Cunning Action without a bonus action?

[Segev]

This isn't for any specific character, but more just a design thought based on a conversation in another thread. I have noticed that the Rogue and various Rogue subclasses refers to being able to "use your Cunning Action" to do things on top of what the base ability says. In that other conversation, it was said that an earlier design phase of 5e had bonus actions be unlimited in number, so long as you had something granting them. Thus, "Cunning Action" was a collection of options that could be done as bonus actions, but limited to one out of the entire set per round. With the codification that you have a single bonus action on each of your turns, anything that is "a bonus action" consumes that, whether it's part of a superset of actions or not. So having Cunning Action allow you to hide, or disengage, or use mage hand as a bonus action is no different than having a separate ability that lets you do each. For the base Cunning Action, of course, naming the feature that grants you a few choice bonus action options one thing and grouping them makes sense, but it feels a little weird how it later adds things to what you can do with a cunning action, since just adding them as bonus action options has the same effect.

To that end, I'm contemplating whether an upgrade to Cunning Action would be Too Much (tm) for the rogue. Specifically, I'm wondering if Cunning Action improving at level 7 (mirroring how Monks get Stillness of Mind to go along with Evasion) to read as follows would be overpowered:
At 7th level, your cunning action no longer requires a bonus action to use. You still may only use it once on each of your turns.


This gives rogues freedom to do other things with their bonus action (perhaps even off-hand attack - soulknives may particularly appreciate this). It is kind-of like getting Extra Attack 2 levels late, but for, well, "rogue things."

[strangebloke]

IIRC the original format was to have an expansive list of options for your action. So "Cunning action" would be a special rogue-only action that would allow you to combine two actions into one. TWF would be a special attack action that includes an offhand attack.

We don't really know which of these special actions could be combined, but Mike Mearls has called the bonus action paradigm his "greatest regret" with respect to 5e's design.

From a balance pov, TWF isn't overpowered if you just make it a normal action and keep the rest of the bonus action economy the same. The damage is the same as a greatsword with a slight upside that you can use it more efficiently. (with the TWF style its 1.5 damage ahead of the greatsword but that's not actually a serious balance issue) After fifth level it still falls off relative to something like a greatsword unless you have something to add damage on hit like hunter's mark or hex or magic weapon bonuses.

Which is, imo, about where it should be from a balance POV.

Cunning action as a bonus to your regular action seems fine.

[quindraco]

This isn't for any specific character, but more just a design thought based on a conversation in another thread. I have noticed that the Rogue and various Rogue subclasses refers to being able to "use your Cunning Action" to do things on top of what the base ability says. In that other conversation, it was said that an earlier design phase of 5e had bonus actions be unlimited in number, so long as you had something granting them. Thus, "Cunning Action" was a collection of options that could be done as bonus actions, but limited to one out of the entire set per round. With the codification that you have a single bonus action on each of your turns, anything that is "a bonus action" consumes that, whether it's part of a superset of actions or not. So having Cunning Action allow you to hide, or disengage, or use mage hand as a bonus action is no different than having a separate ability that lets you do each. For the base Cunning Action, of course, naming the feature that grants you a few choice bonus action options one thing and grouping them makes sense, but it feels a little weird how it later adds things to what you can do with a cunning action, since just adding them as bonus action options has the same effect.

To that end, I'm contemplating whether an upgrade to Cunning Action would be Too Much (tm) for the rogue. Specifically, I'm wondering if Cunning Action improving at level 7 (mirroring how Monks get Stillness of Mind to go along with Evasion) to read as follows would be overpowered:
At 7th level, your cunning action no longer requires a bonus action to use. You still may only use it once on each of your turns.


This gives rogues freedom to do other things with their bonus action (perhaps even off-hand attack - soulknives may particularly appreciate this). It is kind-of like getting Extra Attack 2 levels late, but for, well, "rogue things."

I generally prefer a lighter touch - something weaker, and then if it's ok, raise the power level, as opposed to something stronger, and then nerfing if necessary. Instead of letting Cunning Action be truly actionless, I would advocate for letting it do more:


At 7th level, whenever you take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action, you may also take the Disengage action or the Hide action, provided both actions are different.

