D&D 5E Removing the bonus action - analysis

[FrogReaver]

By distinguishing special actions from regular actions, per what I posted.

Regular actions = anything under the "Actions in Combat" section of the rules.

Special action = pretty much anything which currently uses a bonus action. Special actions will let you do something in addition to taking a regular action (sometimes limited to a specific one, like Attack.)

Healing Word would in this revision be a swift spell. Casting a swift spell is a special action. Per the text I proposed, you could cast healing word, and then you can cast a cantrip, or take any other regular action (i.e., not another spell, and not Second Wind, or Bardic Inspiration, which would both be Special actions.)

Maybe a better wording of Swift spell would be like this:

Casting a Swift spell

Special action. When you use the Cast a Spell regular action for a spell with the swift property, you may also take any other regular action. If you choose the Cast a Spell action again, you are limited to casting cantrips without the swift property.​

So what you have is a system that is functionally equivalent to bonus actions?

 

[hejtmane]

Really how is any of the posted stuff any less confusing for new players or better than a bonus action ? I am just not seeing it and note I have no edition war history to fall back on; prior to 5e 99% of my D&D played was original D&D and 1e and that was 20+ years ago.

 

[Sir Brennen]

So what you have is a system that is functionally equivalent to bonus actions?

To a point, if the goal is to keep those abilities which add something to the existing actions a character can take, without letting them do everything (i.e., the chaining you describe). However, it would still pare down the action economy by removing the sometimes-but-not-always-available bonus action. It's just movement, actions and reactions.

The labels of Special and Regular actions could be removed, and it's all just actions, of which you only get one a round. But then that would require spelling out in each feature's description that it's an action and what else you can do with it. For me, the classification of Regular actions helps cut down on a lot of that verbosity.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Really how is any of the posted stuff any less confusing for new players or better than a bonus action ? I am just not seeing it and note I have no edition war history to fall back on; prior to 5e 99% of my D&D played was original D&D and 1e and that was 20+ years ago.

I've also played since 1e, and the "action economy" has evolved a lot since then. 3E (and 3.5) actually kept codifying and increasing the types of actions you could take in a round, 4E formalized it more rigorously, then 5e scaled it back down in keeping with the goal of simplifying mechanics in this edition. But really "edition wars" don't have much to do with it. Just examining the impacts on the current edition.

I believe my post may have made my proposed change appeared longer and more complex than it really is because it laid out my musings on the issue and logic behind the change. But it boils down to this:

Everything that currently is a bonus action is simply an action. You get one action a round. There are no bonus actions.

Take the Monk. In today's game, even at second level, they can run up, make an attack, then the player may decide to spend ki for a flurry of blows, or to Patient Defense, or Step of the Wind as a bonus action. That's on top of probably deciding whether to spend ki on any hits for Stunning Strike. Then possibly have to be reminded "no, you can't do Flurry because you already used Step of the Wind to get to the target, and you only get one bonus action." or "Wait, you can't Flurry because you attacked with two weapons, and that already took your bonus action." or "No, you can't Flurry again. I know you still have Ki left, but that's not the way it works."

With what I'm proposing, the player chooses at the beginning of their turn a normal attack, Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense or Step of the Wind (spending the necessary ki). In the description of the features it says what else you can do (attack, cast a spell, etc.)

Pro: fewer decision points, no "did I already use my bonus action" questions, faster play
Con: less flexible then being able to decide to use a bonus action mid-turn, lots of text saying what else you can do (which is why I also think a "Regular Action" shorthand would be desirable.)

 

[Kryx]

What you're proposing would wipe out much of the utility features of the game. A rogue can't hide and attack anymore? Well then they'll always attack. Cunning action and ki features are there for precisely that reason: to allow the dynamic feeling of mobile characters (Monk and Rogue) while doing the normal attack action.
Making everything an action is quite different than what Mearls or this thread is suggesting. I would consider it a really negative decision.

I have experimented with implementing this concept across classes and for abilities it seems to work great. I think I'll keep bonus actions for spells and some cases, but removing them from twf and other cases has some great clarity and balance results imo.

 

[FrogReaver]

What you're proposing would wipe out much of the utility features of the game. A rogue can't hide and attack anymore? Well then they'll always attack. Cunning action and ki features are there for precisely that reason: to allow the dynamic feeling of mobile characters (Monk and Rogue) while doing the normal attack action.
Making everything an action is quite different than what Mearls or this thread is suggesting. I would consider it a really negative decision.

