D&D 5E Removing the bonus action - analysis

[hejtmane]

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.


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 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.

I with you I like the bonus action but a few things are bonus action that should not have been that is not an issue with the bonus action itself but flagging certian things as bonus actions that should not have been.

The issue with dual wielding it is simple instead of a bonus action they should have made it just like colossus slayer. When using dual weapons you can make an off hand attack once per turn. I am not sure if that fixes all the issues but it fixes several issue with bonus actions hurting classes with bonus actions like the ranger who rely on hunters mark or rogues who need to disengage etc.

 

[Horwath]

How to remove bonus actions?

First add AoO to separate action. Opportunity attack. One per turn, also helps melee characters. They need all the help you can get.

Most spells that are bonus action would go to Action. Maybe they would require a buff as they use greater resource.

Some spells(hunter mark, hex) would be reactions: I.E. when you hit with weapon or spell attack you can cast hunters mark/hex as an reaction. Add +1d6 damage to that attack and every attack on that creature while the spell lasts.

Rogue's cunning action would be: As an action you can perform two actions from the list: disengage, dash, hide.

Two weapon fighting would simply add offhand attack into attack action.

Monks martial arts would simply add one unarmed attack into attack action or two with ki points.

 

[Kryx]

The issue with dual wielding it is simple instead of a bonus action they should have made it just like colossus slayer. When using dual weapons you can make an off hand attack once per turn. I am not sure if that fixes all the issues but it fixes several issue with bonus actions hurting classes with bonus actions like the ranger who rely on hunters mark or rogues who need to disengage etc.

Indeed, setting it up in such a way really helps the TWF Ranger fulfill its role. As it stands a TWF Ranger makes no sense due to the crossover in bonus action between TWF and hunter's mark - it's a big deal. TWF still needs help, but this change bring the ranger more in line with where the fighter is (around 90% of expected).

=====

Most spells that are bonus action would go to Action. Maybe they would require a buff as they use greater resource.

What of call lightning, flaming sphere? Do those becomes "Once on your turn" style wording? Should be ok as long as all those type of spells require concentration (spiritual weapon doesn't, but it can be reworded like TWF).

Some spells(hunter mark, hex) would be reactions: I.E. when you hit with weapon or spell attack you can cast hunters mark/hex as an reaction. Add +1d6 damage to that attack and every attack on that creature while the spell lasts.

This turns reactions into a somewhat new bonus action. Ideally a "Once on your turn" style wording with something to prevent the overlap for hex/hunter's mark would be sufficient.

Rogue's cunning action would be: As an action you can perform two actions from the list: disengage, dash, hide.

This would become quite bad. It's current purpose is to allow attack + other. One could either add all the current options or add some wording to prevent overlap.

Two weapon fighting would simply add offhand attack into attack action.

+1

Monks martial arts would simply add one unarmed attack into attack action or two with ki points.

Can you suggest some wording? I've been trying to rework TWF and Unarmed and not make them compatible. Though I would really appreciate it if a monk can wield two shortsword instead of always having to use a quarterstaff. Here is what I have so far:

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can attack with a different light weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the weapon that you're holding in the other hand, unless that modifier is negative or you are proficient with any martial weapon. You can draw or stow two light weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

Ability score not added for non-martials to prevent TWF being the ideal weapon for casters (not a serious problem, but should be prevented).

When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can attack with a different light weapon that you’re holding in the other hand or you can make one unarmed strike.

I'd have to explicity write something to prevent these from stacking unless I can make it clear in their sections.

 

[clearstream]

This might be where explicitly declaring "Special Actions" would help. So, replace the "Bonus Actions" section in the Combat chapter with this:

Special Actions

Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an action on your turn, called a special action, which is not considered a regular combat action. These often allow the character to do something in addition to a regular action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to Dash, Disengage, or Hide in addition to a regular action on your turn. Since you can take only one action on your turn, so you must choose which special action to use when you have more than one available.​

"Swift" spells would still be spelled out (no pun intended) separately, as Li Sheron does above, but now as a special action. I might add the following to the Magic chapter of the game:

Casting a Swift spell

Special action. When you use the Cast a Spell regular action using a spell with the swift property, you may also cast a cantrip or take any other regular action.​

I like your regular and special actions (+ swift for spells?) suggestion best of what I've read so far. Yet it doesn't sell itself to me as strictly better than bonus actions. Because a player locks in their special action when they choose their action, there will be times when their special action becomes redundant due to the result of their action. Under bonus actions they may have an alternative to switch to, but under special actions they always do nothing. Prima facie that's a negative.

