D&D General Redesigning DnD 5e with no Bonus Actions

[Horwath]

I wouldn't mind expanding "Reaction" to consume all or most of the bonus-action options. It's not like opportunity attacks are common or anything in most encounters.

It would also make Smiting into a reaction to landing a hit, raging a reaction to being in combat or needing to overcome some obstacle., war magic be a reaction to casting a spell... Cunning Reaction. Misty Step as a reaction spell...

Yeah, I'd be pretty cool with that as a setup.

opportunity attacks are rare because they nerfed the hell out of AoOs for "not complicating" things.

this is how you buff AoOs and melee characters at the same time:

1. AoO does not use Reaction, but you can use it once per turn

2. Additional things provoke AoO:

Casting a spell that is not a melee attack/touch or a cone.
So cure wounds/inflict wounds/burning hands does not provoke AoO, but healing word/fireball/scorching ray does.

Making a ranged attack provokes AoO

Standing up from prone provokes AoO(with advantage as normal)

Drinking a potion provokes AoO, unless used as an Action. Kind of risk and reward for using it as a Bonus action.

Pulling out a guitar and playing something provokes AoO

etc...

 

[Horwath]

3E did things to people, man.

that is what you get when you do not stress test a system with exclusively powerplayers...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Curious to hear more why he’s off base on this. Bonus Actions have tripped up my newer players, but it’s usually figured out eventually.

I'm sure the person you asked has already replied, but if I may give my two bits:

1. Bonus actions enable important design space. Sometimes, you want to make it so something can't be just used willy-nilly, but which can still be done alongside other, "big" actions. Healing is one of the most important applications here, since forcing a character to spend their whole action doing nothing but healing significantly discourages giving healing to allies (as, in most cases, all you're doing is putting things back in the state they were before, which merely delays the end of combat, it doesn't actually get the combat closer to completion.)
2. Bonus actions, when designed cautiously, really can be quite simple and straightforward. There's a reason all three WotC editions have had them. 3.x invented them midway through and called them "swift" actions. 4e called them "minor" actions and used them quite effectively. 5e has...not used them as well as I would have liked (as is the case with most of its design decisions), but it is at least in the correct ballpark.
3. Anything that attempts to replace them very quickly either runs into major issues, or ends up being effectively 17 different kludges that all accomplish the same goal. As an example, let's say we eliminate the Bonus action. Anything that used to be a Bonus action is now just an Action. But wait! Now that means there's a bunch of spells that are gonna be...well, kinda useless if you can't cast them as Bonus Actions. Healing word, for instance, becomes (almost) totally useless because you may as well cast cure wounds instead. (Technically, it still has non-Touch range, but that's it.) So maybe you say that healing word and misty step and other formerly-Bonus action spells now include a line that says, "When you cast this spell, you can also perform another action, but if you want to cast a spell, it has to be a cantrip." But....adding that line to every single formerly-Bonus action spell is just printing 20 extra words per spell in order to do exactly the same thing as before.

More or less, the reason we keep having these things is because trying to squeeze EVERYTHING a character can do into one single on-turn action ends up being a really, really confining, annoying design space. PF2e addressed this problem by giving every character three actions per round, so that different things could take up different amounts of actions depending on how complex and/or powerful the action is. And it isn't just tabletop that does this sort of thing. Video games, especially MMOs, have a "global cooldown" which effectively corresponds to the "one action per turn" limitation. But almost all games that have such a cooldown....also include abilities which are "off [the] global cooldown" aka "oGCD" actions, which the player can weave between GCD actions. WoW heavily uses this space for "trinkets" (basically accessories, akin to charges-per-day wands or the like), FFXIV invokes them all the time to add depth and gameplay engagement, particularly for melee-attacker type classes, and Guild Wars integrates not only that sort of stuff, but also the action combat "dodge" mechanics that exist entirely outside of cooldown stuff (having their own separate recharge).

This structure, where there are big "chunky" actions that Do Something Cool, and then smaller fit-in-between actions that add spice or focus or support, is extremely common because it's a straightforward, effective way to accomplish the design goals that most RPG designers are aiming for.

 

[Steampunkette]

I wanted to touch on this bit. IME the reason opportunity attacks are not common is because everyone can use opportunity attacks so it can really discourage movement during combat. In the campaigns I have played in, the exceptions tended to be rogues because of Cunning Action and characters with very hard to hit ACs, but overall most PCs tended to not want to move much since they didn't want to give up a free swing at them. I think if you made tweaks to reactions usage you're suggesting, it would lead to more movement during combat which would generally be an improvement IMO.

