How powerful is a Bonus action?

[Yunru]

Say you have an item that allows you to take a second Bonus action each turn, what rarity would it be?
If you had a race with it as a feature, how much of that race's abilities would it take up?
Would you have it as a feat? Would it be all or just part of the feat?
Etc.

[Aett_Thorn]

It depends on what Bonus Actions you have available to you. For instance, Rogues and Monks will be able to gain a lot from this, while a Wizard may not get much out of it. A two-hand fighter wouldn’t get anything out of it, unless they had Polearm Mastery, which would allow them to make another attack.

Basically, it depends.

[Thorgrim]

It depends on what Bonus Actions you have available to you. For instance, Rogues and Monks will be able to gain a lot from this, while a Wizard may not get much out of it. A two-hand fighter wouldn’t get anything out of it, unless they had Polearm Mastery, which would allow them to make another attack.

Basically, it depends.

A two hand fighter with GWM could potentially use it if they killed two creatures or got two crits.

[Cynthaer]

The problem is that there isn't "an amount of power" that you can estimate for a second bonus action.

Or, to put it another way, the power level of a second bonus action is wildly unpredictable and context-dependent.

That's because bonus actions are a generic complexity-limiting mechanism. A thing happens as a bonus action not because of how powerful that specific thing is, but because it's intended to be "an extra thing" that happens in the same turn as an action.

Now, that doesn't mean you can't possibly allow two bonus actions without completely breaking the game. But I'd argue that it's opening a can of worms that doesn't really need to be opened, because it's such a mechanically "gamey" thing to do that there's probably a better way to get the flavor of a specific item or race.

So I would approach the question from the other direction: Given a specific item or race, is "two bonus actions" really the most appropriate feature to put on it?

[Man_Over_Game]

Cynthaer is onto something here.

You're more likely to not have a use for your Bonus Action than you are to have too many. In the instances where you *could* have too many uses for it, it becomes a big deal.

For example, a Monk could afford to Dodge and Unarmed Strike in the first turn. You can reliably give yourself roughly +4 to your AC and deal twice as many attacks to people as anyone else, all at once.

Sorcerer/Warlock casts Hex and Hexblade's Curse on turn 1 and then uses Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast. Then Quicken EB twice, for a total of 3 castings on turn two. You're talking (1d6+3+1d10+Charisma)x8 at level 5. With a +3 Cha Mod, you're talking 120 damage in two turns at level 5, which cost the character 2 Sorcery Points, a level 1 spell and Hexblade's Curse.

But give it to a Wizard, and he's probably just wonder what the hell you'd expect him to do with it.

[fbelanger]

Say you have an item that allows you to take a second Bonus action each turn, what rarity would it be?
If you had a race with it as a feature, how much of that race's abilities would it take up?
Would you have it as a feat? Would it be all or just part of the feat?
Etc.

A sorlock will be very happy to make another quicken eldritch blast.
Depending on hex and level it can worth 50 points of damage.

[sophontteks]

A race can not have it at any cost without being unbalanced. This ability is extremely strong. 5e's balance rides on its limited action economy. On a character who hasn't built around it, the power may vary. On someone who is building his character around it, it would be pretty game-breaking.

[JoeJ]

I think if you allow a rogue to have that ability you'll end up regretting it.

[Daphne]

Say you have an item that allows you to take a second Bonus action each turn, what rarity would it be?
It wouldn't exist.


If you had a race with it as a feature, how much of that race's abilities would it take up?
Every single one, not even a +1 to a stat would remain.


Would you have it as a feat?

No.

[Yunru]

And now the follow up question:
What level would a spell that only gave you an extra bonus action be?

[Rukelnikov]

Hermes Sandals:

Legendary, requires attunement.

You can take the dash action as a bonus action. You may take up to two bonus actions per round.

Perhaps it should be an artifact...

[Man_Over_Game]

And now the follow up question:
What level would a spell that only gave you an extra bonus action be?

Uh....what else does it do?

Pretty much every spell does something by itself. Those that don't are tied into very specific actions that are available for anyone to use, like True Strike (requires an attack) or Time Warp (let's you do anything while it lasts).

