Using an Action to take a Bonus Action

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Looking for a rules reference in PHB or DMG or some such on this question. Can a PC use their "Action" to do something that costs a "Bonus Action" or are these two things seperate? For instance, could a Wizard use a full action to cast Misty Step and then a Bonus Action to shoot two meteors from a previously cast Melf's Minute Meteors. Both of these things say they require a "Bonus Action" so I'm wondering if there are any clarifications that would allow you to do both. If there aren't any rules about this explicitly, would you agree with me that allowing this seems completely reasonable or am I overlooking something?

[JNAProductions]

By RAW? No-actions cannot be exchanged for bonus actions.

However, a lot of DMs allow it, because it's pretty much not game-breaking.

[ImproperJustice]

By RAW? No-actions cannot be exchanged for bonus actions.

However, a lot of DMs allow it, because it's pretty much not game-breaking.

And it’s a stupid rule to begin with.

If the idea is that bonus actions are super quick actions that don’t disrupt the normal action economy, then what possible justification can there be to not take two bonus actions in a turn other than some wierd adherence to literary text?

I know our GM allows it.

[GlenSmash!]

By RAW? No-actions cannot be exchanged for bonus actions.

However, a lot of DMs allow it, because it's pretty much not game-breaking.


This.

I know it is against the rules, but I can't think of anything terrible that would happen if I allow it, so I allow it.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Are there explicit rules against it? If so, I agree that they're dumb rules. But I haven't read a rule one way or the other over the years, so I'm just wondering if that exists or if WotC just sort of implied through the system that this was allowable. That's the implication I get anyway. That you can only use a Bonus Action if something specifically gives you the ability, but that anything you can do as a Bonus Action could instead be done as a normal action (attacking with an offhand weapon, dashing, dodging, disengaging, etc.) and it seems like that would apply to spells and the like by implication.

[Contrast]

Are there explicit rules against it? If so, I agree that they're dumb rules. But I haven't read a rule one way or the other over the years, so I'm just wondering if that exists or if WotC just sort of implied through the system that this was allowable. That's the implication I get anyway. That you can only use a Bonus Action if something specifically gives you the ability, but that anything you can do as a Bonus Action could instead be done as a normal action (attacking with an offhand weapon, dashing, dodging, disengaging, etc.) and it seems like that would apply to spells and the like by implication.

I don't see any such implication. The rules mention you only get one bonus action so if you have multiple you need to choose which one you want to do and there's no hint of being able to trade down (this is relevant to not being able to healing word two times in a turn for instance).

I don't necessarily know if there would be any problems doing so but I'm pretty confident swapping bonus actions for actions is not intended. Sage advice (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/05/can-i-use-a-bonus-action-as-an-actual-action/) agrees.

[Theodoxus]

I don't see any such implication. The rules mention you only get one bonus action so if you have multiple you need to choose which one you want to do and there's no hint of being able to trade down (this is relevant to not being able to healing word two times in a turn for instance).

I don't necessarily know if there would be any problems doing so but I'm pretty confident swapping bonus actions for actions is not intended. Sage advice (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/05/can-i-use-a-bonus-action-as-an-actual-action/) agrees.

Outside of using Action Surge (which doesn't work RAW, because you don't get a second BA), there's no way to cast two Healing Words, unless you also break the rule that you can cast two spells in a single turn.

In my high powered games (where I tie Attunement to PB and have a feat that does the same for Concentration), I allow casting of a Bonus Action spell with an Action spell - I've found, for new spellcasters, it's a rule that gets forgotten in AL games all the time (and a lot of DMs don't catch it either). I figure there's no real harm if someone wants to burn through all their spells as quickly as they can...

A lot of rules (especially around casting) seem particularly arbitrary at worst, or "We don't want you to burn through your resources, because we know better than you" at best.

Personally, I'm ok with the casting time being a recommendation. You can't cast a spell faster than "x", without additional (metamagic) help, but there's no reason you shouldn't be able to slow down the casting of a Bonus Action to an Action, if you really wanted to (or like, casting Healing Word and hitting the flying monkey with your Spiritual Weapon in the same round - one has to be an Action to do so - whichever you pick is fine with me).

Even spells as Reactions should be able to be cast on your turn. Wanna pop Shield and run around the battlefield? Fine. Wanna pre-cast Feather Fall before jumping off a cliff? Equally fine... neither are RAW though.

[Unoriginal]

That "dumb rule" as you fellows say exist for a reason. Namely, to prevent casting two spells that use bonus action in the same turn, as well as other such abilities. Or simply using your action and your bonus action for the same thing.

Let's take one example: Spiritual Weapon twice a turn (once cast and maintained, there is no rule to prevent using a spell twice in one turn as long as you have the actions for it.)

Now I hear you say "Unoriginal, you fun-hating jerk, why would it be a problem?" Well, for one, both actions and bonus actions are balanced around characters having one of each per turn, and doubling that ammount (even at the cost of the other) can make balanced things that seems innocuous enough much, much powerful. Heck, a fair number of class features are about letting you do two Actions a turn by eating your bonus action, and those are rarely considered weak features. Doing the reverse (doing two bonus actions at the cost of your action) is equaly powerful.

