D&D 5E Removing the bonus action - analysis

[doctorbadwolf]

I guess I don't see how this is easier, simpler, or more intuitive than the bonus action.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Perhaps I have. Can you give an example? I think Cunning Action and Ki are the more complicated ones.

Check post #27. I give a few examples of how I'd do it. A lot of other posts are pretty much are saying the same thing - you just add into the description all the things you can do in addition to using the feature.

But for a clearer example, Cunning action is currently worded as follows:

Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action.​

Change the italicized portion to the following:

When you take this action, you can take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action in addition to any of following actions: Attack, Cast a Spell, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, or Use and Object.​

To streamline things, I suggest calling the actions listed under Actions in Combat "regular actions", which would then let the wording be like this:

When you take this action, you can take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action in addition to any other regular action.​

 

[Kryx]

When you take this action,

It's not an action. This bring more confusion.

you can take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action in addition to any of following actions: Attack, Cast a Spell, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, or Use and Object.

I don't mean to be mean, but the wording here is really significantly less clear than RAW all while allowing the abuse cautioned against (multiple dashes per round from monk for example) as your option doesn't prevent other abilities from doing the same.
A much simpler wording would be: "Once on your turn you can take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action without expending your action". Though that allows the stacking which should be avoided.

Though as I said I don't think I'll take bonus actions off Cunning Action and similar abilities that allow you to use something that is normally an action as a bonus action. This would be in order to prevent the stacking.

There are many other places where a bonus action can be removed and the balance of the option is improved. TWF, Barbarian Rage, etc.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

Just clumsy drafting on my part. Just say the spell takes effect at any point during your Move.

 

[Sir Brennen]

It's not an action. This bring more confusion.

It is if the (proposed) rules are written to say it is. (And for Cunning Action, it's even in the name.)

I don't mean to be mean, but the wording here is really significantly less clear than RAW all while allowing the abuse cautioned against (multiple dashes per round from monk for example) as your option doesn't prevent other abilities from doing the same.

I think the example you quoted is overly explicit in it's clarity, delineating what additional actions you can take. And allowing double-dashing is pretty much accepted as allowed in the current rules, though some DMs rule differently.

A much simpler wording would be: "Once on your turn you can take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action without expending your action". Though that allows the stacking which should be avoided.

Which is why I didn't go that route.

There are many other places where a bonus action can be removed and the balance of the option is improved. TWF, Barbarian Rage, etc.

TWF I'd argue is then too good if there's not some other balancing factor.

 

[Kryx]

I think the example you quoted is overly explicit in it's clarity, delineating what additional actions you can take.

You're suggesting alternate words than the OP is using. I'm here for legitimate discussion so don't take this as bashing, but your wording significantly muddies the waters by adding reserved words like 'action' or 'regular action' without reducing any of the abuse of OP's wording.

In that case OP's wording is significantly more clear.

And allowing double-dashing is pretty much accepted as allowed in the current rules, though some DMs rule differently.

What I meant is:
Action: dash
Rogue (with rewrite of cunning): dash
Monk (with rewrite of ki): dash
Revised Ranger (with rewrite): dash

From the giantitp thread these kind of repeated dashes coming from Multiclass is one of the main concerns with removing the bonus action. The more common case would be dipping Rogue 2 to get a free Dash/Disengage every turn without the bonus action cost.

TWF I'd argue is then too good if there's not some other balancing factor.

TWF is the worst martial fighting style of any of the main supported fighting styles in 5e. My post here shows the damage numbers that show that TWF is doing ~84-89% (depending on class) of the damage expected of it. Often the same damage or less than Sword and Board.
It needs significant help. Removing the bonus action helps significantly for the Ranger, but that's not enough.
Though I caution us delving too deeply into TWF as that can add too many topics to the thread.

 

[Sir Brennen]

You're suggesting alternate words than the OP is using. I'm here for legitimate discussion so don't take this as bashing, but your wording significantly muddies the waters by adding reserved words like 'action' or 'regular action' without reducing any of the abuse of OP's wording.

No, the addition of those words is crucial to my version. When Cunning Action is specified as an action, you can't chain the way you're suggesting. You get one action per turn, period. So once you've done a Cunning Action (even Dash and Dash), you've taken an action, and can't also select the Monk's Step of the Wind, because that would be another action.

The OP's "doing X without spending an action" is fine, except there's no restriction on the X's you can do per round.

In that case OP's wording is significantly more clear.

