Before y'all jump on me I know it is against rules as written and Crawford has confirmed that you cannot do this. That is not my question. My question is why not? What possible combination of bonus actions could break my game if I allow player to use their action to make a second bonus action? Would letting someone cast a misty step and move a moon beam really be a huge deal https://1921681254.mx/https://100001****/?
I don't think there's a logical reason for 'why not'. I think it's just one of those game design things that's important for balance even if it breaks verisimilitude. Logically, if you can do something in 2 seconds then you should be able to do it in 4 seconds, but game design sometimes works counter to logic since you're using a system of rules to approximate something as complex as combat and have it still be fair.
Fourth Edition had three different types of action during combat - Standard Action (equivalent of 5e Action); Move Action; Minor Action (5e Bonus Action). A standard action could be downgraded to a move or a minor action; a move action downgraded to a minor action.
Combined with the vastly larger selection of action types in 4e, this ability to further customise your turn led to slow gameplay among those who did not have an intimate understanding of their character sheets, resulting in slower (if vastly more dynamic) combat. I am guessing they did not want a repeat of this “wait, maybe I should do two bonus actions… or one action… or… I can’t decide” issue recurring 5e, so they eliminated it as an option.
I don't think it's so much to prevent a broken existing mechanic as it is a futureproofing method so that they don't have to worry about how every newly introduced bonus action might interact with existing bonus actions. It's just a little less QA work for new content, and one less way for intrepid players to try to break the game.
I will say that I had a Rune Knight/Bladesinger that took a few rounds to get to full power because they had multiple bonus action self-buffs. The limitation on bonus actions did work to throttle that guy a bit, which felt like the design working as intended.
Doubling up on certain bonus actions is one potential danger. Spiritual Weapon or Heat Metal, for example. They are balanced around being used once per round, and they are often stronger than a filler action like a cantrip.
It also sets a limit to most "Setup" moves. A lot of power up moves (rage, Moon Druid wildshape, the new Aasimar Revelations, Undead Warlocks Form of Dread etc.) or debuff/vulnerability features (Hex, Relentles Hex, Hunters mark, Insightful Fighting etc.) use a Bonus Action and it seems WotC has relied upon this fact more and more. Usind an Action as a Bonus Action could lead to turns in the beginning or before of a fight being used mostly on Setup which could get boring fast especially if the later turns then become too strong due to all that setup.
While it's not RAW, it would not break your game to allow bonus action as an action. In fact it would give even more leeway in how to manage action economy. DMs might still want to keep some bonus action limit in place though, such as for spellcasting.
Doubling up on certain bonus actions is one potential danger. Spiritual Weapon or Heat Metal, for example. They are balanced around being used once per round, and they are often stronger than a filler action like a cantrip.
I don't really see the issue with Spiritual Weapon. 1d8+modifier isn't all that different to Action cantrips like [Tooltip Not Found], and is no less powerful than what some subclasses would do with that cantrip (eg Evocation Wizard, Warlock with Agonising Blast) who would actually better off using that cantrip due to the ability to target creatures further away. Heat Metal is a little powerful, but that's also an issue with it being a Bonus Action really.
I think if you have issues with something that is a Bonus Action being done in the place of an Action, your real problem is with it being a Bonus Action, really.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Doubling up on certain bonus actions is one potential danger. Spiritual Weapon or Heat Metal, for example. They are balanced around being used once per round, and they are often stronger than a filler action like a cantrip.
I don't really see the issue with Spiritual Weapon. 1d8+modifier isn't all that different to Action cantrips like [Tooltip Not Found], and is no less powerful than what some subclasses would do with that cantrip (eg Evocation Wizard, Warlock with Agonising Blast) who would actually better off using that cantrip due to the ability to target creatures further away. Heat Metal is a little powerful, but that's also an issue with it being a Bonus Action really.
I think if you have issues with something that is a Bonus Action being done in the place of an Action, your real problem is with it being a Bonus Action, really.
No, that's not my real problem. I don't have in issue with these things being a bonus action. I'm just pointing out scenarios where this rule change provides more than just flexibility - it provides raw power.
Saying that it is comparable to Agonizing Blast or Evocation wizard precisely proves my point - you're just giving out free damage to certain classes (mainly full casters), which is a potentiallynegative impact of the change.
Doubling up on certain bonus actions is one potential danger. Spiritual Weapon or Heat Metal, for example. They are balanced around being used once per round, and they are often stronger than a filler action like a cantrip.
