“Bonus actions are hot garbage!” raged the middle-aged gamer on X.com, before proceeding to eviscerate this iconic part of 5th edition design in an epic eight-piece takedown thread.
The identity of this blowhard grognard? No doubt one of those OSR evangelists who spend their days shaking a 10-foot-pole towards the Seattle skies and screaming “5e killed D&D!”?
Well not exactly. It was Mike Mearls, one of the two leading designers of 5th edition D&D, and the very guy responsible for this “hot garbage” in the first place.
So what happened here?
That time you crit on your bonus attack… (Source: Wiktenauer.com )
The Original Purpose of Bonus Actions
Without bonus actions, D&D game designers are left with only two taxes they can levy on a character’s action economy to power any special abilities during their turn.
Action cost. An ability like Bardic Inspiration can either take up a player’s action, and be the only thing they can do on their turn…
or
No cost. …it’s something they can do for free on the back of their usual action (i.e. in addition to casting a spell or attacking).
The biggest problem with this binary, all-or-nothing system, as Mearls’ saw it when designing 5e, was that if a player can do something for free, they can stack a near infinite amount of special abilities on top of each other in the same round – especially if they choose to multi-class. A multi-classing paladin-fighter-monk might be able to attack (action) and then use divine smite, channel divinity, second wind, flurry of blows, and maybe other abilities granted by species/race, feats or items, all in the same round, obliterating the action economy the game is built around.
And so, by gating a lot of these abilities behind a new “bonus action”, Mearls sought to prevent this type of ability stacking. Since players only get one bonus action a round, they would have to choose between using channel divinity or making an offhand weapon attack, for example, not use both on top of their usual action.
The (Unintended) Result
Mearls was conscious of the potential bloat adding more bandwidth to the 5e action economy could bring, hence his idea that bonus actions only came online when you had an ability that unlocked them. “Bonus” was the perfect word to describe them, and also what distinguished them from swift actions or minor actions that had appeared in 3e and 4e respectively. Players shouldn’t expect or plan to use them every round.
The bonus (as opposed to built-in) nature of bonus actions carried an additional benefit. The designers didn’t have to justify why monsters don’t have them. If bonus actions were an integral part of the action economy, you’d have to give them to every NPC and monster – and suddenly running even a bandit ambush would be a major PITA.
While the no bonus actions for monsters worked out pretty well, Mike’s optimistic idea that players would be happy to leave BAs on the floor, as often as not, didn’t go according to plan.
Fifth edition players quickly leapt at the chance to do something extra on their turn, and started creating character builds that leveraged the full potential of bonus actions – encouraged no doubt by unapologetic power-gamers posting on their blogs.
The hitherto unloved halberd and glaive (I don’t think I ever saw either weapon in play pre-2014!) became the go-to weapon for fighters thanks to the Polearm Master feat, the bard became everyone’s favourite magic user thanks to Bardic Inspiration, powerful bonus action spells like Misty Step were sought out via cynical multi-classing dips, as was any other ability you could use without expending your full action.
The result was that Mike’s intended 5e action economy of “move and do something” was expanded into “move and do something… and then do something else”. (And hopefully get a reaction too!).
Prefer watching vids to reading? Check out my same lines of argument on my new Youtube channel…
The Cons
So the cons of Bonus Actions are pretty clear:
- They slow down the game, as players’ turns take longer (note: while a player’s turn might take twice as long with a bonus action on top of an action, it isn’t twice as effective in terms of dealing damage, so the result is not a case of a fewer number of longer lasting rounds…. combats take longer overall).
- Their existence encourages (some) players towards over-optimisation and combos that the game wasn’t balanced for (which is exacerbated on tables that feature a mix of experienced power-gamers and wide-eyed new players selecting standard character options).
- They often lead to players searching for things to do with their bonus action on their character sheet, when there’s often nothing of note they can do, leading to frustration for that player and wasted time for everyone else. (In my experience, thinking whether something useful can be rinsed from a BA usually takes longer than just using a BA feature!).
The Pros
The main pro of bonus actions is the same as the main con… characters get to do more things on their turn!
This is something the majority of players, including myself, love. There’s nothing more frustrating in D&D than making your only attack of the round and missing, or wasting a spell slot on a “save or suck” spell that is saved: the bonus action offers a beautiful second chance to contribute during your turn.
Meanwhile, if you do hit with your main attack, it’s never not fun to hit again, or use some other impactful ability. The feeling, as a player, is that you’ve hacked the system and played your character smartly, whenever you get a great use out of a bonus action. It’s also fun scouring the Player’s Handbook and splat books to create character builds that take advantage of this legal loophole in the action economy (there are plenty of D&D players who love the character creation process itself and planning their progression through the levels… even if old-school DMs might vomit a little at this bare-faced audacity).
There are also some ripostes to some of the aforementioned cons that I think soften the negative impact of bonus actions, and need to be taken into account:
– If a player uses a bonus action to do something that would otherwise be a free action, they are not taking any more time on their turn than if BAs didn’t exist (so we can’t play blame BAs for every aspect of 5e drag!).
