D&D 5E Removing the bonus action - analysis

[Xeviat]

I think Mearls was saying to remove the Bonus Action and change those effects which cost bonus actions into specific actions. Two weapon fighting changes from "when you take the attack action with a light weapon in both hands, you may spend a bonus action to ..." you instead have an action like "Two Weapon Fighting: While wielding two light weapons, as an action you can make two attacks, one with each weapon. If you have he Extra Attack feature, you may make those additional attacks as well".

Spells would be the same. Bonus action spells would be "cast this spell, and you may take another action to do something else except cast a non-cantrip spell". Cunning Action would be "when you take the dash or hide action, you may also take the attack action". This still prevents stacking, but it removes the word "bonus" and the clunky "you don't have a bonus action unless an ability gives you one" thing.

I didn't mind Minor Actions or Swift/Immediate Actions

 

[MoonSong]

If the word bonus is a problem, I'd change it for "Special"

 

[Quartz]

Perhaps even simpler would be to merge Bonus Action and Reaction - i.e your Bonus Action consumes your Reaction.

 

[Ragmon]

My solutions:

Spellcasting - 1 spell per round. Bonus Action > (Attack) Action

TWF - While wielding 2 weapons, make 2 attacks using the Attack Action. When you get a Extra Attack then just make another attack with either hand under the attack action.

Stacking Bonus actions - I got nothing for this, too lazy to think about it.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I just wrapped up running Curse of Strahd for a lot of new players, and Bonus Actions did confuse the ones who weren't as adept at picking up the rules. I understand Mearls' desire to get rid of them. I can also see how to get rid of them in a lot of places, but not all.

Easy Class Abilities

Some things can be rolled into another action. I made a list of the classes that get BA's and what they do, and a lot of them can be rolled into "When you make an Attack action you can also blah blah blah." For instance, the Barbarian could enter a rage any time they make an Attack action or do another action in combat that requires a Strength check (such as shoving or grappling). Or a Monk just gets one free martial arts attack when using the Attack action. Ranger gets an extra shot if he meets the Horde Breaker requirements. Pretty simple.

The Sorcerer's Flexible Casting can be rolled up into the Cast a Spell action with no real harm.

Two-Weapon Fighting

Two-Weapon Fighting could be made simpler in a number of ways. "When you have a Light Weapon in each hand you get one Extra Attack per round (this stacks with your other sources of Extra Attack). You can divide your attacks among your two weapons as you see fit, but at least one attack per round must be with your off hand."

Spellcasting

The general rule is that spellcasting changes from specifying the Casting Time to specifying an Action Type. Most spells use the "Cast a Spell" action. However others may specify "Move Action" or "Attack Action". The rule is that when you do this other action you may also choose to expend a spell slot to get the spell's benefit.

Spells like Magic Weapon, Shillelagh, Flame Blade, the Smites, and Swift Quiver can be rolled into an Attack action. The new spell description says "If you have this spell prepared when you make an attack action you can expend a spell slot to make the following stuff happen".

Misty Step and Expeditious Retreat could be rolled into "1 move action". Sanctuary and Shield of Faith could be rolled into Attack, Dash, Dodge, or Disengage.

The only spell that's not really obvious is Healing Word and Mass Healing Word. I honestly might specify this as "Any".

There's also a number of spells that use a Bonus Action not when you're casting them, but when you change or redirect them during their duration. Animate Dead, Animate Objects, Arcane Hand, Arcane Sword, Create Undead, and Dancing Lights are the spells that do this. I think it's okay for most of these to just change those to Free actions.

Stacking

The only "stacking" problems are with Monk and Rogue, IMO. Cunning Action and a lot of the Ki powers rely on the Bonus Action economy to prevent you from doing everything in 1 round.

For Cunning Action, you just get 1 per round, max. That's the same as before.

For Ki powers, I think Ki powers should have Action Types associated with them (like Move or Attack), and you can only apply one Ki power to each action type.

 

[Kryx]

@JValeur thanks so much for making this post, the analysis, and the attached document. I made a similar post on giantitp: Mearls' Bonus Action Removal.

Your analysis is great and your perspective on balance seems on point. Some of the changes directly touch the balance of the game and it's nice to see the balance impact which isn't really a problem as many of them are on weaker options to begin with.

Some suggested changes:

• Eagle Barbarian you remove "action" from "Dash action". You keep it for the monk, ranger, and rogue. This should probably be consistent.
• Second wind doesn't need to add "Once on your turn" as you point out it is limited to once per short rest.
• Vow of Enmity follows the same logic as Second wind - the extra wording of "Once on your turn" is unnecessary
• Mage Hand Legerdemain does not have similar wording as Fast Hands. For consistency: "You get more options to choose from with your Cunning Action Feature. Instead of taking a Dash, Disengage, or Hide aciton, you can use your Cunning Action to control the hand."
• "You can’t perform more of the same Actions on your turn (except when using Action Surge)." is probably a bad rule. Rogue/Monk can no longer double dash. If you're worried about too much Dashing it's probably best to limit Dash to twice per turn.

