I’m thinking of allowing players to use two bonus actions in place of an action and a bonus action. So long as the two bonus actions are not the same thing. (Though I am having trouble finding a reason that won’t work too.) With all the Multi- classing and race based abilities, it makes sense to me that a player could for example (shifter/barbarian) shift into beastial form and rage in the same turn. If they are not attacking, and just preparing for battle on their first turn, how would that break the combat if at all? I have thought about many examples of times where 2 bonus actions make more sense to the player than an action and bonus action. Plus if you consider that a bonus action is theoretically a faster action than a full action, making 2 bonus actions in a turn should be more than doable.
It should be ok? Usually a Bonus Action is weaker than an Action...it would most likely be a trap for them, but it should be on to replace an Action with a Bonus 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.
Generally no, only one bonus action per turn should be allowed unless something explicitly allows it (and to my knowledge, nothing does). it is part of the balance of the game.
It should be ok? Usually a Bonus Action is weaker than an Action...it would most likely be a trap for them, but it should be on to replace an Action with a Bonus Action.
It would be very abusable by sorcerers using Quicken Spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The idea is that they can not use the same thing more than once. Meaning that the rules for casting still apply and they would only be able to cast a single spell in a turn that is not a cantrip, so even if they used quicken, it would only work to make the spell a bonus action and the second time it would need to be a cantrip, which they could do with their action anyway. The two bonus actions would have to be different things. Maybe even limited to a racial trait bonus action and a class trait, like fey stepping and hex-blade curse, or the bonus action blade ward from an earth genasi and a second wind…. Things like that. Things that they can do with an action and a bonus action would be pretty much pointless to allow. Like 2 quicken spells, or a bonus action dash and a bonus action… anything… because they can use the dash action and a bonus action.
It should be ok? Usually a Bonus Action is weaker than an Action...it would most likely be a trap for them, but it should be on to replace an Action with a Bonus Action.
It would be very abusable by sorcerers using Quicken Spell.
How so?
Currently, a normal caster can cast a spell with a casting time of one Action and one Bonus Action.
A sorcerer with Quicken Spell can cast two spell with a casting time of one Action, one normally as an Action, as a Bonus Action. There is no other benefit to QS.
Why would a sorcerer choose to spent additional metamagic points on QS to use cast two Action spells as two Bonus Actions rather than just casting one normally as an Action? It doesn't even make sense.
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.
I'm sure there are some edge cases that could "break" balance, but I can't think of any. My only word of advice is that bonus actions are also balanced around class and racial features - they're not spread out eventually across all character options. Some players without as many bonus actions may feel that you're unfairly favoring a player with a lot of bonus actions if you do this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
There does seem to be a lot of possibilities for both positive and negative outcomes in coming up with a universal approach for allowing players 2 bonus actions in the same turn. I think for now the best way to handle things, would be using a case by case approach, maybe allowing certain instances where they can use inspiration or epic dice, or if they have a homebrew build that is built around a bonus action that is specifically designed for that character. I guess that is what zero sessions, and the DM/GM are there for.
It ought to be fine, because even if some individual bonus actions are strong, they're unlikely to be stronger than attacking or casting a spell. I'd expect it's only likely to be used in situations where PCs are unable to engage and have multiple bonus-action setup abilities.
I would keep the restrictions on casting leveled spells when you cast a bonus action spell.
Some spells like Spiritual Weapon attack with a bonus action. So a Cleric could possibly abuse this.
They did say they would have to do different things with the BA so probably couldn’t attack twice with SW. But could SW and Rage (cleric/barb MC) or some other combo that usually takes two turns to set up. I could see some builds gaining power via this option depending on the limitations
I feel like there's more examples of bonus actions that could be combined on a turn that are less impactful than taking an action and a bonus action than there are examples of bonus action combos that would break the game. Not to say that none exist, but they're pretty few and far between. It feels like one of those house rules that most people won't have any issue with, but there's always that one guy who figures out some crazy combo that the game isn't balanced around.
