Do you guys think Bonus actions are over bloated?

[TheCrowing1432]

I was watching a video on duel wielding in 5e and it really opened up my eyes on how many powers and abilities rely on the bonus action and how it has to constantly compete for space in things you can do in combat, additionally, it also makes certain class combinations unfavorable as it might create even more conflict for that oh so coveted bonus action slot.

In 3.5 there were tons of abilities or spells that could consume your free action, main action, or even your move action. But it seems that none of that exists in 5e, its bonus action or nothing.

Why is so much stapled to the bonus action and there are almost nothing that can be done in the main action or move actions other then the standard options? (IE: Move, Attack, Help, etc)

[Willie the Duck]

Why is so much stapled to the bonus action and there are almost nothing that can be done in the main action or move actions other then the standard options? (IE: Move, Attack, Help, etc)

Well, I think that that is quite literally its purpose -- the place you slot in that extra action you can get on top of your regular action if you plan your build or resources correctly.

As to my opinion on it, if I were designing the game, I would probably have worked to have less things that you can do every round be able to fill the bonus action slot -- 2wf I think I would make part of the normal attack routine, and either remove or change the XBE and PAM bonus attack. I'd much rather the decisions be 'does my fae-pact warlock move their Hex this turn, or Misty Step?,' and not, 'do I bother picking up any bonus action spells or abilities, because I already picked PAM/XBE/2wf?'

[heavyfuel]

No. Way too many things in 3.5 were free actions, and the only limit for free actions was determined by the DM.

Also, TWF in 3.5 was neither a free nor a bonus (aka, swift) action. It was a full round action, which luckily doesn't exist in 5e anymore. Making TWF a bonus action was a buff to TWF if anything.

The only thing I'd change is an explicit rule that you can take a Bonus Action with your Action. It makes sense, and I've never seen a DM say "no" to this, but having it in the rules would help the argument.

[Luccan]

We only have three types of actions, with fairly specific parameters, because having five or six separate actions that could essentially do anything is much more complicated than having your Move move you and two other actions.

[Telwar]

I don't think they're over-bloated. It's possible to obtain a lot of bonus actions, aside from the "everyone can try to dual wield*" thing.

But that just means you have options. A mid-level arcane trickster has potential bonus action use from spells (such as Misty Step), Cunning Action (Hide, Disengage, Dash), or dual wielding.

And those options mean you have to make a meaningful choice. And it's better to have a choice, than not to have one.



* - Note that just because they can, doesn't mean they should. OTOH, in our first 5e game, on my paladin, when we were put together as a party at first after being all kidnapped by a diabolist, and using things like furniture as clubs and such, I frickin' dual wielded because I didn't have a shield or a 2h weapon.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I think it would be better if there were a list of generic things you could do with a bonus action, so that there wasn't so much meta-gaming around 'builds' and players could focus more on character development. If a particular feat or sub-class provided something else it would be smaller perk and not as significant.
I'd include things like"
An extra object interaction
1/2 movement
A skill check

[Nifft]

In 3.5 there were tons of abilities or spells that could consume your free action, main action, or even your move action. But it seems that none of that exists in 5e, its bonus action or nothing.

Late-edition 3.5e had Swift actions, which were like Free actions except you only get one per turn.

Many spells became Swift actions.

You could only cast one of those spells per turn. It was a deliberate action-economy constraint.

5e is continuing that mechanic, but dropped the name Swift in favor of the name Minor, because 5e is targeting children.

[Warwick]

IMO there's the opposite problem: there's often not much of a choice for bonus actions, since you will only have a few options on a given character and in most circumstances one of them is clearly superior to the others.


Why is so much stapled to the bonus action and there are almost nothing that can be done in the main action or move actions other then the standard options? (IE: Move, Attack, Help, etc)


From a game design perspective, effects that replace your action have to be bigger, since you're forgoing more to use them. That creates more potential for a balance mistake and also just requires you to come up with suitable choices. The Attack action in particular is core to a lot of classes so you need to be careful when coming up with something that is a credible substitute.

Allowing you to substitute another action for your movement would basically amount to saying 'you get two actions, for which one of the options is dash.' Which I would be totally okay with.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Bonus actions can get bloated, but more often than not I think it's a meaningful trade-off. Even with dual-wielding, if you're a Rogue then you're looking at getting off an extra shot at Sneak Attacking when you miss vs. being able to Cunning Action out of melee right after. The only place I'd like to see bonus actions slimmed down would be dual-wielding Fighters/Rangers/etc., and in that case you can just make it so anyone with the combat style attacks with their off-hand as part of their regular attack action, rather than having to use a bonus action like everyone else. It'd emphasize that dual-wielding has become so effortless via their martial training that it doesn't expend any additional effort, and wouldn't break anything power-wise. Plus, then you could actually take advantage of Hunter's Mark's synergy with dual wielding on turn one, i.e. the most important turn of combat.

