Removing Bonus Actions

[R.Shackleford]

So I'm setting up 5e Epic 5 (5e condensed into 5 levels with some other changes) to run off movement (as normal), actions (as normal), and reactions (mixture of bonus action and reactions). Also free actions, can't forget about free actions.

OA will also be replaced with a system that lets you move but you take disadvantage on your next attack or grant advantage to the target of your next spell due to being distracted.

What uninteded consequence would this have in 5e? With bonus actions and reactions as one thing, just called reaction, and allowing abilities that work off your BA/Reaction to work off this new reaction. I would make most reactions usable as an action too, though it would be somewhat silly to do most of them as an action. However casting a spell like "spiritual weapon" could be cast as an action or a reaction to performing another action.

You still gain 1/Round as normal.

I'm hoping that it would just streamline everything and make a bit more sense.

An additional attack (red/crossbow master) would just be...

"As a reaction to making a weapon attack you may make an attack with (weapon of choice)".

Spiritual Weapon could be so.ething like...

"As a reaction to casting a cleric spell or making a weapon attack you may cast the spell Spiritual Weapon".

I'm going to run a one shot with some friends that plan on trying to exploit this or find issues. An I missing anything or can Bonus Actions and Reactions be merged?

[EvilAnagram]

It really doesn't make any sense . Why would I cast Hail of Thorns in reaction to something? It only makes sense if I'm preparing for something. It's the same with Paladin smite spells. Aside from being quick, reactions and bonus actions have nothing in common, so this essentially creates a confusing mishmash of unrelated abilities that all utilize the same action slot for no discernible reason.

[Rysto]

Not sure if any of these are deal breakers, but:

- A sorcerer could quicken any spell on their list and cast it as a reaction
- A cleric could cause Healing Word as a reaction and immediately bring back an ally who dropped
- A cleric could cast Sanctuary to interrupt an attack
- The Light Cleric's warding flare (reaction) ability becomes way less valuable, as the cleric already has spells like Spiritual Weapon and Healing Word using up their bonus action
- The Paladin could cast a smite spell as a reaction immediately prior to their turn and avoid having to worry about maintain concentration if they get hit
- What are you doing with dual-wielding? Taking away the reaction to hit with the off-hand weapon makes a slightly underpowered option worse. But allowing it as part of the attack action strengthens it on the Paladin where it's already a very good option.

[DireSickFish]

It really doesn't make any sense . Why would I cast Hail of Thorns in reaction to something? It only makes sense if I'm preparing for something. It's the same with Paladin smite spells. Aside from being quick, reactions and bonus actions have nothing in common, so this essentially creates a confusing mishmash of unrelated abilities that all utilize the same action slot for no discernible reason.

I concur with this.

[R.Shackleford]

Not sure if any of these are deal breakers, but:

- A sorcerer could quicken any spell on their list and cast it as a reaction
- A cleric could cause Healing Word as a reaction and immediately bring back an ally who dropped
- A cleric could cast Sanctuary to interrupt an attack
- The Light Cleric's warding flare (reaction) ability becomes way less valuable, as the cleric already has spells like Spiritual Weapon and Healing Word using up their bonus action
- The Paladin could cast a smite spell as a reaction immediately prior to their turn and avoid having to worry about maintain concentration if they get hit
- What are you doing with dual-wielding? Taking away the reaction to hit with the off-hand weapon makes a slightly underpowered option worse. But allowing it as part of the attack action strengthens it on the Paladin where it's already a very good option.

The issue with most of those is not the reaction part but the trigger.

Quicken Metamagic: As a reaction to casting a spell you may quicken cast another spell.

Twin Metamagic: As a reaction to casting a spell you may twin it.

In all honesty Spiritual Weapon should be an action to cast. I'm not sure what they were smoking but that spell it hellacious on a cleric.

Holy Word: As a reaction to casting a cleric spell or taking the weapon attack action you may cast Holy Word on a creature within range.

Smite spell that are bonus actions can be cast in a paladin's turn, then they can attack, and if they miss they then have to worry about concentration.

Light Cleric would have to decide to use their reaction for the round in a defensive manner or some other way. Warding flare at the beginning of the battle and healing word later.

Duel Wielding: As a reaction to taking the weapon attack action with a light weapon you may attack with light weapon in your off hand.

Reactions will be used for offensive and defensive options, it's up to the player to decide how they like using their reactions.

Most of the abilities you describe just need proper triggers, which will typically be "action, attack action, or cast a spell action". Others will just be whenever their trigger happens, if it is "creature makes an attack" or "ally does XYZ".

Edit

Reaction casting makes just as much sense as bonus action casting.