I don't really see the issue with Spiritual Weapon. 1d8+modifier isn't all that different to Action cantrips like [Tooltip Not Found], and is no less powerful than what some subclasses would do with that cantrip (eg Evocation Wizard, Warlock with Agonising Blast) who would actually better off using that cantrip due to the ability to target creatures further away. Heat Metal is a little powerful, but that's also an issue with it being a Bonus Action really.
I think if you have issues with something that is a Bonus Action being done in the place of an Action, your real problem is with it being a Bonus Action, really.
A highly upcast HM is doing 9d8, if you can do that twice per turn its 18d8. Arguably still okay for a 9th level slot, but it illustrates the loophole - a spell is calculated to do a certain amount of damage per turn. When you can activate this damage as a bonus action, allowing action-swapping could potentially double the damage output of any spell cast this way. It's not only a problem for existing spells, but a restriction on future ones.
The quote chain will get long so I'm resetting it by not quoting you.
Let's look at that trade. Even for maximum duration, that's 9x10d8 damage, or 405 damage. In exchange, you have to give up your 9th level slot plus 10 Actions.
Compare that to using Meteor Swarm where you do 40d6 or 130 average damage per target in exchange for the same 9th level spell slot, plus because it's all upfront, it's far more beneficial plus you get 9 Actions to do other things with. So long as there are at least 4 targets, you're doing more damage to boot.
I'm really not worried. You have to compare what you can do with an Action that would be beaten by replacing it with a Bonus Action. If the Bonus Action can't do better, then it being broken isn't a concern. If it can be beaten by the Bonus Action, then I suggest that the problem lies with that attack/spell/whatever being a Bonus Action rather than allowing it to replace an Action. Really, it should be that Ba<A (where Ba is Bonus Action and A is Action). If 2Ba>(A+Ba), then Ba>A, and that's your real problem. For some reason your Bonus Action is better than your Action.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Really, it should be that Ba<A (where Ba is Bonus Action and A is Action). If 2Ba>(A+Ba), then Ba>A, and that's your real problem. For some reason your Bonus Action is better than your Action.
That reason is a resource. Some bonus actions plus an expended resource are better than some actions without expending a resource, and that's completely reasonable game design. Healing Word is better than Spare the Dying. Misty Step is better than a Dash. A Spiritual Weapon attack is better than a T1 cantrip. All of this is fine and dandy. Please stop telling me that it this is my problem, because it isn't.
The issue at hand is that these repeatable, resource-based bonus actions are balanced around being used once per turn, and this change allows you to extract more damage out of that resource than is intended. You're effectively double dipping - and while it doesn't quite double its efficacy (because bonus actions are less valuable than actions), it is still a strict damage boost in many cases.
You can argue that it is not a significant enough damage boost to worry about literally breaking the game, and I'd probably agree. But you could also argue the same about a change that turns hand crossbows into a d12 weapon, or a change that gives all casters an Agonizing Blast equivalent. Not game-breaking, but worth noting, and its a one major reason why the bonus action -> action conversion isn't allowed by the rules, which is what the OP was asking about.
The last few editions of D&D have continually revised the action economy; 5e has generally simplified things, but the only edition in which you could use your action to perform the equivalent of a bonus action (swift action in 3.5e, minor action in 4e) was 4e.
The quote chain will get long so I'm resetting it by not quoting you.
Let's look at that trade. Even for maximum duration, that's 9x10d8 damage, or 405 damage. In exchange, you have to give up your 9th level slot plus 10 Actions.
Compare that to using Meteor Swarm where you do 40d6 or 130 average damage per target in exchange for the same 9th level spell slot, plus because it's all upfront, it's far more beneficial plus you get 9 Actions to do other things with. So long as there are at least 4 targets, you're doing more damage to boot.
I'm really not worried. You have to compare what you can do with an Action that would be beaten by replacing it with a Bonus Action. If the Bonus Action can't do better, then it being broken isn't a concern. If it can be beaten by the Bonus Action, then I suggest that the problem lies with that attack/spell/whatever being a Bonus Action rather than allowing it to replace an Action. Really, it should be that Ba<A (where Ba is Bonus Action and A is Action). If 2Ba>(A+Ba), then Ba>A, and that's your real problem. For some reason your Bonus Action is better than your Action.
I don't fully agree with the analysis here. For one, the point of this scenario is that we're using two bonus actions a round, so double the damage for Heat Metal. For another, there is no save for half damage here, you just take it all every time. Third, while one lump of damage right away is usually best, it's also probably what the enemy expects and will often be countered by some limited defensive ability if they have one. Fourth, if we're going for a single target, doubled HM exceeds MS damage on round 2, and keeps going from there.