The only real example of a spell that requires more than itself as the final result is Haste, which gives you an extra Action and a bunch of specific things that you can do with it.

The only way I'd see a spell that granted an extra Bonus Action is if it explicitly said what you could do with that Bonus Action. Like saying you can only use it to cast a Ranger spell that has a Bonus Action (considering most BA Ranger spells require Concentration, you can't stack them and the bonus is pretty limited.) Or saying that you can use this Bonus Action to attack or cast a cantrip. Something very specific to use with that Bonus Action.

If it's just a blanket "Gain a Bonus Action for an hour" spell (which, I'll be honest, is a pretty lazy solution), I'd probably value it as a level 4-8 spell, depending on who you're allowed to cast it on and how long it can last. But the idea is a hybrid of "unusable garbage" and "breaking reality".

[JoeJ]

And now the follow up question:
What level would a spell that only gave you an extra bonus action be?

I wouldn't allow that spell at all.

It's worthwhile to note that the section in the DMG on modifying the game specifically warns against increasing the number of bonus actions or reactions that a creature can take.

[Rukelnikov]

It seems like a bad idea to me.

As a player, I would feel uncomfortable having such an item, as it would make my character incomp

Why would it make you incomp(lete?/etent?)

[follacchioso]

Sorry, pressed enter by accident! :-)

I think that it would make it incompatible with the rest of dnd. Part of the fun of the game is optimizing your character and comparing it with other groups and character. However, when you start diverting too much from the base rules, the fun goes away as your character is too dependent on an a special ability given by a benevolent DM.

Moreover, if another player in my group received such an item, I would start worrying whether the DM knows what they're doing. It seems something that would break the game.

[Yunru]

If it's just a blanket "Gain a Bonus Action for an hour" spell (which, I'll be honest, is a pretty lazy solution), I'd probably value it as a level 4-8 spell, depending on who you're allowed to cast it on and how long it can last. But the idea is a hybrid of "unusable garbage" and "breaking reality".
So you'd rate it higher than a spell that gives you an action with roughly similar uses (an single extra attack, or dodge, etc.), plus doubles your speed and increases your AC?

[Man_Over_Game]

So you'd rate it higher than a spell that gives you an action with roughly similar uses (an single extra attack, or dodge, etc.), plus doubles your speed and increases your AC?

You might have passed over it, but I showed exactly what happens if someone is allowed to have an additional bonus action when they can plan around it.

A level 5 Warlock/Sorcerer with a +3 Mod:

As normal:
Turn 1:Hex, EB, 24 damage
Turn 2: Hexblade's Curse, EB, 30 damage
Turn 3: Quickened Spell, Eldritch Blast x2, 60 damage.

Total of 114 damage across 3 turns.

With your example:
Turn 1: Hex, Hexblade's Curse, EB: 30
Turn 2: Quickened Spellx2, Eldritch Blast x3: 90 damage
Turn 3: Quickened Spellx2, Eldritch Blast x3: 90 damage

Total of 210 damage across 3 turns.

That's nearly double the damage output of one of the highest damage builds in the game. Not even Haste can do that. Haste also has a major drawback for when it ends.

[Rukelnikov]

You might have passed over it, but I showed exactly what happens if someone is allowed to have an additional bonus action when they can plan around it.

A level 5 Warlock/Sorcerer with a +3 Mod:

As normal:
Turn 1:Hex, EB, 24 damage
Turn 2: Hexblade's Curse, EB, 30 damage
Turn 3: Quickened Spell, Eldritch Blast x2, 60 damage.

Total of 114 damage across 3 turns.

With your example:
Turn 1: Hex, Hexblade's Curse, EB: 30
Turn 2: Quickened Spellx2, Eldritch Blast x3: 90 damage
Turn 3: Quickened Spellx2, Eldritch Blast x3: 90 damage

Total of 210 damage across 3 turns.

That's nearly double the damage output of one of the highest damage builds in the game. Not even Haste can do that. Haste also has a major drawback for when it ends.