It feels like the most common complaints about bonus actions are with Two Weapon Fighting and their optional nature (why don't I always have one?) Two Weapon Fighting might be fixed as [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] suggested - light weapons grant you a bonus action attack full stop (no need to use your action to attack). From there I wonder if we couldn't give all characters a basic bonus action such as Interact With An Object (presently free) so that they learn the system. The complexity that introduces is that I think one would then want to allow actions to be spent as bonus actions: allowing 1 action + 1 bonus action, or 2 bonus actions, in your turn. Which doesn't sound great TBH.

Where I land so far is simply - fix TWF if that is the main culprit, and rethink the terminology so that it better suggests the special or additional nature of a bonus action. "Special", "optional", "alternate", "elannic" or "additional".

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I'm good with Bonus Actions, with the exception of two-weapon fighting. I'd like to see more penalties applied unless you are willing to dedicate a build to it. I liked the TWF penalties in previous games, the -6/-10 that could be modified by various feats. For D&D, I'd make it something simple.

When you take the Attack Action and you have a light melee weapon in each hand then you can make one additional attack. You can allocate attacks to weapons as you wish but you must attack at least once with each weapon on your turn. All attacks that turn are made at disadvantage.

If you have the Dual Wielder feat then the attacks are not made at disadvantage.

If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting style then only one of the weapons must have the light property. Both weapons must, of course, be wielded one-handed. Rationale: I only want martial classes dual wielding with swords and axes and hammers.

 

[hejtmane]

I'm good with Bonus Actions, with the exception of two-weapon fighting. I'd like to see more penalties applied unless you are willing to dedicate a build to it. I liked the TWF penalties in previous games, the -6/-10 that could be modified by various feats. For D&D, I'd make it something simple.

When you take the Attack Action and you have a light melee weapon in each hand then you can make one additional attack. You can allocate attacks to weapons as you wish but you must attack at least once with each weapon on your turn. All attacks that turn are made at disadvantage.

If you have the Dual Wielder feat then the attacks are not made at disadvantage.

If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting style then only one of the weapons must have the light property. Both weapons must, of course, be wielded one-handed. Rationale: I only want martial classes dual wielding with swords and axes and hammers.

In 5e that becomes a feat tax and that makes DW worthless in non feat games you would bacailly make it worthless and why -6 heck GWF is only -5 way to big of a penalty it is already balanced you need twf from fighter or ranger to add the damage modifer to the off hand attack

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

In 5e that becomes a feat tax

That's my intention, yes. If you want to dual-wield, you have to spend something to get it. Using two weapons at once in combat is hard. It should cost something significant.

You have a good point about feat-less games.

 

[Kryx]

That's my intention, yes. If you want to dual-wield, you have to spend something to get it. Using two weapons at once in combat is hard. It should cost something significant.

Hmm doesn't sound like you have the clearest picture of the current balance.
Twf already does about 80% of the damage a greatsword does and you want to make it worse? Polearm does 95% and sword and shield are around 80%. Twf needs buffs, not nerfs. There are many threads on this topic.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Twf already does about 80% of the damage a greatsword does and you want to make it worse?

As noted above, where you didn't read, I want to make dual-wielding part of the Attack Action, not a Bonus Action. So, yes, I do want to make it worse. After all, with this rule change you are gaining the ability to dual-wield and do a Bonus Action.

Also, my 6th level Ranger in a OOTA game can do 24 (2 × 1d8+1d6+3) a round using a long sword and a shield, 28 (2 × 1d12+1d6+3) with a greatsword, and 30 (2 × 1d6+1d6+3, 1d6+1d6) with two shortswords. If he had Two-Weapon style instead of Protection style, that last number would be 33.
If he had Great-Weapon style, that second number would be roughly 30.

I'm not sure where you're getting 80% from.

 

[Kryx]

The twf math is well established. You can find many examples of it around and I've included mine at the bottom.
Using math that does not include the adventuring day, chance to hit, or a myriad of other factors makes that math rather unusable. You're also comparing it to a greatsword build for a class that doesn't even have gwf fighting style. That's rather disingenuous.
Nerfing twf further from it's abysmal state in raw based on removing the bonus action is flawed. You're only buffing the ranger, not meaningfully adjusting the barbarian or fighter (minor boosts) or other twf classes.

Twf needs no nerfs, even with the bonus action removed it's far behind GWM and PAM.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=202585225 is my dpr math that shows the fighter doing 75% of GWM with twf. Ranger numbers are similar.