D&D 5E Bonus Actions vs Reactions

[Illithidbix]

Shield in particular is an odd one, since I think it *benefits* from being able to be used only when needed and you know it will provide a benefit, and a benefit lasting then

So I think it is a stronger spell being used as a Reaction. (and the lack of other spells that you'd likely want to cast with a Reaction)

Reaction spells also get around the bonus action spell rule that is very easily forgotten which can lock a primary spell caster out of using their big guns, or making it a difficult choice.

A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

So, I am leaning towards Reaction spells being more potent.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe look at it from a different angle?
Requiring an action or bonus action or reaction is a limitation on the ability.

 

[neogod22]

A bonus action can be used defensively also (misty step for example), of a reaction offensively (counterspell). You ways have a reaction every turn, but only get a bonus action when you are granted one. The problem with reactions though is, if you play your wizard right, you should almost never have to use them.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It's hard to say for certain, but my gut tells me reactions are stronger. After thinking it through a bit, I have reasons to go with that.

1) Less things compete with your reaction (usually just opportunity attacks)
2) You don't have to use it unless you need it
3) Doesn't limit your other spellcasting

 

[droid6689]

Bonus actions can only be used on your turn. Reactions only work based off of a trigger. A spell would be better or worse based on the utility of the spell. Shield is worse as a bonus action because you don't know if you will be attacked.

I would say generally reaction is stronger because it is more rare, thus competes less in the action economy

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[cbwjm]

Yes ... I'm aware of the limitations of the various actions. So would a shield spell that used a bonus action be weaker than the shield spell or equal to the shield spell?

In this, I'd say that the shield spell would be weaker if cast with a bonus action since then the spell slot is gone. Casting with a reaction, you only lose the spell slot if you really need it.

 

[Shiroiken]

In general, Reactions are going to be better than Bonus Actions. To use the Shield spell example, you don't know if you're going to even be attacked in the Round. If not, then the benefit is wasted. With a Reaction, you KNOW the trigger has happened and spend the resource appropriately.

Of course, some things are better as Bonus Actions, rather than waiting for a trigger. Anything that allows you to attack, for example (TWF), or recovers HP (Second Wind, Healing Word) is going to be better on your turn.

 

[Horwath]

Bonus actions are proactive as reactions are...well reactive.

You choose when and if you going to take a bonus action(if able) while reaction is something you can do while being forced into certain situation.

As a good bonus action can prevent even the need for reaction, I vote that is better.

 

[clearstream]

(Note, I accidentally typed "immediate action" instead of "reaction". Change that in the poll in your mind.)

Hi everyone. I've building more and more homebrewed stuff recently, and I've encountered a question on which I'd like to hear your opinion. What do you think is more valuable: A bonus action or a reaction? Which carries more weight. For instance, if two spells were largely identical, but one was a bonus action and one was an reaction, which would you consider to be higher level? As an example, imagine if there was a spell alongside Shield which, as a bonus action, increased your AC until the start of your next turn. Would that be too weak for a 1st level spell?

Considering this requires both looking at the action itself and what you give up by using the action. When you use a bonus action, you can't use another bonus action; likewise, when you use an reaction, you can't use another reaction. For spells, things are further altered because bonus action spells do not let you cast spells with spell slots in the same round, but I don't want to worry about that rule for this discussion.

So what do you think? Which action is more heavily valued in the rules?

With apologies I gave that an It depends. bonus actions are valued because you can voluntarily use one on your turn. If you don't have one, your first step should be to get one. Reactions must be triggered. However, once you have a bonus action, you gain more power by gaining a reaction. I don't believe the rules implicitly value one over the other, but seeing as the bonus action space is more crowded you probably open the door to more power whenever you make something a reaction. Also, it is sometimes better for conserving resources for something to be triggered at need than cast in advance.

Concretely, if I have Polearm Mastery (uses my reaction) I gain less power from Shield because sometimes I will have already used the reaction Shield requires. However, Feather Fall would be assessed at full power for me because it's unlikely I will be using my Polearm while falling. Polearm Mastery will give me a bonus action more frequently than it gives me a reaction, so gaining a bonus action from another source will be even less useful. It's a greedy feat, in terms of the action economy, and therefore also very efficient. The spell you envision would be very strong for a first level spell, but probably not overpowered depending on if it required concentration and if not what the duration and AC bonus were.

Generally, it's better to think about your design goals and then figure out the mechanics later. For instance, what are you trying to achieve with that spell? What gap does it cover? Who for?

 

[mellored]

With a blank slate and not knowing what the spell is, bonus actions, because you can always cast them. Reactions need a trigger, making them conditional by nature.

Though for the shield example, reaction. Because it is never wasted and I can't think of any occasion where you would want +5 AC and were not being attacked. For instance, you could cast the bonus action spell, and the enemy could roll a 1, 2, and 3, and would have missed anyways.

Also, there are already a lot of bonus actions, so that boosts reactions a bit.