[KorvinStarmast]

bonus actions are fine.
you need to make choices.
make them.
play on.

[Luccan]

Bonus actions can get bloated, but more often than not I think it's a meaningful trade-off. Even with dual-wielding, if you're a Rogue then you're looking at getting off an extra shot at Sneak Attacking when you miss vs. being able to Cunning Action out of melee right after. The only place I'd like to see bonus actions slimmed down would be dual-wielding Fighters/Rangers/etc., and in that case you can just make it so anyone with the combat style attacks with their off-hand as part of their regular attack action, rather than having to use a bonus action like everyone else. It'd emphasize that dual-wielding has become so effortless via their martial training that it doesn't expend any additional effort, and wouldn't break anything power-wise. Plus, then you could actually take advantage of Hunter's Mark's synergy with dual wielding on turn one, i.e. the most important turn of combat.

...This is a really good houserule. You're only doing a couple points of damage more at most and those attacks have to hit. It also means you aren't constantly judging whether the way your character generally deals damage is worth it in favor of doing something else (it's not like the GWF or Archer has to worry about that).

[micahaphone]

It depends on your class - monks and rogues use them practically every turn, casters occasionally, non-TWF martials only very situational. I don't see an issue.

I suppose you could take multiclass & feat options that would give you a million things to do with your BA, but that complexity is your choice.

[Cybren]

No. Way too many things in 3.5 were free actions, and the only limit for free actions was determined by the DM.

Also, TWF in 3.5 was neither a free nor a bonus (aka, swift) action. It was a full round action, which luckily doesn't exist in 5e anymore. Making TWF a bonus action was a buff to TWF if anything.

The only thing I'd change is an explicit rule that you can take a Bonus Action with your Action. It makes sense, and I've never seen a DM say "no" to this, but having it in the rules would help the argument.

No uh, in 3.5 almost all multiple attack sequences were full round actions. It’s certainly a nerf compared to 3.5 because in 3.5 both the greatsword user and the dual wielder needed a full round action to make more than one attack, but now that full round actions don’t exist the dual wielder has a higher action cost to do their thing than the single weapon user (and they make fewer extra attacks)

[Willie the Duck]

No uh, in 3.5 almost all multiple attack sequences were full round actions.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they meant. To utilize two weapon fighting, you needed to spend a full round action. That all 2+ attack attacking routines also required a full round attack action is also true, but not pertinent to the point they were making.

[Cybren]

It’s central to the point they’re trying to make because in one game it’s free relative to all multi attack sequences and in another it has an explicit cost in addition to.

[Dienekes]

I do actually. Or at least I sort of do.

Having Bonus Actions filled with options is I think fine. I actually like it that it can do so many interesting things. However, I think Bonus Action attacks should be scrapped for the most part. From what I’ve seen, when a character gets a Bonus Action attack the thought that goes into what to do with their Bonus Action actually goes down as your additional attack becomes what you strive to do every round you can. And since only some weapon styles get Bonus Action attacks the feats that allow them push that weapon style higher than others.

I find this is especially true with off-hand attacks. Where your usual two-weapon ranger has difficulty controlling their animal companion or actually using some of their spells you get in weird situations where you either don’t use your class abilities or your off-hand weapon for most a fight.

The game would run smoother and more interestingly if a majority of Bonus Action attacks were either replaced with something else, turned into contingent effects, or just made a part of the normal Attack Action. Now some exceptions may apply of course, in my mind the Berserker Barbarian for instance is designed mostly to not have anything else to do but attack a lot. I don’t really see a problem for them and I’m sure someone else can point out a similar class. But in general I’m in favor of reserving Bonus Actions for utility, movement, buffing, debuffing and similar effects.

[heavyfuel]

Bonus actions can get bloated, but more often than not I think it's a meaningful trade-off. Even with dual-wielding, if you're a Rogue then you're looking at getting off an extra shot at Sneak Attacking when you miss vs. being able to Cunning Action out of melee right after. The only place I'd like to see bonus actions slimmed down would be dual-wielding Fighters/Rangers/etc., and in that case you can just make it so anyone with the combat style attacks with their off-hand as part of their regular attack action, rather than having to use a bonus action like everyone else. It'd emphasize that dual-wielding has become so effortless via their martial training that it doesn't expend any additional effort, and wouldn't break anything power-wise. Plus, then you could actually take advantage of Hunter's Mark's synergy with dual wielding on turn one, i.e. the most important turn of combat.

...This is a really good houserule. You're only doing a couple points of damage more at most and those attacks have to hit. It also means you aren't constantly judging whether the way your character generally deals damage is worth it in favor of doing something else (it's not like the GWF or Archer has to worry about that).

