Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Lawolf Jul 17, 2014 8:58:24	One thing I did not like about 4e was how the key to combat optimization was making sure you used all your actions for attacks. You would get a few minor action attacks, a few immediate action attacks, and a few ways to trigger opportunity attacks.   This lead to two major problems. One, it made combat take longer. Instead of your damage coming from a single roll, you had to resolve 3-4 different attacks every round. This added up to quite a bit of time at the table. Two, it made classes that lacked such abilities "sub par". The essentials thief, slayer, and knight were all great classes when compared to just the PHB1. But compared to AEDU classes with access to a variety of minor and interrupt attacks, they simply could not keep up damage wise.   Well, I am worried we will have a repeat of this same 4e problem in 5e. I was hoping that bonus and reaction attacks would either be rare, or nonexistent. But when I looked over the classes, spells, and feats, there were simply too many ways to gain bonus and reaction attacks. I'm hoping many of these features don't make it into the final version of the game, but the fact that the 4 basic classes we have are all identical to the alpha documents gives me some serious doubts.
#2 spelley Jul 17, 2014 9:31:30	Lawolf wrote:
#3 Mephi1234 Jul 17, 2014 9:47:51	Lawolf wrote:
#4 Synric Jul 17, 2014 9:57:59	Considering you only get one reaction and one bonus action per round, period... I don't see how this is a problem.
#5 spelley Jul 17, 2014 10:04:30	Synric wrote:
#6 Lawolf Jul 17, 2014 10:34:37	Synric wrote:
#7 Synric Jul 17, 2014 10:38:34	Lawolf wrote:
#8 souldoubt Jul 17, 2014 10:44:48	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #6) 1eejit	Lawolf wrote:
#10 Mephi1234 Jul 17, 2014 11:26:51	Lawolf wrote:
#11 Rastapopoulos Jul 17, 2014 12:10:58	Lawolf wrote:
#12 Lawolf Jul 17, 2014 12:16:47	I was honestly hoping that bonus actions could never be used to attack, no spell would grant extra attacks (like haste), and that reactions would be limited to opportunity attacks.   From the alpha document, it looks even worse than things were in the playtest. I was hoping these issues would have been resolved between the playtest and the alpha doc, not get worse.
#13 Mephi1234 Jul 17, 2014 14:00:03	Lawolf wrote:
#14 Saelorn Jul 17, 2014 14:05:47	Mephi1234 wrote:
#15 Lawolf Jul 17, 2014 14:06:07	Mephi1234 wrote:
#16 Sword_of_Spirit Jul 17, 2014 14:55:12	Saelorn wrote:
#17 spelley Jul 17, 2014 17:12:17	The number of things that provide Bonus Actions are minimal and either are resource based (spells, action surge), balanced against similar options (two weapon fighting) or are restricted in how they can be used (cunning action). Don't see this as an issue.
#18 Lawolf Jul 17, 2014 17:24:24	spelley wrote:
#19 Karnos Jul 17, 2014 19:02:11	Using haste to get an extra attack is using it exactly as intended.  Not an abuse.
#20 Lawolf Jul 17, 2014 21:07:02	Karnos wrote:
#21 Saelorn Jul 17, 2014 21:44:54	Lawolf wrote:
#22 Lawolf Jul 17, 2014 21:52:37	Saelorn wrote:
#23 Mephi1234 Jul 18, 2014 4:09:37	Lawolf wrote:
#24 Rastapopoulos Jul 18, 2014 8:50:36	The idea of bonus actions as a "limiting" factor I'm OK with. But only to be used for those eventual things that could "stack" and cause balance issues, which shoudn't be many.   The problem I see is that they're investing heavily in the bonus action feature, as an assumed part of combat, that characters will use very often with lots of different abilities. Which leads back to the Action Economy if you want to play your character "efficiently".   So far it's still less complex than the 3e/4e action economy, yes, but I would still rather see a simpler overall structure based on Move + Action, end of story.   "Bonus Action" should be something like a tag that a few stuff have (like attacks of opportunity) just to mention you can't do more than one of those in a round. It shouldn't be an assumed part of your actions in a round where you have several abilities in the game to fill that space in the combat round, like the rogue's Cunning Action and whatnot...   It creates a needless complexity at the base of the combat structure that inevitably leads to an Action Economy.
#25 Lawolf Jul 18, 2014 9:02:58	Mephi1234 wrote:
#26 souldoubt Jul 18, 2014 10:37:42	Haste is balanced by the following factors:    - Concentration    - The buffed character loses a turn when the spell ends -- such as if the caster's Concentration is interrupted   This means that casting haste comes with an inherent risk, in addition to requiring the expenditure of multiple resources (a spell slot and Concentration). I can't speak to the "leaked alpha" stuff you've mentioned because I haven't seen any of it.
