TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
You could do that, but polling from the playtest showed that the majority of players preferred two-weapon fighting to give extra attacks. Player preference trumps simulation.
D&D 5E Deleting Bonus Actions
TheSword
Legend
Bonus actions are great. They balance impact in a round. You can do extra... but only so much extra. The proposed solution can easily result in a fighter/rogue’s turn being disproportionate.
Being able to make an extra attack or dash, or hp regain, or quick spell is cool. Being able to do all at once is unbalanced.
The problem can easily be fixed the same way the rogues steady aim has been fixed. A small bonus for using your bonus action.
Let a character get +1 to AC, +1 to hit, or move an extra 10 feet as a bonus action. No more hunting. Nice and simple.
Being able to make an extra attack or dash, or hp regain, or quick spell is cool. Being able to do all at once is unbalanced.
The problem can easily be fixed the same way the rogues steady aim has been fixed. A small bonus for using your bonus action.
Let a character get +1 to AC, +1 to hit, or move an extra 10 feet as a bonus action. No more hunting. Nice and simple.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Personally, I think the problem (too much hunting on the sheet for possible actions) isn't going to be alleviated by removing bonus actions; it's simply going to lead to more sheet hunting for any possible "free" action that can now be taken on the player's turn. Adding in restrictions to combat this action overload (like only one free attack) simply creates more categories of "either this OR this" actions, which is the exact problem that eliminating bonus actions is supposed to solve.
I'd make the following changes to make bonus actions less restrictive and easier to use for less tactically oriented players.
1) Remove conditionals from bonus actions. If you have a bonus action from something, you can always use it. If you have a light weapon in your off-hand, you can attack with it as a bonus action, even if your action was to Cast a Spell or Dodge. Likewise, the only restriction for BA spells is that you can only cast 1 leveled spell per turn. This is a nerf to counterspell and to 2 level fighter dips for Action Surge, which I am A-OK with.
2) Allow characters to spend their action to take a second bonus action. This is generally a worse trade-off, so why not allow it? I would also allow bonus actions to be readied and use the reaction.
I'd make the following changes to make bonus actions less restrictive and easier to use for less tactically oriented players.
1) Remove conditionals from bonus actions. If you have a bonus action from something, you can always use it. If you have a light weapon in your off-hand, you can attack with it as a bonus action, even if your action was to Cast a Spell or Dodge. Likewise, the only restriction for BA spells is that you can only cast 1 leveled spell per turn. This is a nerf to counterspell and to 2 level fighter dips for Action Surge, which I am A-OK with.
2) Allow characters to spend their action to take a second bonus action. This is generally a worse trade-off, so why not allow it? I would also allow bonus actions to be readied and use the reaction.
Except the T2 Fighter/Rogue is already disproportionately small in 5e.
Because the comparison is a spellcaster using a leveled spell, a warlock using an invocation or spell and EB, a paladin controlling their warhorse and smiting, a cleric moving their spiritual weapon, positioning their aura of beatdown, and tolling the dead.
And a +1 to AC, +1 to hit, move 10 feet is not worth the analysis paralysis. A player should not be spending any time at all deciding which of those they gain as a one turn bonus on their turn.
You claim that "being able to do all at once is imbalanced". Demonstrate how.
There are 4 kinds of bonus actions. Some belong to more than one.
Strategic resources, like Warpriest attack or Monk dodge. Removing the BA limit makes these tactically cheaper, but doesn't remove the strategic cost. To use monk dodge every round, which is powerful, you have to invest a lot of levels of monk (1 per round you do it). I am unaware of people saying "we have a problem where high level monks are imba", making them stronger isn't going to break the game.
Triggered abilities. These usually require gear or build setups with a cost. The one problem is "getting a bajillion bonus action attacks" is a bit too easy, so limiting it to 1 attack granting bonus action seems like enough. I mean, if someone takes SM and bashes as well as healing word's, that isn't imba. The other is stacking non-concentration spells that have bonus action riders; I'd limit that, not BA in general.
Free stuff from features. Rogue cunning action. Honestly, if a Rogue can use cunning action every round, the game doesn't break, even if they also two weapon fight or whatever. Here, I limited it to one use of each feature; so the Rogue can't disengage and steady aim and mage hand (AT) the same round.
Setup stuff. Barbarian Rage, Rune Warrior, Wizard Bladedance, Wildshape. Making these come online faster does make the raging onion build better. I'm actually ok with that.
Hence my plan.
You can use as many bonus actions on your turn as you want, with the following exceptions:
1. You can cast one spell with a level of 1 or higher per turn. You cannot action surge and fireball twice, you cannot counterspell a counterspell of your banishment, and you cannot quicken spell to cast a magic missile twice.
2. You can use one bonus action that grants an attack per turn. So you cannot use Two Weapon Fighting with Martial Arts.
3. You can maintain one spell with a bonus action per turn, such as Spiritual Weapon.
4. You can use one bonus action from a given feature per turn, such as Cunning Action.
fearsomepirate
Hero
I think the 5e designers were extremely conservative with the ability to go nova because of how extreme 3.5 could get. But I think what we've seen in play in 5e is that the big problem was layering up spells, which has been fixed mainly by Concentration, and secondarily by reducing the power of a number of spells.
