Interesting House Rules - Bonus Action for Skills - What are the Problems?

There are a variety of threads on this, and other forums, that discuss whether an action is required to use a skill. In the end, it is up to the DM if there is no set and certain rule. Different DMs apply different rulings. There are certain

For this specific house rule, if the DM used it: In situations in which that DM determines an action is normally required, a bonus action would suffice to use the skill. If no action were required by that DM (as many DMs do not require it for knowledge, etc...), then the house rule would be irrelevant.

Please note that one of the features of this house rule is that it makes proficiency even more important. Whether one believes that to be necessary or not is a matter of perspective. I prefer to have proficiency mean more, which is one of the reasons I find this house rule interesting.

As with all house rules, I think you should just go with your gut -- if you think it will make your game more fun, do it. Just make sure you let your players know that it's being tested and you all may go back to RAW.

A way I could see this rule would be fun is if you're playing a cloak and dagger type game and you would want every class to have easy access to spotting and hiding. In this case, anyone could play a rogue-type character without needing to be a rogue. And if someone in this sort of game did decide to play a rogue, you could make cunning action even better somehow.

But in a generic game with characters of all types, it does step on a lot of toes.

The 5e skill rules have so little thought put into them that you're unlikely to make them worse. It's not like you're putting a stick in a finely oiled machine. There's some gears spinning, and sometimes that sprocket is actually putting tension on a chain, but... lets face it, most of the time all that machinery is doing nothing. All you're doing is changing the cost of trying to use it.

The rogue isn't getting trampled on here either. Cunning action is a low level ability that is extremely powerful and flexible, and would be even if it didn't allow the hide action. A rogue is getting more advantage out of this rule change anyway, thanks to their ability to be the only class that can consistently succeed at skill checks. Only players of the thief subclass are really taking a penalty here, but the features being damaged were always relatively poor.

Saeviomagy said:

The 5e skill rules have so little thought put into them that you're unlikely to make them worse.

Click to expand...

Please explain. Do you have inside information on how much time or thought was put into this specific part of the game?

DM Magic said:

Please explain. Do you have inside information on how much time or thought was put into this specific part of the game?

Click to expand...

No, just assuming there's a correlation between the amount of time and thought put into an aspect and the end result. Because frankly the end result is not much better than "roll a d20 and decide how you feel about it".

Saeviomagy said:

No, just assuming there's a correlation between the amount of time and thought put into an aspect and the end result. Because frankly the end result is not much better than "roll a d20 and decide how you feel about it".

Click to expand...

Same thing with combat. It's basically just "roll a d20 and decide how you feel about it." Ugh. amirite?

jgsugden said:

This is incorrect. Being invisible and hidden are two separate things. There are a lot of threads on this topic. Turning invisible does not hide your location from an enemy, and does not give you the benefits of being hidden. A lot of people site the Predator films as an example of the invisibility granted generally.

Click to expand...

Ah sorry, you are correct and my solution was just as messy - thanks for pointing that out. Haven't had anyone try it in a game yet and now I'm prepared (or so I think ).

I would amend my response to say that turning invisible already grants disadvantage to attacks against the invisible creature - so it is pretty good as is and is not in need of "fixing" by adding a bonus action to hide. I'd also agree with those that are indicating the ability to hide as a bonus action after using an action to turn invisible on the same turn steps on the toes of the Rogue's Cunning Action.

It seems to me that the main 'problem' these house rules set out to solve is 'why do I have to spend my action doing this thing that isn't an attack?'

The proposed solutions do have the advantage that they reward characters for choosing specific proficient skills, though the fact that they all have a combat focus (hiding, detecting hidden enemies, escaping a grapple, and recalling specific knowledge during combat are all combat-focused uses of these skills) threatens to make these skills over-valued when compared with skills that don't have combat utility, or skills that have conditional combat utility but don't have an explicit use (such as Athletics -- why not have Athletics also provide the 'bonus action escape' as well as Acrobatics?).

One other nitpick -- the 'use Acrobatics to escape twice' re-establishes a balance that seems to be deliberately absent in 5e grappling rules. The rules allow a creature to attempt as many grapple checks as it has attacks ("When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them." [emphasis mine], but only to attempt one escape per turn ("A grappled creature can use its action to escape.") Breaking this asymmetry allows high-mobility characters to effectively negate the main ability that opponents will have to limit its movement without significantly affecting their combat ability. If this is what you want, no problem, but I would not make this change, as highly mobile PCs are already very difficult to deal with without specific counter-measures, and the grapple is a good general-purpose option for allowing most encounters an opportunity to limit high-mobility PCs and the damage they can do.

--
Pauper

A subsequent suggestion elsewhere seems to be a bit better: Rather than making this a blanket rule, instead create a separate bonus for each skill that you get when you are proficient with the skill. Use it as a bonus would be the ability for some of the skills, but not all. For example, knowledge skills and charisma skills would have other benefits. This could also help rebalance some of the skills to make them more attractive.

jgsugden said:

...instead create a separate bonus for each skill that you get when you are proficient with the skill. Use it as a bonus would be the ability for some of the skills, but not all...

Click to expand...

Sounds intriguing & similar to how each Background has a unique minor benefit to it.