D&D 5E (2024) Bonus Action Conversion

[Horwath]

I mean, that one is simple enough. They want greater flexibility in how you can make use of those ride-along actions.

Consider something like healing word. In order to circumlocute around the bonus action cast time, you would have to do something like this: "You can cast this spell any time you take an Action or use your movement, so long as you are not silenced, but if you cast this spell during your turn, you cannot cast any spell that uses a spell slot with your Action, nor can you cast this spell if you have already cast any spell that requires a spell slot." You might be able to trim that down with careful editing, but there's only so far you'll be able to take it....

And now every spell that was a Bonus Action cast time has to be written with that extra text. In other words, you've just ballooned the length of the spells chapter by easily another 5-10 pages just from having to keep repeating this over and over...not to mention all of the spells that don't initially require a Bonus Action, but use one for continuing the spell's benefits (e.g. witch bolt; basic casting is Action, but getting the d12 lightning damage on subsequent turns is a Bonus Action).

All that, instead of just having the teensy bit of "complexity" of the Bonus Action, and saying that that's the category for ride-along stuff that you can only do a bit of, but you can do it while you do any other proper Action-y things that tickle your fancy.

Or if you want something pithy:

There are lots of things where it makes sense that doing X takes up all of your attention/time.

There are lots of things where it makes sense you can do them basically anytime.

But there are a fair number of things where neither of those make sense: it shouldn't eat up your whole attention, but it also shouldn't be free-use-whenever.

Turns out, having a clean, straightforward box to put category-3 things into is actually really, really useful as a design tool. Hence why every single WotC edition has had them, as did PF1e, and PF2e switched to a three-actions-per-round system to functionally achieve the same goal in a different way. Three-action things are what 3e would have called a "Full-Round Action", and the fact that you have three actions a turn means one of those can be spent on a ride-along action without it eating up the whole of your turn, and thus achieving the same end by a slightly different means.

If every character JUST has one singular Action they can use, you're always going to be bumping into things that would be really really nice as ride-along actions, but utterly terrible/worthless as "this is all you do during your turn".

For spells I agree, there should be Action and Bonus action spells.
Also potions/poison.

rage: free action
bardic inspiration: free action
Polearmastery: part of Attack action
Cleave from GWM: free action once on your turn
Divine smite: free action once on your turn

as for PF2, 6 action would be more custumizable, also 6 seconds round, 6 action points:
Action: 3 pts
Move: 2pts
Bonus action: 1pt

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For spells I agree, there should be Action and Bonus action spells.
Also potions/poison.

rage: free action
bardic inspiration: free action
Polearmastery: part of Attack action
Cleave from GWM: free action once on your turn
Divine smite: free action once on your turn

as for PF2, 6 action would be more custumizable, also 6 seconds round, 6 action points:
Action: 3 pts
Move: 2pts
Bonus action: 1pt

If you're already going to have bonus action spells, I'm not sure what the point is in getting rid of them for various other things?

Also, just so you know...divine smite IS a bonus action spell now.

Level 1 Evocation

Casting Time: Bonus action, which you take immediately after hitting a target with a Melee weapon or an Unarmed Strike

 

[Horwath]

If you're already going to have bonus action spells, I'm not sure what the point is in getting rid of them for various other things?

Also, just so you know...divine smite IS a bonus action spell now.

Level 1 Evocation

Casting Time: Bonus action, which you take immediately after hitting a target with a Melee weapon or an Unarmed Strike

I know.
talk about an over correction of smite problem in 5E.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

...i feel if they'd simply been named a special action instead, three-quarters of the common confusion, misinterpretation, and controversy never would have manifest: they're a fine design tool if implemented consistently...

...if we can disabuse both players and designers of the notion that bonus actions are simply additional quick mini-actions which everyone gets as part of their standard action economy, most of its problems go away; unfortunately that ship has long-since-sailed deep into the corpus of fifth-edition content, commentary, and community...

They were trying. "Minor" action wasn't enough to inherently induce readers' brains to think that it wasn't something they HAD to be consuming 100% of the time. That's precisely why they called them "Bonus" actions, because they thought that would inherently make readers think that it was a Special Bonus Thing Not Expected Most Of The Time.