[Segev]

I generally prefer a lighter touch - something weaker, and then if it's ok, raise the power level, as opposed to something stronger, and then nerfing if necessary. Instead of letting Cunning Action be truly actionless, I would advocate for letting it do more:


At 7th level, whenever you take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action, you may also take the Disengage action or the Hide action, provided both actions are different.

While I understand where you're coming from, I confess that this is more inspired by the notion that you can "use your cunning action to" do additional things when you take various subclasses.

From a technical standpoint, testing what you suggest would be reasonable.

[OldTrees1]

What do the Rogues want to do with their new bonus action?
Steady Aim? Two Weapon Fighting?

What does the stealthy archer rogue use their new bonus action on? They still want Hide as their Cunning Action but now other Rogues get Steady Aim for free?

Your observation about Cunning Action reminds me of the idea of Rogues getting multiple Cunning Actions per round. Safely adding qualitative improvements to the Rogue's turn without breaking the action economy.

[Segev]

What do the Rogues want to do with their new bonus action?
Steady Aim? Two Weapon Fighting?

What does the stealthy archer rogue use their new bonus action on? They still want Hide as their Cunning Action but now other Rogues get Steady Aim for free?

Valid questions. The answer would depend on the build. Does it cost a rogue something if they lack anything they want to use an extra bonus action on? Does it overvalue certain rogue builds over others? It certainly would multiclass well. I imagine, though, most rogues would default to TWF bonus action attack if they had nothing better to use a bonus action on once Cunning Action is its own pseudo-action.

[Chronos]

Except that rogues are often squishy enough to prefer to stay at range, and you can't dual-wield bows.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I generally prefer a lighter touch - something weaker, and then if it's ok, raise the power level, as opposed to something stronger, and then nerfing if necessary. Instead of letting Cunning Action be truly actionless, I would advocate for letting it do more:


At 7th level, whenever you take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action, you may also take the Disengage action or the Hide action, provided both actions are different.

What would Disengaging or Hiding twice accomplish (why explicitly forbid it)?

[Second Wind]

What would Disengaging or Hiding twice accomplish (why explicitly forbid it)?
Disengaging twice doesn't matter, but hiding twice would let you hide, attack, and then hide again.

[Person_Man]

A little D&D history might be helpful here.

1/2/3E D&D did not have an equivalent of a Bonus Action. So an effective way to optimize your character was to break its "action economy" by stacking the number of abilities/spells/attacks/etc you could make in one round. (Behold the 2nd edition Haste spell, which doubled your movement and attack rates. Hilarious when cast on a Fighter with a high Str using magic darts, who could then make 12 attacks IIRC).

An early 3.5 supplement (the Miniatures Handbook) introduced the Swift Action, as a way to try and limit the abuses of certain action economy breaking spells/magic to one per round. This was soon followed by the introduction of the Immediate Action, which was essentially a Swift Action that could be taken during other creature's turns. (Not to be confused with Attacks of Opportunity, which were separate and could be taken multiple times per round with the Combat Reflexes Feat).

4E heavily codified the action economy (Standard Action, Move Action, Minor Action, Opportunity Action, Immediate Action, and a variety of Powers with exceptions).

Early in 5E the design and playtest process, some unknowable number of people involved in play testing (including myself and reportedly co-author Mike Mearls) wanted to distill and simply the action economy down as much as possible. One Action, one Reaction, and Movement. I believe Mike was fine with allowing a very limited number of abilities to grant extra action economy and passive bonuses that could be stacked (e.g., Fighting Style). I personally would have preferred limiting all players to a just one passive ability (like a 3.5 Tome of Battle stance or Concentration spell, that you could switch between) and nothing else. However, some (obviously larger) group of players cared a great deal about very specific "simulationist" rules, most notably Two Weapon Fighting, making more specific distinctions between different weapons in general, and how to account for class abilities and spells that added extra minor stuff that players wanted that really weren't worth taking a full Action to do. As the list of very specific stuff that players wanted grew, they had to find a way to manage all of it, and they probably didn't want to rewrite the core rules they had spent a year-ish working on. So they created the Bonus Action, it play tested well, and now its the core rules until 5E stops selling well and they roll out 6E playtesting. (Which I'm assuming will occur in the next 1-3 years).