A missed scenarion: "the creature can't take reactions, and it can take either an action or a bonus action on its turn, not both". Possibly these type of abilities could just stop reactions since bonus actions wouldn't exist, but it is a slight nerf.

I do wonder if there is a better solution for spells. "None" might be worse than a bonus action as inherently bonus action follows the same rules as other actions (Action, reaction) in that you only have 1. None doesn't have that implication besides the rules. I'd like to see a better option here if possible.

The rest I'm fully in favor of and have started making changes to my various class reworks.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I haven't read yet what exactly Mearls has been using or considering in exchange for bonus actions, but IMHO he has in mind that anything which costs a bonus action could instead be described as a special action that replaces the regular "action" on your turn, but provides a combination of effects.

So for example, these would be added to the list of possible regular "Actions" in combat:

Two-Weapon Fighting: You make one attack (or more if you have the Extra Attacks ability) with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, and an additional attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand.

Casting a "swift" spell: You cast one spell that has the "swift" property, and cast one cantrip or make one attack (or more if you have the Extra Attacks ability) at the same time.

Cunning Action: You either hide, disengage or dash, while also casting a spell or making one attack (or more if you have the Extra Attacks ability) at the same time.

Basically I think he wants to get rid of the general rule for bonus actions, and replace it with several specific ad-hoc rules.

This is exactly what I believe Mearls is going for. You're not "just" dropping bonus actions as the OP suggests.

Note that not much would really be added, as most abilities already have additional "ad-hoc" text to specify how the bonus action can be used. You have, however, pared down the action economy and any confusion on "do I get a bonus action?" I too have had players assume a bonus action is something they get each round and have to find something to spend it on.

I do think some over-arching codification could still be beneficial, though - i.e., special actions vs. regular actions - especially to help alleviate stacking concerns.

The rules already state you can only take one action a round. So the simplest solution would be to, first indicate those things which considered regular actions, simply by renaming the "Actions in Combat" section to "Regular Actions in Combat". Then it's just a matter of clarifying that things which are currently bonus actions are simply actions.

For example:

Patient Defense

When you take this action, you can spend 1 ki point to take the Dodge action in addition to any other regular action on your turn.

Flurry of Blows

When you take this action, you spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes in addition to taking the Attack action on your turn.​

The same would go for Bardic Inspiration, Cunning Action, Rage, etc. Since these are now clearly indicated as actions, there's no concern about stacking.

There are only two catches I see with this approach: Two-weapon fighting and "swift" spells.

This might be where explicitly declaring "Special Actions" would help. So, replace the "Bonus Actions" section in the Combat chapter with this:

Special Actions

Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an action on your turn, called a special action, which is not considered a regular combat action. These often allow the character to do something in addition to a regular action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to Dash, Disengage, or Hide in addition to a regular action on your turn. Since you can take only one action on your turn, so you must choose which special action to use when you have more than one available.​

"Swift" spells would still be spelled out (no pun intended) separately, as Li Sheron does above, but now as a special action. I might add the following to the Magic chapter of the game:

Casting a Swift spell

Special action. When you use the Cast a Spell regular action using a spell with the swift property, you may also cast a cantrip or take any other regular action.​

Two-weapon fighting is something else, though. It's the only bonus action I can think of that's not an actual class ability or spells. Anyone can do it if they want.

TWF has always been a quirky mechanic ever since 1E. It certainly lines up certain fantasy/swashbuckling archetypes, but as a free extra weapon attack, is difficult to balance. This edition's solution to balance it is to make it require a bonus action, limiting weapon type, and losing the ability score damage. That last drawback is easily overcome with the right class option or feat.

So the bonus action is the biggest trade-off for attacking with an off-hand weapon. It's probably the most "kludgey" part of bonus actions, really. If we dump bonus actions, we either have to give "normal" TWF another trade-off, or make it clear it's a special action not included in "regular" actions (if stacking of TWF and other former bonus actions are still a concern.)

If we've already defined special actions, then we just need that indicator added to the Two Weapon Fighting description in the Combat section:

Two-Weapon Fighting

Special action. When you're holding a light melee weapon in one hand, you can take the Attack action for that weapon, and you can make an additional attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of this additional attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.​

For class features which give TWF as a fighting style, no changes are needed.