#27 Saelorn Jul 18, 2014 10:44:34	Lawolf wrote:
#28 Karnos Jul 18, 2014 10:58:35	Lawolf wrote:
#29 Lawolf Jul 18, 2014 11:10:35	Karnos wrote:
#30 viper5 Jul 18, 2014 11:38:09	Rastapopoulos wrote:
#31 Karnos Jul 18, 2014 12:07:18	Lawolf wrote:
#32 ClockworkNecktie Jul 18, 2014 12:07:35	I don't think the slowness in the 4e action economy was due to the number of actions everyone got. I think it was due to option paralysis. You could have a half-dozen minor actions to choose from each round, and you'd feel dumb if you didn't use one. Even if we take a high-level character with lots of the playtest feats that grant bonus actions or reactions, I don't see that as a problem here: for example, if a fighter has a Riposte ability that lets them counterattack as a reaction when an opponent misses them, the only real decision they have to make is, "Do I counterattack now or reserve my reaction to use as an opportunity attack?" Since 90% of the time you'd be better of attacking now than waiting for the off-chance somebody else will trigger an OA, it should be a quick and easy choice.   Bonus actions are more common thanks to swift spells and dual wielding and Cunning Action, but even there I don't see a huge problem. If we take the corner case of a multiclass rogue/cleric who dual wields, that character will have to choose between a few bonus actions each turn (heal, offhand attack, cunning action) - but in any earlier version of the playtest, they'd just be doing ALL those things almost every turn, which seems like it'd take even more time.   Obviously this is something they could screw up. Bring out a splatbook with 400 bonus-action feats and you have a potential issue. But I don't see a major problem with the basic setup or execution so far.
#33 Lawolf Jul 18, 2014 12:10:45	Karnos wrote:
#34 1eejit Jul 18, 2014 12:21:41	What's the point in bonus action existing if there aren't ways of using it?
#35 Karnos Jul 18, 2014 12:30:02	Lawolf wrote:
#36 Mephi1234 Jul 18, 2014 12:32:02	Lawolf wrote:
#37 Lawolf Jul 18, 2014 12:35:06	1eejit wrote:
#38 Lawolf Jul 18, 2014 12:39:02	Karnos wrote:
#39 Mephi1234 Jul 18, 2014 13:45:56	Lawolf wrote:
#40 Rastapopoulos Jul 18, 2014 13:50:24	1eejit wrote:
#41 Lawolf Jul 18, 2014 14:05:50	Mephi1234 wrote:
#42 Saelorn Jul 18, 2014 14:21:26	Lawolf wrote:
#43 ChrisCarlson Jul 18, 2014 14:24:50	Lawolf wrote:
#44 Mephi1234 Jul 18, 2014 16:06:07	Lawolf wrote:
#45 Lawolf Jul 18, 2014 16:08:54	Mephi1234 wrote:
#46 Psikerlord Jul 18, 2014 17:02:52	Lawolf wrote:
#47 Rastapopoulos Jul 18, 2014 18:20:06	Lawolf wrote:
#48 Lawolf Jul 18, 2014 18:56:34	Rastapopoulos wrote:
(Reply to #45) grendel111111	But you only need to decide your bonus action after you see if the first strike hits. If it hits a second attack will only add 1d6 damage and you are better off hiding again rather than doing a small amount of extra damage. If the first attack missed then you can choose if you go for the second attack to get your bonus damage, or if you rolled high on your attack and still missed then you may decide disengaging is still the best course of action Lawolf wrote:
#50 ClockworkNecktie Jul 18, 2014 21:07:55	One thing to keep in mind is that bonus actions are a RESTRICTION from what was in the playtest, not an expansion. Most of the things that are currently listed as bonus actions were previously free or "part of another action." Reactions, too, are more restricted than 4e, where if memory serves you got one reaction per round plus one OA per TURN.    In addition, most of the bonus actions so far have a cost to them. Spells cost a spell slot, dual wielding requires you to use crappier weapons, etc. Cunning Action is basically free, but it is carefully restricted in what you can do - and it's tied to a class without much mechanical complexity to it, unlike spellcasters or even weaponmaster fighters, so it's less likely to slow the game too much. Even in the worst-case scenario if they add a bunch of feats with new bonus actions, that's two points you're not putting into Strength or Con or whatever.   Can they still screw it up? Sure. But they can add overpowered feats and classes in a bunch of different ways.
#51 ClockworkNecktie Jul 18, 2014 21:13:56	Also, the dual wielding thing makes sense to me. Without the conflict between TWF and Cunning Action, there would be almost no reason for a rogue not to wield two weapons. Forcing this tradeoff means the rogue has to make a tactical choice each round whether to play aggressively (dual-wielding for a much better chance to land a sneak attack) or defensively (cunning action to avoid opportunity attacks and/or hit and run safely).
(Reply to #51) Ashrym	ClockworkNecktie wrote:
#53 Saelorn Jul 18, 2014 22:10:57	Rastapopoulos wrote:
#54 Mephi1234 Jul 19, 2014 7:27:41	Lawolf wrote:
#55 Rastapopoulos Jul 19, 2014 7:44:55	ClockworkNecktie wrote:
#56 Mephi1234 Jul 19, 2014 8:37:42	Rastapopoulos wrote:
#57 Rastapopoulos Jul 20, 2014 20:48:32	Mephi1234 wrote: