D&D 5E Revisiting revised core rulebooks

[R_J_K75]

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?

 

[ZeshinX]

That house rule: actually sounds like pretty cool. Does Mearls endorse it or what?

I have no idea to be honest. I just happened upon it while Google searching 5e bonus action houserules.

 

[ZeshinX]

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]

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

Death to the Tyranny of Bonus Actions

Bonus actions in 5e? Not a fan. Mike Mearls now sees them as "fairly hacky," and I agree. But since removing them entirely won't happen u...

talesofthegrotesqueanddungeonesque.blogspot.com

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.

 

[R_J_K75]

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]

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.

 

[R_J_K75]

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.

 

[CubicsRube]

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.

 

[R_J_K75]

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?

 

[CubicsRube]

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.