Second, if you only want to do a bonus action in your turn, you already can (and your action can even still be useful via Dodge or the like). So the only reason one would want to use an Action for a Bonus Action is if they're already using their BA for something else. And I see no reason to allow someone to have two bonus actions, especially because there is probably some combos of BA this person thought about and figure it was better than what they already have, and I'm against giving PCs more power because of that kind of game rule exploits.

Sure, I'm certain man people abolished that rule because they thought "why can't I do a quick action in the time it takes me to do a regular-length one?", but ask yourself those questions:

a) which things that you can do with a Bonus Action are you unable to do with an Action, with the current rules? Most of the bonus actions are spells (racial or from the class), special class features, or something you can already do with Action but that is speed up by a class feature, with other extra powers granted by Feats or magic item use

b) Are you disatisfied to only be able to do one BA per turn, or is it just truly a "you should be able to do a quick action slower?

c) What happens when you have someone uses two BA/turn?

[MaxWilson]

I don't see any such implication. The rules mention you only get one bonus action so if you have multiple you need to choose which one you want to do and there's no hint of being able to trade down (this is relevant to not being able to healing word two times in a turn for instance).

The PHB does say that you can declare other, improvised actions subject to DM approval. It's reasonable for a DM to allow bonus actions on those grounds, if he wants to.

But you still can't Healing Word twice in one turn, because if you cast a bonus action spell, you can't cast any other spells that turn except cantrips. At least, by the rules as written. As always, a DM may disagree and overrule.

[Tanarii]

http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Can a bonus action be used as an action or vice versa? For example, can a bard use a bonus action to grant a Bardic Inspiration die and an action to cast healing word?
No. Actions and bonus actions aren’t interchange- able. In the example, the bard could use Bardic Inspiration or healing word on a turn, not both.

[GlenSmash!]

Let's take one example: Spiritual Weapon twice a turn (once cast and maintained, there is no rule to prevent using a spell twice in one turn as long as you have the actions for it.)

I think this wouldn't work since once you cast a bonus action spell the only other spells you can cast in the same turns are cantrips.

So I guess if you allow two bonus action spells in one turn, and one has to be a cantrip then you could cast Spiritual Weapon and Magic Stone or Shillelagh in the same turn, and I don't think that's that bad.

But admittedly I might be missing something here.

[ciarannihill]

I think this wouldn't work since once you cast a bonus action spell the only other spells you can cast in the same turns are cantrips.

So I guess if you allow two bonus action spells in one turn, and one has to be a cantrip then you could cast Spiritual Weapon and Magic Stone or Shillelagh in the same turn, and I don't think that's that bad.

But admittedly I might be missing something here.

As far as I am aware, this is accurate, and seems perfectly reasonable to me personally.

[Willie the Duck]

And it’s a stupid rule to begin with.


Are there explicit rules against it? If so, I agree that they're dumb rules. But I haven't read a rule one way or the other over the years, so I'm just wondering if that exists or if WotC just sort of implied through the system that this was allowable.

There isn't so much a rule so much as a lack of one. There is no specified rule which allows you to use a normal action to do what is listed as a bonus action. Is that a deliberate omission, a genuine accident/"we didn't think anyone would want to"/"we figured this was the kind of thing each individual DM could rule for themselves"/any other potential explanation? It really isn't clear (although Unoriginal's argument is pretty persuasive). My completely unsupported guess is that the designers thought 'let's leave this unmentioned, such that if we later decide to include some spell or ability that would be truly overpowered if you could do it as both an action and a bonus action, this will not constrain our design potential, and most DMs will simply decree that un-abusive uses will fly.'


If the idea is that bonus actions are super quick actions that don’t disrupt the normal action economy, then what possible justification can there be to not take two bonus actions in a turn other than some wierd adherence to literary text?

I think you mean literal text, but beyond that, yes, that is true. Mostly. Bonus actions aren't quite what you described. They are, well, bonus actions. The wording is much more complex than this, but roughly speaking, you get a movement, an action, an object manipulation action, a bonus action, and a reaction, each of which you can only use with an activity which falls under its' purview. They are not interchangeable (unless you have a special ability that says otherwise, such as the level 2 rogue ability). That's not quite it, but it is the way I had to describe it to a friend of mine who was new to the edition who kept asking, "can I ___ (drink a potion, draw a weapon, drop a shield, etc.) as a bonus action?" I eventually just always replied "does it say using it is a bonus action, and/or do you have some other special ability that would make it so?"

If we really boil it down, a fighter 20 who doesn't want to do any movement and only wants to use one of their 4 attacks should probably be able to trade in some of that action-time for additional minor things like drawing of weapons, opening of doors, or things that fall under bonus-action rules, but a system which takes all that into account is probably unwieldy and subject to abuse. I'd much prefer the status quo, or the status quo with a sidebar starting with "at the DM's judicious discretion..."


I think this wouldn't work since once you cast a bonus action spell the only other spells you can cast in the same turns are cantrips.

I think he meant once you had Spiritual Weapon up and running, attacking with it as an action and as a bonus action.

[Tanarii]

I think this wouldn't work since once you cast a bonus action spell the only other spells you can cast in the same turns are cantrips.
The restriction on bonus action spells only applies to casting spells. Not using actions for already cast spells.

