D&D 5E Action Econ 101

[Olgar Shiverstone]

It is completely unnecessary to add the bonus action portion unless it is granting an extra bonus action. Whether it is badly written by adding something that is unnecessary and confusing, or it is badly written because it put the extra bonus action in the wrong portion of the sentence, we can agree it is badly written.

As adding something completely irrelevant to a sentence is a much less frequent mistake than putting it in the wrong place in a sentence I'm inclined to think the intent is you get an additional bonus action.

Actually, it is necessary to phrase the abilities that way. An ability that uses a bonus action is granting the bonus action. Unlike a move or an action, a character does not have a bonus action every turn -- a character only has a bonus action if he or she uses an ability which grants a bonus action.

It's a fine distinction, but important because it prevents gaining an additional bonus action. There's no such thing as an additional, because the character never had one in the first place. You can get an additional action (e.g. Action Surge), but not an additional bonus action.

 

[Darkstar360]

So a fighter of high enough level to get two attacks on an attack action can make another two attacks with his extra attack action granted by haste? For a total of four attacks while hasted?

 

[ForumFerret]

So a fighter of high enough level to get two attacks on an attack action can make another two attacks with his extra attack action granted by haste? For a total of four attacks while hasted?

Correct.

 

[kerleth]

Respectfully, wrong. To quote haste

"That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), dash, disengage, hide, or use an object action."

So only a single weapon attack, you don't gain the benefits of the extra attack ability.



Also, I don't think the mentioning of a bonus action in action surge IS obviously badly written. Seems that almost everything that gives you an extra attack, spell, dash, whatever lets you do it as a bonus action. The only exceptions I know of are Action Surge and Haste. I think they did it that way so you wouldn't just assume it was a bonus action, and wouldn't "stack" with them. To me their phrasing is specifically so people WON'T assume that they made a mistake and just forgot to say it was a bonus action. So there is a valid reason to have the sentence that way.

Between having a phrasing that grammatically works, is logical, and has a valid reason
vs
an explanation based on they just wrote it wrong

it seems to make a lot more sense to me to choose the 1st one. Even if some people don't see the need for it to be written that way, it seems pretty easy to understand why it might have been for other people. To me, at least. But I habitually find alternative ways of interpreting text, so I'm noone to point fingers. (Not for rules lawyery, just because my mind seems to work just to the left of most peoples. Meh.)

 

[Sadrik]

Haste actually grants an additional action which you can use to make a single attack or anything else you could usually use an action for (dash, hide, disengage etc)

Right, it provides an additional action and not a bonus action.

So conceptually a bonus action is not a "bonus" action in the sense that it is an additional action but is instead a completely different type of action. I think SuperZero has a good point in that the naming convention of this new/not-so-new action type is a rehashed concept. It serves as a limit where you can only do one per action.

Some spells have a casting time of a bonus action. Allowing you to cast and do something else.

Chocolategravy also makes a valid point in that he is tired of hearing the term action economy. I am also. However, the 5e designers have put this into the game. Perhaps there are some people who enjoy fiddling with extra, bonus, and react actions. It was not till the 3.5 splat books that these became a "thing" prior to that they were a special case of a specific feat or spell. In 4e they thought it was a major boon of 3.5e so they added the different action types and fleshed out things you could do with those actions. I think that concept still exists in 5e, and they have fleshed out what you can do with bonus actions and rather than them being "bonuses" they are better termed a minor action like in 4e. I attack with my off hand as a minor action.

 

[Lalato]

I think that concept still exists in 5e, and they have fleshed out what you can do with bonus actions and rather than them being "bonuses" they are better termed a minor action like in 4e. I attack with my off hand as a minor action.

I disagree. Once you name it "minor", it means something different. At least on a natural language level.

When it's named a "bonus" action, it connotes something you may or may not have at any given moment. It's right in the name... it's a bonus. Sometimes you have it, sometimes you don't. Some classes get bonuses more often than others. Whereas "minor" action sounds like something anyone could do because it's such a small trifling thing... heck it's in the name itself... it's a "minor" action. Yes, the names have changed over time, but I would rather the game evolve and get the language right.

 

[Sadrik]

I disagree. Once you name it "minor", it means something different. At least on a natural language level.

When it's named a "bonus" action, it connotes something you may or may not have at any given moment. It's right in the name... it's a bonus. Sometimes you have it, sometimes you don't.

I will also disagree. You do get a bonus action every round. There is no may not have it at any moment that is any different than 4e or 3e later splats for that matter. Minor actions were the same way, you may not have been able to use a minor action on any given turn too. You still got it every round and had the potential of using it just as you do with bonus actions. Same concept new word. If they had actually used bonus actions far less in the rules I might agree with you. However, they are used quite a lot. They are just another action type to potentially fill up and maximize on each of your turns.

As to what the action is called, "bonus action" is not quite right language-wise for me. I think of bonus as something that does not happen every round, it is a bonus. This is not a bonus in that sense. It happens every round. So something like haste grants a bonus action. That feels right to me language-wise. Action Surge grants a bonus action etc. So these are language-wise much more like closet cases rather than something that occurs every round.

 

[Lalato]

As to what the action is called, "bonus action" is not quite right language-wise for me. I think of bonus as something that does not happen every round, it is a bonus. This is not a bonus in that sense. It happens every round. So something like haste grants a bonus action. That feels right to me language-wise. Action Surge grants a bonus action etc. So these are language-wise much more like closet cases rather than something that occurs every round.

Hmmm... Thinking through this, I didn't make myself clear on minor vs bonus. Minor actions used to be codified to include all sorts of mundane... "minor"... things. Like opening a door, sheathing a weapon, quaffing a potion, all sorts of things that anyone could do. On top of this, there were actual class abilities and feats that also allowed you to do other non-mundane things with your "minor" action. Some of these "minor" things weren't really minor at all. But they also may not have been normal actions either. Not everyone could do these non-mundane actions. They were special to certain classes or powers or attack maneuvers or feats.

In 5e it seems that these non-mundane things have been relabeled as "bonus" actions. Because they truly are a bonus above and beyond the normal action you get. There are different bonus actions, but they appear to be limited to class features and attack maneuvers... and not everyone has access to them. So to me, at least, they're not "minor" actions. They're something else. Perhaps "bonus" isn't the perfect word for it, but "minor" is definitely the wrong word for it. "Swift" is another word used before. It doesn't quite fit either. At least with "bonus" I can understand that this is above and beyond the normal action. As for extra actions from Haste or Action Surge... I think "extra" fits just fine there.

 

[GameDoc]

PHB72 "Action Surge... On your turn you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action."

I think the "a" in the "and a possible bonus action" is part of the confusion. It can be read to mean that you get a possible bonus action unique to the effects of Action Surge.

I think the intent to was to remind the reader that the [standard] action granted is in addition to the regular standard action and any possible bonus action already available. The additional action is not to be counted as an upgraded bonus action and potential bonus actions are still there if warranted by the situation.

It may ave been clearer to state "...on top of your regular action and possible bonus action". Even better if that had been followed by "... granted by the circumstances."

 

[Uchawi]

The term bonus lends itself to a reward for effort, where some bonus actions are just another action you can do every round. I am not sure if minor is any better, or even the term reaction. But the action economy is important in a game, even if you call it something different. But over all the ability in use should state when or when it can not be used, i.e. at-will, or x times per day, etc. It is not clear with bonus action whether the intent was to limit it to combat, and you have to be careful, because why can something only be done in combat and not outside of it? Duration or frequency of use would be straight forward and easy to understand across the board.