D&D (2024) Mike Mearls “…it’s now obvious how to live without Bonus Actions”' And 6th Edition When Players Ask

With all due respect to Mike Mearls, he is wrong. The action economy in 5th Edition is beautifully designed, and I wouldn't change a thing about it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh gawd, please, please, please don't turn this into another stealth wank.

Yeah add em to the list of 5E could do better.

 

[clearstream]

I also wrote <<The ability could be written in such a way as to b compatible or not compatible with other actions like hiding, attacking, or extra object manipulation as desired.>> Key point: you shouldn't assume from what I wrote that there is a concrete proposal which makes spellcasting the ONLY way to inspire allies.

Agreed. I was using it in the same way i.e. to show what I feel to be an issue here. For the sake of argument lets say we have 5 bonus-actions and each is compatible with 5 combat-actions. Currently, those combinations are enumerated as two 5-element lists. If instead [bonus-actions] are stuck onto [combat-actions] then we have one list of 25-elements. That's inefficient and decreases opportunities for creative play. But perhaps we have a misunderstanding.

That isn't really a statement about Bonus Actions: you're just saying you want extra actions to be orthogonal to each other, which is specifically the thing that I object to. 5E designers like to just slap "bonus action" on a thing to make them compatible from a gamist point of view (all consuming a shared resource though), without actually considering whether the actual actions are in fact compatible with each other. What you call "richer gameplay" I call "poorer gameplay." "Everything and the kitchen sink all plugged into the same power cord [bonus action]" isn't good design OR efficient design, it's just lazy design.

What do you mean by "orthogonal" in this context? I feel like I have to rule out that you are directly addressing that term to combinatorial mechanics because I do not see how you could label those as bad, inefficient or lazy from a game design point of view. We know that ever since Cosmic Encounters, combinatorial design has been recognised as one of the most powerful and efficient tools in a designer's toolbox. And that many of the most successful game designs of all time, from Magic the Gathering to DOTA, use such mechanics.

So I'm forced to assume you mean something that right now isn't clear to me.

If combinations were considered separately you could have sensible combinations like Rogue/Shadow Monks who can Shadow Step and also Cunning Action (Hide) while they are doing so (try to tell me that doesn't make 100% logical sense), or Valor Bards who fight with two weapons while still inspiring their comrades, instead of being forced to use greatswords for the same effect. You're trying to paint that design work as pure waste, an unnecessary cost obviated by the existence of bonus actions--but I think the game would be better off if that design work had occurred.

Clearly you disagree.

Shadow Monks can bonus action Shadow Step and action Hide. What they cannot do is Attack + Hide, and that makes sense because attacking stops you being hidden. Valor Bards can use Bardic Inspiration while fighting with two weapons. If they cannot in your campaign then that is a house rule. Again, I do not follow your criticism here. What putatively unnecessary cost is being obviated by bonus actions?

 

[Mephista]

Shadow Monks can bonus action Shadow Step and action Hide. What they cannot do is Attack + Hide, and that makes sense because attacking stops you being hidden. Valor Bards can use Bardic Inspiration while fighting with two weapons. If they cannot in your campaign then that is a house rule. Again, I do not follow your criticism here. What putatively unnecessary cost is being obviated by bonus actions?

Valor Bards can't Bardic Inspire while using Two Weapon Fighting in the same turn. Holding that extra sword is meaningless on any turn in which you Inspire. You're better off using a shield or greatsword in this case, which yield either better defense for same damage, or equal damage to attacking the two weapons (greater damage after level 6). But then, using bonus action for TWFing was a poor call in the first place. Meaningful* for the rogue, gimped for everyone else.


* For given definitions of meaningful; I find it to be a terrible option in a lot of games, even for rogues, and that's before the lack of support options.


You are right about the shadow monks, sort of. You can't distract with Minor Illusion, shadowstep, then hide, when it makes sense in my opinion. But Shadow Step, all in all, was designed with the intent of combat use. You're getting advantage on immediate attacks as part of the ability, after all. Its a failure of D&D design to focus on combat to the detriment of exploration and social.

 

[clearstream]

Valor Bards can't Bardic Inspire while using Two Weapon Fighting in the same turn. Holding that extra sword is meaningless on any turn in which you Inspire.

I understood Hemlock to be making a broader point, but if not, accepted: they can't make the second attack in that one turn. Inspire lasts 10 minutes.

You're better off using a shield or greatsword in this case, which yield either better defense for same damage, or equal damage to attacking the two weapons (greater damage after level 6). But then, using bonus action for TWFing was a poor call in the first place. Meaningful* for the rogue, gimped for everyone else.

We need to differentiate between the mechanical structure, and how it has been instantiated. We could easily agree that instantiating TWF using a bonus action is a poor call, without agreeing that bonus actions are a bad structure. 5e's streamlined action economy represents decades of thoughtful experimentation and playtesting, through 3e, 3.5e and 4e. Locking current class special actions to combat general actions risks taking a clear step backwards.

You are right about the shadow monks, sort of. You can't distract with Minor Illusion, shadowstep, then hide, when it makes sense in my opinion. But Shadow Step, all in all, was designed with the intent of combat use. You're getting advantage on immediate attacks as part of the ability, after all. Its a failure of D&D design to focus on combat to the detriment of exploration and social.

Agreed about that! For me it is hard to understand their persistence in doing that. Mearls can seem over-focused on skirmish-scale, table-top combat. I'd rather he expended more of his design talents on exploration and social!

 

[Li Shenron]

If you dislike bonus actions, you know what would be even simpler? To just get rid of everything that uses them.

- Instead of having a bunch of spells that use a bonus action, have all of those spells use an action. The game was fine without Healing Word.