I think a better way of doing this would be to write all of the rules so that everything worthwhile fits into bigger, more meaningful, but not stackable, Actions. For example, "Cunning Action: As an Action, make two attacks using only Light Weapons. Until the start of your next turn, your movement does not provoke opportunity attacks, and you gain +5 to AC against ranged attacks." "Sniper: As an Action, make one attack with a ranged or thrown weapon. If you end your turn if you are in full cover you may may Hide, even if you were previously observed." But doing this well would require building the entire system around not having a Bonus Action (or anything else that added to the action economy). Not just fiddling around the edges.

TLDR: I don't think there is a balanced way to make Cunning Action something other than a Bonus Action without eliminating Bonus Actions across the entire game, unless you gave it to Rogues at a very high level. Otherwise its just too good.

[elyktsorb]

To that end, I'm contemplating whether an upgrade to Cunning Action would be Too Much (tm) for the rogue. Specifically, I'm wondering if Cunning Action improving at level 7 (mirroring how Monks get Stillness of Mind to go along with Evasion) to read as follows would be overpowered:
At 7th level, your cunning action no longer requires a bonus action to use. You still may only use it once on each of your turns.


This gives rogues freedom to do other things with their bonus action (perhaps even off-hand attack - soulknives may particularly appreciate this). It is kind-of like getting Extra Attack 2 levels late, but for, well, "rogue things."

As someone who's been playing a Thief Rogue for about the last 10 months, I don't know what I would do with an additional bonus action besides attempt to make a second attack. Because with the way you've worded it, I couldn't do additional Thief stuff since that's a cunning action bonus action. Like, besides Steady Aim, what do I have to use my bonus action that isn't already a cunning action? Not to mention using Steady Aim Eliminates Dash and Disengage as options completely on a turn, and outside of specific scenarios, Hide wouldn't be an option either.

This would make 2 weapon fighting a more reliable thing on Rogue's but that's not really a big deal. *To me




At 7th level, whenever you take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action, you may also take the Disengage action or the Hide action, provided both actions are different.


I mean this just allows you to do a complete attack hide thing as a Melee Rogue. Where as you'd normally attack, disengage, and move, now you can then move behind something to hide, or dash to move much farther away. While it's something I would do, it's not exactly world changing. And if anything is a bit boring.

[Segev]

Thanks, Person_Man, for that bit of history. No offense, but I do not think your idea for 6e would actually be a good idea. Codifying "more meaningful" actions that are specific combinations of things that you have to have class features to enable or that are a laundry list of specifically-combined elements would only make for a frustrating amount of limit to what SPECIFIC combinations of things you can do, AND to an explosion of very specific things with minor differences as a response to accommodate it. I think the bonus action is actually a pretty good point to leave it at; there's a reason Swift Actions were added to 3.5, beyond merely limiting what other "extra action" features could let you do.

Certainly, this could be very powerful, but at the same time, it seems a lot of people are saying from experience that they wouldn't use it. And I see why: this actually seems like it's more useful if you multiclass, because other classes give you other things to do with your bonus action. That's...not a bad thing, by itself, but the pressure it creates TO multiclass out of the class granting the feature is problematic.

Off the top of my head, the things I can think of for a straight rogue are TWF, the soulknife's specific TWF, and any spells you can cast as a bonus action as an Arcane Trickster (such as misty step). I think the Mastermind and Scout have things they can do (like a bonus action Perception check) that aren't uses of Cunning Action, but I could be mistaken.

[Amnestic]

Except that rogues are often squishy enough to prefer to stay at range, and you can't dual-wield bows.

No, but they can make excellent use of Crossbow Expert.

