log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Revisiting revised core rulebooks

There is only one big mechanical change that has been talked about by WotC (Mearls) and that is getting rid of bonus actions.

PHB pg 189 clearly states..."You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available". I don't see where people are saying that a player would get more than one in a turn, and you only get one if your class feature allows one. Same with reactions, you only get one per turn. Worst case scenario you would get your regular actions, a bonus action and a reaction. Can someone please enlighten me, is there some errata I'm unaware of?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


ZeshinX

Adventurer
Sure, but you could have a rule that level 10 wizards get unlimited wishes, and it wouldn't break 99.8% of games where people built characters randomly.

Because the odds of 10 wizard levels is a bit low.

You could also just not includes feats and multiclassing and I think unlimited bonus actions is also fine (no more than one per feature).

I mean, hexblade is probably too strong.

I suspect it would be potent in many instances, for sure. It would take a reasonably competent DM to be able to manage it. Not saying I'm one of those, and I'd probably limit activating class/subclass abilities to one (basically no "stacking" of those types of abilities)....but yeah, it's a potent houserule that needs a skilled DM.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
Pretty sure this isn't the reason, but it is a pretty nice houserule on how to handle bonus actions.


Well to me that doesn't look very good, and it certainly doesn't remove bonus actions from the game, in fact it makes them more powerful.

I think Mearls was talking about removing the concept and mechanics of bonus actions completely so that action economy would be simpler. Some things like 2WF would become its own combat action that directly allowed an extra off-hand attack, current bonus action spells would become normal action spells which allowed also a single attack or cantrip to be used at the same time, and so on... other abilities like rage or wildshape would read "when you take an action, you can also...".

I haven't heard about Mearls idea recently but his role at WotC was changed, so it doesn't necessarily mean he changed his mind. I was wondering what kind I change/errata might have happened because I am not aware.
 

Well to me that doesn't look very good, and it certainly doesn't remove bonus actions from the game, in fact it makes them more powerful.

I think Mearls was talking about removing the concept and mechanics of bonus actions completely so that action economy would be simpler. Some things like 2WF would become its own combat action that directly allowed an extra off-hand attack, current bonus action spells would become normal action spells which allowed also a single attack or cantrip to be used at the same time, and so on... other abilities like rage or wildshape would read "when you take an action, you can also...".

I haven't heard about Mearls idea recently but his role at WotC was changed, so it doesn't necessarily mean he changed his mind. I was wondering what kind I change/errata might have happened because I am not aware.

I agree with reducing the action economy. Thinking about it now, bonus actions do seem kind of stupid, saying a character can take "x" amount of normal actions but then you also get a bonus and possibly a reaction doesnt make much sense RAW. TWF needs to be turned into 1 attack roll imo, possibly with disadvantage at higher damage. There definitely needs to be a hard cap on actions and those actions need to be clearly defined.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
I agree with reducing the action economy. Thinking about it now, bonus actions do seem kind of stupid, saying a character can take "x" amount of normal actions but then you also get a bonus and possibly a reaction doesnt make much sense RAW.

Well personally I really like reactions, but I am neutral about bonus actions.

I played a lot of 3.0 which originally didn't have bonus actions, and it was just fine. At some point they introduced swift actions and I hated them, as they complicated an already complex and fiddly action economy.

However the 5e action economy is more relaxed and bonus actions seem fine to me, although it might be because I haven't had a Monk or 2WFer in the group who would use bonus actions every round. All characters I have had in my games used bonus actions for scarce resources (spells, wildshape, maneuvers...) except Rogues, but for some reasons rogues in my games haven't used them all the time, probability became they were all more ranged-focused.
 

Well personally I really like reactions, but I am neutral about bonus actions.

I played a lot of 3.0 which originally didn't have bonus actions, and it was just fine. At some point they introduced swift actions and I hated them, as they complicated an already complex and fiddly action economy.

However the 5e action economy is more relaxed and bonus actions seem fine to me, although it might be because I haven't had a Monk or 2WFer in the group who would use bonus actions every round. All characters I have had in my games used bonus actions for scarce resources (spells, wildshape, maneuvers...) except Rogues, but for some reasons rogues in my games haven't used them all the time, probability became they were all more ranged-focused.

Yeah 3.5 got really rules heavy and when they introduced swift and free actions I just ignored them. A few years ago I made a character for a 3.5 game I joined for a few sessions and it took me hours. I took calculus tests that were easier. I suppose it probably was because I hadnt played that edition in years.