Opportunity attacks are uncommon because movement is pointless when you have someone within range of your attacks unless you are in severe danger.

Think of it like a stripped down videogame AI.

Am I near a target I can attack ---> Yes ---> Attack Enemy ---> Is the enemy dead? ---> No ---> End turn.
Am I near a target I can attack ---> Yes ---> Attack Enemy ---> Is the enemy dead? ---> Yes ---> Move toward Enemy ---> End turn.
Am I near a target I can attack ---> No ---> Move toward Enemy ---> Am I near a target I can attack? ---> Yes ---> Attack Enemy ---> End Turn.
Am I near a target I can attack ---> No ---> Move toward Enemy ---> Am I near a target I can attack? ---> No ---> Spend Action on Dash ---> Move toward Enemy ---> End Turn

This is how most fights actually play out for fighter types. They move to the enemy and attack until the enemy is dead. Sometimes they move around for positioning benefits, or major circumstantial shifts, but this? This is the "Fighter Routine". For Ranged characters it's kind of the same, though there's an additional operation on spell choice for spellcasters while Archers are just hucking ranged attacks and only move when someone is getting too close or in and out of cover if there's ranged enemies.

But melee? No point in moving. No benefit to it, most of the time. And sometimes there's a sincere negative (Opportunity Attacks) for even trying. And NPCs fall into the same routine, typically.

Opportunity Attacks punish you for not moving directly to the nearest target and hitting them with a weapon. And that's about all they do. They incentivize "Stickiness".

opportunity attacks are rare because they nerfed the hell out of AoOs for "not complicating" things.

this is how you buff AoOs and melee characters at the same time:

1. AoO does not use Reaction, but you can use it once per turn

2. Additional things provoke AoO:

Casting a spell that is not a melee attack/touch or a cone.
So cure wounds/inflict wounds/burning hands does not provoke AoO, but healing word/fireball/scorching ray does.

Making a ranged attack provokes AoO

Standing up from prone provokes AoO(with advantage as normal)

Drinking a potion provokes AoO, unless used as an Action. Kind of risk and reward for using it as a Bonus action.

Pulling out a guitar and playing something provokes AoO

etc...

You've now created even more situations where the only appropriate response to being in melee is "Make an Attack". And specifically "Make a melee attack."

It definitely makes Opportunity Attacks stronger... but I dunno if it makes them better.

 

[Horwath]

You've now created even more situations where the only appropriate response to being in melee is "Make an Attack". And specifically "Make a melee attack."

It definitely makes Opportunity Attacks stronger... but I dunno if it makes them better.

opportunity attack is just that. a quick strike when opponents lowers defenses for whatever reason.

some features might make is stronger or have more effects.

Warcaster using a reaction instead of opportunity attack is one of those situations.

but it does work, it makes melee characters more "sticky" to the target.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm sure the person you asked has already replied, but if I may give my two bits:

1. Bonus actions enable important design space. Sometimes, you want to make it so something can't be just used willy-nilly, but which can still be done alongside other, "big" actions. Healing is one of the most important applications here, since forcing a character to spend their whole action doing nothing but healing significantly discourages giving healing to allies (as, in most cases, all you're doing is putting things back in the state they were before, which merely delays the end of combat, it doesn't actually get the combat closer to completion.)
2. Bonus actions, when designed cautiously, really can be quite simple and straightforward. There's a reason all three WotC editions have had them. 3.x invented them midway through and called them "swift" actions. 4e called them "minor" actions and used them quite effectively. 5e has...not used them as well as I would have liked (as is the case with most of its design decisions), but it is at least in the correct ballpark.
3. Anything that attempts to replace them very quickly either runs into major issues, or ends up being effectively 17 different kludges that all accomplish the same goal. As an example, let's say we eliminate the Bonus action. Anything that used to be a Bonus action is now just an Action. But wait! Now that means there's a bunch of spells that are gonna be...well, kinda useless if you can't cast them as Bonus Actions. Healing word, for instance, becomes (almost) totally useless because you may as well cast cure wounds instead. (Technically, it still has non-Touch range, but that's it.) So maybe you say that healing word and misty step and other formerly-Bonus action spells now include a line that says, "When you cast this spell, you can also perform another action, but if you want to cast a spell, it has to be a cantrip." But....adding that line to every single formerly-Bonus action spell is just printing 20 extra words per spell in order to do exactly the same thing as before.