Some spells like Spiritual Weapon attack with a bonus action. So a Cleric could possibly abuse this.
They did say they would have to do different things with the BA so probably couldn’t attack twice with SW. But could SW and Rage (cleric/barb MC) or some other combo that usually takes two turns to set up. I could see some builds gaining power via this option depending on the limitations
Sure, although I'd probably still opt for Attack (or a Cantrip, or Channel Divinity or whatever) and Spiritual Weapon the first round then Rage and attack the second round. Generally, I find that Spiritual Weapon is more about finding something to do with your Bonus Action, rather than it being something you're maining on.
As Transmorpher said, I'm sure there's some combo somewhere that would be OP, but most of the stuff is actually weaker than using your Action - with some that are "yes, it's slightly better than using the Action", with a tiny fraction of problem combos.
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.
Part of the game’s action economy is set up the way it is because it forces a PC to take 2 turns to set up a combo like hex + Hexblade’s Curse for example. Since most combats are over in about 4ish rounds, cutting that time in half could be a problem.
If you've got a specific character in your campaign that's running into conflicts with their bonus actions -- the shifter barbarian you mentioned for instance, if that wasn't just a hypothetical -- you might want to consider creating a homebrew magic item or feat that allows them to do the one combo they want to do for a cost of one bonus action, rather than changing the rules for everybody
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Part of the game’s action economy is set up the way it is because it forces a PC to take 2 turns to set up a combo like hex + Hexblade’s Curse for example. Since most combats are over in about 4ish rounds, cutting that time in half could be a problem.
It's a rare combat where hex/curse + attack round 1, the other half + attack the second round isn't a better plan even if you can fire of both curses in one round. Not saying there's no situations where it's not better, but they're gonna be rare.
Part of the game’s action economy is set up the way it is because it forces a PC to take 2 turns to set up a combo like hex + Hexblade’s Curse for example. Since most combats are over in about 4ish rounds, cutting that time in half could be a problem.
Let's assume a Warlock attacking with a longsword x1, +4 modifier, tier 1.
It frees up a Bonus Actions at the expense of 13 damage, at the expense of nearly half of your output for half of the combat. That's a steep price to pay for a BA. That's at low level when the damage you're forgoing is at its lowest.
I'm sure there are things you can do with that Bonus Action that situationally can be more useful, but we need to keep in mond that the bar isn't "in some situations, you may want to choose two BAs over an Action", which is just good game design. The bar is either "It's game-breakingly OP if it's ever allowed" or "you will always choose two BAs over an Action because it's objectively superior".
If you've got a specific character in your campaign that's running into conflicts with their bonus actions -- the shifter barbarian you mentioned for instance, if that wasn't just a hypothetical -- you might want to consider creating a homebrew magic item or feat that allows them to do the one combo they want to do for a cost of one bonus action, rather than changing the rules for everybody
I'd actually agree. I'm not convinced that the house-rule is going to break the game or necessarily be problematic. However, it's generally better to make an exception than to change the rules for everyone.
There could be an OP combination out there, whereas your method allows for tight control without the dreaded "I didn't realise, um, I can't allow that, sorry". Even if the intended combo is OP, it being an object allows it to be lost or destroyed later (not ideal...but no worse than changing the rules again and at least it makes narrative sense).
It's also cooler to have a Ring of Angered Transformation that allows you to Rage and Shift in the same Bonus Action (or at the cost of an Action and a Bonus Action if you want to preserve the original action economy - allowing both and an Action might well be too powerful) is much cooler than simply altering the rules to let you do it. It just feels more tangible - at least, as far as tangible goes in a game that utilises a shared imagination.
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.
This turned out to be a lot better topic than I expected. The shear number of ideas and perspectives is great. It gives me so many ideas for homebrews, and combat mechanics for my players to not only utilize, but to face in combat. This is all fantastic stuff.
