Generic Bonus Actions and Reactions

[Charlaquin]

I must say the DMG has been the book I still keep realizing there is more to discover.
I'll have to go look at those. Thanks

Yeah, the 5e DMG is less of a guidebook for dungeon masters and more of a poorly organized mess of optional and alternative rules.

 

[the Jester]

1. What do you think of this concept in general?

No thanks. A bonus action is just that- a bonus action. Not everyone should have one. 4e had a much more robust action economy; it led to a much slower game, with everyone spending agonizing amounts of time each turn trying to optimize the use of standard, move, and minor actions. I am not at all interested in returning to a game like that, and if I was, frankly, 4e does it very well. I think one of the biggest improvements that 5e has over 4e is that it's fast and sleek. What you propose significantly lessens that fast and sleekness.

 

[plisnithus8]

I don't like the generic bonus actions because many players will spend time on their turn looking for some way to use that bonus action. Actually I hate bonus actions in general because players do this during character creation (many players try to make sure every character they build has some use for the bonus action, such as an extra attack or spell effect) and also because bonus actions are confusing.

I like the idea of generic reactions because I think doing things when it's not your turn is a lot of fun. It gives a player something to do other than just watch.

Here's generic reactions I've used in the past:
- When forced movement would push you off a cliff, you can use your reaction to fall prone on top of the cliff, and not fall off.
- When an object within 5 feet of you changes, you can use your reaction to interact with that object (e.g., a door flies open next to you, you can use your reaction to close it again; or someone drops a weapon, you can use your reaction to pick it up)

Here's a generic reaction I'd like to introduce as a house rule maybe: When you get attacked or make a Dexterity saving throw, you can use your reaction to take the Dodge action (and it applies to the triggering effect) but become incapacitated until the end of your next turn. (Basically, you would give up your next turn, in order to haul ass right NOW.)

I think a lot of people use the "cliff" save use; I'll add that.
I'll have to think about how the changing object reaction would work, worth thinking about.
I don't think the Dodge action lets you haul ass; there's no movement involved.

 

[Satyrn]

I'll have to think about how the changing object reaction would work, worth thinking about.

I think the way [MENTION=12377]77IM[/MENTION] worded it should work well. Well, I'd edit it one word so it reads "When an object within 5 feet of you changes state, you can use your reaction to interact with that object "

Sure, there might be the occasional time you have to do a bit of adjudication about whether or not the object's "state" actually changed but it'll probably be rare enough not to disrupt the moment (especially if your players trust you).

 

[Blue]

Players ask, what can I do as a bonus action?

Nothing. It doesn't exist.

Unless, of course, you have something that grants you one. And then it's clearly defined.

This isn't like a earlier editions where the bonus action is part of your action economy. It literally does not exist. It's something you do while something else, not a little slice of time you can do something in.

Having generic bonus actions muddies thewaters and makes it seem like another type of action you get in your action economy. Mearls has gone on record several times how he'd remove it completely if he was making 5e today (or last year).

 

[plisnithus8]

Nothing. It doesn't exist.

Unless, of course, you have something that grants you one. And then it's clearly defined.

This isn't like a earlier editions where the bonus action is part of your action economy. It literally does not exist. It's something you do while something else, not a little slice of time you can do something in.

Having generic bonus actions muddies thewaters and makes it seem like another type of action you get in your action economy. Mearls has gone on record several times how he'd remove it completely if he was making 5e today (or last year).

Actually, just this week on The Happy Fun Hour, he admits that his Bonus Action issue is just with Teo Weapon Fighting.

I do like the idea of using some of the Action Options in the DMG (p.271-72) such as Mark, Overrun, and Tumble.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Interesting concept, some kinda minor action in a sense.[emoji848]



But in all seriousness, no I do not miss minor actions at all. Needless complication that bogs down game play. Heck, the concept of bonus actions only exists to limit the volume of extra stuff you can do in a turn.

 

[Charlaquin]

Actually, just this week on The Happy Fun Hour, he admits that his Bonus Action issue is just with Teo Weapon Fighting.

Finally. It was pretty obvious that was his real bugbear and that in trying to fix TWF he was throwing a perfectly useful piece of design tech out with the bathwater. I agree with him that TWF shouldn't use the bonus action, but the idea that bonus actions on the whole were "hacky" was just rubbish.

 

[Charlaquin]

Interesting concept, some kinda minor action in a sense.[emoji848]



But in all seriousness, no I do not miss minor actions at all. Needless complication that bogs down game play. Heck, the concept of bonus actions only exists to limit the volume of extra stuff you can do in a turn.

That's what minor actions do too.

Literally they're the same thing, except that 5e doesn't have any universal options for how to use the bonus action. Lots of people love that you can only use a bonus action if you have a specific feature that gives you a way to do so. Other folks feel like the design space is underutilized.

 

[Viking Bastard]

That's what minor actions do too.

The problem was, and I get that this is not a problem for everyone, is that too many people would feel the need to --do something-- to maximize their output, and that if they didn't they'd be underutilizing their turn. This is where they can bog down play.

To me, personally, bonus actions aren't really needed either. I feel they solve a non-problem, and that there aren't enough of them to create any game breaking action stacks. But I get that it was a way to future-proof the game and it doesn't actively bug me or anything.

But if you like that kinda thing, have at it. 4e could've used more interesting but generic minor actions, like a +1 to AC parry action or something like that, something to default to when the circumstances don't present a obviously superior option.