Now 5E is pretty simple but I would still like to see the next core books for 6E a little simpler with the more complex rules in an appendix. I suppose 5E already does that to an extent in the PHB/DMG with the optional rules. With bonus actions being built into the class features kinda makes it more complicated than it needs to be IMO.
 

I like Schwalbs take on the matter.

He combined bonjs actions and reactions, calling them "triggered actions". So if in 5e you were to use a bonus action, you'd be unable to use a reaction later, for example if someone leaves your reach.

While this is more restrictive, it is simpler in that there's less to remember. I also find that it sits better with me.
 

I like Schwalbs take on the matter.

He combined bonjs actions and reactions, calling them "triggered actions". So if in 5e you were to use a bonus action, you'd be unable to use a reaction later, for example if someone leaves your reach.

While this is more restrictive, it is simpler in that there's less to remember. I also find that it sits better with me.

I seem to remember this but not where, or when it was introduced, 4E?
 

I seem to remember this but not where, or when it was introduced, 4E?
Shadow of the Demon Lord. But since Schwalb did a lot of work on 4e and 5e, it may very well have originated from there.

It really just means that you are only tracking 2 things instead of 3. And I've found in play it makes a big difference.
 

GreyLord

Legend
2024 is still a ways off. I think the more likely thing that will be done will be a new hardback which has a lot more options and can be incorporated into gameplay. It could address many of the concerns that are currently occupying people's minds while leaving the core books to remain selling as they are. Slight modifications to the core books may be made, but a majority of the options that are being discussed, I feel would come out in a new book which could act as optional rules to core, or even flat out replace rules from the core books.

We are talking about a book that some may consider essential, and could address thing such as ancestries and heritage and how to replace the core rules with those ideas. Also, perhaps new renditions to old classes, including some of the more troublesome archetypes and classes with alternate names, approaches, and touches. Perhaps alternate rules for enemies the PC's will face, a different take on alignment, and changes to a few magic items. In addition, perhaps rules for being more sensitive to people's concerns around the gaming table and taking care to be a safe and welcoming place for all gamers to play.

Some may see it as a fourth core rulebook even. I'd imagine such a project is only now in the initial stages though, so much could probably change in that regards, but would be slated to come out far sooner than 2024. This would enable the core rulebooks to remain largely compatible (even with slight changes) and not mess up the sales rates that they are currently trending at, while at the same time acknowledging problems that are currently ongoing with the game and attempting to address these difficulties.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
In recent weeks, I have noticed a shift in conversation towards more mechanical changes. Maybe it is just aberrant noise, but it does bring to light that to whatever degree cosmetic changes occur, there may also be significant mechanical changes as well. If the changes are enough, new rulebooks would seem in order...and if WotC is going that route anyway, it may be that we'll see a more significant revision than it looked like in that poll, where the center of gravity seemed around "5.15" - or a bit more than "almost entirely cosmetic, maybe with a few minor tweaks."

Averaging a poll of discrete changes makes no sense. It's like asking people their favorite color and then averaging the wavelengths to say that green is the most popular.

Business model wise if they aren't coming with a new edition or half-edition, they will continue with the working and no-chance-to-alienate-players method of putting it in errata and newly published books.

There is no chance of a 5.15.
 
Last edited:

NotAYakk

Legend
Averaging a poll of discrete changes makes no sense. Business model wise if they aren't coming with a new edition or half-edition, they will continue with the working and no-chance-to-alienate-players method of putting it in errata and newly published books.

There is no chance of a 5.15.
But, if they do issue "character options" that provide modular feature-swaps of core classes, that can actually act like a 5.15 without as much risk alienating customers.

Then, they can publish a PHB with the "character options" included, years later. Still, 5.0, but an updated PHB.

Similarly, they can have an extended DM's option book (or include such modules in other books), then have a DMG that includes all of those reedited.
 

Mercurius

Legend
Averaging a poll of discrete changes makes no sense. Business model wise if they aren't coming with a new edition or half-edition, they will continue with the working and no-chance-to-alienate-players method of putting it in errata and newly published books.

There is no chance of a 5.15.

I'm not a business person but my sense is that business-wise it makes sense to capitalize on the 50th anniversary--in whatever way they think will generate significant sales while minimizing alienation. Whether that is a 5.15 or 5.5 or 6E is anyone's guess. But my sense is that it depends on the next few years. If....

D&D maintains or increases popularity, a 5.1 to 5.3 is likely.

D&D slightly diminishes but remains strong, probably same as above, but slightly greater chance for a larger departure.

D&D drops significantly, a bonafide new edition becomes more likely.