Based on what i’ve read before, though I don’t remember where, an action is something that takes time (less than 6 seconds), a bonus action is something that takes much less time, and a reaction is spur of the moment (reflexes). So in that perspective, you would definitely be able to take 2 bonus actions instead of 1 action and a bonus action. You might even gain an additional reaction or bonus action from the conversion. If so, how many reactions could you take if you didn’t use your action or bonus action?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’m thinking of allowing players to use two bonus actions in place of an action and a bonus action. So long as the two bonus actions are not the same thing. (Though I am having trouble finding a reason that won’t work too.) With all the Multi- classing and race based abilities, it makes sense to me that a player could for example (shifter/barbarian) shift into beastial form and rage in the same turn. If they are not attacking, and just preparing for battle on their first turn, how would that break the combat if at all? I have thought about many examples of times where 2 bonus actions make more sense to the player than an action and bonus action. Plus if you consider that a bonus action is theoretically a faster action than a full action, making 2 bonus actions in a turn should be more than doable.
It should be ok? Usually a Bonus Action is weaker than an Action...it would most likely be a trap for them, but it should be on to replace an Action with a Bonus 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.
Generally no, only one bonus action per turn should be allowed unless something explicitly allows it (and to my knowledge, nothing does). it is part of the balance of the game.
Thank you for the info. I think I figured out a solution.
It would be very abusable by sorcerers using Quicken Spell.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The idea is that they can not use the same thing more than once. Meaning that the rules for casting still apply and they would only be able to cast a single spell in a turn that is not a cantrip, so even if they used quicken, it would only work to make the spell a bonus action and the second time it would need to be a cantrip, which they could do with their action anyway. The two bonus actions would have to be different things. Maybe even limited to a racial trait bonus action and a class trait, like fey stepping and hex-blade curse, or the bonus action blade ward from an earth genasi and a second wind…. Things like that. Things that they can do with an action and a bonus action would be pretty much pointless to allow. Like 2 quicken spells, or a bonus action dash and a bonus action… anything… because they can use the dash action and a bonus action.
How so?
Currently, a normal caster can cast a spell with a casting time of one Action and one Bonus Action.
A sorcerer with Quicken Spell can cast two spell with a casting time of one Action, one normally as an Action, as a Bonus Action. There is no other benefit to QS.
Why would a sorcerer choose to spent additional metamagic points on QS to use cast two Action spells as two Bonus Actions rather than just casting one normally as an Action? It doesn't even make sense.
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.
I'm sure there are some edge cases that could "break" balance, but I can't think of any. My only word of advice is that bonus actions are also balanced around class and racial features - they're not spread out eventually across all character options. Some players without as many bonus actions may feel that you're unfairly favoring a player with a lot of bonus actions if you do this.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
There does seem to be a lot of possibilities for both positive and negative outcomes in coming up with a universal approach for allowing players 2 bonus actions in the same turn. I think for now the best way to handle things, would be using a case by case approach, maybe allowing certain instances where they can use inspiration or epic dice, or if they have a homebrew build that is built around a bonus action that is specifically designed for that character. I guess that is what zero sessions, and the DM/GM are there for.
It ought to be fine, because even if some individual bonus actions are strong, they're unlikely to be stronger than attacking or casting a spell. I'd expect it's only likely to be used in situations where PCs are unable to engage and have multiple bonus-action setup abilities.
I would keep the restrictions on casting leveled spells when you cast a bonus action spell.
Some spells like Spiritual Weapon attack with a bonus action. So a Cleric could possibly abuse this.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
They did say they would have to do different things with the BA so probably couldn’t attack twice with SW. But could SW and Rage (cleric/barb MC) or some other combo that usually takes two turns to set up. I could see some builds gaining power via this option depending on the limitations
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I feel like there's more examples of bonus actions that could be combined on a turn that are less impactful than taking an action and a bonus action than there are examples of bonus action combos that would break the game. Not to say that none exist, but they're pretty few and far between. It feels like one of those house rules that most people won't have any issue with, but there's always that one guy who figures out some crazy combo that the game isn't balanced around.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Sure, although I'd probably still opt for Attack (or a Cantrip, or Channel Divinity or whatever) and Spiritual Weapon the first round then Rage and attack the second round. Generally, I find that Spiritual Weapon is more about finding something to do with your Bonus Action, rather than it being something you're maining on.
