D&D 5E Deleting Bonus Actions

[jmartkdr2]

I don't think you could remove bonus actions form 5e without doing a lot of work to mitigate all the side effects, probably to the point of not being worth the effort. Changing the basic action economy is a major change no matter how you slice it.

On the other hand, there are some specific things that might not be the right action type. Two-weapon fighting, for example, could be moved to just being part of the action without a lot of problems. Maybe have it require the style so monks and rogues don't overly benefit.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I came to the conclusion when playing the Rune Knight that a class that takes multiple turns to build up is just bad design.

I'm enjoying my rune knight partially because it takes a bit to ramp up - it makes the fights progressive in a way that rage never did.

But I'd probably enjoy a RK that didn't have this factor about as much.

 

[Undrave]

At this point, might as well build a whole new game from scratch with your own terminology. Changing the action economy NOW is a huge undertaking and I'm not sure what you gain out of it?

 

[Ancalagon]

All the discussion about TWF sucking because of the bonus actions conveniently ignores that it's not how TWF works in real life.

How about we fix that instead? The notion that more weapons = more attack isn't how it works.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Going back to one of the things mentioned in the OP....specifically the idea that optimizers feel left out if they don't ha e a BA available to exploit....

How about a fix that is just introducing an interesting set of generically accessable bonus actions?

I loved the "damage on a miss" feature for fighters in the playtest so I'd frequently use a BA that did the same on many classes.

Similarly maybe a BA for being hidden, going earlier on the first round of combat, or many of the other situations that gave bonuses in older editions ....

It would certainly add a layer of complexity to the game, but the bones of 5e can easily support that extra weight if your players wanted it.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Non-nova - a 5th level Monk with PAM and dual wielder can make 5 attacks every turn, without using a single ki. spear, spear, offhand attack, martial arts, butt of spear. If he spends a ki he gets another.

Actual text of the feat:

"When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear..."

So no off-hand attack allowed, as we made the off-hand attack part of the Attack action. Now, if you try to rules-lawyer this, this is a house rule draft, remember? That means I can change the text of the feat to make it clear. I'd rather revise a feature slightly than reintroduce the bonus action economy.

As for the fact that the monk sacrificed stats to get a damage bump, fine by me. I don't care. That's what feats are for.

This really breaks the action economy. Even just a single class, take the bladesinger for example; the game is balanced around the idea that casting shadow blade and bladesong is going to take 2 turns.

I disagree that this is a balance issue. If Blade Song hadn't been a bonus action from publication time, and Shadow Blade popped up in round 1, I don't think anybody would have really noticed or cared or particularly seen it as an issue. But, if it is an issue, I collapsed the bonus action down to a spell class, so make Bladesong such a spell.

 

[fearsomepirate]

All the discussion about TWF sucking because of the bonus actions conveniently ignores that it's not how TWF works in real life.

How about we fix that instead? The notion that more weapons = more attack isn't how it works.

Being really experienced at life doesn't make it easier to survive a 100' drop onto concrete, either, but, well, that's D&D for ya. If anything, at age 40, pretty sure my max fall distance is way less than it was at age 9.

Greatsword is 2d6+Str
Two shortswords is 1d6+Stat +1d6. There's an advantage of being able to split attacks, so that's something.

Advantages of TWF:
1. You can go DEX-based, and DEX is the god stat. IMO, if TWF can hit as hard as GW, there's almost no point for STR fighters to even exist.
2. If STR-based, you can open combat with an extra handaxe attack.

 

[jmartkdr2]

All the discussion about TWF sucking because of the bonus actions conveniently ignores that it's not how TWF works in real life.

How about we fix that instead? The notion that more weapons = more attack isn't how it works.

I think you'd get more pushback form people who are used to the trope / fantasy of two-weapon fighting than the reality.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Actual text of the feat:

"When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear..."

So no off-hand attack allowed, as we made the off-hand attack part of the Attack action. Now, if you try to rules-lawyer this, this is a house rule draft, remember? That means I can change the text of the feat to make it clear. I'd rather revise a feature slightly than reintroduce the bonus action economy.

Pedantically: if you had PAM and Dual-Wielder, and were using two spears or quarterstaffs, you could trigger both, which in this case is two extra spear attacks.

I'm not saying that's a problem, because only Vhumans can get there without letting their ability scores fall behind, and for non-vhumans it's a later-stage benefit anyways. In other words, it allows for a crazy combo, but frankly I find those more fun than broken.

Edit: and this combo doesn't get the soft twf benefit of being dex-based.

 

[fearsomepirate]

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?

Can't cast somatic spells while dual-wielding, and AFAIK, there are no Cleric Channels that take a bonus action. There is one that takes no action, the War Cleric's Guided Strike. Maybe those few Paladin bonus action CDs should be instantaneous spells.

As for the rest of it, if we keep "one non-cantrip spell per turn," it takes two full rounds to prepare all this, so is it really a big deal? IMO not really, even if you're a War Domain Cleric burning up War Priest strikes, not compared to what a Paladin can already do.

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?

I really hate when people put words in my mouth.

I said it stays within the 5e power band. Let's compare to the high end of the band: The Paladin. The Paladin is the absolute king in terms of being able to expend lots of resources in one turn. Not only that, but Divine Smite is (a) usually irresistible and (b) unstoppable. No save, no attack roll, no concentration. It's also a lot of damage, since it combines with a weapon attack.

Sure, giving more classes ways to expend multiple resources in a turn bumps up their nova potential, but how does it compare to a dual-wielding Paladin smiting 3 times in a round? IMO everything proposed so far is still well below this threshold. And you know what? Players love the Paladin. Players don't want Divine Smite to take a bonus action and Concentration. They want to be able to cast Hunter's Mark and actually use their fighting style on the same turn.