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

[jgsugden]

I heard an interesting house rule recently that solves a number of problems in the game. I'm interested in some help issue spotting what problems it causes. What constitutes a problem? You decide.

The house rules: If you are proficient in a skill, any use of the skill that would normally require an action can be performed as an action or a bonus action.

Examples:
* If proficient in Stealth: You can cast invisibility, hide as a bonus action and then move. If not proficient, you can't cast invisibility and hide on the same turn, generally, which leads to a lot of invisible but known situations.
* If proficienct in Perception: You can make an ability check (rather than relying upon passive perception) when wandering through a dungeon by devoting your bonus action to it.
* If proficient in an Intelligence/Knowledge skill: You can make a check to recall something specific during combat by using your bonus action rather than your standard action.
* If proficient in Athletics/Acrobatics: You can try to escape a grapple *twice* during the same turn by using a bonus action and your 'normal' action (if you fail the first time).
* If proficient in Medicine: Stabilize an ally without losing your action by using your bonus action.

Clearly, this makes proficiency stronger, but does it BREAK the game anywhere? I like what it does for PCs to have these types of advantages when they are proficient, so far.

 

[iserith]

I'm having issues figuring out what problems these house rules solve, let alone cause.

 

[DM Magic]

This house rule would seriously undermine several class abilities, such as the rogue’s Cunning Action.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm having issues figuring out what problems these house rules solve, let alone cause.

Some people feel that stealthy characters should be able to hide when they become invisible. If you consider this a problem, this solves that problem.

Some people think that it is too cumbersome to require an action to make a perception check (rather than rely upon passive perception). This addresses those concerns.

When I say 'solve problems', this is what I mean.

This house rule would seriously undermine several class abilities, such as the rogue’s Cunning Action.

Good observation. The dash and disengage elements of CA would not be impacted. However, it would offer another source for the ability to hide as a bonus action, which does undermine CA.

if you have the perspective that only rogues should be able to hide as a bonus, this is a problem.

If you have the perspective that any stealthy PC (as in trained in stealth) should be able to do it, it reduces the number of benefits of CA, but is solving a problem where the ability was offered in too narrow a way previously.

Both views have substance.

 

[MarkB]

If you're going to make it easier for people to hide in combat, but at the same time make it easier to spot hidden people during combat, that seems like it nets out to zero. Not particularly unbalanced, but also not advantageous enough to be worth messing with.

 

[iserith]

Some people feel that stealthy characters should be able to hide when they become invisible. If you consider this a problem, this solves that problem.

It causes others by trampling on the rogue class feature as noted. It might be easier to just say the invisibility spell (or equivalent) gives the opportunity to be hidden with no action cost. If trying to be hidden is uncertain, an ability check follows.

Some people think that it is too cumbersome to require an action to make a perception check (rather than rely upon passive perception). This addresses those concerns.

So a Search action as a bonus action. I don't think it would break anything and would solve whatever issue someone has with thinking an action is too high a cost.

When I say 'solve problems', this is what I mean.

What other problems are being solved by the other house rules? Are they all just objections to action cost? Also, I don't recall any rules that say recalling lore takes an action.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Not to pick on your examples... but... I guess I'm gonna pick on your examples:

* If proficient in Stealth: You can cast invisibility, hide as a bonus action and then move. If not proficient, you can't cast invisibility and hide on the same turn, generally, which leads to a lot of invisible but known situations.

Not sure I get this. If a PC is invisible, she IS hidden - although if anyone was watching the PC while she disappeared they'd know her position. That said, if the PC wanted to then slink away from where she was standing (assuming the PC had movement left), I would allow a Stealth check to move half speed while invisible so the enemy would potentially no longer have a bead on the exact location. No extra action/bonus action needed.

* If proficienct in Perception: You can make an ability check (rather than relying upon passive perception) when wandering through a dungeon by devoting your bonus action to it.

A PC can always state they are actively keeping an eye out while exploring. If I want them to make a Perception check as part of wandering around because something they are approaching presents an interesting consequence to failure, then I would simply ask them to make the check. Proficiency has no bearing on this call. And not sure why you need to make a distinction between an action and bonus action while exploring - probably there is a reason, but this example is not one of them IMHO.

* If proficient in an Intelligence/Knowledge skill: You can make a check to recall something specific during combat by using your bonus action rather than your standard action.

If the PC wanted to recall something specific during combat, whether or not the PC is proficient, I would just call for an INT ability check roll without costing any action/bonus action - again, assuming there is an interesting consequence to knowing/not knowing. It's not like they are going to take a seat and pose like the "thinker" statue to recall it (or, if they really really wanted to do it like that, I would just make that cost some movement). Why would thinking be an action/bonus action?

