Can I take a second bonus action in place of my action during a round?

[Kurotowa]

That line in bold - "With no Action listed to gain a Bonus Action..." is not correct. There are tons of bonus actions that do not require any kind of specific action to trigger them. Examples, casting shillelagh, a rogue's Cunning Action, granting somebody Bardic Inspiration, a fighter's Second Wind, etc. I was saying that Kurotowa's general statement of you cannot take more than a single bonus action on your turn is correct, but a part of his statement was misleading. Just trying to be ultra clear for a young player.

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that there's no BA equivalent of Dash. Nothing like "Action: Do the Hokey Pokey - Gain an additional Bonus Action this turn."

 

[Remathilis]

As others have stated, per RAW, you can't substitute your Action for a Bonus action.

The issue has been discussed in other threads and some have house-ruled that you can as long as the bonus actions are different. While it hasn't come up in my game, I'm inclined to agree. I don't think it would be game-breaking (like a bard giving out an Inspiration die and casting a cantrip with a bonus action).

Technically, he can already do that as Bardic Inspiration is a bonus action and most cantrips are an action. However, it might be worth looking at doing something like "use bardic inspiration as a bonus action and then cast healing word as an action rather than a bonus".

 

[CapnZapp]

No.

 

[Hjorimir]

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that there's no BA equivalent of Dash. Nothing like "Action: Do the Hokey Pokey - Gain an additional Bonus Action this turn."

Mea Culpa then! /thumbs-up

 

[Mistwell]

No.

As a house rule you think it would not work out well?

 

[Mouseferatu]

As a house rule you think it would not work out well?

I personally think it's fine as a general house rule, with the understanding that it's case-by-case; the DM always the right to declare that any particular combination of two bonus actions is either mechanically unsound or thematically inappropriate.

But some people aren't happy with that sort of piecemeal approach, and would rather all or nothing; either houserule that it's always possible, or keep the rules as-is.

Either approach works.

 

[Gavin O.]

No.

Well that was very concise

 

[CapnZapp]

As a house rule you think it would not work out well?

As a house rule it's probably fine.

 

[5ekyu]

As a house rule you think it would not work out well?

In my play, it has seemed to me that class by class there are built-in and intentional clashes in "demand for bonus actions" that seem very much intentional and factored into balance isdues, not just coincidences. For some, its a lot... For others... Few.

So it seems obvious to me that a general "use bonus action in action slot" rule would have uneven results across the classes.

 

[cooperjer]

In my play, it has seemed to me that class by class there are built-in and intentional clashes in "demand for bonus actions" that seem very much intentional and factored into balance isdues, not just coincidences. For some, its a lot... For others... Few.

So it seems obvious to me that a general "use bonus action in action slot" rule would have uneven results across the classes.

In most cases it's a spell and class feature conflict. In addition to the paladin and warlock conflicts there are some sorcerer class conflicts. I'm not sure a change breaks the game. I know a developer isn't extremely happy with the bonus action design and I see him attempt to design with that in mind during his YouTube presentations.