I can promise you, linguistic gymnastics to make players not think they "should" be using a resource they have won't work. It hasn't for three editions running; it's not going to start now. Call it "special", call it "extra", call it whatever you like; players will still think it's something they have and are wasting if they don't do something with it.

This is why I recommend instead making a really really simple beneficial thing players can always do with their <Insert Name Of Choice Here> Action, so that they never feel punished for not having something better to do with it. "You deal +(Prof/2) damage with one damage roll this turn" is simple, straightforward, and always usable in any context where the player, y'know, dealt damage. And if they did no damage, they're not exactly going to be hungering for a bonus action thing after that, are they? Anything else, even a mere singular attack, would be better than the aforementioned action--even when you're doing +3 extra damage, that's a pittance compared to what you're pumping out at that point, and your regular melee attacks (amongst other options) should have an expected value WELL above a mere +3.

Don't try to reprogram human brains to think in a new way. Because it will never work; that's not how humans respond to information. Instead, accept what the human brains are doing, and try to find a way to short the analysis-paralysis circuit by giving an easily-memorized, basic, nice-but-not-necessary option. Is it ideal? No, but neither is the human mind. Better designers than you and I have tried to solve this problem and failed, miserably. It's not worth trying to solve. Design around it instead.

 

[Basic Expert]

Moving from 4E's minor actions to 5E's bonus actions was an attempt to simplify and quicken the combat turn. There is a decision point for players for each action they get in a turn. That means analysis of various options, which takes time. If the designers could trim standard/move/minor down to action/move/possible bonus, they can potentially speed up combat by 33%. A laudable goal, especially coming off of 4E's notoriously slow combats. It also had the upside of reducing complexity for newer players, many of whom would be limited to action/move on their turns, making the game easier to get into.

However, the optional bonus action format leads to additional problems. You have players wondering "Why does Bob get three actions a turn when I only get two? Oh, he has a bonus action feature. How do I get one of those? That seems neat!" and the sense that if you don't acquire a bonus action feature at some point you are using your turn to the fullest, that you are somehow being inefficient with your build.

That, coupled with bonus actions as an attractive space for designers to play with or use as a crutch to limit features (rather than working to put in more organic limitations), means a proliferation of bonus action features.

I am with Meals on this one. I never cared for the idea of bonus actions and don't like the implementation. It is definitely one of the "turn-offs" of 5E for me, though I do understand the appeal for players that do want additional character and turn complexity.

I would absolutely not allow bonus actions to be used in place of a primary action. This just has the potential to further exacerbate the above complexities and incentivize build shenanigans. The action economy of 5E, along with Concentration, is one of the hard limits on PCs and players are still chafing under these rudimentary restraints. A PC has to choose which single bonus action they should take on their turn--oh horrors!

 

[Sword of Spirit]

They were trying. "Minor" action wasn't enough to inherently induce readers' brains to think that it wasn't something they HAD to be consuming 100% of the time. That's precisely why they called them "Bonus" actions, because they thought that would inherently make readers think that it was a Special Bonus Thing Not Expected Most Of The Time.

I can promise you, linguistic gymnastics to make players not think they "should" be using a resource they have won't work. It hasn't for three editions running; it's not going to start now. Call it "special", call it "extra", call it whatever you like; players will still think it's something they have and are wasting if they don't do something with it.

This is why I recommend instead making a really really simple beneficial thing players can always do with their <Insert Name Of Choice Here> Action, so that they never feel punished for not having something better to do with it. "You deal +(Prof/2) damage with one damage roll this turn" is simple, straightforward, and always usable in any context where the player, y'know, dealt damage. And if they did no damage, they're not exactly going to be hungering for a bonus action thing after that, are they? Anything else, even a mere singular attack, would be better than the aforementioned action--even when you're doing +3 extra damage, that's a pittance compared to what you're pumping out at that point, and your regular melee attacks (amongst other options) should have an expected value WELL above a mere +3.