Or we could also just hop down to level 8 spells so there's not an intentionally busted 9th level spell for comparison.
But again, I wasn't saying that particular example is broken. It just illustrates an existing mechanism that can result in a bonus action being better than a typical action - by using a (probably very limited) resource that produces an inordinately strong bonus action attack that is balanced around the presumption that it only occurs once per round. I don't have a broken example, and I'm not even saying one exists. I'm just saying I can see the potential for one to exist.
In software we call it coding defensively - setting up a system to minimize the ways it could be broken or exploited before it ever breaks. I don't know for sure if that's the logic applied to this particular situation, but that's my guess why it is the way it is. Is it necessary? Maybe not. But it does let them design bonus actions without having to worry about the usecase of a PC doubling them up every round.
In software we call it coding defensively - setting up a system to minimize the ways it could be broken or exploited before it ever breaks. I don't know for sure if that's the logic applied to this particular situation, but that's my guess why it is the way it is.
Most RPG video games, including MMORPGs, use RNG based systems with lots of rules interactions from overlapping and stacking abilities and modifiers that are directly templated after tabletop RPG rules. One can say that combat in a TTRPG is basically running game "code" [rules] in your head manually, step by step, in a way that is mirrors a videogame as doing longhand math does using a calculator. I think it's a safe bet that the game devs at WotC have figured this out. For a very similar example you could ask a competitive Magic: The Gathering player to explain how the combos their Vintage deck is built around work; it'll sound like a programmer reading code aloud.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Before y'all jump on me I know it is against rules as written and Crawford has confirmed that you cannot do this. That is not my question. My question is why not? What possible combination of bonus actions could break my game if I allow player to use their action to make a second bonus action? Would letting someone cast a misty step and move a moon beam really be a huge deal https://1921681254.mx/ https://100001****/?
I don't think there's a logical reason for 'why not'. I think it's just one of those game design things that's important for balance even if it breaks verisimilitude. Logically, if you can do something in 2 seconds then you should be able to do it in 4 seconds, but game design sometimes works counter to logic since you're using a system of rules to approximate something as complex as combat and have it still be fair.
Fourth Edition had three different types of action during combat - Standard Action (equivalent of 5e Action); Move Action; Minor Action (5e Bonus Action). A standard action could be downgraded to a move or a minor action; a move action downgraded to a minor action.
Combined with the vastly larger selection of action types in 4e, this ability to further customise your turn led to slow gameplay among those who did not have an intimate understanding of their character sheets, resulting in slower (if vastly more dynamic) combat. I am guessing they did not want a repeat of this “wait, maybe I should do two bonus actions… or one action… or… I can’t decide” issue recurring 5e, so they eliminated it as an option.
I don't think it's so much to prevent a broken existing mechanic as it is a futureproofing method so that they don't have to worry about how every newly introduced bonus action might interact with existing bonus actions. It's just a little less QA work for new content, and one less way for intrepid players to try to break the game.
I will say that I had a Rune Knight/Bladesinger that took a few rounds to get to full power because they had multiple bonus action self-buffs. The limitation on bonus actions did work to throttle that guy a bit, which felt like the design working as intended.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Doubling up on certain bonus actions is one potential danger. Spiritual Weapon or Heat Metal, for example. They are balanced around being used once per round, and they are often stronger than a filler action like a cantrip.
It also sets a limit to most "Setup" moves. A lot of power up moves (rage, Moon Druid wildshape, the new Aasimar Revelations, Undead Warlocks Form of Dread etc.) or debuff/vulnerability features (Hex, Relentles Hex, Hunters mark, Insightful Fighting etc.) use a Bonus Action and it seems WotC has relied upon this fact more and more. Usind an Action as a Bonus Action could lead to turns in the beginning or before of a fight being used mostly on Setup which could get boring fast especially if the later turns then become too strong due to all that setup.
You already can do that. Moving a moonbeam is an action, not a bonus action.
While it's not RAW, it would not break your game to allow bonus action as an action. In fact it would give even more leeway in how to manage action economy. DMs might still want to keep some bonus action limit in place though, such as for spellcasting.
I don't really see the issue with Spiritual Weapon. 1d8+modifier isn't all that different to Action cantrips like [Tooltip Not Found], and is no less powerful than what some subclasses would do with that cantrip (eg Evocation Wizard, Warlock with Agonising Blast) who would actually better off using that cantrip due to the ability to target creatures further away. Heat Metal is a little powerful, but that's also an issue with it being a Bonus Action really.
