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

[iserith]

A subsequent suggestion elsewhere seems to be a bit better: Rather than making this a blanket rule, instead create a separate bonus for each skill that you get when you are proficient with the skill. Use it as a bonus would be the ability for some of the skills, but not all. For example, knowledge skills and charisma skills would have other benefits. This could also help rebalance some of the skills to make them more attractive.

I asked a question upthread I'd still like answered if you would: Is this set of house rules chiefly about dealing with an objection to the action cost of certain tasks in combat? It seems that way, but then there's also this assertion that it "makes proficiency more important." I'm guessing that's relative to the current importance of proficiency in that you get a proficiency bonus to ability checks? Because proficiencies are already pretty important because any bonus with the relatively flattened math of D&D 5e is a boon.

 

[jgsugden]

I asked a question upthread I'd still like answered if you would: Is this set of house rules chiefly about dealing with an objection to the action cost of certain tasks in combat?

That is part of the goal, but it really addresses a spectrum of issues. Unfortunately, they're those type of issues that spark a lot of debate about whether they're features or bugs / intended or unintended / etc... Obviously, they all are related to action economy, but many of them are focused on the narrative impact of the action economy - requiring a PC to do certain things with their action, as opposed to attack or cast a spell, it relegates them to a less glamorous role. I've heard it described as being the 'henchman to the heroes'.

It seems that way, but then there's also this assertion that it "makes proficiency more important." I'm guessing that's relative to the current importance of proficiency in that you get a proficiency bonus to ability checks? Because proficiencies are already pretty important because any bonus with the relatively flattened math of D&D 5e is a boon.

"More important" does have power considerations, but it is also focused on making a larger contribution to the identity of the PC. Right now, there are a lot of skill decisions that are not driven by RP concerns, but are driven by efficiency and benefit concerns. Perception, for example, is something that A LOT of PCs choose. This rule would help with some of those concerns, but hurt with others (as it makes it an even more 'obvious' choice to take stealth and perception).

 

[Blue]

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.

This weakens a lot of battlefield control spells like Web that require checks to get out. Currently even if you make the check it's taken up your action - now you'd still have your whole move and action and it's effectively one less round of control. Worse, it basically gives two chances (the original save and then the check) to have NO ill effects from the spell.

This completely steals not just the power but all thunder from the occasional class feature that does let you do specific skills as a bonus action.

 

[jgsugden]

This weakens a lot of battlefield control spells like Web that require checks to get out. Currently even if you make the check it's taken up your action - now you'd still have your whole move and action and it's effectively one less round of control. Worse, it basically gives two chances (the original save and then the check) to have NO ill effects from the spell.

If you're proficient in the relative skill, yes. Few PC foes are proficient in these skills, so it does not steal from the PCs too often. But, yes, it does have realized impacts on the escape mechanic if done as a flat ability as initially discussed.

This completely steals not just the power but all thunder from the occasional class feature that does let you do specific skills as a bonus action.

This is addressed above.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Same thing with combat. It's basically just "roll a d20 and decide how you feel about it." Ugh. amirite?

Nope.

 

[DM Magic]

Nope.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[snickersnax]

One other nitpick -- the 'use Acrobatics to escape twice' re-establishes a balance that seems to be deliberately absent in 5e grappling rules. The rules allow a creature to attempt as many grapple checks as it has attacks ("When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them." [emphasis mine], but only to attempt one escape per turn ("A grappled creature can use its action to escape.") Breaking this asymmetry allows high-mobility characters to effectively negate the main ability that opponents will have to limit its movement without significantly affecting their combat ability. If this is what you want, no problem, but I would not make this change, as highly mobile PCs are already very difficult to deal with without specific counter-measures, and the grapple is a good general-purpose option for allowing most encounters an opportunity to limit high-mobility PCs and the damage they can do.
-
Pauper

For those with multi-attack available, multiple grapple escape attempts can often be made per round by using shove 5' away (replacing one attack of a multi-attack) instead of using escaping a grapple.

Obviously there are some instances when shoving away to break a grapple will not work.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I was being sarcastic.

Really? Wow. I totally missed that.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

It seems to me that the main 'problem' these house rules set out to solve is 'why do I have to spend my action doing this thing that isn't an attack?'

I hear that at the table as well. I think there are a few issues going on.

First, people think they are always entitled to both an action and a bonus action. This is wrong. We should be thinking, "You are entitled to one Action. That's it. No more. You might get something you can do as well from some feature, but those are special and rare and not guaranteed." In other words, a Bonus Action is not something you are entitled to get; it is something you are lucky to get.

Personally, I'd go the other way to the OP and make less Bonus Actions available. If players are getting to do Bonus Action things about once every two or three rounds then that feels right to me.

I also think that a lot of players misunderstand the role of combat and initiative. Initiative is not just for fighting; it is for any situation where timing matters. Once you have rolled initiative and are tracking rounds and turns, everything requires an Action, not just attacking.