– If it does take longer to get back to your turn in combat, does that matter if you can do more and have more fun on your turn? The amount of time you spend waiting vs. acting is the same…. whether it’s 2 minutes on and 8 minutes off (as 4 other players go), or 5 minutes on and 20 minutes off. Yes, the combat drags on longer but – as I’ve mentioned before when talking about 5th edition – I’ve never known a player to complain that 5e combat takes too long (you can also now check out my video on the subject!). In my experience it’s only ever DMs that complain about slow combat. So are we projecting a problem that doesn’t exist onto the system? Or at least a “problem” that 80% of the people around the table don’t care about, or actively prefer just as it is?
– One other important pro to consider is that the bonus action did largely succeed in its original goal… it created an action economy that stopped certain abilities being stacked…. even if, as Mike himself laments (…and I similarly opined, and corrected, back in 2017!), not making Divine Smite a bonus action was a huge design oversight. Maybe there’s a case that the bonus action tax should have been applied to other abilities too… (my Tasha’s swarmkeeper ranger has free favoured foe and also free swarm action each round, which I can use in addition to actions and bonus actions, so that even I lose track of my own abilities at times).
Secret to 5e’s Success?
Mike Mearls has actually designed bonus actions out of his new game Moldvay (more on that below). Since his design goal is to create a version of 5e which moves faster at the table, with a streamlined action economy, that certainly makes sense. No doubt it will resonate well with anyone looking to nudge the speed vs. crunch crossfader a little to the left to achieve their preferred balance.
However, I can’t help think that the inclusion of bonus actions is a significant factor behind 5e’s success. They power some of the game’s most fun mechanics, like Bardic Inspiration, Cunning Actions, Flurry of Blows / Patient Defense, as well as a tonne of cool martial combos; and they created a staggered action economy tax that makes narrative sense and helps balance the game (lathering up into a rage, transforming into a wild beast, inspiring a colleague with magic-woven words…. these all feel like important moments that shouldn’t be “free to do”… and yet players would feel like they were missing a turn if they had to use an action to trigger them).
You could even add “drinking a healing potion” to that list, since doing so with a bonus action is the game’s most commonly-applied house rule. It almost never makes strategic sense to drink a healing potion using an action, as the amount of HP recovered is almost always less than the monster threatening you does in a round, but drinking one as a bonus action is a valid tactic.
Whether they qualify for great or garbage game design, what is certain about bonus actions is that players love them…. and that 5e D&D is the most popular RPG of all time. That’s probably not a total coincidence.
So an overall look at all the pros of BAs:
- Players have more meaningful choices and get to do more on their turn (which they love!)
- While they may slow the game down, they don’t change the active / inactive time ratio that players experience during combat.
- They (more or less) achieve their original goal of gating abilities behind a limited action economy
- They provide a more nuanced action economy for allowing for quicker less impactful actions, which powers some of the game’s best features
Bonus Actions for Game Designers
I’m currently designing my own “Bohemian Steampunk” style game that uses the dice pool mechanic of the old West End Games Star Wars RPG, over the top of a 5e action economy / infrastructure. Early on in my design process, I decided that I didn’t need bonus actions. Because I would just use the elegant action economy baked into the d6 system: you can attempt as many things as you wish on your turn, provided you reduce your dice pool by one dice for each additional action you wish to take.
For example, if you have 5d blaster, you can shoot once and roll 5d hit. Or you can shoot twice and roll 4d to hit for both shots. You want to move as well? Ok, it’s 3d6 for each shot and you make it half back to the Millennium Falcon.
Pretty cool system and, dare I say it, “cinematic”.
But gradually a few factors pushed me back towards a more 5e-based action economy of Move, Action, Bonus Action. Firstly, since damage will be determined by how well you hit, instead of separate damage rolls, I figured it will rarely make sense to make two weaker attacks, instead of one stronger one. Secondly, as a player, it always hurts to take a reduction on a to hit roll. If I have 5d I want roll all 5 dice! Thirdly, I want to balance the power of firearms in my steampunk setting by requiring a bonus action to reload them, and by extension reward PCs for getting up close to opponents by allowing a melee combo of weapon (action) followed by fist, knee, headbutt, secondary weapon, etc (bonus action).
What I’ve realised during my game design process is that bonus actions are really fun and versatile to design around. My goal for my steampunk game – which will have a strong focus on combat – is that every class will have “signature moves” powered by “flair”. Upgrading a bonus action attack to the power of a main attack, is a great way of how a signature move might work, and this is enabled by having this more nuanced action economy.
Meanwhile, when I asked one of my D&D groups what they thought of bonus actions recently, their main complaint was that not every class (notably wizards) has good options for them. This in turn got me thinking that maybe a default list of minor things that players can do on a bonus action would answer that issue, and might actually save time: as players can have a crib list of default options in front of them, instead of searching around their character sheet for something bespoke to do.
That’s the way I’m going with my steampunk game, but maybe even D&D would benefit from that. Could a wizard use their bonus action to extend the shield spell for the example (you’d have to power down the +5 a bit, but might work!), or could they use their bonus action to steel themselves and gain a plus on their concentration saving throw in case they take damage (as my friend Harry suggested). If I was starting D&D from scratch I might make using a bonus action a requirement to maintain concentration on a spell cast in a previous round.
