D&D 5E Deleting Bonus Actions

[ECMO3]

My point is you described a sequence of events that is objectively worse than using a greatsword. You got +0 damage in exchange for having to track your 1 free Interact With Object (oops, there's something else that isn't a bonus action or action) and your dropped weapon. Not to mention that you need two magic weapons instead of one. I guess you could take the DW feat...but greatsword + GWM is still better.
I made note of this, because so far, all objection that letting dual-wielding warriors always make all their attacks breaks the game really is long on claims and short on evidence.

This is more complicated than you are presenting. GWM is a feat and if you start bringing in feats you run into all kinds of scenarios. The extra damage varies widely with AC and attack roll, and it takes a BA for the most powerful part of it (which is the negative for TWF). Letting the GWM get his free attack for free without using a BA actually makes the difference between this and a TWF larger, not smaller, unless you nerf the feat and take that away.

There are all sorts of reasons to have a weapon in each hand, what if one is a staff of defense, or one has a reach like a whip for AOOs but worse damage than a shortsword that you are going to use as your primary weapon.

I agree dropping a weapon to cast a spell is objectively worse than using a greatsword, but that isn't my point, you were arguing that a person wielding 2 weapons would not be able to case a somatic BA spell, and that is objectively not true. If TWF is part of your attack action and there is no cost for bonus actions, they absolutely can do this.

I made note of this, because so far, all objection that letting dual-wielding warriors always make all their attacks breaks the game really is long on claims and short on evidence.

Again you are mixing up dual wielding and TWF. There is nothing RAW which prevents dual wielders from making all their attacks, it only prevents them from getting an extra attack (one more than they should get) unless they spend their bonus action

Further RAW you can even do TWF and still attack with a great sword (assuming you have extra attack). IF you start the turn holding 2 hand axes, you can attack (or throw) one of them, use TWF to attack (or throw) the other, then drop anything left, draw your greatsword and attack with that. That is totally legal RAW. It is not specific to hand axes, you can do that with daggers, a dagger and a short sword, scimitars, or if you have dual wielder any 1-handed weapon.

The constant in all of this is the extra attack uses your BA.

 

[NotAYakk]

The solution to this is to play characters without a lot of BA options. be a barbarian that uses a greatsword and only takes ASIs. He has one bonus action - Rage, which will never compete with another. Play a wizard and take no bonus action spells.

No?

They want to play a cleric, or a ranger, or a wizard, or whatever. Not the one build you find that doesnpt use them.

And I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to when the bonus action economy both fails at its design and is over complex in actual play.

The ranger in particular is just gonzo with bonus acrtion economy problems and quite the newbie player draw with the BM pet.

This is hardly a good reason because things like spell casting, slots, battlemaster maneuvers etc are far more complicated. Further if you build a character with a lot of BA options and take away the bonus action economy, there will be a heck of a lot more confusion about how it all works together because the rules in the player handbook will nto be applicable.

That assumes we have a player who is an expeet at D&D already. People who are experts already can learn new stuff.

They are not my convern here. Suck it up.

 

[ECMO3]

No?

They want to play a cleric, or a ranger, or a wizard, or whatever. Not the one build you find that doesnpt use them.

And I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to when the bonus action economy both fails at its design and is over complex in actual play.

The ranger in particular is just gonzo with bonus acrtion economy problems and quite the newbie player draw with the BM pet.


That assumes we have a player who is an expeet at D&D already. People who are experts already can learn new stuff.

They are not my convern here. Suck it up.

Then they should know how to play that build. Your entire argument is that bonus actions are too complicated for them to learn, yet you advocate they play complicated classes. Knowing how bonus actions work is a lot less complicated and will take a lot less research than learning how a Cleric or Ranger's abilities work, especially when the action economy underpinning them is not the same as is described (meaning they can't read it and figure it out).

Bonus action economy is not that complicated, Ranger abilities are. I find it hard to believe that a player understands a Ranger's abilities, yet doesn't understand how bonus actions work.

Yes a TWF Ranger does have a lot of bonus action economy choices, that is part of the class design and I don't buy that players who understand these abilities (which cover 10+ pages or more considering all the subclasses) don't understand bonus actions which are one paragraph. The problem is not really with bonus action economy nor with the class design, the problem is players don't want to pick and choose; they want to metagame it. In my experience those who see this as a problem are actually the experienced players who understand it all very well and don't like the limits it puts on them.

 

[NotAYakk]

Then they should know how to play that build. Your entire argument is that bonus actions are too complicated for them to learn, yet you advocate they play complicated classes. Knowing how bonus actions work is a lot less complicated and will take a lot less research than learning how a Cleric or Ranger's abilities work, especially when the action economy underpinning them is not the same as is described (meaning they can't read it and figure it out).

Your solution is "they should get gud, or play only 1 or 2 builds that someone else picks for you"?

If that is the best alternative, I'll remove bonus actions from the game, thank you very much.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Your solution is "they should get gud, or play only 1 or 2 builds that someone else picks for you"?

If that is the best alternative, I'll remove bonus actions from the game, thank you very much.

I wouldn't call figuring out that your rogue can move, disengage, or hide in addition to whatever they could do in a turn at 1st level as "gitting gud". It's a two minute explanation at most.

 

[ECMO3]

Your solution is "they should get gud, or play only 1 or 2 builds that someone else picks for you"?

If that is the best alternative, I'll remove bonus actions from the game, thank you very much.

You cited this as a problem for new players at your table; that they did not know how the rules worked. If that is a problem at your table then they should generally play less complicated classes. If they don't they are going to miss all kinds of things and it won't be because they don't understand bonus actions, it will be because they don't understand their classes. Redesigning action economy will not fix this.