There's also subclass specific stuff - Mage Hand (Arcane Trickster), Insightful Fighting (Inquisitive), Master of Tactics (Mastermind), Ghost Walk (Phantom), Sudden Strike (Scout), a bunch of Soulknife stuff, Elegant Maneuver (Swashbuckler). And that's not counting any multiclassing stuff, of course. Thief would be included but that's specifically a Cunning Action use, weirdly. Oh well.

Some of those are more useful than others for sure. Ghost Walk? Not very impressive. Master of Tactics? Pretty neat to get a free Help action every turn without messing with your CA.

[OldTrees1]

No, but they can make excellent use of Crossbow Expert.

There's also subclass specific stuff - Mage Hand (Arcane Trickster), Insightful Fighting (Inquisitive), Master of Tactics (Mastermind), Ghost Walk (Phantom), Sudden Strike (Scout), a bunch of Soulknife stuff, Elegant Maneuver (Swashbuckler). And that's not counting any multiclassing stuff, of course. Thief would be included but that's specifically a Cunning Action use, weirdly. Oh well.

Some of those are more useful than others for sure. Ghost Walk? Not very impressive. Master of Tactics? Pretty neat to get a free Help action every turn without messing with your CA.

Mage Hand is a Cunning Action for Arcane Tricksters. I had to check the actual PHB rather than online srds to notice that.

In addition you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to control the hand

However you are right that Inquisitive and Mastermind don't add new options to Cunning Action.

Considering Segev's thought experiment was based on the observation that various Rogue Subclasses did expand Cunning Action, this is interesting.

@Segev What are all the expansions to Cunning Action?
Fast Hands (Thief)
Mage Hand Legerdemain (Arcane Trickster)
non from Inquisitive or Mastermind

Under your thought experiment should we assume all 3rd level subclass bonus actions get added to the new Cunning Action? Or should we assume some subclasses get Cunning + Subclass while other subclasses get Cunning + TWF/SteadyAim?

[Amnestic]

Mage Hand is a Cunning Action for Arcane Tricksters. I had to check the actual PHB rather than online srds to notice that.


So it is! I guess that makes sense since both Thief and AT are PHB subclasses and the wording seems to have been dropped later from any future subclasses (and assassin doesn't get anything BA-related).

[Eric Diaz]

Well, IMO rogues are balanced around having a single BA - so they either hide or disengage or get a second attack with TWF, etc. Notice that both hiding and a second attacks are ways to make sure you get your sneak attack bonus; other rogues get other ways to do that (or other options for bonus actions).

I wrote about them here, FWIW (https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/05/more-5e-rogue-weirdness-bonus-actions.html).

This is from the Rogue: Inquisitive from Xanathar's Guide to Everything:

Eye for Detail
Starting at 3rd level, you can use a bonus action to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object or to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to uncover or decipher clues.

Insightful Fighting
At 3rd level, you gain the ability to decipher an opponent’s tactics and develop a counter to them. As a bonus action, you make a Wisdom (Insight) check against a creature you can see that isn’t incapacitated, contested by the target’s Charisma (Deception) check. If you succeed, you can use your Sneak Attack against that target even if you don't have advantage on the attack roll, but not if you have disadvantage on it.
This benefit lasts for 1 minute or until you successfully use this feature against a different target.

And this is from the Swashbuckler (also from Xanathar's):

Rakish Audacity
Starting at 3rd level, your confidence propels you into battle. You can give yourself a bonus to your initiative rolls equal to your Charisma modifier. You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.

Tasha's guide decided to cut the middleman: use you bonus action and don't move, and you get advantage (and thus sneak attack). For ALL rogues:

Steady Aim
3rd-level rogue feature
As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn.

So, the rogue is a mobile character than does a lot of stuff quickly. This stuff - aim, hide, decipher an opponent’s tactics - are usually means to get an sneak attack in. Or you can trade some mobility for better attacks.

Some actions require skill checks... which is fine, because the rogue is good at using skills (expertise).

But I don't know enough about balance to say this boost at level 7th is too much.

[elyktsorb]

Honestly the more I think about this, the less this seems like an inherent boost for Rogues (some Rogue subclasses will find it usable but not very often, and some will have little use but to just do TWF with it) and more like a multiclass incentive.