Hail of Thorns

As a reaction to making a ranged weapon attack you may, on a hit, cause your weapon to shower the enemy with thorns.

In addition to the normal effects of the attack the target and all creatures within 5' must make a dexterity save or take 1d10 piercing damage (half that much on a save).

Concentration: This spell stays active for up to a minute or until you hit with a ranged weapon attack.

(in not worried about it making sense, because it makes sense, I'm just looking for base 5e issues)

[Notafish]

With enough work on rewriting spells and abilities, I think you can merge bonus actions and reactions, but I'm not sure why you would want to, especially since many of the triggers proposed would lead to something mechanically similar, just with more limits on play style. Is there something related to the 5-level limit that makes you think that the bonus action needs to go?

[EvilAnagram]

I'm a bit confused by this decision. Precisely what does this accomplish aside from keeping players from using both a reaction and action?

[Bladeyeoman]

I can totally see the value of this from a combat-simulation standpoint: it's not like you get more time/actions just because someone attacks you or otherwise triggers a reaction. There's a set amount of time (/time resources) which can be spent doing your thing or reacting to an opponent.

That said, D&D is not a realistic combat simulator, and it seems like it would be complicated to modify this. And potentially some classes start running into balance issues, in that multiple class features that didn't use to may be competing. For example, monks would no longer be able to flurry of blows and catch arrows the same turn, I think? AFB, but I think one is a bonus action and the other a reaction.

[PoeticDwarf]

So I'm setting up 5e Epic 5 (5e condensed into 5 levels with some other changes) to run off movement (as normal), actions (as normal), and reactions (mixture of bonus action and reactions). Also free actions, can't forget about free actions.

OA will also be replaced with a system that lets you move but you take disadvantage on your next attack or grant advantage to the target of your next spell due to being distracted.

What uninteded consequence would this have in 5e? With bonus actions and reactions as one thing, just called reaction, and allowing abilities that work off your BA/Reaction to work off this new reaction. I would make most reactions usable as an action too, though it would be somewhat silly to do most of them as an action. However casting a spell like "spiritual weapon" could be cast as an action or a reaction to performing another action.

You still gain 1/Round as normal.

I'm hoping that it would just streamline everything and make a bit more sense.

An additional attack (red/crossbow master) would just be...

"As a reaction to making a weapon attack you may make an attack with (weapon of choice)".

Spiritual Weapon could be so.ething like...

"As a reaction to casting a cleric spell or making a weapon attack you may cast the spell Spiritual Weapon".

I'm going to run a one shot with some friends that plan on trying to exploit this or find issues. An I missing anything or can Bonus Actions and Reactions be merged?

It can but would reduce options even more. I'd prefer an extra bonus action even (but limited for PAM etc. but not for monk and TWF and spells)

[EvilAnagram]

Have you considered running Fantasy Age? It's only one book, and it seems like it fits your preferred style a bit better. There's a similar power level, less swing, easily customizable, and very streamlined.

[PIELIKEI]

Not sure if any of these are deal breakers, but:

- A sorcerer could quicken any spell on their list and cast it as a reaction
- A cleric could cause Healing Word as a reaction and immediately bring back an ally who dropped
- A cleric could cast Sanctuary to interrupt an attack
- The Light Cleric's warding flare (reaction) ability becomes way less valuable, as the cleric already has spells like Spiritual Weapon and Healing Word using up their bonus action
- The Paladin could cast a smite spell as a reaction immediately prior to their turn and avoid having to worry about maintain concentration if they get hit
- What are you doing with dual-wielding? Taking away the reaction to hit with the off-hand weapon makes a slightly underpowered option worse. But allowing it as part of the attack action strengthens it on the Paladin where it's already a very good option.

For this actually I already cast Sanctuary to interrupt an attack (readied actions FTW!) I do this wih Silence and Eldritch Blast + Repelling blast too!

However I'm still confused to how you are defining reactions:
If you are merging reactions and bonus actions and I can cast "reactions as actions" so spiritual weapon as a bonus action can be moved up to 20 feet and attack, can be read as spiitual weapon as a reaction can be moved up to 20 feet and attack.
Does this mean (since you can cast reactions as actions), that you can move your spiritual weapon up to 20 feet and attack as a normal action
Then as a reaction move your spiritual weapon up to 20 feet AGAIN and attack a second time?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm a but confused by this decision. Precisely what does this accomplish aside from keeping players from using both a reaction and action?
Yeah, this. While you could probably get it to work, it would require changing just about every bonus action in the game. If it bugs you that people get both (why?), just bring back the 3.5 swift/immediate action rules and have taking a reaction use up your next bonus action.