[Unoriginal]

I think this wouldn't work since once you cast a bonus action spell the only other spells you can cast in the same turns are cantrips.

So I guess if you allow two bonus action spells in one turn, and one has to be a cantrip then you could cast Spiritual Weapon and Magic Stone or Shillelagh in the same turn, and I don't think that's that bad.

But admittedly I might be missing something here.

Spiritual weapon is cast only once. Then you use your bonus action to make it attack and move, and you can use your main action for anything including other leveled spells.

Or, if you authorize to use Action for your Bonus Action, you could use it to attack twice with Spiritual Weapon, thanks to your two bonus actions.

[ciarannihill]

The restriction on bonus action spells only applies to casting spells. Not using actions for already cast spells.

"Once per turn you may use a bonus action to make an attack with this weapon..." seems like a small asterisk to put on one spell for the sake of an interesting tactical option for players, IMO. But you're right that it is probably a balance issue in this one case. I don't know of other cases that would be particularly problematic though -- and any that are you can do similar marginal errata to limit them to once per turn.

[Unoriginal]

Well, has anyone examples of bonus actions they would like to use as action? Or have used as action in the past during a session?

[Vogie]

http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Can a bonus action be used as an action or vice versa? For example, can a bard use a bonus action to grant a Bardic Inspiration die and an action to cast healing word?
No. Actions and bonus actions aren’t interchange- able. In the example, the bard could use Bardic Inspiration or healing word on a turn, not both.

I understand the reason they'd do that. Same reason they'd not want a, say, Hexblade warlock to launch both Hex and Hexblade's Curse before they attack.

Still seems kind of lame.

[ciarannihill]

Well, has anyone examples of bonus actions they would like to use as action? Or have used as action in the past during a session?

I've had a Bard/Lock try to Misty Step (to remain within Counterspell range of an enemy) and use Bardic Inspiration on the same turn, which didn't seem unreasonable to me so I allowed it.

Doesn't come up often, but I'm inclined in a game like DnD 5E to say we need a reason to prevent innovative play, rather than a reason to allow it. But, I understand that how I run my table isn't how everyone chooses to run theirs and I respect that.

[ImproperJustice]

Well, has anyone examples of bonus actions they would like to use as action? Or have used as action in the past during a session?

Came up recently in a game we played where the EK used a main action to summon his weapon back to his hand (listed as a bonus action), to then use it as a focus to cast Misty Step.
Which I now realize doesn’t need a focus to cast, but maybe someone can get the drift.

Maybe a Sorceror that cast Storm Sphere wants to shoot lightning (a bonus action granted by the spell) while casting Misty Step or Sanctuary.

[GlenSmash!]

Spiritual weapon is cast only once. Then you use your bonus action to make it attack and move, and you can use your main action for anything including other leveled spells.

Or, if you authorize to use Action for your Bonus Action, you could use it to attack twice with Spiritual Weapon, thanks to your two bonus actions.

Ah gotcha.

I knew I was missing something :smallbiggrin:

[DrowPiratRobrts]

http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Can a bonus action be used as an action or vice versa? For example, can a bard use a bonus action to grant a Bardic Inspiration die and an action to cast healing word?
No. Actions and bonus actions aren’t interchange- able. In the example, the bard could use Bardic Inspiration or healing word on a turn, not both.

Thanks for this. It seems pretty clear here. I'm official breaking the RAW, but as I said I think this RAW is silly. I just kind of wanted to know if it was DM's discretion or if a legit "house rule" needed to be created for this case.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Now I hear you say "Unoriginal, you fun-hating jerk, why would it be a problem?" Well, for one, both actions and bonus actions are balanced around characters having one of each per turn, and doubling that ammount (even at the cost of the other) can make balanced things that seems innocuous enough much, much powerful. Heck, a fair number of class features are about letting you do two Actions a turn by eating your bonus action, and those are rarely considered weak features. Doing the reverse (doing two bonus actions at the cost of your action) is equaly powerful...

...but ask yourself those questions:

a) which things that you can do with a Bonus Action are you unable to do with an Action, with the current rules? Most of the bonus actions are spells (racial or from the class), special class features, or something you can already do with Action but that is speed up by a class feature, with other extra powers granted by Feats or magic item use

b) Are you disatisfied to only be able to do one BA per turn, or is it just truly a "you should be able to do a quick action slower?

c) What happens when you have someone uses two BA/turn?

Unoriginal, you fun-hating jerk, why would it be a problem? Teehee...

But seriously, the question was genuine. Just wondering why you can't do a quick action more slowly. Doesn't make much sense to me, but WotC has several rules that don't make sense to me. On a side note, I completely disagree that being able to use an Action as a Bonus Action is just as powerful as being able to use a Bonus Action as an Action. Actions are more powerful across the board and there are many many more options to choose from. Getting two Actions w/o a Bonus Action is much better than getting two Bonus Actions w/o an Action.

[MaxWilson]

Unoriginal, you fun-hating jerk, why would it be a problem? Teehee...