I have experimented with implementing this concept across classes and for abilities it seems to work great. I think I'll keep bonus actions for spells and some cases, but removing them from twf and other cases has some great clarity and balance results imo.

I think you have misunderstood the proposed system. In this proposed system some actions let you use other actions but it must be spelled out within the action itself instead of having a "bonus action" label. It seems very similar to the current system.

 

[FrogReaver]

I've also played since 1e, and the "action economy" has evolved a lot since then. 3E (and 3.5) actually kept codifying and increasing the types of actions you could take in a round, 4E formalized it more rigorously, then 5e scaled it back down in keeping with the goal of simplifying mechanics in this edition. But really "edition wars" don't have much to do with it. Just examining the impacts on the current edition.

I believe my post may have made my proposed change appeared longer and more complex than it really is because it laid out my musings on the issue and logic behind the change. But it boils down to this:

Everything that currently is a bonus action is simply an action. You get one action a round. There are no bonus actions.

Take the Monk. In today's game, even at second level, they can run up, make an attack, then the player may decide to spend ki for a flurry of blows, or to Patient Defense, or Step of the Wind as a bonus action. That's on top of probably deciding whether to spend ki on any hits for Stunning Strike. Then possibly have to be reminded "no, you can't do Flurry because you already used Step of the Wind to get to the target, and you only get one bonus action." or "Wait, you can't Flurry because you attacked with two weapons, and that already took your bonus action." or "No, you can't Flurry again. I know you still have Ki left, but that's not the way it works."

With what I'm proposing, the player chooses at the beginning of their turn a normal attack, Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense or Step of the Wind (spending the necessary ki). In the description of the features it says what else you can do (attack, cast a spell, etc.)

Pro: fewer decision points, no "did I already use my bonus action" questions, faster play
Con: less flexible then being able to decide to use a bonus action mid-turn, lots of text saying what else you can do (which is why I also think a "Regular Action" shorthand would be desirable.)

I hadn't considered that con yet. That con actually breaks the action based system you proposed for me. Oftentimes my decision to use a bonus action may be contingent on whether I killed the enemy or something else. For example the Fighter's action surge. If you kill the monster on your first 2 attacks then you normally wouldn't use it under the bonus action model (unless you can reach another monster) but if you don't you may very well use it. This kind of issue is going to be present with many other bonus actions that become regular actions in your proposed system. I really dislike that.

 

[Kryx]

I think you have misunderstood the proposed system. In this proposed system some actions let you use other actions but it must be spelled out within the action itself instead of having a "bonus action" label. It seems very similar to the current system.

Perhaps I have. Can you give an example? I think Cunning Action and Ki are the more complicated ones.

If you're intending that they can only be used with an Attack action that limits them. For example you couldn't hide and then attack unless you use "immediately before or after" that is used elsewhere.
Example wording would help clarify what you mean.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I hadn't considered that con yet. That con actually breaks the action based system you proposed for me. Oftentimes my decision to use a bonus action may be contingent on whether I killed the enemy or something else. For example the Fighter's action surge. If you kill the monster on your first 2 attacks then you normally wouldn't use it under the bonus action model (unless you can reach another monster) but if you don't you may very well use it. This kind of issue is going to be present with many other bonus actions that become regular actions in your proposed system. I really dislike that.

Here's the thing: I wouldn't use it either.

I like the bonus actions as they are, though I have seen the confusion they sometimes cause with players at my table (the bonus action spells came up last session, and Flurry of Blows in the past.)

I'm just throwing out how could make it work, keeping most of the features (Inspiration, Cunning Action, TWF, etc.) which are bonus actions now. I didn't thing the OP went far enough. However, there'd obviously have to be some compromises, as you are getting rid of an entire part of the action economy.

 

[Mercule]

Ugh. No.

The entire point of having the bonus action is to provide a simple, universal action limitation. Doing away with it in favor of a vast number of fiddly, ability-specific limitations with questionable capacity for stacking is the exact polar-opposite of simplifying or streamlining anything. Let alone "smarter" design.

This. The OP's system is, as has been pointed out, just bonus actions without the name.

Naming something defines it and gives you power over it. You can control it and keep it in check. Having the Bonus Action mechanic allows the game to take into account the impact of granting additional actions.

In fact, I'd be willing to put some money down on the odds that something like the OP's system was part of (at least one of) the 5E drafts (not necessarily anything public) and someone got tired of having to spell out the "don't get crazy" interactions to the point where the whole Bonus Action thing was created.