Technically, this isn't allowed:

"A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

You couldn't use the second bonus action to cast anything. However, a monk could do 4 extra attacks, and I'm sure if anyone cares to optimize around it, it would be preeeeety powerful nonetheless.

EDIT: You could ofc make HC + 2EB, on round 1, which would increase total damage output after 3 rounds, and use one of the Bactions to swap Hex, effectively not losing damage for doing so. So it would already outperform "standar" Sorlock quite a bit.

[Yunru]

You might have passed over it, but I showed exactly what happens if someone is allowed to have an additional bonus action when they can plan around it.

A level 5 Warlock/Sorcerer with a +3 Mod:

As normal:
Turn 1:Hex, EB, 24 damage
Turn 2: Hexblade's Curse, EB, 30 damage
Turn 3: Quickened Spell, Eldritch Blast x2, 60 damage.

Total of 114 damage across 3 turns.

With your example:
Turn 1: Hex, Hexblade's Curse, EB: 30
Turn 2: Quickened Spellx2, Eldritch Blast x3: 90 damage
Turn 3: Quickened Spellx2, Eldritch Blast x3: 90 damage

Total of 210 damage across 3 turns.

That's nearly double the damage output of one of the highest damage builds in the game. Not even Haste can do that. Haste also has a major drawback for when it ends.

Sure, they can. If they use other limited resources on it. Also this:

Technically, this isn't allowed:

"A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

You couldn't use the second bonus action to cast anything.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Most of the characters I've seen who really needed an extra bonus action were poorly-thought-out multi-classes created by inexperienced players. Case in point: the rogue/bard in our group who can't ever make up his mind whether to use Cunning Action or Bardic Inspiration on any given round. (WTF was that guy thinking, right?) I can't think of anyone who'd benefit more than him from having an extra bonus action.

[Rukelnikov]

Most of the characters I've seen who really needed an extra bonus action were poorly-thought-out multi-classes created by inexperienced players. Case in point: the rogue/bard in our group who can't ever make up his mind whether to use Cunning Action or Bardic Inspiration on any given round. (WTF was that guy thinking, right?) I can't think of anyone who'd benefit more than him from having an extra bonus action.

A monk would

[Man_Over_Game]

EDIT: You could ofc make HC + 2EB, on round 1, which would increase total damage output after 3 rounds, and use one of the Bactions to swap Hex, effectively not losing damage for doing so. So it would already outperform "standar" Sorlock quite a bit.

The same thing is possible as a Monk/Warlock.

Hex/Hexblade's Curse in turn one.

Turn two, deal (1d6+3+3+1d6)x6, which is 78 damage. Do it again on turn 3. You're looking at dealing 182 damage over 3 turns, on top of the fact that the Monk could just decide to save the Ki points to Dodge or Disengage as needed.

[NaughtyTiger]

You couldn't use the second bonus action to cast anything.
However, a monk could do 4 extra attacks, and I'm sure if anyone cares to optimize around it,

good catch on the spell casting limit.

4 extra attacks from 1 extra bonus action, how?

[Man_Over_Game]

good catch on the spell casting limit.

4 extra attacks from 1 extra bonus action, how?

Flurry of Blows, Twice.

[NaughtyTiger]

Flurry of Blows, Twice.

then it's only 2 extra attacks... cuz a monk can already do 2 from Flurry of Blows...

[Man_Over_Game]

then it's only 2 extra attacks... cuz a monk can already do 2 from Flurry of Blows...

Depends on what they meant by 4 extra attacks. If you're considering how the game lays it out, with Extra Attack being a feature that adds to your base 1 attack, you actually have 5 Extra Attacks.

If you're talking about the number of attacks you get outside of the Attack Action, you're getting 4 Extra Attacks.

If you're talking about the number of attacks the proposed change gives the Monk, that's 2 Extra attacks.

In any scenario, the game wasn't balanced around getting 6 attacks in a turn, and even Haste only provides one more with Concentration and stuns the target with the buff when it's lost.

