D&D 5E Retraining (players, not characters)

[Rune]

It's also worth remembering that a spell cast as a bonus action prevents another spell from being cast during the same round.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's also worth remembering that a spell cast as a bonus action prevents another spell from being cast during the same round.

To be honest, I think the game would be simpler (thus better) without that sort of spells. Now we have this needless complication, that you must cast such spell using a bonus action, i.e. IIRC you cannot cast it with your normal action, and as you say even when cast as a bonus action you have to keep in mind that it's not the same as other bonus actions because it affects what you can do with your normal action > can't use that for another spell > unless it's a cantrip > but only if such cantrip has a 1 action casting time. This is already ridiculously complicated for a Basic game.

And all this originally because some players refuse to accept a trade-off between healing a friend and swinging their weapon.

 

[Mouseferatu]

And all this originally because some players refuse to accept a trade-off between healing a friend and swinging their weapon.

You say this like it's ridiculous, but I know large numbers of players--players into the characters, into the plot, not especially worried about optimization--for whom this was a huge benefit of 4E. People who'd never before enjoyed clerics now did; people who'd loved clerics for years liked them even better.

It's not about swinging a weapon, though that's often what they did. It's about having options that are mechanically exciting while still doing the one task that the party's counting on them for.

I don't think it's complex at all to say "No other spell but a cantrip in the round with a bonus spell." (I doubt the "no longer than one action casting time" is going to come up often with cantrips, and if it does, the DM can address it then.) I find the trade-off more than acceptable. (Heck, I houseruled the cure spells in my current PF game to be swift actions for exactly the above reasons.)

 

[Essenti]

It's also worth remembering that a spell cast as a bonus action prevents another spell from being cast during the same round.

So long as it is a reaction spell or a cantrip with 1 action casting time, you can cast another spell on the same round. The bonus spell rule clearly states "on the same turn." You can still cast a reaction spell triggered on someone else's turn.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

No more confirming criticals means I can get excited about seeing 20 again.

And if you happen to be a Champion Fighter of high enough level, seeing 19s or even 18s...

The issue I found playing with Move/Minor/Standard actions was that the presentation of it made players spend a lot of time trying to think of something to do with they're Minor action, just because they had one, so they wanted to use it. Making the same sort of actions a Bonus! or "insignificant, such as drawing a sword or opening a door" seems semantic but definitely has an effect on play at the table.

Presentation has a much bigger effect on reception and accessibility than we are prone to assume.

 

[Rune]

So long as it is a reaction spell or a cantrip with 1 action casting time, you can cast another spell on the same round. The bonus spell rule clearly states "on the same turn." You can still cast a reaction spell triggered on someone else's turn.

Good distinction.

 

[Dausuul]

This. I'm trying to wrap my head around the bonus actions but I struggle. It's kinda like 4E's minor action, but not really?
Somebody explain how this works for me please, even though it's probably painfully obvious.

It's a minor action. The only difference is that, by a strict reading of the rules, I don't think you can convert a normal action to a bonus action. I don't think there are any major consequences if you allow that, though.

 

[Li Shenron]

You say this like it's ridiculous, but I know large numbers of players--players into the characters, into the plot, not especially worried about optimization--for whom this was a huge benefit of 4E. People who'd never before enjoyed clerics now did; people who'd loved clerics for years liked them even better.

It's not about swinging a weapon, though that's often what they did. It's about having options that are mechanically exciting while still doing the one task that the party's counting on them for.

I don't think it's complex at all to say "No other spell but a cantrip in the round with a bonus spell." (I doubt the "no longer than one action casting time" is going to come up often with cantrips, and if it does, the DM can address it then.) I find the trade-off more than acceptable. (Heck, I houseruled the cure spells in my current PF game to be swift actions for exactly the above reasons.)

To be precise, what I found ridiculous is only the rules complications that come as a consequence, not the motivation.

I understand the motivation even if I disagree with it. I just think it could have been solved differently, without tainting the rules of a Basic game which is supposed to be as simple as possible. This is not the only case where the Basic rules could have been simpler, with a little bit more design effort.

First and foremost, IMHO stuff that is introduced for the need of a specific group of players but increases complexity (even if it's not a huge increase), could better use the principle of "specific trumps general". This way, only those players need to know how such stuff works. A great example of this in 5e is the Fighter's Maneuvers: they are nicely tucked under a subclass (and perhaps a feat), therefore only those who are interested have to learn the mechanics, compared to making it a general mechanic of the Fighter or even everyone. Thus, for those who want to play/have a Cleric but don't want healing to be a tactical choice (everyone has its own XP, but I've never met any IRL), this could have been a specific rule described inside the Healing Word spells.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's a minor action. The only difference is that, by a strict reading of the rules, I don't think you can convert a normal action to a bonus action. I don't think there are any major consequences if you allow that, though.

I think that you can't allow that, because you get the bonus action only as a specific ability from class/feat/spell/race that says "you can do X as a bonus action". So how could you generally allow someone to turn an action into a bonus action? It would mean to grant anybody such bonus action in every turn.

Rather, I wonder if there will be a FAQ about converting a bonus action into a normal action. It's probably a corner case, but for example a Cleric casting Healing Word (a bonus action), can she cast it also as a normal action? If she's not actually using her normal action this turn, then it's irrelevant. But what if she has another ability X that grants a bonus action? By the rules, she can't take 2 bonus actions in the same turn, and the intent of such rule is to prevent too many action in a round (max 2). What if she is not taking her normal action, but wishes to cast Healing Word and use X? That would mean technically 2 bonus actions but 0 normal actions. By the RAW, it's not possible, however by the intent this may be acceptable, since it's still 2 actions (and stuff you can do with bonus actions is so far typically less or equal to the stuff you can do with your main action). This is what I mean by converting a bonus action into a normal action.

 

[Particle_Man]

The issue I found playing with Move/Minor/Standard actions was that the presentation of it made players spend a lot of time trying to think of something to do with they're Minor action, just because they had one, so they wanted to use it. Making the same sort of actions a Bonus! or "insignificant, such as drawing a sword or opening a door" seems semantic but definitely has an effect on play at the table.

Speaking of which, one thing I will get used to is that one get one, and only one, "Free" 'use an object' as part of one's normal action or one's move (but not both). This is not a bonus action, it is either part of your regular action or part of your move. But you can only get this freebie once per turn. If you want to 'use an object' a second time you have to spend your action to do so. So you can move, and draw your sword as you attack, or you can open a door as you move and then attack (with a weapon already in hand at the start of your turn), or you can draw your sword and open a door as you move, but you cannot "open a door as you move and draw your sword as you attack with it" in one turn.

Yeah that kind sounds like the aoo recursive loops that you could dig yourself into in 3e.

Since each player only gets one reaction per round, and since Aoo only comes up if someone leave's someone else's reach, and not if someone merely takes an Aoo on someone else, it won't be that recursive, IMHO.