I think this houserule is too extreme, it changes TWF from "decent" to "why wouldn't I pick TWF?". If you were to implement this houserule, I'd recommend you give some extra consideration.

1d6+4 dmg is slightly better than +10 from GWM/SS since it doesn't incur the -5 penalty, but it doesn't require a feat. Shield wielders will become far more rare since now the +2 AC is competing against an entire extra attack. Dueling fighting style is 100% dead, no one is ever touching that again. Are you okay with these changes in your game?

How does it interact with PAM (dual wielder + spear + one other weapon)? Do you get 4 attacks now?

I think TWF needs a slight buff, but this is probably too much. I think making Dual Wielder a half feat (giving +1 to either Str or Dex) is probably good enough.


No uh, in 3.5 almost all multiple attack sequences were full round actions. It’s certainly a nerf compared to 3.5 because in 3.5 both the greatsword user and the dual wielder needed a full round action to make more than one attack, but now that full round actions don’t exist the dual wielder has a higher action cost to do their thing than the single weapon user (and they make fewer extra attacks)

Yeah, but before level 6, the guy with a greatsword could walk or charge and attack at no penalty. You were stuck with having to make a full-round action from level 1. Even then, moving and attacking at level 6 reduced a single wielder's damage by about 30% (compared to a full attack). A TWFer's damage was reduced by about 60%.

The bonus action allowing you to make that off-hand attack any turn you want to is much better than what TWFers had before. Not to mention TWFers are no longer MAD.

[ZRN]

I was watching a video on duel wielding in 5e and it really opened up my eyes on how many powers and abilities rely on the bonus action and how it has to constantly compete for space in things you can do in combat, additionally, it also makes certain class combinations unfavorable as it might create even more conflict for that oh so coveted bonus action slot.

In 3.5 there were tons of abilities or spells that could consume your free action, main action, or even your move action. But it seems that none of that exists in 5e, its bonus action or nothing.

Why is so much stapled to the bonus action and there are almost nothing that can be done in the main action or move actions other then the standard options? (IE: Move, Attack, Help, etc)

I think dual wielding is the only real "problem" with bonus actions, simply because it complicates a lot of otherwise straightforward systems. (Rangers using Hunter's Mark is the most obvious example.)

It's probably too embedded in the system to housefuls without causing even more problems, though.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I think this houserule is too extreme, it changes TWF from "decent" to "why wouldn't I pick TWF?". If you were to implement this houserule, I'd recommend you give some extra consideration.

1d6+4 dmg is slightly better than +10 from GWM/SS since it doesn't incur the -5 penalty, but it doesn't require a feat. Shield wielders will become far more rare since now the +2 AC is competing against an entire extra attack. Dueling fighting style is 100% dead, no one is ever touching that again. Are you okay with these changes in your game?

How does it interact with PAM (dual wielder + spear + one other weapon)? Do you get 4 attacks now?

I think TWF needs a slight buff, but this is probably too much. I think making Dual Wielder a half feat (giving +1 to either Str or Dex) is probably good enough.


TWF isn't in direct competition with SS or Archery generally since there's other advantages to fighting at range, and Dueling gets along just fine since +2 to AC from using a shield (more if it's magical) is going to be relevant throughout T1-3, basically until you're exclusively fighting things with a +12 or higher to hit. In my campaigns, the PAM question isn't relevant since I only allow the BA attack if you're wielding a polearm with both hands, but otherwise you're right that four attacks at 5th level would be something to worry about. Really, I only see TWF competing directly with GWF, and the latter has better feat support and has better synergy with additional extra attacks, whether due to Fighter 11/20, Action Surge, Haste, etc. since the base damage is higher. In practice, the only changes I've seen with this houserule are Ranger getting to Hunter's Mark turn one while still getting their full attack sequence, and Fighters getting one more off-hand attack during an Action Surge. Neither of those are so good as to make GWF Fighters unplayable.

[NaughtyTiger]

how many powers and abilities rely on the bonus action and how it has to constantly compete for space in things you can do in combat, additionally, it also makes certain class combinations unfavorable as it might create even more conflict for that oh so coveted bonus action slot.

almost nothing can be done in the main action other then the standard options (IE: Dash, Attack, Help, etc)

casting fireball shouldn't have to compete with casting bless or swinging a sword at someone or double movement.

[Kane0]

Before i make comment, what video please?

[MrStabby]

I think there is a specific answer and a general one...

The general answer is I like the system as a whole, I like the choices and the options available. More than that, I like that you have to chose and no character can do everything. I thnk it is a good system and the number of options is about right.

More specifically though... I think the restriction hits some classes a lot harder than others and it can be ocasionally a balance issue but more often an anoyance.
Classes that don't get native options for bonus attacks benefit a lot more from feats which tend to give them.

So in practice the system could be tweaked to make it a bit better but overall I think it is good.