[NaughtyTiger]

Depends on what they meant by 4 extra attacks..

that's why i asked the question.
you answered for him.
based on your answer, i stated that 4 extra attacks is misleading, because
we are not discussing 2 bonus actions vs no bonus actions,
we are discussing 2 bonus actions vs 1 bonus action

[Misterwhisper]

then it's only 2 extra attacks... cuz a monk can already do 2 from Flurry of Blows...

Increasing your number of attacks by 50% is pretty signicant.

A cleric double attacking with spiritual weapon.

A rogue using cunning action and still dual wielding or using crossbow master twice.

Anyone with PAM attacking twice.

A monk being able to flurry and use one of their other abilities or just flurry twice.

Quicken spell broken hijinks.

Sadly it still would not make dual wielding worth it.

[Dr. Cliché]

Would it help if you specified that they can't take the same bonus action twice in a single turn?

[Rukelnikov]

A wizard could trigger many spells twice a round!

Heat metal, Melfs meteors, bigby's hand, crown of stars, probably some others.

EKs could do Cantrip + 2 attacks.

About the Monk stuff, indeed I meant FoB twice

[Eric Diaz]

Would it help if you specified that they can't take the same bonus action twice in a single turn?

That seems to be the main issue IMO.

[NaughtyTiger]

Increasing your number of attacks by 50% is pretty signicant.
technically, it's only a 33% increase (4 attacks to 6)

that said i agree it's big, more cuz riders than the damage...

[Man_Over_Game]

That seems to be the main issue IMO.

What's the point, then?

Rather, to the OP, what problem are you trying to solve?

[Misterwhisper]

technically, it's only a 33% increase (4 attacks to 6)

that said i agree it's big, more cuz riders than the damage...

4 to 6 is a 50% increase.

It is measured based on percent of the base not the end total.

2 extra is 50% of the original 4.

[bid]

So you'd rate it higher than a spell that gives you an action with roughly similar uses (an single extra attack, or dodge, etc.), plus doubles your speed and increases your AC?
Is it a concentration spell?

Both blur and haste are.

[Chronos]

Personally, I think it kind of odd that "absolutely only one bonus action per round, no exceptions" is set in stone, when a second-level fighter can get a complete second full action, with no restrictions on what you can use it for. Surely, if an extra bonus action would fundamentally break the game, then so would Action Surge.

[Rukelnikov]

Personally, I think it kind of odd that "absolutely only one bonus action per round, no exceptions" is set in stone, when a second-level fighter can get a complete second full action, with no restrictions on what you can use it for. Surely, if an extra bonus action would fundamentally break the game, then so would Action Surge.

Action surge is 1/sr only and absurdly powerful

[Frozenstep]

It's an extra hit with spiritual weapon, and allows certain spells to unload damage much faster (crown of stars, swift quiver). It makes crossbow expert+sharpshooter even stronger, as well as great weapon master and polearm master, since they both get another hit for another shot at +10 damage. It's another hit for two weapon fighting.

Probably the most ridiculous example I can think of is a battlemaster with two rogues, using commander's strike. Allowing him to do it twice means both rogues get to reaction attack and get their sneak attack off.

I think the fundamental problem with it is that sometimes, getting an extra bonus action will be insane, and other times it'll be useless. 5e seems to try to avoid very volatile design like that.

[NaughtyTiger]

4 to 6 is a 50% increase.

It is measured based on percent of the base not the end total.

2 extra is 50% of the original 4.

gah! total brain fart. my bad.

[JackPhoenix]

What level would a spell that only gave you an extra bonus action be?

Level "not putting that thing in the game".
See, the thing about bonus actions is that unlike actions, reactions and movement, characters don't have BA by default. You only get BA when you have ability to do something as a BA. That means that if, say, a wizard uses that spell, it doesn't actually do anything. He's got a bonus action (not extra bonus action, just bonus action), but nothing to do with it. He can't even use it to cast BA spell due to restrictions mentioned above, even if he's got such a spell prepared.
It also doesn't have any in-game justification for what it does, it only affects game mechanics.
Related to previous point, it affects different characters completely differently: A rogue can use it to BA Hide, attack, and BA Hide again. No other character can. A character with two light weapons (or one with Dual Wielder feat and non-light weapons) can use it to make extra BA attack. A character with two non-light weapons without DW feat can't. A monk can use it to punch someone 1-2 more times, no other character can.
In a way, it manages to be extremely vague and extremely specific in what it does at the same time.