As I pointed out before, the Paladin has zero restrictions on his ability to burn through resources as fast as he can. It turns out that this is actually a lot of fun, and the Paladin is just a really popular class. A Paladin could MC Fighter, chose Two-Weapon Style, and Action Surge to smite five times on a turn. The limiting factor isn't action economy; it's that he runs out of resources really fast if he gets too smite-happy. IMO nearly all resource-consuming bonus actions could be just as burnable and not break the game.
TheSword
Legend
Sounds very complicated. Far more so than ‘you get one bonus action per round.’
Fighters don’t need any help with power. Rogues have been helped with steady aim. You don’t change the action system just to fix monks. Change monk abilities instead.
Analysis paralysis between choosing between three options? Really. If you need the move you take the move. If you’re attacking someone take the +1 to hit. If neither apply then take the AC. Not sure how that is difficult.... and definitely not more difficult than the multiple categories of bonus actions that you think are needed.
Though you do you.
fearsomepirate
Hero
"Free action" isn't a resource. A bonus action is a spendable resource that refreshes every round, and therefore people look for a way to spend it. Not having a way to spend a continually-refreshing resource feels limiting. By contrast, some existing "free" actions:
Action Surge
Divine Smite
Stunning Strike
Divine Accuracy
Sneak Attack
Companion Move
Extra Attack
Superiority Dice
Psychic Blades
Blade Flourish
Indomitable
Lucky
Relentless Endurance
Nobody notices these because they don't collide with anything else, and the resource they use is so self-contained that people barely even think about it. A Fighter doesn't ask, "Is there any way I can spend my Infinite Free Action Resource;" he just asks if he has or has not spent his Action Surge yet.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Exactly, and that's a long possible of possible things a player could do every turn. (ObviousIy no one PC has all of these options, but even a few adds decision points and extra mechanics.) I don't think resolving 4-5 different activities every turn improves play at the table even if the player is 100% certain of them and doesn't have to decide anything.
I just personally think you're minimizing the impact at the table of any yes/no decision that could be made, although the magnitude of the impact will depend on the players.
Xeviat
Hero
It's not though. Is balanced great for a Rogue, offering a choice between damage and utility with the way cunning action works.
For fighters, it's the highest damage option at 1st through 4th levels, then immediately falls at 5th. It doesn't work with Action surge. Duelist deals more damage than it unless you're in a very magic item heavy game, and then you have to compare what magic items you could have gotten as a duelist instead (like a belt of giant strength).
For the cost of a bonus action, which doesn't work with action surge, haste, or second wind, duelist's +3 damage (larger weapon and +2) beats the 1d6+5 once you have three attacks. That's not to mention comparing against a greatsword, which is better over all from level 5 and on, and potentially from level 2 and on due to action surge.
Now, for other classes:
Barbarian: doesn't work with rage and doesn't work with many subclass core features.
Bard: doesn't work with base inspiration or gish spells.
Ranger: clutters up spells and class/subclass features.
Changing it would require other things to be changed (hex and hunters mark would need to be tweaked to be 1/round instead of per hit to not be the optimal damage dealing combo), but TWFing is not balanced on anyone but the rogue.
Complicated how again?
Complicated when making a decision in play? Complicated to write out?
I am aiming for simplicity in play. And by that I mean makes making decisions on a round by round basis simple, and not connecting all of the whirling widgets in the build you make to output an optimal turn.
Interacting with the world, sure that can be interesting. But I'm less interested in internal mechanical build complexity, so I say we strip it out.
Are they so powerful that we must not give them anything? The goal isn't "more power" it is game play.
My claim is that the impact on power increase is not large enough to be problem.
Unlimited bonus actions give fighters the ability to two weapon fight and second wind on the same turn. That is naughty word all of a power swing. Is it more power? Sure, but not to a degree that matters.
This isn't about powering up characters for the most part. Saying "they don't need a power up" is irrelevant, unless you are saying "it would be bad for the game if they gained this power".
In that case, how much power do you really think this is?
Lets look at pure class characters for now.
1) EK can cantrip, bonus action spell, second wind, and make an attack at level 7.
All of the power up uses strategic resources. Almost no impact on long term power, just a slightly higher short term power spike.
2) Monk can make a Martial arts attack. Then spend a Ki to either do 1 more attack (Flurry instead of MA), dodge or dash. Basically, when dodging/dashing they get an extra attack. (All of their Ki features are under the Ki feature, so they have to pick one; but MA is not).
3) TWF/PAM/XBE fighters/barbarians/rogues/rangers can use their class features along with their attacks. So rage+twf, rage+PAM, hand xbow attack+disengage/dash, PAM+second wind.
This is a slight power increase, but mostly it is a build variety increase. If your build depends on bonus actions you avoid fighting styles that use that bonus action attack. And if you want that bonus action attack, you avoid builds that use bonus actions.
Similarly for a GWM who crits or drops a foe; unless they have PAM, they can just do the attack, even if they had used a class feature.
4) A Bladesinger can ramp a bit faster; they can bladesing and shadowblade on the same turn.
5) A TWF paladin can cast smite spells while swinging their offhand weapon.
6) Rangers no longer have bonus action constipation in general.
I'm really looking for something that breaks all that much.
Whenever a player makes a decision, the decision should matter. There is a table time cost for making decisions, not only in the time to make the decision, but remembering you have to make it, dealing with forgetting it, etc. So decisions should be interesting and have good and fiction mechanical impact. Any decision that has no good and fiction mechanical impact should be removed.
This isn't TTRPG balance stuff, this is basic game design. Don't waste people's times with fiddly crap by default. Don't waste my time with fiddly crap.
Similar Threads