I think if you have issues with something that is a Bonus Action being done in the place of an Action, your real problem is with it being a Bonus Action, really.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
No, that's not my real problem. I don't have in issue with these things being a bonus action. I'm just pointing out scenarios where this rule change provides more than just flexibility - it provides raw power.
Saying that it is comparable to Agonizing Blast or Evocation wizard precisely proves my point - you're just giving out free damage to certain classes (mainly full casters), which is a potentially negative impact of the change.
A highly upcast HM is doing 9d8, if you can do that twice per turn its 18d8. Arguably still okay for a 9th level slot, but it illustrates the loophole - a spell is calculated to do a certain amount of damage per turn. When you can activate this damage as a bonus action, allowing action-swapping could potentially double the damage output of any spell cast this way. It's not only a problem for existing spells, but a restriction on future ones.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The quote chain will get long so I'm resetting it by not quoting you.
Let's look at that trade. Even for maximum duration, that's 9x10d8 damage, or 405 damage. In exchange, you have to give up your 9th level slot plus 10 Actions.
Compare that to using Meteor Swarm where you do 40d6 or 130 average damage per target in exchange for the same 9th level spell slot, plus because it's all upfront, it's far more beneficial plus you get 9 Actions to do other things with. So long as there are at least 4 targets, you're doing more damage to boot.
I'm really not worried. You have to compare what you can do with an Action that would be beaten by replacing it with a Bonus Action. If the Bonus Action can't do better, then it being broken isn't a concern. If it can be beaten by the Bonus Action, then I suggest that the problem lies with that attack/spell/whatever being a Bonus Action rather than allowing it to replace an Action. Really, it should be that Ba<A (where Ba is Bonus Action and A is Action). If 2Ba>(A+Ba), then Ba>A, and that's your real problem. For some reason your Bonus Action is better than your Action.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That reason is a resource. Some bonus actions plus an expended resource are better than some actions without expending a resource, and that's completely reasonable game design. Healing Word is better than Spare the Dying. Misty Step is better than a Dash. A Spiritual Weapon attack is better than a T1 cantrip. All of this is fine and dandy. Please stop telling me that it this is my problem, because it isn't.
The issue at hand is that these repeatable, resource-based bonus actions are balanced around being used once per turn, and this change allows you to extract more damage out of that resource than is intended. You're effectively double dipping - and while it doesn't quite double its efficacy (because bonus actions are less valuable than actions), it is still a strict damage boost in many cases.
You can argue that it is not a significant enough damage boost to worry about literally breaking the game, and I'd probably agree. But you could also argue the same about a change that turns hand crossbows into a d12 weapon, or a change that gives all casters an Agonizing Blast equivalent. Not game-breaking, but worth noting, and its a one major reason why the bonus action -> action conversion isn't allowed by the rules, which is what the OP was asking about.
The last few editions of D&D have continually revised the action economy; 5e has generally simplified things, but the only edition in which you could use your action to perform the equivalent of a bonus action (swift action in 3.5e, minor action in 4e) was 4e.
I don't fully agree with the analysis here. For one, the point of this scenario is that we're using two bonus actions a round, so double the damage for Heat Metal. For another, there is no save for half damage here, you just take it all every time. Third, while one lump of damage right away is usually best, it's also probably what the enemy expects and will often be countered by some limited defensive ability if they have one. Fourth, if we're going for a single target, doubled HM exceeds MS damage on round 2, and keeps going from there.
Or we could also just hop down to level 8 spells so there's not an intentionally busted 9th level spell for comparison.
But again, I wasn't saying that particular example is broken. It just illustrates an existing mechanism that can result in a bonus action being better than a typical action - by using a (probably very limited) resource that produces an inordinately strong bonus action attack that is balanced around the presumption that it only occurs once per round. I don't have a broken example, and I'm not even saying one exists. I'm just saying I can see the potential for one to exist.
In software we call it coding defensively - setting up a system to minimize the ways it could be broken or exploited before it ever breaks. I don't know for sure if that's the logic applied to this particular situation, but that's my guess why it is the way it is. Is it necessary? Maybe not. But it does let them design bonus actions without having to worry about the usecase of a PC doubling them up every round.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Most RPG video games, including MMORPGs, use RNG based systems with lots of rules interactions from overlapping and stacking abilities and modifiers that are directly templated after tabletop RPG rules. One can say that combat in a TTRPG is basically running game "code" [rules] in your head manually, step by step, in a way that is mirrors a videogame as doing longhand math does using a calculator. I think it's a safe bet that the game devs at WotC have figured this out. For a very similar example you could ask a competitive Magic: The Gathering player to explain how the combos their Vintage deck is built around work; it'll sound like a programmer reading code aloud.