Haste gives you extra action to do stuff with, and it fits with the fiction: you're faster. You move faster, you can better avoid attacks and effect depend on your reflexes, you act faster (even though the balance limitations on what you can use the extra action are weird... you get +2 AC, but can't use the action to Dodge). Expeditious Retreat make you run faster while you do other stuff. If you have an effect that allows you to call lightning, or smack someone with divine hammer, or have some creatures to command, you can do that.

If the theoretical spell gave you specific thing you can do thanks to it (as long as this spell is in effect, you can grant someone Bardic Inspiration without using up your BA, for example), it would be fine. As a blank check on BA use, it's not, and it doesn't make any sense.

[NaughtyTiger]

Yunru,
what inspired you to put this into the game?

does one of your players really want it?
do you really want it?

[Aquillion]

It depends on what Bonus Actions you have available to you. For instance, Rogues and Monks will be able to gain a lot from this, while a Wizard may not get much out of it.A wizard could attack with Bigby's Hand twice a turn, which would probably take it from "very strong" to "game-breakingly powerful" - 8d8 force damage a turn, for 10 turns, while still being free to cast other spells? And upcasting it adds 4d8 damage a level? Plus you still have all the other options and can combine two of them as you choose?

[sophontteks]

Personally, I think it kind of odd that "absolutely only one bonus action per round, no exceptions" is set in stone, when a second-level fighter can get a complete second full action, with no restrictions on what you can use it for. Surely, if an extra bonus action would fundamentally break the game, then so would Action Surge.
That's kinda the fighters whole deal and its once per short rest. The proposal here is every single round. It puts the class-defining feature of a fighter to shame.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I will make it a rare+ item that requires attunement.

I will make it very costly/a quest item/give other players a similar impact item tailored to their characters.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I will make it a rare+ item that requires attunement.

I will make it very costly/a quest item/give other players a similar impact item tailored to their characters.

An extra BA is actually an upgrade to having Haste cast on yourself in many respects.

Matthew Mercer made the mistake of giving a rogue a 1/short rest haste spell and regretted it so greatly that at the end of the campaign those boots disappeared into to same void the rogue did. It has tempered his newer homebrew items to be lower impact. This is more powerful than that.

This is a minimum legendary item effect and by all accounts might be too powerful for even that. I'd spend all of my attunememt slots on an item if it gave additional BA per turn.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

An extra BA is actually an upgrade to having Haste cast on yourself in many respects.

Matthew Mercer made the mistake of giving a rogue a 1/short rest haste spell and regretted it so greatly that at the end of the campaign those boots disappeared into to same void the rogue did. It has tempered his newer homebrew items to be lower impact. This is more powerful than that.

This is a minimum legendary item effect and by all accounts might be too powerful for even that. I'd spend all of my attunememt slots on an item if it gave additional BA per turn.

Well, I like a high magic game and balance the game around it.
If you will get it the other will get something that will benefit their build the same.
The enemies will still be a problem when they need to be unless the party will take the time to spot the enemies that are build to fight their character.

If the DM is willing to put a magic item like this in their table they are willing to work harder on the encounters.

I don't know who is Matthew Mercer and I didn't saw someone writing about a haste item in this thread. I will tell him that he need to learn more about how the game is build and the game mathematics so he will be able to avoid something like this in the future.

[Aquillion]

He's from Critical Role (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Role).

And the problem isn't just that it's a very powerful effect, it's that it's very powerful in a specific and unusual way.

Again, you're doubling the damage output from Bigby's Hand - that's an awfully big deal when it's already one of the best spells in the game. 8d8 force damage a turn just from your bonus actions is ridiculous and (in combination with the spell you cast each turn, or even just a good cantrip) renders almost all other sources of damage in the game obsolete.