But seriously, the question was genuine. Just wondering why you can't do a quick action more slowly. Doesn't make much sense to me, but WotC has several rules that don't make sense to me. On a side note, I completely disagree that being able to use an Action as a Bonus Action is just as powerful as being able to use a Bonus Action as an Action. Actions are more powerful across the board and there are many many more options to choose from. Getting two Actions w/o a Bonus Action is much better than getting two Bonus Actions w/o an Action.

This thread opened by asking, "Do any problems arise if you allow this?" So far the only things we've been able to come up with are "you could Shadow Jump twice in a turn" and "you could attack twice with Spiritual Weapon in a turn." Spiritual Weapon x2 seems to me weaker than Action (cantrip? spell? attack?) + Spiritual Weapon, so that's not a problem. Shadow Jump x2 is the only one that looks at all like a potential problem (since it's faster than Dash).

[DrowPiratRobrts]

This thread opened by asking, "Do any problems arise if you allow this?" So far the only things we've been able to come up with are "you could Shadow Jump twice in a turn" and "you could attack twice with Spiritual Weapon in a turn." Spiritual Weapon x2 seems to me weaker than Action (cantrip? spell? attack?) + Spiritual Weapon, so that's not a problem. Shadow Jump x2 is the only one that looks at all like a potential problem (since it's faster than Dash).

That depends on the Monk's speed, because Shadow Step is limited to 60 ft (x2=120). You can take the dash action twice and potentially get over 120 ft of movement, especially as a wood elf. There might be a rule against that as well, but I don't recall one. A rogue could dash as an action then as a bonus action RAW if there isn't a rule preventing it. Likewise the Monk can do this by spending a ki point.

EDIT: A level 6 Wood Elf Monk has a speed of 50 ft, so you would have 150 total if you dash twice.

[Garfunion]

I’m not sure if this was mentioned here but, allowing a person to use an action for a bonus action does tip toe on the sorcerers shtick. They are the only class (that I’m aware of) that has been designed to break the action economy.

[ciarannihill]

I’m not sure if this was mentioned here but, allowing a person to use an action for a bonus action does tip toe on the sorcerers shtick. They are the only class (that I’m aware of) that has been designed to break the action economy.

Except in the opposite direction - they can use Bonus Actions to perform Actions. Sorcerers are more efficient magically via sorcery points, this is a decision to be less efficient when tactically advantageous -- anyone can do that.

[Garfunion]

Except in the opposite direction - they can use Bonus Actions to perform Actions. Sorcerers are more efficient magically via sorcery points, this is a decision to be less efficient when tactically advantageous -- anyone can do that.
A sorcerer can also twin a bonus action spell like healing word.
There are very few unique non-magical bonus action in the game.
I just don’t see the benefit to allow everyone to break the action economy. Just my opinion.

If you could, give me a good tactical use of replacing an action with a bonus action.

[Theodoxus]

It's not "replace an action with a bonus action". It's replacing a bonus action with an action.

A->BA is near broken, and only available to Rogues, who pay a cost in combat ability (smaller weapons, lighter armor) and Sorcerer's, who pay a huge cost (tiny spells known, sorcery points to use).

BA->A isn't broken, but opens up tactical options not otherwise available.

[Garfunion]

It's not "replace an action with a bonus action". It's replacing a bonus action with an action.

A->BA is near broken, and only available to Rogues, who pay a cost in combat ability (smaller weapons, lighter armor) and Sorcerer's, who pay a huge cost (tiny spells known, sorcery points to use).

BA->A isn't broken, but opens up tactical options not otherwise available.

What tactical options?

[MaxWilson]

That depends on the Monk's speed, because Shadow Step is limited to 60 ft (x2=120). You can take the dash action twice and potentially get over 120 ft of movement, especially as a wood elf. There might be a rule against that as well, but I don't recall one. A rogue could dash as an action then as a bonus action RAW if there isn't a rule preventing it. Likewise the Monk can do this by spending a ki point.

EDIT: A level 6 Wood Elf Monk has a speed of 50 ft, so you would have 150 total if you dash twice.

Nitpick: Dash doesn't double your movement allowance, it just adds your speed to your movement allowance. A fighter who Dashes and then Action Surges (Dash) goes 90', not 120'.

A Shadow Monk who Shadow Jumps twice would go 120', plus his normal movement speed. In all likelihood that's further than he would go with a double Dash.

[Contrast]

What tactical options?

A glamour bard could for instance use healing word on someone unconscious and then bardic inspiration them to give them THP and a free move ignoring opportunity attacks to get them out of dodge.

Normally to do that they'd need to run into touch range and use cure wounds or something in order to have their bonus action free.

As I said upthread, I have no idea if there are any broken options but if you were to houserule it I'd caveat it to players to say each one would be considered on a case by case basis in case there's some weird interaction.

The argument about them being quicker actions isn't super compelling to me in that bonus actions are clearly a game feature rather than trying to emulate something real, at least to me.

[Garfunion]

A glamour bard could for instance use healing word on someone unconscious and then bardic inspiration them to give them THP and a free move ignoring opportunity attacks to get them out of dodge.

Normally to do that they'd need to run into touch range and use cure wounds or something in order to have their bonus action free.

As I said upthread, I have no idea if there are any broken options but if you were to houserule it I'd caveat it to players to say each one would be considered on a case by case basis in case there's some weird interaction.