As Transmorpher said, I'm sure there's some combo somewhere that would be OP, but most of the stuff is actually weaker than using your Action - with some that are "yes, it's slightly better than using the Action", with a tiny fraction of problem combos.
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.
Part of the game’s action economy is set up the way it is because it forces a PC to take 2 turns to set up a combo like hex + Hexblade’s Curse for example. Since most combats are over in about 4ish rounds, cutting that time in half could be a problem.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If you've got a specific character in your campaign that's running into conflicts with their bonus actions -- the shifter barbarian you mentioned for instance, if that wasn't just a hypothetical -- you might want to consider creating a homebrew magic item or feat that allows them to do the one combo they want to do for a cost of one bonus action, rather than changing the rules for everybody
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's a rare combat where hex/curse + attack round 1, the other half + attack the second round isn't a better plan even if you can fire of both curses in one round. Not saying there's no situations where it's not better, but they're gonna be rare.
Let's assume a Warlock attacking with a longsword x1, +4 modifier, tier 1.
RAW:
Round 1:
Bonus Action: Hex: 0.
Action: Attack: 9.5 + 3.5 (Hex).
Total: 13.
Round 2:
Bonus Action: Hexblade's Curse: 0.
Action: [action]Attack[/action: 9.5 + 3 (Hexblade's Curse) + 3.5 (Hex).
Total: 15.5.
Overall: 28.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Rule:
Round 1:
Bonus Action: Hexblade's Curse: 0.
Bonus Action: Hex: 0.
Total: 0.
Round 2:
[action]Attack[/action: 9.5 + 3 (Hexblade's Curse) + 3.5 (Hex).
Total: 15.5.
Overall: 15.5.
________________________________________________________
It frees up a Bonus Actions at the expense of 13 damage, at the expense of nearly half of your output for half of the combat. That's a steep price to pay for a BA. That's at low level when the damage you're forgoing is at its lowest.
I'm sure there are things you can do with that Bonus Action that situationally can be more useful, but we need to keep in mond that the bar isn't "in some situations, you may want to choose two BAs over an Action", which is just good game design. The bar is either "It's game-breakingly OP if it's ever allowed" or "you will always choose two BAs over an Action because it's objectively superior".
I'd actually agree. I'm not convinced that the house-rule is going to break the game or necessarily be problematic. However, it's generally better to make an exception than to change the rules for everyone.
There could be an OP combination out there, whereas your method allows for tight control without the dreaded "I didn't realise, um, I can't allow that, sorry". Even if the intended combo is OP, it being an object allows it to be lost or destroyed later (not ideal...but no worse than changing the rules again and at least it makes narrative sense).
It's also cooler to have a Ring of Angered Transformation that allows you to Rage and Shift in the same Bonus Action (or at the cost of an Action and a Bonus Action if you want to preserve the original action economy - allowing both and an Action might well be too powerful) is much cooler than simply altering the rules to let you do it. It just feels more tangible - at least, as far as tangible goes in a game that utilises a shared imagination.
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.
This turned out to be a lot better topic than I expected. The shear number of ideas and perspectives is great. It gives me so many ideas for homebrews, and combat mechanics for my players to not only utilize, but to face in combat. This is all fantastic stuff.
Based on what i’ve read before, though I don’t remember where, an action is something that takes time (less than 6 seconds), a bonus action is something that takes much less time, and a reaction is spur of the moment (reflexes). So in that perspective, you would definitely be able to take 2 bonus actions instead of 1 action and a bonus action. You might even gain an additional reaction or bonus action from the conversion. If so, how many reactions could you take if you didn’t use your action or bonus action?