Sure, you can balance encounters around that to continue challenging your players. But it's not just the encounter balance or difficulty that's the issue - you've severely unbalanaced player options and builds. "Pound everything to dust with Bigby's Hand" (or one of a handful of equivalent strategies that doubles in power when you have two bonus actions) is now the default answer to everything.

Also, are you just giving this magic item to one person? Or to everyone? Even if you give it to everyone, some classes and builds will benefit vastly more than others.

Now, I tend to agree that worrying too much about balance is a bad thing. It would be worth all this risk and trouble and problems if the effect was actually cool - if it added something amazing or unique or special to the game. But it isn't! It's just boringly doubling your numbers.

(A much more narrowly-defined version of this - ie. bonus actions that can only be spent on certain things - might solve all of these problems. But you especially have to consider the final point - what's supposed to be cool or fun about this power, beyond just doubling your numbers when using a power that runs off bonus actions? Then you need to restrict it in ways that ensure that it gets used in fun, interesting ways rather than boiling down to having Bigby's Hand punch things twice as fast.)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well, I like a high magic game and balance the game around it.
If you will get it the other will get something that will benefit their build the same.
The enemies will still be a problem when they need to be unless the party will take the time to spot the enemies that are build to fight their character.

If the DM is willing to put a magic item like this in their table they are willing to work harder on the encounters.

I don't know who is Matthew Mercer and I didn't saw someone writing about a haste item in this thread. I will tell him that he need to learn more about how the game is build and the game mathematics so he will be able to avoid something like this in the future.
I can tell you from experience that there are certain lines that, once crossed, absolutely destroy the balance of 5E.

Mucking around with action economy is one of those lines. Every effect that grants you additional actions is limited in effect, duration or frequency. If you introduce an item that is passively able to increase the action economy available to a character you will eventually fail to keep up without giving that magic item to every monster as well. It's a slippery slope that's best avoided.

I completely ruined my campaign under the impression that overloading my party with magic items and boons was a reasonable hurdle for me to shape the campaign around. They took out a Lich, at level 9, being outnumbered 3:1 by his minions. I erased the potential of risk from their minds and everyone got bored.

Even if you're smarter than I was at that time (not hard, hindsight makes me see clearly how big of a mistake I made) why go through all the extra work to balance it when the overwhelming majority of people around you are saying "dude, that's probably not a good idea."

[BloodSnake'sCha]

He's from Critical Role (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Role).

And the problem isn't just that it's a very powerful effect, it's that it's very powerful in a specific and unusual way.

Again, you're doubling the damage output from Bigby's Hand - that's an awfully big deal when it's already one of the best spells in the game. 8d8 force damage a turn just from your bonus actions is ridiculous and (in combination with the spell you cast each turn, or even just a good cantrip) renders almost all other sources of damage in the game obsolete.

Sure, you can balance encounters around that to continue challenging your players. But it's not just the encounter balance or difficulty that's the issue - you've severely unbalanaced player options and builds. "Pound everything to dust with Bigby's Hand" (or one of a handful of equivalent strategies that doubles in power when you have two bonus actions) is now the default answer to everything.

Also, are you just giving this magic item to one person? Or to everyone? Even if you give it to everyone, some classes and builds will benefit vastly more than others.

Now, I tend to agree that worrying too much about balance is a bad thing. It would be worth all this risk and trouble and problems if the effect was actually cool - if it added something amazing or unique or special to the game. But it isn't! It's just boringly doubling your numbers.

(A much more narrowly-defined version of this - ie. bonus actions that can only be spent on certain things - might solve all of these problems. But you especially have to consider the final point - what's supposed to be cool or fun about this power, beyond just doubling your numbers when using a power that runs off bonus actions? Then you need to restrict it in ways that ensure that it gets used in fun, interesting ways rather than boiling down to having Bigby's Hand punch things twice as fast.)

Well, I will need to know the party in order to give the other characters items with the same power.
When you do stuff like this you make a vow to castom build a lot of stuff, some like this extra work and some don't.

You can always lock it with a curse to one character.
I have a friend that play a baserker barbarian with GWP that will love to get a second BA to use his attacks.
If he will get a cursed item that can only be removed with a wish he will only get a moderate bonus and the wizard will not be able to abuse it.