Like, you reach 7 in Rogue and now you can Disengage, Hide or Dash (Pick a Lock, do a Sleight of Hand check, Use an Object interaction if you picked Theif, or control your Mage Hand if an Arcane Trickster) without eating up your bonus action, which I'm sure some classes would love.

[Bobthewizard]

A two level rogue dip on a monk would be amazing, stacking cunning action with step of the wind or patient defense. I probably wouldn't change the rules in a way that doesn't help the base class but can be exploited by multi-classing.

If you really just want them to be able to make that second attack, just put that into cunning action. "When you use your cunning action, you can make an offhand attack as part of that bonus action."

[Eric Diaz]

If the only thing that needs fixing in TWF, maybe fix that instead; it might help other classes that need this.

(my simple solution is adopting a rule for 13A: if you roll a natural 2, you can make a "free" attack with a secondary light weapon, even if your main weapon isn't light. This is IN ADDITION to the usual rules. It doesn't fix everything but improves a lot of things for me, including rogues, rangers, and high-level TWF fighters).

[Segev]

Considering Segev's thought experiment was based on the observation that various Rogue Subclasses did expand Cunning Action, this is interesting.

@Segev What are all the expansions to Cunning Action?
Fast Hands (Thief)
Mage Hand Legerdemain (Arcane Trickster)
non from Inquisitive or Mastermind

Under your thought experiment should we assume all 3rd level subclass bonus actions get added to the new Cunning Action? Or should we assume some subclasses get Cunning + Subclass while other subclasses get Cunning + TWF/SteadyAim?

For the thought experiment, I would assume only things that say they're Cunning Action ... actions ... are Cunning Action actions; everything else is whatever it says it is.

I do agree with a later poster: this thought experiment seems to point to this being better for multiclassing than it is for staying in-class, which suggests it's not a great idea.

[Amnestic]

For the thought experiment, I would assume only things that say they're Cunning Action ... actions ... are Cunning Action actions; everything else is whatever it says it is.

I do agree with a later poster: this thought experiment seems to point to this being better for multiclassing than it is for staying in-class, which suggests it's not a great idea.

If they're investing 7 levels in rogue for it then that's a pretty lategame build, unless it's a rogue dipping elsewhere to get some bonus action goodies. Even splitting them 50/50 classwise would be late tier-3.

[elyktsorb]

If they're investing 7 levels in rogue for it then that's a pretty lategame build, unless it's a rogue dipping elsewhere to get some bonus action goodies. Even splitting them 50/50 classwise would be late tier-3.

Well what would you build with 7-8 levels of Rogue anyway?

I'm having a hard time thinking of something Rogues could dip into for a meaningful bonus action, usually the point is you take a 2 lvl dip into Rogue in order to get just Cunning Action.

[Amnestic]

Well what would you build with 7-8 levels of Rogue anyway?

If it's not making rogue the 'core' of the build and instead the 'multiclass' then I'd probably not be splitting off before 11, in which case ranger or fighter are both decent options since their kit is less impressive after 11 imho. Not bad, but probably doesn't stand up to Rogue 7.

7's actually a really solid breakpoint since it cuts off monk 14 (diamond soul) as a split. Monks would of course love a "free" cunning action every turn, but full save proficiencies is probably too spicy to give up. On the flipside, if you're a rogue dipping out after 11th level (Reliable Talent!) to look elsewhere then monk (plenty of options) or bard (spellcasting, bardic inspiration) are both decent choices to find a nice set of BA tools.

[Person_Man]

Thanks, Person_Man, for that bit of history. No offense, but I do not think your idea for 6e would actually be a good idea. Codifying "more meaningful" actions that are specific combinations of things that you have to have class features to enable or that are a laundry list of specifically-combined elements would only make for a frustrating amount of limit to what SPECIFIC combinations of things you can do, AND to an explosion of very specific things with minor differences as a response to accommodate it. I think the bonus action is actually a pretty good point to leave it at; there's a reason Swift Actions were added to 3.5, beyond merely limiting what other "extra action" features could let you do.

