D&D 5E (2024) Bonus Action Conversion

[Charlaquin]

Given how overloaded some characters are with bonus actions anymore, it's crazy that they weren't intended to be ubiquitous.

It’s more obvious if you just look at the 2014 PHB. There are no universal bonus actions other than dual wielding in the original PHB; bonus actions were originally always granted by specific class features or by spells, and there weren’t yet that many such features. The rogue had a use for a bonus action every turn, but that was part of its schtick as the quick and nimble martial class. Monks could also use one most turns, and warlocks and rangers could count on re-upping Hex or Hunter’s Mark whenever they needed to. But other than that, what would a 2014 PHB character be doing with their bonus action? Barbarians, Fighters, and Paladins are all to want a two hander or a shield rather than a pair of light weapons. A wizard or sorcerer might cast Misty Step or Expeditious Retreat once in a while. But most characters just didn’t use a bonus action most turns in the early days.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd say there's no "seems" about it. It is a wild stance. Bonus actions serve a vital function, just as their predecessors, Minor and Swift actions, did. Sometimes, you want to be able to do a thing as a ride-along thing people can attempt to do, but you don't want to allow 17 different ride-along effects. It's extremely useful to be able to say "this is something that happens around your Proper Action, but doesn't take up your whole ability to do stuff."

Doing it any other way creates enormous headaches and needless complexity. Are Bonus Actions more complicated than simply not having them at all, and nixing anything that would need such a thing? Yes, of course, doing something is always going to be more complex than not doing anything at all. But it is a very small step up in complexity, in exchange for simplifying a BAZILLION other things that would've been horribly clunky and ugly.

This just gets to the heart of my criticisms of the hyperminimalist design stance. That is, just as it is true that "less is more" sometimes--that is, you can occasionally make gains by making do with fewer components--it's also true that sometimes more is less, that is, by adding just a little bit of complexity in one space, you can eliminate ENORMOUS amounts of complexity in a bunch of other places. Removing the Bonus/Minor/Swift action would be penny-wise, pound-foolish design--and if Mearls cannot recognize that, I need to re-evaluate my already not-super-great opinion of his design chops.

Incidentally, I personally think the preoccupation with bending over backward to emphasize that Bonus Actions aren't required is silly. The simpler way is to give everyone a really obvious, basic, but useful Bonus Action they can always fall back on if they don't have any other option. BG3's "Prepare" action (specific to greataxes) is a solid option, just make it add (say) half your proficiency bonus to damage on one single damage roll you inflict during the turn, rather than every hit. Instant useful bonus action, modest but clear benefit, very straightforward. "When in doubt, Prepare; but if you have some other use for your Bonus Action, you probably want to use it."

Yeah, I’m on the same page as you on this matter.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Tangentially, one crazy thing that I've done with my 2014 house rules is to make some things that require a bonus action be able to use the same bonus action that you use for something else. I write those up with language like:

"...requires a bonus action, but it can be the same bonus action you use to ..."

This is for occasional interactions where I feel like it's a problem that you can't do certain things together.

My motivation was an orc berserker barbarian with Great Weapon Master. How much more (3e+) iconic can you get? But Aggressive takes your bonus action, entering rage takes your bonus action, using frenzy takes your bonus action, and cleaving with GWM takes your bonus action. You are essentially punished by anti-synergy trying to put together iconic conceptual combinations (orc+berserker, frenzy+greataxe, berserking orc + greataxe frenzy). It's ridiculous. I think I have done it with one or two more interactions but I can't recall which.

For some of that, rather than allowing 2 bonus action features to share the same bonus action, I just replace the need for a bonus action with a "once on each of your turns" limitation (that's what I do with GWM, though my version of the feat is similar to the 2024 version minus the ability score increase).

 

[James Gasik]

It’s more obvious if you just look at the 2014 PHB. There are no universal bonus actions other than dual wielding in the original PHB; bonus actions were originally always granted by specific class features or by spells, and there weren’t yet that many such features. The rogue had a use for a bonus action every turn, but that was part of its schtick as the quick and nimble martial class. Monks could also use one most turns, and warlocks and rangers could count on re-upping Hex or Hunter’s Mark whenever they needed to. But other than that, what would a 2014 PHB character be doing with their bonus action? Barbarians, Fighters, and Paladins are all to want a two hander or a shield rather than a pair of light weapons. A wizard or sorcerer might cast Misty Step or Expeditious Retreat once in a while. But most characters just didn’t use a bonus action most turns in the early days.

So I initially ignored 5e, not getting into it until I was talked into public play (this was right around the time the Sword Coast guide came out). By this point, everyone was using bonus actions, and if you asked for guidance about making a character, you were probably told that you should have a bonus action ability to work with.

By the time I made my first Cleric, Volo's was out, so I had an Orc, with a bonus action movement ability competing with Healing Word, my War Domain bonus action attack, and later, Spiritual Weapon.

The idea that nobody had a bonus action until you had a bonus action ability was odd to me (I was used to 4e's Minor Action) when it was explained, since I'd never played in a time period where such things weren't a factor for just about any character.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Note: this applies to 2014 and Tales of the Valiant as well.

For a long time, I've wondered as to the exact reasons why you cannot perform a Bonus Action ability as an Action. I've had players ask me about doing this from time to time, and I never could figure out a reason why not to allow it, but I refrained from doing so because I was worried that it might break something by accident.

Recently, Tales of the Valiant released the Player's Guide 2, which has a Talent (ToV-speak for Feats) that has no other function than to allow you to take a bonus action with your action (in contrast to many other Talents which have multiple bullet-pointed abilities), so once again I'm left with the question-

Why doesn't 5e allow you to do this, exactly, and would it really be worth a hypothetical Feat to gain the ability?

In some cases bonus actions allow something that is as good as an action or better.

Monk flurry of blows for example at level 11. And other monk abilities.

So a monk taking this feat might be stronger than expected.

 

[el-remmen]

I have allowed it as long as it doesn’t break other rules (like limits on spellcasting per turn) and it has never been a problem.

Definitely not worth a feat.

 

[James Gasik]

In some cases bonus actions allow something that is as good as an action or better.

Monk flurry of blows for example at level 11. And other monk abilities.

So a monk taking this feat might be stronger than expected.

Ok, this could be problematic at least!