Don't try to reprogram human brains to think in a new way. Because it will never work; that's not how humans respond to information. Instead, accept what the human brains are doing, and try to find a way to short the analysis-paralysis circuit by giving an easily-memorized, basic, nice-but-not-necessary option. Is it ideal? No, but neither is the human mind. Better designers than you and I have tried to solve this problem and failed, miserably. It's not worth trying to solve. Design around it instead.

Swift actions in 3.5e felt to me more like what they were going for with bonus actions. Most people didn't even have them, and if you did have it available it wasn't every turn and you probably didn't have more than one or two ways to occasionally use it anyway.

Granted, this was my experience using the mid 3.5e materials. I wouldn't be surprised at all if later 3.5e material I wasn't personally familiar with like the Tome of Battle made a lot more use of them.

 

[CreamCloud0]

This is why I recommend instead making a really really simple beneficial thing players can always do with their <Insert Name Of Choice Here> Action, so that they never feel punished for not having something better to do with it. "You deal +(Prof/2) damage with one damage roll this turn" is simple, straightforward, and always usable in any context where the player, y'know, dealt damage. And if they did no damage, they're not exactly going to be hungering for a bonus action thing after that, are they? Anything else, even a mere singular attack, would be better than the aforementioned action--even when you're doing +3 extra damage, that's a pittance compared to what you're pumping out at that point, and your regular melee attacks (amongst other options) should have an expected value WELL above a mere +3.

yeah, i think if there was just, a basic selection of simple BA actions available to everyone i think it would fill in the urge to be using your BA for something without being optimization bait.

maybe convert some of the basic actions like the disengage and help actions, or make variants, a shorter dash, a minor defend that gives you a few extra AC.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

yeah, i think if there was just, a basic selection of simple BA actions available to everyone i think it would fill in the urge to be using your BA for something without being optimization bait.

maybe convert some of the basic actions like the disengage and help actions, or make variants, a shorter dash, a minor defend that gives you a few extra AC.

Perhaps...

Prepared Defense: Increase your AC by 1 until an attack hits you, or the beginning of your next turn, whichever comes first.
Prepared Offense: Add half your proficiency score to the first damage roll you inflict during your turn.
Prepared Mobility: You may move a number of extra feet equal to five times half your proficiency score.

Simple, easy, useful. Nothing that breaks math--a single point of AC is not going to tear a hole in 5e's already very, very loose math. Even +3 points of damage on a single damage roll per turn will not do that (after all, Dragon Sorcerers get something better and that's considered fine). And getting 5/10/15 feet of movement (capping out at only half of a Dash action for most characters), while certainly not bad, isn't insanely game-changing either--useful in a pinch but not something you're relying on.

And if "prepared" is too confusing because of the Readied Action thing or Prepared Spells or whatever, swap to whatever synonym sounds good. "Primed" might be a good one, since that implies that you're "ready to go" kind of thing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It should be noted that Swift Action came very late in the 3rd Edition life-cycle, and I think it was mostly relegated to spells, that cost precious spell slots, so the impact wasn't as strongly felt as if it had started at first level.

I agree with EzekielRaiden that having a standard bonus action every character can take would be a good thing.
One might want to be careful though with handing out bonuses like +1 AC or so. That can get fiddly fast. (No offense, but I was reminded of 3E Dodge feat here).

 

[Li Shenron]

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

I think 5e was originally intended not to have an action economy similar to the previous couple of editions, and instead to only have a "turn". Movement was made simultaneous with your action (instead of a "move action"). Reactions serve another purpose, they are not a box you are supposed to tick.

Bonus actions came up as a way to describe "augmented turns" that were possible due to some special ability. It seemed a good idea to make them a rule because it made it very simple to prevent using any two "turn-augmenting abilities" at once. But then of course it immediately implied a sort of action economy again, and the 5e designers themselves fell for it... they started using it as a default for too many things, and even had some non-special (open to everyone) ability being a bonus action: the off-hand attack.

I can't think on the top of my head of any two bonus actions which would break the game if allowed in the same turn... but I certainly wouldn't like the same bonus action twice. It's not something that takes less time, but something you can do simultaneously with sonething else but that still takes the full turn to complete.