2014 5e; prof. bonus number of bonus actions per round? (2024)

This is an iteration on a thought that has rattled around my head for a little while, and I wanted to run the probably many bad action economy consequences through the crowd sourcing of thus forum. I understand 2024's new rules try to provide more non-action extra things to do in order to de-overload the bonus action, but this idea would be a relatiVely radical house rule to mess with this further.

The proposed house rule would be designed to accomplish the following:

• You can take bonus actions generated by named features that produce them as long as you haven't taken that named feature's bonus action yet that round. So Cunning Action can be used even if another bonus action that wasn't a Cunning Action has been taken. Maybe Flurry of Blows is another example. This would mostly allow class features to get used without conflicting with others.
• Unnamed bonus actions are all still using the same bonus action slot, so quickening a spell, casting a bonus action spell, dual wielding, most feats' bonus actions... They all are still competing for the same 'slot' each turn.
• Even with this, you are limited to no more actions (main or bonus) in a given turn than your proficiency bonus. (Maybe no more bonus actions in a turn than your proficiency bonus?)

Thus rule gives more freedom to use various class features while still benefiting from a feat or naturally bonus action. It even leads to increasing action economy as you level up, especially if you have a number of class features to draw on.

On the other hand, it might over-encourage multiclassing to get those heavy-duty named bonus actions. A cunning action and a patient defense is better than another way to use cunning action.

Monks get to explode with options, between Flurry of Blows, Patient Defence, and Step of the Wind, and the aforementioned multiclass monk/rogue could Cunning Action and Step of the Wind even at level 4. By level 5, Rogue 2/Monk 3 could add a flurry of blows to this mix, or his martial arts bonus action attack. (The flurry of blows may need to be ruled as using his martial arts bonus action.)

So there are obvious issues. The question is whether the prof. Bonus cap would make them issues that could be worked out, or the action economy is just too liberal with this notion.

I encourage you to give it a try and report your findings, for science!

Youve already noted some of these, but keep an eye out for
Rage
Bardic inspiration
War cleric
Moon, stars and shepherd druids
TWF, GWM, PAM, Poisoner, Charger, CBE, Telekinetic
Rune/echo knight, samurai
Cunning action, mastermind BA help
Martial arts, ki powers
Horizon walker, monster slayer
Storm sorcery, Quicken spell
Bladesong
Undead and fathomless warlocks

Any sort of pet directed with a BA (artillerist, battlesmith, beastmaster, drakewarden, wildfire)

Hunters mark, hex, smite spells
Healing word (and other BA heals like celestial warlock, dreams druid and thief healer)
Shield of faith, misty step, spiritual weapon, shadow blade, swift quiver

Weapon of speed, boots of speed, bag of tricks

Suggest you consider doing this a PB/2. Unless you want play to slow to a crawl. As Kane suggested, please tell us how it goes.

I will need to consider exact wording and such, but my instinct is that feats granting bonus actions would fall into the 'nameless bonus action' slot and compete with each other. I know the feats all have names, but the feats do more than just grant bonus actions; the element in them that grants it thus isn't named.

Martial arts, now that I think of it in these terms, isn't a type of bonus action, either. Step of the Wind is. Rage... I guess isn't; you take a (unnamed kind of) bonus action to activate it, but the Rage is something else.

Thanks for the list. It is helpful for evaluating where my head is on these. It may be that there aren't very many that fit my current paradigm; it may be that I expand it, or that that is okay.

If I get a chance to run something with this, I will definitely share. The only game I have right now has a divination wizard, a zealot barbarian, and a Paladin/Bard.

Off the top of my head, only the barbarian's rage might qualify, and that's questionable. But I will look deeper.

As an intermediate test, consider "two bonus actions per round, only one of which can involve making attacks." (2014 bonus action spell clause likely covers any abuse cases that are not that, but 2024 limits based on spell slots instead, so it's possibly worth thinking about spells in that context.)

I think that will likely cut off a lot of possible cases for abuse and let you test it out in simplified form, then decide whether to allow it to scale past that later. Do you really want a T4 character to have six bonus actions? That seems even more difficult to run than high-level play already is.

BG3 has made me less concerned with multiple spells a turn.
Generally, multiple spells every turn of combat means your losing.

I was working on a homebrew where I will be addressing bonus actions with the following changes to Charisma.

Charisma:
1) Charisma grants 5 + Charisma Modifier in Energy.
2) Whenever something would mention a Bonus Action or Reaction, it instead costs an Energy. You may not spend your Energy more than once a round on the same use case.
3) Regain 1 Energy a round.

Would this work for what you are wanting?

For the rest on the homebrew I will be posting in homebrew with the title "DND 6e concept"

I generally think having to make decisions is a feature, not a bug? And giving people the ability to do 5-6 actions per round is going to make winning initiative even MORE important.

If you decide to try this, you'll need to be extremely clear with your players about what qualifies for the free bonus actions and what doesn't.

Originally Posted by Witty Username

BG3 has made me less concerned with multiple spells a turn.
Generally, multiple spells every turn of combat means your losing.

While that's probably true in a video game, a Wizard that wins initiative and gets to fire off 5-6 spells before anybody else gets to do anything is going to MASSIVELY change the encounter balance.

Are you planning to give monsters anything comparable? I don't think most monsters have a ton of bonus actions to pick from, but if they don't get beefed up somehow, the resulting imbalance in the action economy will need to be addressed somehow.

Originally Posted by Witty Username

BG3 has made me less concerned with multiple spells a turn.
Generally, multiple spells every turn of combat means your losing.

A while ago in my current campaign, I did away with the RAW spell casting per-round limits and let players cast whatever they want as long as they had the action (or bonus or reaction) available. It didn't break anything and honestly it didn't really change anything.