D&D 5E Deleting Bonus Actions

[Quartz]

The reason these house rules are better is they avoid most of the action economy annoyances.

Like if the Fighter wants to Second Wind and then do a Shield Bash with Shield Master, but forgets that Second Wind requires a bonus action.

Try giving Fighters a second bonus action at 6th level instead of the feat.

 

[fearsomepirate]

So, it looks like you have replaced the term "bonus action" with "instantaneous action" and otherwise not significantly changed anything.

A rose, by any other name...

Read the whole post, not the first sentence.

 

[loverdrive]

People are going to fret over their "action economy" no matter what you call the choices. Bonus action, free action, whatever, it doesn't matter. Some players just be like that.

To really get rid of it, just allow one thing. One and only one damn thing on your turn. No bonus action, no free action, nothing. One thing and then your turn is over.

And then everyone just does the same thing, ok, maybe a couple of things every turn, because all others are losing options.

 

[NotAYakk]

A simpler and less rewordy version of OP. We keep the bonus action name, but they become almost entirely unrestricted.

There are 3 big abuses - spamming one feature, spamming extra attacks, and spamming spells. So we add rules to cover exactly those 3.

Then remove all restrictions.

1. You can cast one spell with a level in a turn. Period.

2. You can only use a given bonus action feature once on your turn.

3. You can only use one bonus action attack feature per turn. No PAM+TWF, MA+Flurry, etc.

4. Bonus actions are otherwise unlimited.

1 is how half of the people play the spellcasting rules anyhow.

2. means rogues can dash or disengage, not both.

3. Blocks PAM TWF MA Quickened Booming Blade style BA stacking cheese.

And after that, screw tracking them.

You can channel divinity and healing word and sacred light on your turn. Go ahead.

 

[ECMO3]

Like if the Fighter wants to Second Wind and then do a Shield Bash with Shield Master, but forgets that Second Wind requires a bonus action.

It increases the learning curve to little real purpose as so many abilities are on some kind of rest economy anyway.

I think the fighter should choose one or the other. I don't find this any different than saying a cleric wants to channel divinity and cast cure wounds on the same turn, or a wizard that wants to cast fireball and attack on the same turn.

 

[fearsomepirate]

You can do everything except the extra attack at 6th level (3AT, 3 BS), to include the extra attack (which I edited in after you quoted) you need to be 9th level (3AT, 6 BS).

As far as damage, it is not nova for two reasons. first, it is two spells out of 7-8 he can cast at 6th level or 11-13 at 9th level.

It was nova when you first wrote your post. I see that since I responded, you edited it to make it an MC'd Bladesinger-Arcane Trickster. Probably would have been nice for you to mention that.

This means at 9th level it is an average expenditure for a battle. Second I was not focused on damage, but using it as an example of how many things could be done in a single turn. If I was focused on damage I would have used a different spell. for example substituting shadowblade for misty step after the flaming sphere attack would up damage substantially:

Except your previous turn was basically wasted casting Flaming Sphere for a paltry 2d6 damage, and you immediately lose it when you cast Shadow Blade. This whole setup is a complete waste. It's literally less powerful than just casting Shadow Blade the first round at 3rd level and attacking with it every round, no exploits attempted whatsoever.

 

[Blue]

Mike Mearls is right. They suck.

So ... on my turn my cleric can cast Mass Healing Word, control my Spiritual Weapon to attack, trigger my Aura of Vitality, trigger my channel divinity and still have my action and move available? Say, to attack with on hand and off-hand light weapons?

And you say that this is there is no power creep and these remain the same power level as existing characters, including ones that have no bonus actions available?

 

[NotAYakk]

Ok, that is a good point. In theory, you could stack up a bunch of spells that each permit a bonus action.

3.5 You can only maintain one spell -- do one spell permitted bonus action -- on your turn.

 

[cbwjm]

This would be great for a two-weapon fighting barbarian to rage and make an off-hand attack during the same round, never liked the fact they could make that off-hand attack since they were too busy getting angry (even if bonus actions were kept, I think it should be something started with a bonus action or when you use the attack action). Also helps the two-weapon fighter dish out damage while getting a second wind.

If people have issues with some spells having effects that require a bonus action to use, you could always change them to a regular action (thinking heat metal needs this anyway...) and maybe up the damage slightly. Otherwise, I think bonus actions should be got rid of, I find they get in the way more often than not.

 

[CubicsRube]

This ^^. Bonus actions are confusing as naughty word.


This is exactly how Shadow of the Demon Lord solves the problem, and that was designed entirely by Rob Schwalb, one of the designers of 5E. I've never tried it in play but it seems like it would work well.

I am running a Shadow campaign, and it does indeed work well.