Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tormyr" data-source="post: 7304672" data-attributes="member: 6776887">I think you highlight why having bonus actions as a defined game mechanic is so useful. The bonus action interaction with other game mechanics does take a few column inches of space, but the alternative is that the interactions for each bonus action are built into the bonus action text themselves. This multiplies out the same interactions over and over and over again, especially with bonus action spells.The mere existence of the bonus action mechanic having only 1 per turn cleans up so much of this and saves column inches because it consolidates the "half actions" and their interactions to only a few spaces. It also makes the half actions loosely coupled instead of being tightly coupled to the other actions they work with.Some spells can be rewritten. The smite spells could reasonably be integrated with just the attack action. Some spells like divine word could be actions on their own. Other spells, like expeditious retreat, could be written to allow you to take the Dash action along with another action each turn.Other spells might not work as well, and I think green flame blade is an example of what a world without bonus actions would look like. The language has been confusing for some, and it could have been easily changed to a bonus action with a duration of 1 minute that took effect the next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack. The adjacent creature then needs a dex save to avoid taking the fire damage. This would work with two weapon fighting and extra attack to have additional opportunities to use it instead of turning your entire turn into an all or nothing affair. Only the fire damage becomes all or nothing on a save.Still other spells and half-actions turn into a case of, "now what?" in terms of what they allow. I think spiritual weapon is a good example of where things can get out of hand. It is too weak to be a full action. So now does the extra text say that you can just use any other action? Does it restrict what the other action can be? If not, a creature could use spiritual weapon with any number of other actions that allowed any other action to be used, or its power is increased to be on par with a full action spell and controlling it takes your action on subsequent turns. Other bonus actions like Cunning Action should not be restricted in what the main action should be. So then a creature could cast spiritual weapon, Dash, take any other number of half actions that shouldn't be restricted in what the other action should be, and finally finish with the real action, or we can just have bonus actions restrict this to 1 half action a turn.There are any number of ways to deal with this interaction of actions and "half-actions", but I consider the bonus action mechanic to be elegant in its means to consolidate rules and column inches rather than a kludge. I use bonus actions for several of the abilities in the 5e version of War of the Burning Sky, and it works really well to allow a bonus perk while keeping the flexibility of the main thing the player wants to do.</blockquote>

Verification