D&D 5E Deleting Bonus Actions

[fearsomepirate]

Pedantically: if you had PAM and Dual-Wielder, and were using two spears or quarterstaffs, you could trigger both, which in this case is two extra spear attacks.

"Only a...spear" means one spear. You tell your son, "If you eat only a cookie, you can have ice cream, too." He eats two cookies, one with each hand. Does he get ice cream?

I'm not saying that's a problem, because only Vhumans can get there without letting their ability scores fall behind, and for non-vhumans it's a later-stage benefit anyways. In other words, it allows for a crazy combo, but frankly I find those more fun than broken.

Edit: and this combo doesn't get the soft twf benefit of being dex-based.

Yeah, I ran numbers, and even with such a generous reading, it's a ~20% damage increase in exchange for a fairly significant hit to defenses & HP. Not at all out of line with what two feats gets you. Be strict about PAM, and it's a ~10% increase, not even worth it.

I find it interesting how hard it is to find something really broken. I'm sure there's some really asinine MC glass-cannon combo involving a bardlock bladesinger or something.

 

[CleverNickName]

An even more straightforward way to fix the problems described in the original post:

1. Using a better Ranger. There are a couple of official and unofficial versions floating around out there that might help.
2. Talking to your players. Help them make a list of all Bonus actions their characters have, and then write them in the "Notes" section of their character sheets so that they're always handy.

 

[loverdrive]

All the discussion about TWF sucking because of the bonus actions conveniently ignores that it's not how TWF works in real life.

How about we fix that instead? The notion that more weapons = more attack isn't how it works.

Pretty much everything in D&D works not the way it works in real life, so I don't think it's a factor worth considering.

 

[jmartkdr2]

"Only a...spear" means one spear. You tell your son, "If you eat only a cookie, you can have ice cream, too." He eats two cookies, one with each hand. Does he get ice cream?



Yeah, I ran numbers, and even with such a generous reading, it's a ~20% damage increase in exchange for a fairly significant hit to defenses & HP. Not at all out of line with what two feats gets you. Be strict about PAM, and it's a ~10% increase, not even worth it.

I find it interesting how hard it is to find something really broken. I'm sure there's some really asinine MC glass-cannon combo involving a bardlock bladesinger or something.

The only thing I've seen as broken in actual play is CBM + SS, and that was on a gloomstalker on top of all that. It's not just a lot of damage, it's a lot of damage without the risk of getting hit, which is why PAM + GWM doesn't break the game the same way.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think you'd get more pushback form people who are used to the trope / fantasy of two-weapon fighting than the reality.

You may be shocked to learned that a number of other RPGs systems do two-weapon fighting much better.

 

[teitan]

I think moving to a move and 2 action economy would resolve the questions of bonus actions without screwing everyone out of that extra action with reactions off your turn. It would simplify things. I have a player who is playing a cleric, 4th level. I ask if she has any bonus actions... every turn... claims she doesn't but she does. By spelling out a two action economy it eliminates situations like that, the player knows they can take two actions every time and 1 reaction every turn. Sure it's Pathfinder 2e but it works.

 

[billd91]

I think moving to a move and 2 action economy would resolve the questions of bonus actions without screwing everyone out of that extra action with reactions off your turn. It would simplify things. I have a player who is playing a cleric, 4th level. I ask if she has any bonus actions... every turn... claims she doesn't but she does. By spelling out a two action economy it eliminates situations like that, the player knows they can take two actions every time and 1 reaction every turn. Sure it's Pathfinder 2e but it works.

It’s not really going to alleviate one of the problems identified in the OP - that players hunt about their sheets for something to do to fill that action slot in the action economy.

 

[NotAYakk]

It’s not really going to alleviate one of the problems identified in the OP - that players hunt about their sheets for something to do to fill that action slot in the action economy.

I'd claim that analysis paralysis is reduced if you can just do bonus actions.

And, I mean, the number of times I see someone who isn't a game playing fiend get bonus actions wrong is crazy. The fact that warpriest, shield bash, and spirtual weapon are mutually exclusive makes combat slower, and certain builds a trap.

With the restrictions above (no more than 1 attack, max 1 leveled spell/turn, maintain at most 1 spell, max 1 use of each feature) I think the potential for abuse from optimization is less than the benefit from simplifying things for non-crunchers.

Even the "do I have a bonus action" thing. There are basically 3 kinds of bonus actions

1) A resource you can expend.
2) Something you can do basically every turn.
3) Something that is triggered.

For someone who isn't crunching, the resource case -- well, you can remind a warpriest to use their extra attack and tick it off. Without the extra overhead "but only if you didn't healing word" it is simpler.

#2, well, with no contention, less crunchy players will learn faster. Every turn a Rogue dashes or disengages. They just do it. And with repetition brings memory.

For #3, those triggered ones are usually things like feats (shield master) or build choices (twf etc), and go off always or almost never.

 

[Krachek]

The thing is, I see non optimizers running into bonus action traps more than optimizers.

Optimizers know not to play a ranger.

Maybe after removing them the optimizer exploits it more?

I think that one cool feature per PC turn is quite enough most of the time.
DnD is not a card game, where you can show off playing and drawing 4-6 cards in a turn.
My take on bonus action, is to remove them by making features worth an action to use them.
I saw it enough in 4ed, players thinking how to spend their Minor action, or their last encounter power just to make sure they use every little space they got. It was making endless table turn.

 

[NotAYakk]

I think that one cool feature per PC turn is quite enough most of the time.
DnD is not a card game, where you can show off playing and drawing 4-6 cards in a turn.
My take on bonus action, is to remove them by making features worth an action to use them.
I saw it enough in 4ed, players thinking how to spend their Minor action, or their last encounter power just to make sure they use every little space they got. It was making endless table turn.

I claim that the analysis paralysis -- "looking for a thing to do" -- and the one thing per round limit in opposition. The one thing per round limit makes analysis paralysis worse.

If you make a pile of neat abilities and say "one per round", then the player has to decide between them on their turn. "Do I use ability X or Y".

This leads to "always do the same thing" (making a build so that one of them is clearly better than all of the rest), or analysis paralysis (where you have to tactically decide which to use each turn).

The opposite is making bonus actions quick and no brainers mostly. You do more things, but there is less analysis paralysis.

The free ones - cunning action - you use as needed. The triggered ones - twf, maintain a spell - you use when triggered. The resource ones - step of the wind, flurry, spells, second wind - are strategic resources, not tactical, so are not "in the moment" decisions.

only if they take up too much table time or are too powerful do I see a problem.

Hence, I propose to cap it at 1 attack granting bonus action, 1 use of each feature, 1 spell maintaining bonus adtion, and 1 leveled spell per turn.

You can make a build that dashes, rages, wildshapes, flurries, bladesings, uses a flaming sphere, and steps of the wind. But this is a franken build, high level, not that effective, and doesn't take that long to resolve.