You can also give the wizard something else he will want. In a game there are wills to the characters and it isn't always doing the most damage.

And in a game I have the support bard buffing/debuffing the cleric tank and the wizard DPR I have no problem with the wizard using it like this.


I can tell you from experience that there are certain lines that, once crossed, absolutely destroy the balance of 5E.

Mucking around with action economy is one of those lines. Every effect that grants you additional actions is limited in effect, duration or frequency. If you introduce an item that is passively able to increase the action economy available to a character you will eventually fail to keep up without giving that magic item to every monster as well. It's a slippery slope that's best avoided.

I completely ruined my campaign under the impression that overloading my party with magic items and boons was a reasonable hurdle for me to shape the campaign around. They took out a Lich, at level 9, being outnumbered 3:1 by his minions. I erased the potential of risk from their minds and everyone got bored.

Even if you're smarter than I was at that time (not hard, hindsight makes me see clearly how big of a mistake I made) why go through all the extra work to balance it when the overwhelming majority of people around you are saying "dude, that's probably not a good idea."
Well, you could have changed the lich on the fly, you are the DM, the only unbelievable enemy/ally.

It is not a good idea but if you are willing to do the work it can not be a bad one.

It is all based on how much work you want to do.

I will go through all the extra work to balance it because I find it fun.

[Coretex]

I think many others have highlighted the potential danger of extra Bonus Actions quite well. The only thing I would add is that you can never underestimate player ingenuity when it comes to taking advantage of a situation.

I do think there is a solution though. The item gives them the ability to do a set thing as a FREE action,

Each class gives features that can be used as a bonus action. Without those features, a Bonus Action doesn't exist.
It isn't that every character has a bonus action they need to use.
Action Economy is just: Movement<->Action... Reaction. And maybe you can do something else as a Bonus Action.
The delineation in the rules is so that they can enforce only taking One action with a time of "bonus" per turn.

So, If you want to give a player the option to do something more than they can already do:
1. give them an item that allows them to do something cool AS a bonus action. Perhaps something that isn't already available, thus making this useful for any class.
2. give them an item that allows them to do something middling as a FREE action. Like cast a less powerful cantrip, or do 1 damage to everything within 10 ft Radius, or anything that would be awkward always-on, yet is consistently useful. Another free object interaction perhaps.

[CorporateSlave]

And now the follow up question:
What level would a spell that only gave you an extra bonus action be?

I agree that this would be the only way I would want to see an extra Bonus Action granted. And even then, the only reason being Haste, an existing spell that grants an extra Action (albeit with certain caveats as to what can be accomplished with that Action).

I wouldn't say the question is so much what level would such a spell be, but what would the spell's functions and limitations be? I mean, you could justify it as a level 2 spell, since a Bonus Action has less universal use than an Action, and Haste is 3rd level.

However! I would also give it similar limitations as Haste; although I would also tamp down the "end of spell" consequences a bit, since the overall effects are less as well (no bonus to AC, Move speed, Dex save Advantage).

For the sake of argument, lets call it;
"Lesser Haste"
2nd Level
School: Transmutation
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute.
Range: Touch
Casting Time: 1 Action (1 Bonus Action?) ;)
Classes: Sorcerer, Wizard
Description: Choose a willing creature you can see. Until the spell ends, the target gains an additional Bonus Action on their Turn. This Bonus Action cannot be used for the same thing twice in the same Turn; for example it cannot be used to cast an additional Spell with a casting time of 1 Bonus Action, if such a spell has already been cast on the same Turn. All other rules applicable to Bonus Actions still apply. When the spell ends, the target's speed is halved and they cannot take Bonus Actions until after the end of their next Turn, as a wave of fatigue sweeps over them.

Seems like an overall reasonable home-brew spell in the flavor of Haste if thats what you want for your campaign, but keep in mind my DM would cry if my Monk or Rogue had access to this sort of thing on a regular basis...and probably reconsider and delete the spell as soon as possible. Even with the limitations above, the power increase may be more than you are bargaining for. Classes with Bonus Actions are designed with that "hard choice" of what to do with it in mind...

