breaking it down "[I]You can only perform any specific Action once on your turn.[/I]" You note yourself the issue with this so I won't repeat it. "[I]The only exception to this rule is the fighter's 'Action Surge' feature.[/I]" It's often bad idea to put an exception to a rule in the rule itself. We might be able to restructure that out, however. "[I]Additionally, you can’t benefit from two sources that grant you an extra attack as part of your Attack action.[/I]" Two exceptions to the rule, in the rule!? We should work on that. "[I]The only exception to this rule is the ‘Extra Attack’ feature.[/I]" My favourite thing, an exception to an exception :p We need to work on that, too. We need to think about what you've written and compare it to Bonus Actions on PHB189. Bonus Actions do have provisions, but the provisions are not exceptions. They're essentially - [I]if you can act and have a bonus action you can take, you're allowed to take that bonus action according to its rules for timing[/I]. Bonus Actions are a neat shell that other actions can be stuffed into, with whatever rules they require. That is layered rather than complex design: it yields emergent complexity without being complex to parse. YMMV. [/QUOTE]

Verification