Chaosmancer
Legend
I think perhaps the problem here is taking an example that is simply intended to give you an idea of the sort of mechanic he's talking about and then extrapolating it out of context. Yes, that would be an obvious issue. So, yes, the full implementation would be designed in such a way that this wouldn't actually be a problem. He's not suggesting you could just drop 'Eldritch Tactics' into the current 5e ruleset.
I think the entire problem with trying to discuss this is that the change is substantial enough that it would require a full reworking of the whole system. It can't be done as a quick patch or a quick UA as an alternate set of rules. It's why Mearls said that it's the kind of thing they would only do in the context of a new edition. Which he has said is very far away.
In other words, there's no point in trying to extrapolate his 'Eldritch Tactics' across levels or to the system as a whole. Because Eldritch Tactics would only work in context of a new ruleset. Which we don't have. And hasn't been designed. He's just giving an example of the type of thing you might see in that hypothetical ruleset. I suspect he's thought about it comprehensively enough that-- in a one on one conversation-- you'd be able to ask how he'd handle such things. But you won't get that in an interview where he's limited to giving a fairly quick response. That's a full dinner conversation (which would bore the heck out of most of the audience I suspect)/
See, I agree it was just a quick-fire suggestion that isn't meant to be put within 5e.
However, I've seen enough responses to the questions and confusion about how his system is actually better that essentially boil down to "He's a professional, you aren't, he's clearly got more planned and you don't know game design like he does so stop asking"
Like I said, we've been having this discussion for a while now, and the counter-arguments against the style of "special actions" he talked about in the video is really compelling, I'd love to have someone show me a better system, but I hate it when the response is "Are you a professional game designer?" because that isn't a very compelling argument.
Sorry [Not sorry]!
He doesn't have a full "solution". Not yet anyway. Not for every bonus action across the board.
Why? Because there's no reason to make one. Because again... the game isn't changing and removing Bonus actions. So he has no reason to actually fully work the rules out! Instead, he just TALKS about it.
But, he now knows that HAD they the opportunity to remove Bonus actions from the game, how he would go about it. What would be involved. Would it involve a whole crap-ton of playtesting? Of course. But as that all would have been done during the three years of D&D Next playtesting, I'm fairly certain they would have come up with a system as effective and useful as what they currently have involving bonus actions.
But again... since they aren't changing anything, why do you CARE? Is your gaming identity so tied up into the 5E rules that the mere mention of a rule being perhaps better in a different form a slap in your face? Well, I got news for you... there are PLENTY of rules in 5E that could be made better. By you. By me. By other folks here on EN World. And yes, by Mike Mearls himself.
And seeing as how it was the vision of Mike Mearls and the rest of the design staff who GAVE US the 5E rules that you seem to love in the first place... to suggest that he is NOW incapable of coming up with something better is utterly ridiculous in my opinion. And quite frankly, I'd trust him with his concepts for new 5E rules much more often than just a random player like the folks on this board. But hey, that's just me.
You've got the completely wrong idea about what is annoying me about your response.
Why do I care about bonus actions possibly being removed? Because it is an interesting concept and a discussion worth having. Seriously, I play this game for fun and discussion about how things could work, if they could be improved, what that may look like, is it worth doing at the table, I find all of it interesting and fascinating to discuss.
And then people come along and "counter" my arguments about how the system we have is actually better by telling me I'm not a game designer or by telling me it isn't changing now so why should I care.
Well, we haven't built sentient robots yet either but that doesn't mean I can't be interested in discussing robot rights or how their society might evolve. (Just read a sci-fi story where robots had people build them children, who then got older bodies built for them over time, which was kind of a fascinating idea)
My problem with the design is that no one has been able to present an option that doesn't look worse than the system we currently have and it's been discussed fairly thoroughly.
My problem with the debate is that I keep getting told
a) You aren't a designer, so you can't understand it
or
b) The rules aren't actually changing so it doesn't matter WHY ARE YOU GETTING SO ANGRY!
Neither one is a very satisfactory answer to run into, and option A annoys me to no end.