* If proficient in Athletics/Acrobatics: You can try to escape a grapple *twice* during the same turn by using a bonus action and your 'normal' action (if you fail the first time).

I find this a somewhat interesting proposal, but it does step on a fighter's Action Surge ability, just to name something off the top of my head.

* If proficient in Medicine: Stabilize an ally without losing your action by using your bonus action.

I don't want anyone rushing their stabilization of my nearly-dead PC!

 

[jgsugden]

If you're going to make it easier for people to hide in combat, but at the same time make it easier to spot hidden people during combat, that seems like it nets out to zero. Not particularly unbalanced, but also not advantageous enough to be worth messing with.

*If* both the hider and perceiver are proficient. If not, there is a relative advantage gained by the proficient party.

Not to pick on your examples... but... I guess I'm gonna pick on your examples:


Not sure I get this. If a PC is invisible, she IS hidden...

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.

The knowledge check requiring an action is a weaker example - some DMs require it, others do not (for the reasons noted here). As the rules are a bit ambiguous on when an action is required, some DMs require a clearer rule that an action is used whenever a skill check is made while others take a more intuitive approach and use judgment. Many, perhaps even most, DMs do not require an action to recall something.

In my games, you get passive knowledge checks unless you spend an action to exercise your brain. I implemented the interpretation early and have stayed consistent with it, but recognize the flaws in it.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Constructive Criticism: I'd be leery of taking well-tested rules on Actions and converting them to bonus actions. It denigrates the special nature of Bonus Actions being tied to class choice. See below.

Otherwise, remember skills don't require an Action unless specifically designed to be part of an action.

DMG p237 (Ability checks): When a player wants to do something, first decide whether a Roll is actually necessary (e.g. I don't need to make a Charisma check to order a mug of ale). If so, decide whether it would succeed if you had enough time (to speed things up, if they can spend 10x the normal time to finish the task, assume they eventually get it).

PHB p190 (Other Activity on Your Turn in Combat): This would include any non-listed act, such as interacting with a door, pulling a lever, and so on, not otherwise so slight as to be done as a part of your movement (see the chart of examples, same page). Also, The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle.

The Actions that require special care incorporating skill use are specifically listed:

Hide: Stealth check.
Search: Investigate or Perception
Use an Object: This may, per the above PHB, require skill use, such as force a jammed door.
Stabilize: DC10 Medicine check

And finally, Bonus Actions (PHB p189): Bonus actions derive from a class feature, spell, or special ability only. Otherwise, you don't get one.

So to your House Rules:

1. Stealth. You'd denigrate a primary class feature of the Rogue - Cunning Action - by allowing every class this ability. Subject to severe abuse, including by monsters, since Hidden monsters gain Advantage on attacks.

2. Perception. My players don't Search very much unless I have a dynamic timed trap (e.g. a flooding room combat). I don't have enough on Search to know why they made it an Action, other than the rule that Bonus actions are supposed to be specifically tied into your choice of class, not universal.

3. Intelligence. Per PHB p177-78, Intelligence checks appear instant. Either you recall lore or you don't. There's nothing indicating this takes any action at all. The only question is how much detail can one character relay to others on their turn (see above PHB 190, which indicates a short phrase, perhaps 1 piece of info).

4. Escaping Grapples. I'd say very bad idea. It'd severely reduce quite a few monsters that rely on grappling to mere nuisances if players got 2 chances to get out rather than 1 (and what if another player uses the Help action to give advantage...). The CR5 Vampire Spawn can only bite if it Grapples a character (which does no damage itself). Reduce effectiveness of grapple and it's a nuisance creature whose deadly necrotic drain bite will rarely, if ever, come into play.

5. Stabilize. Also a bad idea, but think about it. In 6 seconds, I'm going to get out my kit or rip off clothing, bind a wound so it's no longer life threatening, then move 30', draw my weapon, and attack a monster? This denigrates utility of the Stabilize spell and denigrates the consequence of hitting 0hp by allowing easier resolution.

If you're looking to reward players for being proficient in skills, they already are rewarded by adding the bonus to checks. Ultimately, consider what you're taking away from other classes, and whether the skill use actually needs an action to be used. Many times, they don't.

 

[jaelis]

Sometimes you need to make an Athletics check to move, when you climb, jump, or swim in challenging conditions. Would that mean you got to dash as a bonus action in such conditions? Seems a little strange if you couldn't so so under less challenging conditions.