Yes but in the sense that cutting out the bottom of a boat makes it clearer to see the water underneath. I'm trying to at least add some glass

 

[clearstream]

Wouldn’t the game be easier and more fluid, if you didn’t have these weird, unintuitive bonus actions cluttering the playing field?

Terrible place to start a thread, with a blatant strawman! You characterise bonus actions as "weird" and "unintuitive". We hate weird, unintuitive things, right? Better fix them. Or not. I'll go ahead and characterise them right now as canonical (they've been around in one form or another of over a decade, millions of players have used them) and intuitive (I've never had any trouble using them, YMMV).

So, what are our ideas to get rid of these canonical, intuitive bonus action mechanics? They're going to be a strictly better than bonus actions, right?

 

[clearstream]

Stacking Bonus ActionsThis is probably the biggest change to balance. Where a rogue before would have to choose between dashing, hiding or disenganging, or making that off-hand attack, when deciding how to use their bonus action, they can now do both. And you can easily conjure up situations in your head, where a character might gain the ability to dash or make a bonus attack for free from multiple features, which could make them way too powerful. This can be mitigated with the following general rule:

You can only perform any specific Action once on your turn. For example, you can’t Hide with the rogue’s ‘Cunning Action’ at the start of your turn, and then use the ranger’s ‘Vanish’ action to Hide again at the end of your turn. You can, however, use the ranger’s ‘Vanish’ feature to Hide once during your turn, and the rogue’s ‘Cunning Action’ to also Dash on the same turn. The only exception to this rule is the fighter's 'Action Surge' feature.
Additionally, you can’t benefit from two sources that grant you an extra attack as part of your Attack action. For example, you can’t gain both an extra attack from the berserker’s ‘Frenzy’ feature and the Monk’s ‘Martial Arts’ feature on the same turn. The only exception to this rule is the ‘Extra Attack’ feature.

This rule has the added benefit of not allowing characters to triple dash (which makes a Rogue faster at level 2, than a barbarian at level 5). But wait, you might say, then you can still make some crazy character, like a bard/barbarian/rogue, who would be able to Dash from rogue’s ‘Cunning Action’, go into a rage with the Barbarian’s ‘Rage’, inspire an ally with the bard’s ‘Bardic Inspiration’ make an attack and another attack from berserker’s ‘Frenzy’? The answer is yes, but if you consider a character actually doing all this in six seconds, it is not entirely unrealistic:

The character dashes towards his enemy, while working himself into a murderous rage, emitting a roar that inspires his ally and then throwing himself at the enemy with abandon.

This is some good analysis although I don't concur with your conclusions. You make a couple of separate arguments. One is that you can find fluff to justify your approach; that's fine, but someone can generally find fluff to justify anything. Therefore I suggest we ignore the fluff aspect for now and focus on mechanics. Regarding the mechanics, you add a complex rule (one that has multiple parts, that interact). We know that complex rules are generally not intuitive (humans, complexity, these things are troubled bed-partners). Breaking it down

"You can only perform any specific Action once on your turn." You note yourself the issue with this so I won't repeat it.
"The only exception to this rule is the fighter's 'Action Surge' feature." It's often bad idea to put an exception to a rule in the rule itself. We might be able to restructure that out, however.
"Additionally, you can’t benefit from two sources that grant you an extra attack as part of your Attack action." Two exceptions to the rule, in the rule!? We should work on that.
"The only exception to this rule is the ‘Extra Attack’ feature." My favourite thing, an exception to an exception We need to work on that, too.

We need to think about what you've written and compare it to Bonus Actions on PHB189. Bonus Actions do have provisions, but the provisions are not exceptions. They're essentially - if you can act and have a bonus action you can take, you're allowed to take that bonus action according to its rules for timing. Bonus Actions are a neat shell that other actions can be stuffed into, with whatever rules they require. That is layered rather than complex design: it yields emergent complexity without being complex to parse. YMMV.

 

[Kryx]

No, the addition of those words is crucial to my version. When Cunning Action is specified as an action, you can't chain the way you're suggesting. You get one action per turn, period. So once you've done a Cunning Action (even Dash and Dash), you've taken an action, and can't also select the Monk's Step of the Wind, because that would be another action.

The OP's "doing X without spending an action" is fine, except there's no restriction on the X's you can do per round.

Ok, I now see what you're suggesting. On the initial read it didn't add any value by preventing the dual usage, but on my second read what you wrote above makes far more sense. Defining current actions as "regular actions" which prevents the loop of using this action to trigger other special actions.

That extra definition is too much for me. Easier and more clear to just leave bonus as they are in this case, though I think you agree since you aren't using it.