That already increased the complexity of the rule by 100%.
Let's see how many exceptions, edge cases, loopholes and problems this one house rule will unintentionally create!
D&D 5E Breaking the Game with Double Bonus Actions
That already increased the complexity of the rule by 100%.
Let's see how many exceptions, edge cases, loopholes and problems this one house rule will unintentionally create!
Bacon Bits
Hero
That already increased the complexity of the rule by 100%.
Let's see how many exceptions, edge cases, loopholes and problems this one house rule will unintentionally create!
Gosh, if only there were a referee at the table to make a ruling.
iamntbatman
First Post
I'm honestly not super concerned with that. My players aren't really the type to look for every little loophole to exploit and are adults so also aren't the type to wreck the game by intentionally abusing things to their advantage. That sort of Xbox Live attitude would never fly at our table and thankfully no one would intentionally play that way. The issue here arises from newer players who aren't really familiar with the rules just being sort of flabbergasted that the rules regarding BA's are so inflexible and, from a sort of standpoint of ignorance of game balance issues, kind of nonsensical.
iamntbatman
First Post
I'm glad you know how I run my game better than I do? I didn't realize I ran a strictly RAW table until now, thanks!
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
Well so far, the only problematic case anyone has come up with even with the most liberal version is a little extra damage from spiritual weapon during two levels of play. So I'm not feeling too pessimistic.That already increased the complexity of the rule by 100%.
Let's see how many exceptions, edge cases, loopholes and problems this one house rule will unintentionally create!
Absolutely but there are a million things one *can* say and now we have one more example of a niche catch from making a change which was premised on "well its not that big a deal" kind of reasoning.
I mean, lets consider...
Why are the rules for BA so infl;exible? That was a thing right?
Well, why are the rule for movement so inflexible that if its 35' to get to me enemy attack range then i have to lose an entire action to get there in one? Why *not* let me move 35' instead of 30'? Will that break the game?
Why are the rules on two handed weapons so inflexible that i cannot have a two-handed great sword that has finesse so that my dex fighter can use it as good as their bow? Will it break the game if we change that too?
Why are the rules on bows so inflexible that them being at 120' means i take disadvantage? Would it break the game if the bow was 120' short range?
My viewpoint is rather straightforward, if i *need8 to change rules, i do so without reservation but with forethought as to the why and wherefores.
I do not change rules based on "why not? Will it break the game? whenever a rule becomes inconvenient because i feel it is very much those kinds of limitations that spawn tactics and planning and make choices matter.
if everytime or most times my players hit a "well it does not work that way" i said "but hey lets ignore that" i would be running a game where the key to gameplay is just "whatever you talk the Gm into" as opposed to "work up plans and tactics."
Now, that would be fine for things like beer and pretzels one offs - no problem - make it up as you go along no need for long term consistency loads of fun.
But that would not be a method i would use for an ongoing set of players in a campaign.
Bacon Bits
Hero
Eh, I would still say, "You may substitute a bonus action for a standard action. You cannot use a bonus action from the same feature more than once during your turn."
If the only abuse people can find comes from using the same feature twice, just close the loophole so you don't have to worry about it.
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
I would do the same, for story reasons perhaps more than just balance.
My point is that I think this is pretty safe, since even the less restricted version is not a big deal.
Ah, it was a show of support, in good fun, from players trying to overwhelm a DM. I'll put in a sarcasm smiley in next time so that's obvious.
I would totally allow all of those things.
I wouldn't allow them for FREE. In the case of two bonus actions, you're giving up your regular action, which is pretty substantial!
I try to be a "Yes, but..." sort of DM. In particular, the notion of "you can't even TRY that" should be reserved for things that are patently ridiculous, like swimming up a waterfall or shooting an arrow at the moon. "I want to cast healing word and also attack with my spiritual weapon" seems totally plausible to me, so it's allowed.
Similar Threads