But even a 6E will be a lot closer to 5E than previous edition changes. Probably more like the switch from 1E to 2E, or 3E to 3.5.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I'm not a business person but my sense is that business-wise it makes sense to capitalize on the 50th anniversary--in whatever way they think will generate significant sales while minimizing alienation. Whether that is a 5.15 or 5.5 or 6E is anyone's guess. But my sense is that it depends on the next few years. If....

D&D maintains or increases popularity, a 5.1 to 5.3 is likely.

D&D slightly diminishes but remains strong, probably same as above, but slightly greater chance for a larger departure.

D&D drops significantly, a bonafide new edition becomes more likely.

But even a 6E will be a lot closer to 5E than previous edition changes. Probably more like the switch from 1E to 2E, or 3E to 3.5.

Agree about something 50th Anniversary. Absolutely disagree about "5.15" for reasons stated that have not been rebuffed in your comment so still stand.

We will not see a "5.1" or "5.3". Either they will turn the crank or they will keep the cash cow going. That could be a 5.5 with enough changes that it's only sorta kinda backwards compatible like 3.0 to 3.5, but I doubt it. I think 6e is more likely. I guess I would say my guesses about 50th Anniversary would be ranked:

1. New Limited edition collector covers + "Big Hardcover"+tie ins + Class Feature Variant / XGtE 2 book
2. 6e.
3. Just an increased publishing schedule with lots of 50th special editions.
4. 5.5e
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
But, if they do issue "character options" that provide modular feature-swaps of core classes, that can actually act like a 5.15 without as much risk alienating customers.

Then, they can publish a PHB with the "character options" included, years later. Still, 5.0, but an updated PHB.

Similarly, they can have an extended DM's option book (or include such modules in other books), then have a DMG that includes all of those reedited.

Sure, they can come out with a class features variants book. I'm expecting one, probably sooner. That's not a change to the core rules, not changing the version any more than Xanathar's or SCAG did coming out with some more options.
 

A) It is now more likely that we see revised core rulebooks within the next few years?
B) Substantial revision is now more likely?
C) We may even see a new edition sooner than later?

A - I don't think revised rulebooks are particularly likely. The stuff they want to change is too messy and would require too fundamental of a rethink to the design.
B - I think significant revision re: secondary books like a Xanathars 2 is extremely likely. They'll keep it optional within 5E.
C - Yes, I think 6E was already closer than we though, internally in WotC, at least as an option, and I strongly suspect that, for WotC, the rest of 5E will be that "let's try out more wild ideas" phase that D&D enters at the end of an edition's lifespan. We won't see the impact for 8-16 months I'd guess, but then I suspect we'll see wilder stuff.

This may be wishful thinking on my part, but I don't think so. Every previous edition, without exception, started doing this in the last few years - once you start making big changes and additions, even if they're purely optional, you want to make more, and generally the public likes it.

If they do bother with a revised, there's no way they'll do it for less than a 5.5 or 5.75 (where Pathfinder is regarded as 3.75E). It'd be backwards compatible, but more in the sense that you could still use all your 5E adventures with it than every piece of 5E material. It's the adventures that people care about with backwards compatibility.
 

NotAYakk

Legend
Sure, they can come out with a class features variants book. I'm expecting one, probably sooner. That's not a change to the core rules, not changing the version any more than Xanathar's or SCAG did coming out with some more options.
Sure. Then if they come out a new PHB that includes stuff from those books... it isn't a change to the core rules. It just adds to them.

And if those options make the original ones obsolete for rangers, well, then, so be it. ;)

You could even include optional (aka improved) bonus action rules.
 
Last edited:

A - I don't think revised rulebooks are particularly likely. The stuff they want to change is too messy and would require too fundamental of a rethink to the design.

When it comes to "race", WotC seems to implement a "fundamental rethink" of the core rules. I take updates to the core rules to remove possible racism as inevitable.

Relatedly, rules for character customization and personalization seem likely to become core.

Meanwhile any other rules that enjoy solid community support might find their way into the anniversary edition.

The anniversary will be collectors items. And there will be incentive to purchase it. Having all the updates so far all in one place will be a valuable resource.

In sum, I personally expect the anniversary printing to include modest yet significant updates.
 

PHB pg 189 clearly states..."You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available". I don't see where people are saying that a player would get more than one in a turn, and you only get one if your class feature allows one. Same with reactions, you only get one per turn. Worst case scenario you would get your regular actions, a bonus action and a reaction. Can someone please enlighten me, is there some errata I'm unaware of?

No, there is no published rule that lets you have more than one bonus action per turn. If anyone is doing more than one, then there is a house rule at play, but nothing official.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top