The argument about them being quicker actions isn't super compelling to me in that bonus actions are clearly a game feature rather than trying to emulate something real, at least to me.
That is a good tactic for two bonus actions but you diminish the tactical-ness of certain builds like.
A sorcerer/bard with distant spell metamagic can do the same thing with cure wounds.
Or a bard with a familiar.

[Willie the Duck]

What tactical options?

All those things that have already been mentioned. Double spiritual-weapon attacking being the one that stands out to me as an example of not-overpowered, but still something opened up by allowing this minor change. It's a tactical option. There's got to be some situation where it would be useful (I guess if you have no other ranged offensive option available, or the ones you have are strongly resisted by your current opposition). All and all, we aren't finding anything too out there.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Nitpick: Dash doesn't double your movement allowance, it just adds your speed to your movement allowance. A fighter who Dashes and then Action Surges (Dash) goes 90', not 120'.

A Shadow Monk who Shadow Jumps twice would go 120', plus his normal movement speed. In all likelihood that's further than he would go with a double Dash.

Yeah, that's how I did the math on the double dash. Hehe, sounds like Mario Kart now. But that's a fair point about your movement rarely exceeding that distance. I didn't think about adding movement speed to the double Shadow Step. Either way, I hardly find this game breaking as it would only be useful for running away or pursuing someone, and you'd have to wait until your next turn to do anything if you caught them.

[Willie the Duck]

Spiritual weapon is cast only once. Then you use your bonus action to make it attack and move, and you can use your main action for anything including other leveled spells.

Or, if you authorize to use Action for your Bonus Action, you could use it to attack twice with Spiritual Weapon, thanks to your two bonus actions.

Oh, this reminds me of another potential usage--the typical Life Cleric 1/Lore Bard X-1 who picks up Aura of Vitality. Mind you, in-combat healing has not been the most abusive thing ever, but being able to toss out two 2d6+5 heals at (short) range is definitely useful (not, in my mind, an argument for or against, just that there is a value to being able to do so).

[Danielqueue1]

also you control animate objects with a bonus action. Being able to do that twice in one round turns it from a nice pick, to an absolute blender. with up to 20 attacks in a single round at lowest level cast.

also being able to take a bonus action as an action would allow you to use the ready action on bonus action functions.

as a result one could use a bonus action to move healing spirit over the next ally in the turn order, then ready an action to move it over the next one after that. in combat healing's effectiveness is dm dependent, (my dm does not hesitate to attack downed characters and our high level campaign has seen enough disintegrate that everyone in the party has the spell memorized) so your mileage may vary, but that could mean two downed PCs back in the fight with no additional resource expenditure.

[NaughtyTiger]

Barb/Cleric - Cast spiritual weapon as action, then rage as bonus action.
You still get 1 attack for the round (spiritual weapon) and the damage reduction for combat stuff.


Barb/Fighter - Rage + SecondWind
Barb/Fighter - End Rage + SecondWind

[DrowPiratRobrts]

also being able to take a bonus action as an action would allow you to use the ready action on bonus action functions.



This might be one of the best uses I've seen.

[Sorlock Master]

This might be one of the best uses I've seen.

Except you can't ready a bonus action, only an action. So even if you ruled you could use an in place of an action you still wouldn't be able to ready a bonus action.

Personally I just make judgement calls on the fly when it comes to this. I have had people ask if they could cast Spiritual Weapon as an action, and I let them. Then they say oh I'm going to use my bonus action to attack with my spiritual weapon, and I'm like nope.

[DevilMcam]

As far as I know,
The reason why you can not take Bonus actions as action is because, a bonus action is not an action that is "Quick" enough to not disturb action economy, it is rather an action that is "light" enough to not disturb action economy.

Bonus actions are taken "During" regular actions.
When you dual wield swords, you do not strike with right hand THEN left hand, but with both at once for increased effect
when you cast healing word or give bardic inspiration, you do not mutter the incantation or speach after you action but during it.

Not swinging you sword is not affecting how much words you can speak in 6 seconds.
Yes that does not really explain why you can't offhand strike and rage the same turn, but the main Idea is that Actions, like spellslots and HPs are abstract things

[ciarannihill]

Barb/Cleric - Cast spiritual weapon as action, then rage as bonus action.
You still get 1 attack for the round (spiritual weapon) and the damage reduction for combat stuff.


Barb/Fighter - Rage + SecondWind
Barb/Fighter - End Rage + SecondWind

You can also Wild Shape + Rage if you're a Druid/Barbarian, but remember Rage has a limitation:


It ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven't attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then

Emphasis mine.

This limits how things can work alongside Rage in a lot of ways, and as was pointed out previously a regular Attack action is almost guaranteed to be more powerful than using Spiritual Weapon to attack, especially once you factor in Raging, so I see no harm here.

The more examples come out it just seems like people using their spells in an innovative way.



A sorcerer can also twin a bonus action spell like healing word.
There are very few unique non-magical bonus action in the game.
I just don’t see the benefit to allow everyone to break the action economy. Just my opinion.