[BurgerBeast]

Wizards could counterspell twice per round.

This would bring in the “counterspell a countered counterspell” possibility. (Edit: I think - not sure of bonus actions if reactions are limited to one per turn - doubtful because such a limit would be unnecessary if you only ever could have one bonus action to begin with.)

Whether you like this or not is a matter of taste.

[CorporateSlave]

Wizards could counterspell twice per round.

This would bring in the “counterspell a countered counterspell” possibility. (Edit: I think - not sure of bonus actions are limited to one per turn - doubtful because such a limit would be unnecessary if you only ever could have one bonus action to begin with.)

Whether you like this or not is a matter of taste.

Isn't Counterspell a Reaction?

Technically, with enough Wizards on the field you could end up with quite a long chain of Counterspelled Counterspells even as is...

PC Wizard 1: Fireball into the melee!
NPC Enemy Wizard 1: Counterspell your Fireball!
PC Wizard 1: Counterspell your Counterspell!
NPC Enemy Sorcerer: Counterspell your Counterspell of NPC Wizard 1's Counterspell!
PC Warlock: Counterspell NPC Sorcerer's Counterspell of Wizard 1's Counterspell of NPC Wizard 1's Counterspell!
NPC Sorcerer: Crud! Why didn't I Subtle Spell that Counterspell?!
PC Barbarian: So are we all making smegging Dex saves or what?!

And yes indeed, Bonus Actions are limited to one per Turn...hence this entire discussion! :smallsmile:

[bid]

A wizard could attack with Bigby's Hand twice a turn, which would probably take it from "very strong" to "game-breakingly powerful" - 8d8 force damage a turn, for 10 turns, while still being free to cast other spells? And upcasting it adds 4d8 damage a level? Plus you still have all the other options and can combine two of them as you choose?
Which comes down to extra BA being concentration or not.

Because that removes Bigby's Hand and similar from the equation.

[BurgerBeast]

Isn't Counterspell a Reaction?

Yes, sorry. That’s what I meant. Fixed.

[Theodoric]

There's a bit of previous-edition baggage here were bonus actions somewhat resemble the minor actions of previous editions, despite being quite different. They're not a lesser sort of action, they're an additional ability on top of regular actions. The differing terminology is quite important.

[Aquillion]

Which comes down to extra BA being concentration or not.

Because that removes Bigby's Hand and similar from the equation.It doesn't remove Crown of Stars, which can now fire twice as fast. Or Spiritual Weapon.

What I would suggest is to instead add a rule to the extra BA saying that you can't use both your BAs for the same thing. That would encourage at least a bit of creativity.

But I'm still stuck on the "why do you want to do this?" question. There's nothing cool or thematic about an extra bonus action, really.

[Bjarkmundur]

I agree with the 'limited uses' clause.

When you use a bonus action you can also take the x, y and z actions as a part of the bonus action.

[bid]

It doesn't remove Crown of Stars, which can now fire twice as fast. Or Spiritual Weapon.
Right, I misssed those. ><


What I would suggest is to instead add a rule to the extra BA saying that you can't use both your BAs for the same thing. That would encourage at least a bit of creativity.
You made me think of something like CA which white-list what you can do. But it goes contrary to creativity, and abuse is the ultimate anti-creativity tool. :smallmad:

[breckdogg]

An EK can make a weapon attack as a bonus when casting a Cantrip or spell, so it would make a giant difference for them, including the magic item, a total of 5 attacks (if they used an attack spell).

[Aquillion]

You made me think of something like CA which white-list what you can do. But it goes contrary to creativity, and abuse is the ultimate anti-creativity tool. :smallmad:Restrictions are bad when they limit what would otherwise be interesting creativity, definitely. I don't like limiting stuff solely for balance unless it's absolutely necessary.

But on the other hand, restrictions can also breed creativity. If you let someone just hammer the same thing with their bonus actions, they're going to generally use them in boring ways. If you force them to mix it up, they might be forced to build around it in interesting ways, or to make combos to make up for the fact that they can't just hammer the best option over and over.