D&D 5E Extra Reaction or extra Bonus Action?

[Quartz]

That feat is a nice idea. What about scaling it, using proficiency bonus for the number of times you can take reactions, instead of limiting it to two?

6 Reactions per round is very strong!

 

[jgsugden]

Both a bonus action and a bonus reaction, every round, is overly strong. For a feat, I'd limit it to three additional reactions or three additional bonus actions per long rest, no more than once per round, and I would not allow the same reaction or bonus action to be used twice in the same round.

In terms of which is more valuable, it is definitely build dependent, but most builds would do better with the bonus action. A monk or rogue would thrive on bonus actions, while some melee characters get relatively more from reactions. Spellcasters that have better reaction spells than bonus action spells would obviously want the extra reactions.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Even the most action economy maximizing build can only use a reaction if something triggers it. Meanwhile there are a number of builds that routinely find themselves in a bonus action crunch, particularly at the beginning of combat. This doesn't mean that extra reaction couldn't be potentially more valuable, but I think it would be less satisfying from a player perspective vs. the bonus bonus action which they would never fail to use at some point in the adventuring day.

If I was going to create a subclass with "bonus action surge" I'd make it a Ranger, since that class has the two-weapon fighting option but can't make good use of it because they generally are going to end up using at least half their bonus actions in combat activating spells and abilities.

 

[BacchusNL]

Even the most action economy maximizing build can only use a reaction if something triggers it. Meanwhile there are a number of builds that routinely find themselves in a bonus action crunch, particularly at the beginning of combat. This doesn't mean that extra reaction couldn't be potentially more valuable, but I think it would be less satisfying from a player perspective vs. the bonus bonus action which they would never fail to use at some point in the adventuring day.

If I was going to create a subclass with "bonus action surge" I'd make it a Ranger, since that class has the two-weapon fighting option but can't make good use of it because they generally are going to end up using at least half their bonus actions in combat activating spells and abilities.

Personaly I agree with Laerien's choice in BG3 by making Fast Hands for the Thief subclass for rogue just a flat "you get an extra bonus action" instead of the clunky ability it has in the PHB. It makes a subpar subclass a lot more viable. I'd be hesitant to put it into a feat though, you really don't want casters to get their hands on it. Animate Objects and a lot of other spells would be completely busted.

 

[Shiroiken]

It really depends on the build, but overall extra bonus actions would be more useful. There are a lot of ways to have bonus actions, but only a handful of reactions. Knowing you can have extra bonus actions making spells like Spiritual Weapon and Flaming Sphere much more appealing, while rogues would be super-ninja (move, dash, hide).

 

[Dausuul]

It hugely depends on the class. Bonus action would be more useful for spellcasters (as there's nothing that prevents you from casting two bonus-action spells per round), but for melee battlemaster reaction would be more useful (it's not like Fighters have much use of BA anyway).

From "game-breaking" perspective, two reactions is way safer -- you'll never see something like two fireballs per round or, idk, six eldrich blasts at lvl 5.

Hm, wait. Hold action.

From the rules on bonus action spells: "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

So you couldn't cast two bonus action spells even if you had two bonus actions. Two reactions is definitely better for many spellcasters. IME, martials suffer more from bonus action shortage than casters do.

 

[Flamestrike]

FWIW we added a new feat:
View attachment 129799

And have been using it for months. It hasn't hurt anything but allowing things like Rogue two Uncanny Dodges or two OA sneak attacks can be pretty strong.

Of course, as others have said an additional Bonus Action can be very strong/useful for the right build.

I'd word that differently, and limit the reactions to 1/turn instead of 'triggering event'.

That stops countering a countered counterspell, or other shenanigans.

''In combat, you get a single extra reaction that you can take once on any creature's turn, except your turn. You can't use this reaction on the same turn that you use your normal reaction.''

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'd word that differently, and limit the reactions to 1/turn instead of 'triggering event'.

That stops countering a countered counterspell, or other shenanigans.

''In combat, you get a single extra reaction that you can take once on any creature's turn, except your turn. You can't use this reaction on the same turn that you use your normal reaction.''

You can't do one per turn because, for example, suppose a Wizard attacks my PC with Booming Blade or something.

I could use one reaction to attempt to counter the spell, but they counter my counter. (Yes, your idea prevents further counters...)

But then I get hit by the attack, and I use my second reaction for Uncanny Dodge to reduce the damage by half.

Your suggestion would not allow my Uncanny Dodge because it is still the Wizard's "turn."

I see your point, and personally if someone took the feat and wants to burn through Counterspells that quickly--I don't have an issue with it.

 

[Flamestrike]

Your suggestion would not allow my Uncanny Dodge because it is still the Wizard's "turn."

That's the point of it.

Two reactions on the same turn is broken with some combos, and the feat becomes a feat tax for many builds (Rogues, casters, Battlemasters, any class with Sentinel, Berserker Barbarians). Its a no brainer for Wizards who can now reliably counter any attempts to counter their counter spelling. It grants Berserker Barbarians a free extra attack from 14th level onwards. I cant think of any martials that dont want 3 levels of BM (for Riposte and Brace).

The 18th level Cavalier capstone allows infinite reactions, but only 1/ turn.

Reducing it to 1/turn stops nova builds where some classes or combos can generate 2 out of turn attacks against the same creature on the same turn, effectively doubling damage output.

 

[Quartz]

Two reactions on the same turn is broken with some combos, and the feat becomes a feat tax for many builds

I was thinking of this as a magic item or a higher-level class ability, not a feat.