The reason this is powerful is because it doesn't preclude the use of an additional Action on top of it. You can Twin any spell, that's why it's strong. This isn't twinning, this is sacrificing the Action for the sake of doing something else that is "smaller/quicker". It's not breaking the action economy -- Sorcerers break it by being more efficient than the Action economy usually allows for, this houserule allows people to be less efficient than average when they view it as tactically sound and/or in niche circumstances where it makes sense to do so.

Like I said previously, though: IMHO RPGs like DnD need justification to limit innovative tactical decision making, not a justification to allow it. This is a philosophical question of how you (the collective you, not you in particular) run your games, and I can absolutely see the other side of it.

[Dr. Cliché]

Would it help if you said that you can't use the same bonus action twice in a round?

So if you use your bonus action to Shadow Jump, you can give up your action to perform a second bonus action - but that bonus action can't be to shadow jump again.

[MaxWilson]

Oh, this reminds me of another potential usage--the typical Life Cleric 1/Lore Bard X-1 who picks up Aura of Vitality. Mind you, in-combat healing has not been the most abusive thing ever, but being able to toss out two 2d6+5 heals at (short) range is definitely useful (not, in my mind, an argument for or against, just that there is a value to being able to do so).

Ah, we have our first real abuse: doubling the healing from Aura of Vitality, especially out of combat.

Definitely should rule that Aura of Vitality can only be used once per round.

[ciarannihill]

Ah, we have our first real abuse: doubling the healing from Aura of Vitality, especially out of combat.

Definitely should rule that Aura of Vitality can only be used once per round.

As far as I know,
The reason why you can not take Bonus actions as action is because, a bonus action is not an action that is "Quick" enough to not disturb action economy, it is rather an action that is "light" enough to not disturb action economy.

Bonus actions are taken "During" regular actions.
When you dual wield swords, you do not strike with right hand THEN left hand, but with both at once for increased effect
when you cast healing word or give bardic inspiration, you do not mutter the incantation or speach after you action but during it.

Not swinging you sword is not affecting how much words you can speak in 6 seconds.
Yes that does not really explain why you can't offhand strike and rage the same turn, but the main Idea is that Actions, like spellslots and HPs are abstract things

As Dr. Cliché suggested you can simply rule that a player can't take the same Bonus Action twice. This solves both of these issues in my mind, so the same "feel" of a Bonus Action happening during another action if that's important to you, but it also prevents "doubling up" on activated effects from persistent spells or features which could be abusable in theory.

[Vogie]

Would it help if you said that you can't use the same bonus action twice in a round?

So if you use your bonus action to Shadow Jump, you can give up your action to perform a second bonus action - but that bonus action can't be to shadow jump again.

That's not a bad compromise. It'd certainly get rid of the Spiritual Weapon/Animate object Cheese.

Any caster that has spells and/or class abilities that rely largely on Bonus actions would allow them to just nova more quickly

[Willie the Duck]

Like I said previously, though: IMHO RPGs like DnD need justification to limit innovative tactical decision making, not a justification to allow it. This is a philosophical question of how you (the collective you, not you in particular) run your games, and I can absolutely see the other side of it.

Certainly with in the play-culture and spirit of the game, I think this is a good thing. One should always be careful about constraining innovative thinking. I think the 'rulings over rules' spirit we've been suggested to follow with this edition covers this for me personally. Within the framework of 'the guys who actually have to write the rulebook (and field calls about how broken the game is every time someone finds an exploit),' I am less certain.

Mostly I think, for a philosophical justification for the counter-example, I would go with 'you were never promised that you could take two separate actions in a turn. If you want to do so, you search your list of potential actions for a regular action activity you want to do, and a bonus action activity you want to do, and then do them both. If none of those are appealing, you do one or the other.' Kinda harsh when I say it out loud (/in print), but in general I think the sentiment is sound (but arguable).



As Dr. Cliché suggested you can simply rule that a player can't take the same Bonus Action twice. This solves both of these issues in my mind, so the same "feel" of a Bonus Action happening during another action if that's important to you, but it also prevents "doubling up" on activated effects from persistent spells or features which could be abusable in theory.

Certainly, and maintains a bit of martial-magical parity.

[MaxWilson]

As Dr. Cliché suggested you can simply rule that a player can't take the same Bonus Action twice. This solves both of these issues in my mind, so the same "feel" of a Bonus Action happening during another action if that's important to you, but it also prevents "doubling up" on activated effects from persistent spells or features which could be abusable in theory.

Yes, it is simple. I'm not sure I have a problem with the idea of taking Spiritual Weapon twice, but I doubt I'd complain about not being able to do it either, especially if the DM explained his rationale ("light" not "quick").

[Vogie]

Certainly with in the play-culture and spirit of the game, I think this is a good thing. One should always be careful about constraining innovative thinking. I think the 'rulings over rules' spirit we've been suggested to follow with this edition covers this for me personally. Within the framework of 'the guys who actually have to write the rulebook (and field calls about how broken the game is every time someone finds an exploit),' I am less certain.

Mostly I think, for a philosophical justification for the counter-example, I would go with 'you were never promised that you could take two separate actions in a turn. If you want to do so, you search your list of potential actions for a regular action activity you want to do, and a bonus action activity you want to do, and then do them both. If none of those are appealing, you do one or the other.' Kinda harsh when I say it out loud (/in print), but in general I think the sentiment is sound (but arguable).