In fact, a lot of redundancy can then be eliminated if special actions have been specifically defined as something different than regular actions. Going back to the monk:

Patient Defense

Special action. You can spend 1 ki point to take the Dodge action in addition to any other regular action on your turn.​

 

[ProphetSword]

Misty Step and Expeditious Retreat could be rolled into "1 move action". Sanctuary and Shield of Faith could be rolled into Attack, Dash, Dodge, or Disengage.

While I thought the other part of what you had to say was pretty good, adding a "Move Action" to 5e would complicate things, given that you can move both before and after an Action.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is exactly what I believe Mearls is going for. You're not "just" dropping bonus actions as the OP suggests.

Note that not much would really be added, as most abilities already have additional "ad-hoc" text to specify how the bonus action can be used. You have, however, pared down the action economy and any confusion on "do I get a bonus action?" I too have had players assume a bonus action is something they get each round and have to find something to spend it on.

I do think some over-arching codification could still be beneficial, though - i.e., special actions vs. regular actions - especially to help alleviate stacking concerns.

The rules already state you can only take one action a round. So the simplest solution would be to, first indicate those things which considered regular actions, simply by renaming the "Actions in Combat" section to "Regular Actions in Combat". Then it's just a matter of clarifying that things which are currently bonus actions are simply actions.

For example:

Patient Defense

When you take this action, you can spend 1 ki point to take the Dodge action in addition to any other regular action on your turn.

Flurry of Blows

When you take this action, you spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes in addition to taking the Attack action on your turn.​

The same would go for Bardic Inspiration, Cunning Action, Rage, etc. Since these are now clearly indicated as actions, there's no concern about stacking.

There are only two catches I see with this approach: Two-weapon fighting and "swift" spells.

This might be where explicitly declaring "Special Actions" would help. So, replace the "Bonus Actions" section in the Combat chapter with this:

Special Actions

Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an action on your turn, called a special action, which is not considered a regular combat action. These often allow the character to do something in addition to a regular action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to Dash, Disengage, or Hide in addition to a regular action on your turn. Since you can take only one action on your turn, so you must choose which special action to use when you have more than one available.​

"Swift" spells would still be spelled out (no pun intended) separately, as Li Sheron does above, but now as a special action. I might add the following to the Magic chapter of the game:

Casting a Swift spell

Special action. When you use the Cast a Spell regular action using a spell with the swift property, you may also cast a cantrip or take any other regular action.​

Two-weapon fighting is something else, though. It's the only bonus action I can think of that's not an actual class ability or spells. Anyone can do it if they want.

TWF has always been a quirky mechanic ever since 1E. It certainly lines up certain fantasy/swashbuckling archetypes, but as a free extra weapon attack, is difficult to balance. This edition's solution to balance it is to make it require a bonus action, limiting weapon type, and losing the ability score damage. That last drawback is easily overcome with the right class option or feat.

So the bonus action is the biggest trade-off for attacking with an off-hand weapon. It's probably the most "kludgey" part of bonus actions, really. If we dump bonus actions, we either have to give "normal" TWF another trade-off, or make it clear it's a special action not included in "regular" actions (if stacking of TWF and other former bonus actions are still a concern.)

If we've already defined special actions, then we just need that indicator added to the Two Weapon Fighting description in the Combat section:

Two-Weapon Fighting

Special action. When you're holding a light melee weapon in one hand, you can take the Attack action for that weapon, and you can make an additional attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of this additional attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.​

For class features which give TWF as a fighting style, no changes are needed.

In fact, a lot of redundancy can then be eliminated if special actions have been specifically defined as something different than regular actions. Going back to the monk:

Patient Defense

Special action. You can spend 1 ki point to take the Dodge action in addition to any other regular action on your turn.​

With your method above what's to stop someone from chaining a healing word that grants another actions into a second wind which grants an extra action into a bardic inspiriation which grants another action... etc?

 

[Sir Brennen]

With your method above what's to stop someone from chaining a healing word that grants another actions into a second wind which grants an extra action into a bardic inspiriation which grants another action... etc?

By distinguishing special actions from regular actions, per what I posted.

Regular actions = anything under the "Actions in Combat" section of the rules.

Special action = pretty much anything which currently uses a bonus action. Special actions will let you do something in addition to taking a regular action (sometimes limited to a specific one, like Attack.)

Healing Word would in this revision be a swift spell. Casting a swift spell is a special action. Per the text I proposed, you could cast healing word, and then you can cast a cantrip, or take any other regular action (i.e., not another spell, and not Second Wind, or Bardic Inspiration, which would both be Special actions.)

Maybe a better wording of Swift spell would be like this:

Casting a Swift spell

Special action. When you use the Cast a Spell regular action for a spell with the swift property, you may also take any other regular action. If you choose the Cast a Spell action again, you are limited to casting cantrips without the swift property.​