More or less, the reason we keep having these things is because trying to squeeze EVERYTHING a character can do into one single on-turn action ends up being a really, really confining, annoying design space. PF2e addressed this problem by giving every character three actions per round, so that different things could take up different amounts of actions depending on how complex and/or powerful the action is. And it isn't just tabletop that does this sort of thing. Video games, especially MMOs, have a "global cooldown" which effectively corresponds to the "one action per turn" limitation. But almost all games that have such a cooldown....also include abilities which are "off [the] global cooldown" aka "oGCD" actions, which the player can weave between GCD actions. WoW heavily uses this space for "trinkets" (basically accessories, akin to charges-per-day wands or the like), FFXIV invokes them all the time to add depth and gameplay engagement, particularly for melee-attacker type classes, and Guild Wars integrates not only that sort of stuff, but also the action combat "dodge" mechanics that exist entirely outside of cooldown stuff (having their own separate recharge).

This structure, where there are big "chunky" actions that Do Something Cool, and then smaller fit-in-between actions that add spice or focus or support, is extremely common because it's a straightforward, effective way to accomplish the design goals that most RPG designers are aiming for.

You clearly haven't read what mearls is proposing, since nearly every example you give is not how it would work under his proposal.

That said, I have no real issue with keeping them out losing them. My thought is that people sometimes have a hard time looking at changes to something that has been around for twenty or more years of gaming with fully open eyes. That might not be you, and isn't aimed at you specifically.

 

[TiQuinn]

But melee? No point in moving. No benefit to it, most of the time. And sometimes there's a sincere negative (Opportunity Attacks) for even trying. And NPCs fall into the same routine, typically.

Opportunity Attacks punish you for not moving directly to the nearest target and hitting them with a weapon. And that's about all they do. They incentivize "Stickiness".

I think this also gets worse as you move up in level and are fighting monsters whose sole challenging aspect is how much damage they can do. In our Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign that my group played to Level 20, it reached a point where taking a needless attack was easily going to be the difference between surviving and going down in combat. Given combat is typically over in 3 rounds, a PC couldn’t afford to take the extra hit from a demon or a dragon. So you stayed rooted to one place and tried to more damage to it than it did to you.

 

[Steampunkette]

I think this also gets worse as you move up in level and are fighting monsters whose sole challenging aspect is how much damage they can do. In our Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign that my group played to Level 20, it reached a point where taking a needless attack was easily going to be the difference between surviving and going down in combat. Given combat is typically over in 3 rounds, a PC couldn’t afford to take the extra hit from a demon or a dragon. So you stayed rooted to one place and tried to more damage to it than it did to you.

EXACTLY.

Add in Legendary actions and dragons become stickier than the most Polearm-focused Sentinel feat having Fighter in the world.

Moving Bonus-Action functions over to Reactions, and having Monsters use reactions for stuff -other- than opportunity attacks, would make combat a lot more dynamic without severely increasing it's complexity. Though it would -also- give you the choice of whether to be "Sticky" or not.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Transform it into some kind of three action economy system.

NO.

Let me elaborate: When I first heard of Pathfinder 2's 3-action economy, I was very excited. It sounded like the perfect solution - elegant and easy.

But in practice, I found that all my players (multiple groups of varying play-experience) would often (far, far too often) either:

1) Try to do four actions. Then I, or the other players, would have to call them on it and they'd futz about deciding what to cut from their turn.
2) Do only two actions. Then I, or the other players, would point that out and they'd futz about trying to decide what to do with their third action. You wouldn't want to waste it, would you? (My answer: Who cares).

Both of the above scenarios happened, well, pretty much every round. At least one player. For months of play. In multiple groups.

For this reason, I don't play PF2. Which is a shame, because I generally like it. (I have a few other quibbles, but nothing as game-breaking).

So, no. Please no.

 

[TiQuinn]

EXACTLY.

Add in Legendary actions and dragons become stickier than the most Polearm-focused Sentinel feat having Fighter in the world.

Moving Bonus-Action functions over to Reactions, and having Monsters use reactions for stuff -other- than opportunity attacks, would make combat a lot more dynamic without severely increasing its complexity. Though it would -also- give you the choice of whether to be "Sticky" or not.

This convo also made me wonder if movement is something we want more of in the game, is it worth it for monsters to have AoOs or should that be for the sole benefit of the PCs?