D&D 5E How broken would it be to let people always spend a bonus action to make an off-hand attack, even if they didn't use an Attack action with a primary?

[Mistwell]

I think it would work fine. I think Mike Mearls originally intended it to work that way, but clunky things elsewhere got in the way.

 

[Arvok]

Mechanically it might not be OP, but as far as flavor I would hate this rule. The idea of a wizard casting a spell and then stabbing somebody with a dagger just seems "wrong" to me. But then again, I'm a grumpy, old Fatbeard.

 

[Horwath]

It won't break the game, but it likely will not improve it.

A goal of 5E was to avoid the trap of 3E where people had the mentality of "I am entitled to a regular action, a bonus action and a reaction and I need to figure out how to use them". It did not go far enough, and I'm pretty sure that if they could do it all again, there would be no bonus actions at all. The goal was to keep things simple and moving smoothly . If you don't care about that goal, then you likely would benefit from a system that goes much further in the opposite direction.

I find that if you're going to be interested in things like this, you may just be interested in going all the way and going to an action point system. There are two types - segmented and points per turn.

In a segmented system, everyone is going at the same time rather than taking turns of 6 seconds. Once you enter initiative, you start going through time in half second intervals. Every segment is 0.5 seconds. You accumulate movement points at different rates and will get to move every few segments based upon how quickly you gather these points. When you want to take an action, you check to see how many segments it takes and then declare it. You hope that it is still legal when you want to resolve it at the end of the segment count. It is a massive change from the core rules, but much better for people that want a realistic simulation scenario.

In a points per turn system, each player gets a number of action points they can use, and everything has an action point cost. Moving 5', drawing a weapon, talking, attacking, casting a spell …. you get to do whatever you want in the turn so long as you have enough action points to do it

I would like to see 6 action points per turn. for 6 seconds of round duration.

Normal attack could be 2 AP, twf action could be 3AP
using -5/+10 feats for 1 attack; 3 AP
2nd attack in round 4AP(2AP with Extra attack feature)
movement 2AP, rogues with cunning action 1AP(once per round only)
standing up, mounting, dismounting, drawing/stowing weapon/shield; 1AP
movement without AoO(disengage) 4AP, rogues with cunning action 3AP
movement with stealth(Hide) 4AP, rogues with cunning action 3AP

 

[Zaukrie]

Do the monsters get this too? I mean, it would speed up combat (which is a goal for some groups)

 

[billd91]

Or Disengage and run away.

A rogue can already do that with bonus actions if they take a single attack with their Action. So that one's a wash.

However, that would definitely start treading on the rogue's mojo if other PCs could do it.

 

[dave2008]

I would like to see 6 action points per turn. for 6 seconds of round duration.

Normal attack could be 2 AP, twf action could be 3AP
using -5/+10 feats for 1 attack; 3 AP
2nd attack in round 4AP(2AP with Extra attack feature)
movement 2AP, rogues with cunning action 1AP(once per round only)
standing up, mounting, dismounting, drawing/stowing weapon/shield; 1AP
movement without AoO(disengage) 4AP, rogues with cunning action 3AP
movement with stealth(Hide) 4AP, rogues with cunning action 3AP

I've advocated for a 6 action system since PF2 came out with their 3 action system. It seems so obvious to me, but it doesn't get a lot of traction when I post about it. I have some different costs, but one vital thing I included which you didn't is reactions. I include them in the "action points" So if you use all of your points on your turn, no reactions for you.

 

[Horwath]

I've advocated for a 6 action system since PF2 came out with their 3 action system. It seems so obvious to me, but it doesn't get a lot of traction when I post about it. I have some different costs, but one vital thing I included which you didn't is reactions. I include them in the "action points" So if you use all of your points on your turn, no reactions for you.

yes, reactions, or extra reaction can be added by spending AP, 1on1 basis,
maybe by default, maybe with a feat or a fighting style. maybe limit them to extra 1 or 2 reactions only.

also Haste spell can be more granular with this system:
I.E: haste 3rd level spell, 1 extra AP. 6th level 2 extra AP. 9th level 3 extra AP.

Elves are really fast, so they could add 1 AP for one round once per short rest or similar racials.

Bonus action spells could be 1 or 2 AP, while standard spells could be 3 AP, and some really powerful can be 5 or 6 AP. Or even more, so it requires at least 2 rounds of casting them.

metamagic feats could be:
Rapid spell: cast a spell with 1 AP less than normal,
Quickened spell: cast a spell with 2 AP less than normal,
Silent spell: cast spell without V components by adding 1 AP to casting,
Still spell: cast spell without S components by adding 1 AP to casting,
Empower spell: deal +50% damage or healing with spells by adding 3 AP to casting

 

[dave2008]

Bonus action spells could be 1 or 2 AP, while standard spells could be 3 AP, and some really powerful can be 5 or 6 AP. Or even more, so it requires at least 2 rounds of casting them.

metamagic feats could be:
Rapid spell: cast a spell with 1 AP less than normal,
Quickened spell: cast a spell with 2 AP less than normal,
Silent spell: cast spell without V components by adding 1 AP to casting,
Still spell: cast spell without S components by adding 1 AP to casting,
Empower spell: deal +50% damage or healing with spells by adding 3 AP to casting

IIRC, the PF2 system is one action per component. I was planning on using 1+ 1/ spell level for the action cost. However, that doesn't work well with bonus and reaction based spells.

Regardless, this concept provides a lot more flexibility and is easier to understand if a little more complex. I think the action economy is one area where D&D doesn't really have sacred cows and could be modified quite a bit

 

[Horwath]

IIRC, the PF2 system is one action per component. I was planning on using 1+ 1/ spell level for the action cost. However, that doesn't work well with bonus and reaction based spells.

Regardless, this concept provides a lot more flexibility and is easier to understand if a little more complex. I think the action economy is one area where D&D doesn't really have sacred cows and could be modified quite a bit

it could work well with "bonus action" spells.

If you have 6 AP,
and fireball is 3 AP, move is 2 AP and some bonus action spell is 1 AP, you can still cast both spells and move,
ofc you could cap at 2 spells per turn limit, no matter how cheap they are in AP cost.

 

[dave2008]

it could work well with "bonus action" spells.

If you have 6 AP,
and fireball is 3 AP, move is 2 AP and some bonus action spell is 1 AP, you can still cast both spells and move,
ofc you could cap at 2 spells per turn limit, no matter how cheap they are in AP cost.

I wasn't clear: The idea that spell cost a number of actions equal to: 1 + spell level doesn't work for bonus action and reaction spells. If counterspell costs 4 actions it is a bit useless. I can say bonus action and reaction spells cost 1 action and it works, but I was looking for a universal mechanic, and my first idea is not it. I may just have to accept that bonus actions and reactions are different for spells.

PS I would reduce speed by half or so and make it 1 AP. So standard speed is 15 and 1 AP.