Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lord Twig" data-source="post: 7167803" data-attributes="member: 31754"><p>I think you will find the chance being lower than you think. But anyway, the point is that I disagree that in increases "drama".</p><p></p><p>Although now that I think about it, it is a matter of opinion and personal preference anyway. So I guess it is fair to say it increases drama for <em>him</em> and others that think like him, but it does not increase it for <em>me</em>. So to each his own?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Those aren't issues. That is Bonus Actions working as designed. The whole point of Bonus Actions is so that you don't start stacking dozens of "free" actions on top of each other.</p><p></p><p>Bonus Actions mean that you can't get a Standard Action attack, then get an attack from your polearm feat, an attack from your cleave feat, cast a Bonus Action Spell, and Dash with Cunning Action. That is why Bonus Actions were made in the first place and limited to one per round.</p><p></p><p>The only "problem" with them, and the one that Mearls brought up (the only one that <em>anyone</em> ever brings up), is that it isn't broken to allow a character to get two attacks with two weapon fighting and then use a Bonus Action to do anything else. But instead of just saying, "Well, we should allow two weapon fighting without a Bonus Action then," people, including Mearls, say "Oh, I guess Bonus Actions are bad design."</p><p></p><p>What? How does that follow? Just because there is one thing that was listed as a Bonus Action (okay, probably more than one) that shouldn't have been, doesn't make the whole Bonus Action system bad.</p><p></p><p>Now I'm not saying it is impossible to replace Bonus Actions with something better, but I am saying that replacing them with hundreds of unique actions is definitely worse.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lord Twig, post: 7167803, member: 31754"] I think you will find the chance being lower than you think. But anyway, the point is that I disagree that in increases "drama". Although now that I think about it, it is a matter of opinion and personal preference anyway. So I guess it is fair to say it increases drama for [i]him[/i] and others that think like him, but it does not increase it for [i]me[/i]. So to each his own? Those aren't issues. That is Bonus Actions working as designed. The whole point of Bonus Actions is so that you don't start stacking dozens of "free" actions on top of each other. Bonus Actions mean that you can't get a Standard Action attack, then get an attack from your polearm feat, an attack from your cleave feat, cast a Bonus Action Spell, and Dash with Cunning Action. That is why Bonus Actions were made in the first place and limited to one per round. The only "problem" with them, and the one that Mearls brought up (the only one that [i]anyone[/i] ever brings up), is that it isn't broken to allow a character to get two attacks with two weapon fighting and then use a Bonus Action to do anything else. But instead of just saying, "Well, we should allow two weapon fighting without a Bonus Action then," people, including Mearls, say "Oh, I guess Bonus Actions are bad design." What? How does that follow? Just because there is one thing that was listed as a Bonus Action (okay, probably more than one) that shouldn't have been, doesn't make the whole Bonus Action system bad. Now I'm not saying it is impossible to replace Bonus Actions with something better, but I am saying that replacing them with hundreds of unique actions is definitely worse. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative
Top