And if a DM is on the fence about it, there are plenty of levelers to pull to stop it from being an issue.

Making a "Quick Thinking" feat, that allows a player to use an action to perform a spell or effect that would normally require a bonus action, thus limiting the effect to those who have that feat.
Allowing a second Bonus action to take the place of an action, but requiring it to be stolen from the next turn, sacrificing only an action, but keeping the same number of bonus actions over a span of two turns.
Allowing a second Bonus action to take the place of an action, with the caveat that both bonus actions must be different
Allowing a second Bonus action to take the place of an action, and the bonus actions can be the same, and only if the spell or ability requires concentration. However, it cuts the duration of the spell in half each time (allowing Animate Objects, but not Spiritual weapon)
Allowing a second Bonus action to take the place of an action, without mechanical restrictions but only after pre-approval by the DM before the session begins

[DanyBallon]

On a side note, how would you threat Bonus Action that are conditional to an action? (i.e. all those "When you do X you may use a Bonus action to do Y")

[Willie the Duck]

On a side note, how would you threat Bonus Action that are conditional to an action? (i.e. all those "When you do X you may use a Bonus action to do Y")

Do you mean like shield master and 'when you do X(attack action) you may use a Bonus action to do Y(shove action)?' I guess there's a tweet saying X is supposed to have to occur first to trigger Y, but my group at least is not changing our playstyle to match.

[ciarannihill]

On a side note, how would you threat Bonus Action that are conditional to an action? (i.e. all those "When you do X you may use a Bonus action to do Y")

They're still conditional on having taken that action, there's no need to change that. This isn't about changing how all Bonus Actions work, just giving players more options.

Bonus Actions would still only doable when all other conditions needed to do them are met - you still can't cast a Bonus Action spell without the relevant S/M/V components, to use an obvious but illustrative example.

[Contrast]

Its worth saying not being able to use the same action you did as a bonus action is technically a slight nerf to rogues who do legitimately have the ability to take an action and then the same action as a bonus action with some utility (dash/dash or a thief rogue might want to use an item twice).

[NaughtyTiger]

a regular Attack action is almost guaranteed to be more powerful than using Spiritual Weapon to attack, especially once you factor in Raging, so I see no harm here.

and on turn 2, you get both, regular attack and bonus attack.

[ciarannihill]

and on turn 2, you get both, regular attack and bonus attack.

I mean sure, but by the time you could have both of those things you'd have to be a level 3 Cleric (or Divine Soul Sorc) and a level 1 Barbarian...

And even then you're only dealing (assuming maxed rolled stats to err on the side of it being too powerful) 2d6 + 1d8 + 12 (23.5 avg) damage assuming both hit. And this is on turn 2 of combat where turn 1 would have dealt a mere 9.5 avg damage.

To compare, at level 4 as a Zealot Barbarian with point buy (16 Strength) you get a Reckless GWM attack that deals 3d6 + 17 (27.5 avg) damage. And this is on the first turn of combat alone, doesn't require the set up turn and leaves available the Bonus Action to do the follow up attack from GWM if you crit or kill something. On turn two you can follow up with the same attack. And it didn't cost any spell slots.

Allowing the former to be possible still seems fine power-wise to me still.


EDIT: Honestly it might even be stronger to just be a War Domain Cleric to get the Bonus Action attack with Barbarian rather than worrying about Spiritual Weapon.

[MaxWilson]

Here's another case where using an action instead of a bonus action is advantageous:

If I cast Healing Word (or some other bonus action spell) and someone Counterspells me, by strict RAW I cannot Counterspell that Counterspell because a bonus action spell precludes non-cantrip spellcasting on that turn. But if I cast Healing Action as an action instead of a bonus action, I can Counterspell per usual.

I can imagine this being relevant for a number of defensive spells and healing spells including Misty Step, Healing Spirit, and even Divine Word. When you need a Misty Step it's typically because something is about to eat your face off, and you really don't want someone to Counterspell it.

[NaughtyTiger]

I mean sure, but by the time you could have both of those things you'd have to be a level 3 Cleric (or Divine Soul Sorc) and a level 1 Barbarian...

And even then you're only dealing (assuming maxed rolled stats to err on the side of it being too powerful) 2d6 + 1d8 + 12 (23.5 avg) damage assuming both hit.

To compare, at level 4 as a Zealot Barbarian with point buy (16 Strength) you get a Reckless GWM attack that deals 3d6 + 17 (27.5 avg) damage.


To prove I was wrong, you decided what kind of character I have to play. "Eye of Grummsh is stupid, you must min/max and go full barbarian" (not your words, but definitely your point)

[ciarannihill]

To prove I was wrong, you decided what kind of character I have to play. "Eye of Grummsh is stupid, you must min/max and go full barbarian" (not your words, but definitely your point)

My point was simply that another character that doesn't utilize this ruling is just as effective. I'm not telling you what you have to play, I'm merely making the point that having both isn't unusually powerful or effective.

I never said or even remotely suggested anything is stupid, merely that it wasn't abnormally powerful compared to what you can do RAW. It wasn't in any way a value judgment, you made a point to counter my "I see no harm in that", and my point was still "I see no harm in that because *insert math here*".

