D&D 5E [House Rule] Swap an action for a bonus action

[TwoSix]

In 3e and 4e, you had the ability to use your standard/main action for a smaller (non-reaction) action. (Swift, minor, move-equivalent, etc.)

What would be the hazards of allowing the same trade in 5e?

Essentially, trading your action for another bonus action?

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

biggest hazards is that giving your PCs more choices to consider means longer turns and sloggier combats.

 

[sevenbastard]

In my games it's allowed as long as the DM (me) doesn't think it trigger some sort of game breaking combo.

But yeah giving more choices rarely speeds up the game......

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

There are so many bonus actions. I don't know how often it would slow things down. Currently, you have weigh which bonus action is the most optimal which leads to waffling which slows things down. In many situations, being able to do two would speed things up.

 

[Shiroiken]

The biggest issue I've considered is that some bonus actions might be too powerful if repeatable in a round. The easiest solution to that problem is to simple prohibit repeating the same bonus action.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Essentially, trading your action for another bonus action?

I don't see any problem with this* and have always allowed it, although this practically never happens.

*Assuming you mean using two different bonus action abilities in the same turn, and not using the same bonus action twice. I would not allow the same bonus action twice

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I would probably allow this if it came up. No one has ever expressed a desire to do so, probably because standard actions are typically superior to bonus actions.

It would probably be kind of like a house rule I do have that prepared casters can prepare additional cantrips in place of other prepared spells (and cast them at-will just like other cantrips). As cool and enabling as I feel the concept is, it almost never gets used because for the vast majority of players having one more leveled spell prepared is a superior option to one more cantrip.

 

[Horwath]

In 3e and 4e, you had the ability to use your standard/main action for a smaller (non-reaction) action. (Swift, minor, move-equivalent, etc.)

What would be the hazards of allowing the same trade in 5e?

Essentially, trading your action for another bonus action?

trading your Action for Bonus action is a non question, I do not know why is it not in core rules?

better question would be;
Can you trade your Action to perform TWO Bonus actions?

Now that is something to think about.

what is the value of Action?
what is the value of Bonus action?

or can you trade your whole Move for extra Bonus action.

or can you trade your whole Move and Bonus action to perform another Action.


off-topic, maybe whole round should be 6 action points(for 6 seconds):

Action: 3pts
Move: 2pts
Bonus action: 1pt

 

[clearstream]

In 3e and 4e, you had the ability to use your standard/main action for a smaller (non-reaction) action. (Swift, minor, move-equivalent, etc.)

What would be the hazards of allowing the same trade in 5e?

Essentially, trading your action for another bonus action?

There's a concept in development dubbed "designability" which means something like how predictably a design can be satisfactorily completed. How foreseeable are edge cases, how much iteration will be needed. How much work will it take to settle or resolve each component. Is it all or nothing or can it be built toward incrementally?

Sometimes one incorporates an arbitrary constraint in order to increase designability. Bonus actions are like that. Through constraining them to exactly one per turn, designers gain a resource with predictable boundaries. They don't have to playtest every bonus action doubled up or combined (in the same player turn) with every possible other. They can take more risk with individual bonus actions -- making them more powerful -- because of that.

Changing that constraint for all characters goes against this sort of philosophy of design. It's effortful to foresee how it would play out as there are so many cases. Removing the constraint would also make it less advisable to allow strong bonus actions (although I understand here that you're not intended to weaken anything.)

What I'd suggest would be narrowing it to something particular characters can do occasionally. Frex, I played with a rule for monks where they had an equivalent of fighter action surge, but for a bonus action. Another option is an item that grants an extra bonus action occasionally (charges or whatever.)

 

[Retros_x]

trading your Action for Bonus action is a non question, I do not know why is it not in core rules?

better question would be;
Can you trade your Action to perform TWO Bonus actions?

I am confused if - you trade your action for a bonus action, you already have two bonus actions? What is the difference between those two options you describe?

I think its not a problematic change from a balance perspective, although they might be some cheese/exploit I am not aware of when having two bonus actions. But in general an action is more worth than a bonus action, so it should be ok. I agree that it will slow down the game even more though.