Certainly, this could be very powerful, but at the same time, it seems a lot of people are saying from experience that they wouldn't use it. And I see why: this actually seems like it's more useful if you multiclass, because other classes give you other things to do with your bonus action. That's...not a bad thing, by itself, but the pressure it creates TO multiclass out of the class granting the feature is problematic.

Off the top of my head, the things I can think of for a straight rogue are TWF, the soulknife's specific TWF, and any spells you can cast as a bonus action as an Arcane Trickster (such as misty step). I think the Mastermind and Scout have things they can do (like a bonus action Perception check) that aren't uses of Cunning Action, but I could be mistaken.

Fair enough. I’m clearly in the minority of players, since the Bonus Action obviously exists in 5E and lots of players like it. But I stand by my original point, that it creates a lot of fiddly rules complexity that the game would probably be better without.

And I would add that players shouldn’t feel compelled to mullticlass or spend a Feat to find something useful to do with their Bonus Action (and Reaction). If its going to remain an important (but more limited) second Action every turn, then every class should get several abilities (and/or Cantrips) like Cunning Action, so that there is never a turn where the Bonus Action “wasted.” (And also, so that new players don’t accidentally make their characters weaker because they don’t realize their supposed to find a useful way to Use their Bonus Action every turn).

[Segev]

Fair enough. I’m clearly in the minority of players, since the Bonus Action obviously exists in 5E and lots of players like it. But I stand by my original point, that it creates a lot of fiddly rules complexity that the game would probably be better without.

And I would add that players shouldn’t feel compelled to mullticlass or spend a Feat to find something useful to do with their Bonus Action (and Reaction). If its going to remain an important (but more limited) second Action every turn, then every class should get several abilities (and/or Cantrips) like Cunning Action, so that there is never a turn where the Bonus Action “wasted.” (And also, so that new players don’t accidentally make their characters weaker because they don’t realize their supposed to find a useful way to Use their Bonus Action every turn).

I will point out that my sense from what you wrote is that the way you have suggested to work around a lack of a bonus action creates many MORE fiddly rules. That's one of the big problems with it.

Everybody can TWF without a feat if they want to. Most classes have at least one bonus action, as well.

[Gurgeh]

The only classes that don't have access to a class-based bonus action at first level are the Paladin, PHB Ranger, and Rogue. The Fighter has Second Wind, the Monk has Martial Arts, the Barbarian has Rage, and the Artificer and all of the full casters have potential access to bonus action spells. If you're running the Ranger with Favoured Foe then they join the first-level-bonus-action gang, too.

[Segev]

The only classes that don't have access to a class-based bonus action at first level are the Paladin, PHB Ranger, and Rogue. The Fighter has Second Wind, the Monk has Martial Arts, the Barbarian has Rage, and the Artificer and all of the full casters have potential access to bonus action spells. If you're running the Ranger with Favoured Foe then they join the first-level-bonus-action gang, too.

To be fair, Second Wind is hardly usable very often, but the point is sound anyway.

[Theodoxus]

Most of my multiclass Rogue builds stop at 9th, for their subclass ability and the fact that a lot of good MC options have pretty good 11th level abilities. My favorite is Swashbucker/Vengeance and maximizing Dex and Cha (and taking Alert, if I can squeeze it in (missing the level 10 ASI from Rogue hurts, but going Half-elf or Mountain Dwarf takes a bit of the sting out. Going vhuman/custom lineage would work as well, at least for the free feat.) Or rolling... getting a couple of 16+ rolls makes the build easy.

In my homebrew, I've reinstated a lot of combat actions that were stripped from 5E. One I think is kind of important is Immediate vs Interruptive. knowing a reaction either occurs after (Immediate) but doesn't stop the initiating ability, or before (Interruptive) and actually stops the initiating ability is an important distinction that is lost in 5Es simplified OA.

I'm also a fan of the 5' move (3.5)/Slide (4E) that allows for a micro disengage. Especially as later subclasses, like Scout, utilize similar tactics. They just require a movement cost so there's still a reason to disengage as an action (or BA, if available).