- Do you want to fight with two weapons? Just use one weapon on your first attack, and the other weapon on your second attack. If you have only one attack per round, use a different hand/weapon each round. It's not written in the Bible that 2WF must grant more than the usual number of attacks per round.

- Bard Inspiration doesn't even need to take an action at all.

 

[Pale_Valkyrie]

My husband posted with my account, probably by accident.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What do you mean by "orthogonal" in this context? I feel like I have to rule out that you are directly addressing that term to combinatorial mechanics because I do not see how you could label those as bad, inefficient or lazy from a game design point of view. We know that ever since Cosmic Encounters, combinatorial design has been recognised as one of the most powerful and efficient tools in a designer's toolbox. And that many of the most successful game designs of all time, from Magic the Gathering to DOTA, use such mechanics.

So I'm forced to assume you mean something that right now isn't clear to me.

By "combinatorial mechanics" I am forced to assume that you mean "options which are interchangeable with each other, independently or in combination", in which case that is indeed what I mean by "orthogonal."

Clearly you love that style of game design, so much so that you can't imagine why anyone would object to it in an RPG.

I however don't want to play D&D: the Gathering. I want a role-playing game, not an interesting exercise in exploiting powerful combinations. If you want to show that the techniques you refer to are relevant in this space, you have to show it, not just reference some external consensus.

Shadow Monks can bonus action Shadow Step and action Hide. What they cannot do is Attack + Hide, and that makes sense because attacking stops you being hidden. Valor Bards can use Bardic Inspiration while fighting with two weapons. If they cannot in your campaign then that is a house rule. Again, I do not follow your criticism here. What putatively unnecessary cost is being obviated by bonus actions?

We've already covered why this statement doesn't hold. If you attack and then teleport away, how is the enemy supposed to keep track of your position, especially if you teleport out of their line of sight? Some posters on this thread have even said they'd include a Hide attempt in Shadow Step by default. In any case, your claim here is falsified by the fact that the very same Rogue/Shadow Monk could by RAW Attack + Cunning Action (Hide). Yet somehow, teleporting makes him easier to locate, not harder. The fiction you're suggesting doesn't hold water.

RE: Valor Bards, are you missing the point about TWF and Bardic Inspiration both requiring a bonus action (and thus conflicting), or are you just being pedantic about the fact that anyone can hold a second weapon in their off-hand and do nothing with it at no action cost?

 

[MechaTarrasque]

It seems like the most elegant way would be to make the actions 'free", but require concentration to maintain them. A lot of the bonus action spells are pretty much this anyway. It would be a big change to fighting styles, but I would propose this: power the styles up a bit, add concentration, and then add a cycling time (if you lose concentration, it takes 2 rounds before you can gather your focus enough to concentrate on your fighting style again). Throw in a battlemaster feat (like the war caster one), and all should be well. That adds a little narrative focus to fighting styles--not just something you do, but something you focus on.

 

[Litania]

218 contradicting posts later it seems like it' not that obvious after all!

 

[clearstream]

By "combinatorial mechanics" I am forced to assume that you mean "options which are interchangeable with each other, independently or in combination", in which case that is indeed what I mean by "orthogonal."

Clearly you love that style of game design, so much so that you can't imagine why anyone would object to it in an RPG.

I however don't want to play D&D: the Gathering. I want a role-playing game, not an interesting exercise in exploiting powerful combinations. If you want to show that the techniques you refer to are relevant in this space, you have to show it, not just reference some external consensus.

In D&D? Multiclassing. Ability scores. Any time one player buffs another player. Bonus actions. The Vancian spell system. Magic items. Any time players creatively combine effects. One of the basic principles of the system (as cited by its designers) - that specific trumps general - comes from the mode of rules deconstruction that yields combinatorial mechanics. An enormous part of why D&D has remained interesting to play for so long is because of its deconstructed and recombinable mechanics. I've been designing games professionally for nearly three decades and what I'm in love with are design patterns that deliver better play to gamers.

If you attack and then teleport away, how is the enemy supposed to keep track of your position, especially if you teleport out of their line of sight? Some posters on this thread have even said they'd include a Hide attempt in Shadow Step by default. In any case, your claim here is falsified by the fact that the very same Rogue/Shadow Monk could by RAW Attack + Cunning Action (Hide). Yet somehow, teleporting makes him easier to locate, not harder. The fiction you're suggesting doesn't hold water.

I feel like such arguments largely rest upon a misconstrual of how the fiction connects with the rules. I hope I'm right to say that our shared fiction presupposes a continuous flow of combat: one actor does not wait for the other actor to neatly finish up before doing anything. A great way to represent that has turned out to be a series of I-go-you-go resolution steps structured using initiative and action types (move, action, bonus, reaction). I-go-you-go contains some flaws, one of the more notorious being where I-hit-you-then-become-untargetable-before-you-go. It is basic to the balance of 5e that generally that shouldn't be possible, but we love enabling players to conditionally break even basic rules, and this is no exception. At 8th level, a Shadow Monk can break that piece of balance through taking 2 levels of Rogue. At 14th level a Ranger taking the Mobile feat can break it. At 4th level, a Rogue using Cunning Action and Mobile can break it. Rogues are best at that kind of thing.

And then, let's also come back to the time aspect of combat. A 6th level Shadow Monk can Attack and then use Shadow Step to teleport away, and then over 6 further seconds Hide. And if they truly chose a spot that their opponent can't locate, they won't be found before then. What they cannot do is deny their opponent the chance to get at least one action back in that sequence. That is reasonable because otherwise we suppose their opponent to be inert when we know in the fiction that both are acting simultaneously. To an extent here, you're simply wishing to have your cake and eat it to: you can do exactly what you want, but you can't get all the advantages you hoped for.

Your supposed problem isn't one of what is possible, it is only one of how and when it is possible, and what it overshadows.