D&D 5E Is the Rogue the only reason TWFing needs a Bonus Action?

[CapnZapp]

I'm a fan of Bonus Actions and see it as a feature instead of a bug -- but then, I'm not a developer and paid to think about stuff like this for hours a day. however, whatever subsystems that replaced it would have to be damned good, because its very nature stops a lot of abuses as noted in the whole initiative discussion that the previous versions had. Right now, the reaction/standard/bonus system seems to be working really well; I'm all for improvement, let's just make sure it's an improvement instead of whatever replaces it breaking more than it fixes just because someone thinks its a great fix to one proud nail.

I'm too.

I don't think it was good how MMearls said what he said - now people think bonus actions are bad for the game.

This has very little to do with the OPs desire to buff the Rogue just a little. Anything that helps melee Rogues (and not range Rogues) is a good thing in my book.

So, on topic, if Rogues got both Cunning Action (as is) and "if you take the attack action on your turn, you can attack with a light weapon in your off hand (not adding your ability modifier to damage) as a free action once that turn"...?

 

[Jester David]

I might be wrong, but it sure sounds like you have an opinion on what "not more than once a turn" stuff you would have preferred not to use the bonus action mechanic.

I mean, your point is perfectly valid. Just because many things got shuffled into a bonus action doesn't mean there can't remain a few things that simply are not-an-action, yet limited to once/turn.

I think they used bonus actions too much. It's fine in the game, but it should have been used sparingly otherwise it falls into the trap of swift/minor actions where people assume they always have one and don't want to "waste" it each round. The intent of the design was that you don't have bonus actions, until you have an ability that lets you unlock one. But with so many ways of getting a bonus action, they're pretty ubiquitous.
Lot of actions (druid wildshaping, barbarians raging, and potentially the offhand attack from two-weapon fighting) could easily have just been non-actions that could be done once on your turn. And others could have been folded into other actions.

 

[Staffan]

So, on topic, if Rogues got both Cunning Action (as is) and "if you take the attack action on your turn, you can attack with a light weapon in your off hand (not adding your ability modifier to damage) as a free action once that turn"...?

That's the reverse of what the Swashbuckler archetype from SCAG does. It gives you the ability to prevent opportunity attacks from any creature you've attacked earlier in your turn. It also lets you use Sneak Attack when no creature other than the target is within 5 feet of you.

 

[Mephista]

Does the Rogue and their Cunning Actionability serve as the primary reason TWFing needs to keep its bonus action? Is a melee rogue relegated to TWFing to get the most bang for their buck? Their bonus action for a second attempt at sneak attack is statistically similar to a ranged rogue's ability to use their bonus action to Hide to gain advantage (and thus two chances to hit).

But does this rob us of swashbuckling rapier/empty hand rogues? That second chance boosts a 65% chance to hit to an 87.5% chance to hit at least once, which is a big boost to damage. At least now it is a trade off between using withdraw as a bonus to get out a bit or trying for that second attack.

So, in answer to these questions. Yes, the Rogue and Cunning Action is the primary reason that we have bonus action TWFing. But not for the reasons you seem to be thinking, if I'm reading things right. You see, during the playtest, we had Cunning Action as a bonus action without two weapon fighting being a bonus action. The end result was that everyone and their brother were TWFing as a rogue, and there was pretty much no other option. There was no solid reason to be single-handed.

Thus, bonus action off-hand attacks became a thing. The devs wanted to make it a meaningful choice between acting as a two weapon warrior, or to be able to be a one handed swashbuckler. And, at least math wise, it works out for the rogue. Attacking with advantage from Cunning Action is roughly on par with an offhand attack. There's a +/- 0.5 dpr variance that, when all is said and done, is pretty negligable; that includes the idea of "more chances to land an attack" with TWFing. Now, if you can consistantly get Advantage from another source, then two weapon fighting is better, but most games I've seen that isn't the case, so I consider that a niche case.

Actual play really doesn't seem to say that TWFing rogue is superior to non-TWFing one. If anything, most players I know actually prefer to use Cunning Action for the increased mobility flying around the battlefield and attacking choice targets.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION] I always thought one reason that TWF needs a bonus action (in the current 5e rules) may have to do with the Eldritch Knight & Arcane Trickster.

Here are the spells with bonus action casting times in the PHB (there are others which I haven't included which have an action casting time and then allow bonus actions to be used to follow up, but I couldn't find those easily).

Looking them over, precious few are available to the EK and AT: Expeditious Retreat, Magic Weapon and Misty Step essentially.

Shillelagh (druid 0)
Compelled Duel (paladin 1)
Divine Favor (war cleric, paladin 1)
Ensnaring Strike (ancients paladin, ranger 1)
Expeditious Retreat (sorcerer, warlock, wizard 1)
Hail of Thorns (ranger 1)
Healing Word (bard, cleric, druid 1)
Hex (warlock 1)
Hunter’s Mark (vengeance paladin, ranger 1)
Sanctuary (devotion paladin, cleric 1)
Searing Smite (paladin 1)
Shield of Faith (cleric, paladin 1)
Thunderous Smite (paladin 1)
Wrathful Smite (paladin 1)
Branding Smite (paladin 2)
Flame Blade (druid 2)
Magic Weapon (war cleric, paladin, wizard 2)
Misty Step (circle of the land/coast druid, ancient paladin, vengeance paladin, sorcerer, warlock, wizard 2)
Spiritual Weapon (cleric 3)
Blinding Smite (paladin 3)
Lightning Arrow (ranger 3)
Mass Healing Word (cleric, life druid 3)
Grasping Vine (nature cleric, druid, ranger 4)
Staggering Smite (paladin 4)
Banishing Smite (paladin 5)
Swift Quiver (ranger 5)
Divine Word (cleric 7)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

We moved it to the attac k action, contingent on one of three things: the feat, the fighting style, or "extra attack". My wife's rogue took the feat and even letting her use cunning action and dual wield in the same round hasn't been overpowered in the least.

 

[Xeviat]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about removing bonus actions entirely. My only beef with bonus actions is the word "bonus" and the weird "you don't normally have a bonus action unless some ability gives you one and then you only get 1 per round" wording. Just having a minor action would have been simpler.

I'm talking about removing the bonus action from TWFing alone. With a few other tweaks, TWFing could be as strong as GWFing, just spread out over more attacks. But sneak attack and the hex/hunters mark type damage modifiers could then make TWFing too good. I just want the Fighting Style options to be more of a choice for more characters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CapnZapp]

Let one thing be clear: all the talk about not having a bonus action or a reaction... unless you do... is a smokescreen.

Any competent minmaxer will tell you one of the most important things your build must give you are strong uses for both those, preferably every round of every combat.

So really, you don't get these actions.

You lose them.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Jester David]

Let one thing be clear: all the talk about not having a bonus action or a reaction... unless you do... is a smokescreen.

Any competent minmaxer will tell you one of the most important things your build must give you are strong uses for both those, preferably every round of every combat.

So really, you don't get these actions.

You lose them.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

But you don't design the game for minmaxers. You do the opposite. You design for the new and casual player. That's the baseline. That's what you use when discussing the design.

 

[Ganymede81]

It is so easy to just say that, when you dual wield, attack normally but add your weapon damage dice together to a max of 2d6.

There. Problem solved. No complication. No stress.