It was merely a calculative comparison to prove how okay with the former existing I was, not to tell you it wasn't okay somehow. It was literally the exact opposite of that.

[Willie the Duck]

Calm down, ciarannihill. You're dealing with someone who has decided to tell you what your point is, I think you're sitting on the moral high ground.


Here's another case where using an action instead of a bonus action is advantageous:

If I cast Healing Word (or some other bonus action spell) and someone Counterspells me, by strict RAW I cannot Counterspell that Counterspell because a bonus action spell precludes non-cantrip spellcasting on that turn. But if I cast Healing Action as an action instead of a bonus action, I can Counterspell per usual.


This isn't inherent to making this change, but I think if we start down the road of altering what goes with which action, I think clarifying the whole quickened-action casting + anything-but-cantrip would be something I'd have already addressed (as in it is by far a higher priority). I have no factual evidence to support this, but I seriously suspect the can't-counterspell after quickened/bonus spell is because they didn't think of reaction actions on your turn when they crafted that wording.

[ciarannihill]

Calm down, ciarannihill. You're dealing with someone who has decided to tell you what your point is, I think you're sitting on the moral high ground.

I had only been intending to emphasis specific things for the sake of clearing up my point, not to come off as aggressive. As ever text only communication can mask nuance/change intended readings to other things. I see how it probably came across looking at it again given your comment, though.

The main thing I think is important to remember is that this isn't a ripple effect idea, it doesn't change any other rules associated with Bonus Actions or spells, unless you make an errata about using the same "Bonus Action" twice in a turn not okay, but even that errata only changes that alone. Any additional houseruling isn't really what the initial question is about.

[MaxWilson]

I had only been intending to emphasis specific things for the sake of clearing up my point, not to come off as aggressive.

No worries, you're fine. If anything you come off as meek and friendly.

[jas61292]

As far as I know,
The reason why you can not take Bonus actions as action is because, a bonus action is not an action that is "Quick" enough to not disturb action economy, it is rather an action that is "light" enough to not disturb action economy.

Bonus actions are taken "During" regular actions.
When you dual wield swords, you do not strike with right hand THEN left hand, but with both at once for increased effect
when you cast healing word or give bardic inspiration, you do not mutter the incantation or speach after you action but during it.

Not swinging you sword is not affecting how much words you can speak in 6 seconds.
Yes that does not really explain why you can't offhand strike and rage the same turn, but the main Idea is that Actions, like spellslots and HPs are abstract things

This is incredibly important. I feel like many people who come from past editions think of them asthe 5e equivalent of 3.5s swift actions, or something similar, but they are not.

They are not lesser actions allowed on the same turn as stronger actions. They are a secondary type of action, neither superior, nor inferior, and balanced with the idea that you get away most one of each kind of action.

Allowing two bonus actions might not break ther game, but is a very unnecessary change, based largely on incorrect views of what they represent, that has a large potential for unintended consequences.

[ciarannihill]

Allowing two bonus actions might not break ther game, but is a very unnecessary change, based largely on incorrect views of what they represent, that has a large potential for unintended consequences.

I disagree that it's an "incorrect view" since it's simply an interpretation, just like yours. In my view we need compelling reasons to disallow interesting tactical and decision-making opportunities, not to allow them.

But even if you view it that way, I would argue that all homebrewing and houseruling are "unnecessary changes", insofar as they don't need to occur for the game to run, but if it enhances the experience for the players and/or DMs then it's a super valid change.

The whole point of this topic is to explore those unintended consequences you mention, and see if any of them are problematic enough to disallow this houserule that OP and others have determined would otherwise improve their experience.

In the absence of gamebreaking consequences the response shouldn't be to judge the value of the houserule by saying "you're having fun wrong even if it isn't broken, because x, y or z."


Not sure how well I'm articulating my point here, but essentially it's this: Saying we shouldn't think about or use the houserule because it might have the consequences we're discussing in this topic is not constructive.

[Willie the Duck]

I disagree that it's an "incorrect view" since it's simply an interpretation, just like yours. In my view we need compelling reasons to disallow interesting tactical and decision-making opportunities, not to allow them.

I agree completely with the basic premise. However, I want to at least look at the concept of interesting opportunities in light of one factor:

Whether allowing this house rule or not, you are never disallowed from doing any specific interesting tactical actions or important character decisions. Only from doing two specific things in the same round (and that's excluding ~20-30' of movement, an object interaction action, some brief talking, reactions, etc.). If you do not care about doubling up, you can do any action in a round (on many cases simply not using your bonus action, but perhaps using the bonus action, but not the normal one). For the first 26 years of D&D gaming, one was generally precluded from two distinct action-like activities in the same round, and through at least 3e (I'm not a 4e expert, but maybe through that one as well), being able to take a second action-like activity in a round was a rather exceptional case, only allowed through some very specific spells or some very expensive metamagics.

While I'm generally in favor of (particularly once we are talking house-rules) a burden-of-proof-on-the-disallow-argument stance, I'm not going to automatically side that way, because I don't think the system really ever promised us easy access to two actions in a round. That's supposed to be the exceptional case if you can figure out two things you want to do, and lining it up so that they both can happen this round. Hence, 'bonus.'