Anyway, now I’m just spitballing, but BAs certainly open some interesting doors to game designers….
Moldvay by Mike Mearls
If you’re interested in a faster version of 5e, designed by one of the guys who brought us 5e in the first place, the best place to keep up with Mike is via his Patreon, where he posts his latest thoughts and playtest material.
Apart from being designed to move faster at the table, another notable change Mike is introducing for Moldvay is giving monsters levels, instead of CR, to make encounter building easier and more accurate.
I believe as well that the game will focus on just levels 1-10, in the spirit of the 1981 Basic D&D box set edited by Tom Moldvay, after whom the RPG is named.
My Bohemian Steampunk RPG
And if you want to know more about my “Bohemian Steampunk” or “Europunk” game, then stay tuned to this here blog (subscribe function in the right side bar). It’s designed to evoke all the classic steampunk fantasies (steam technology, firearms, airships, heists, mysteries, 19th century aesthetics and culture), but with a proper combat system (none of this narrative nonsense!) and a setting based more on Vienna, Paris and Barcelona than boring old Victorian London. I’ll be playtesting it soon with friends and releasing a beta version of the game to the public later this year.
D&D in Walworth Castle Competition (UK Only)
Hopefully this newsletter / blog reaches a few UK-based D&D players, in which case here’s your chance to win something spectacular as part of this year’s Comic Relief.
You and five friends could win the chance to sit at the legendary Knights’ Round Table at Kynren to play Dungeons & Dragons, led by a professional DM. You’ll get to experience everything that Kynren, one of the UK’s most extraordinary live experiences, has to offer. And to top it all off, a two-night stay at the epic Walworth Castle awaits, complete with a feast in their dungeon!
One ticket is 10 GBP and you need to enter by 21 June, and the competition is available to UK residents only (aged 18+). Prize takes place 28–30 Aug. Full details and T&Cs at: comicrelief.com/prizes/365/dungeonsanddragons
Rick Coen
(Of course I’m interested in Bohemian Steampunk – and all your design thoughts that go into it, including the decisions to *not* do something!)
4e had Standard, Move, and Minor actions. You could downgrade any “action type” if you wanted, allowing a “double move” and a minor, or three Minor actions if you really needed to do it. (Beholder’s eyestalk gaze is a Minor action, so shooting three eye rays makes perfect sense. PC’s might default down to a minor spell and a couple potions, as another example.)
5e wanted to distance itself from 4e in all ways. In this case: Action, and Move. Your Action could be “Dash”… which is the same as “downgrade your Standard Action to a Move Action”, aka “Double Move”. [Yes, I’m aware there are a few 5e-unique edge cases. You can’t Dash through water, for example, but your *normal* movement isn’t impeded.] And there is no Minor action every turn for you to agonize over!!
Except… Bonus Actions! Which are, in effect, just 4e Minor Actions all over again. Like drinking that darned Healing Potion (homebrew at most tables). So Mike Mearls didn’t invent something new, he (and the other devs) just relabelled the 4e mechanic. Which already worked really well for both PCs and monsters. It’s not a “bonus”… it’s just a lesser action.
Spiritual Weapon is a “BA spell”. You cast it, and then get to tell it to smack something once per round. If “attack the X” was a Free Action, then you are faced with infinite attacks. If it’s an Action (i.e. Standard Action), then… your warhammer does similar or more damage, probably, no need for a spell slot in most cases. So you need a limit… that might involve choices (can’t use the hammer *and* drink that healing potion)… Oh wait, Minor Actions! Ahem, I mean, Bonus Actions!
To be fair, in 4e, smacking with the Spiritual Hammer is a Minor Action, so I *could* use all three action types as Minors, and smack three times. In 5e, it’s a Bonus Action, you only get 1, and you can’t “downgrade”. 4e handled that with the simple “As a minor action ONCE PER ROUND, you can…”
At my table, in 5e, you have the same (homebrew) option: you can downgrade your Action to a Bonus Action – like to smack with a Spiritual Hammer *and* drink a potion – as long as you don’t repeat the *same* Bonus Action in the same round. So yes, Misty Step *and* Bardic Inspiration, but no double-Misty, and no double-Bardic. (and no smack-smack with the Spiritual Hammer)
Pathfinder 2e (PF2e) “solved” this the other direction, with the “3 Action Economy”… where instead of deciding which actions are “less important/lengthy/etc”, they acknowledged that *everyone* wants to Attack as their action… so they imposed stacking penalties on “Attack” only. Boom, same result. You can move a lot if you want, do a bunch of “minor” things like drink a potion, slap a comrade to wakefulness, Recall Lore, etc. And/or, most commonly, Attack once really well, and once not-so-well (-5 to hit, which also reduced crits and increases fumbles)… and do something else (like Move up to the foe, or run away from it). I particularly love their take on magic, where (many? most?) spells are more effective if you spend more Actions on them when casting. 1 Action: heal someone with a touch for 1d8. 2 Actions, heal them within 30′, for 1d8+8. 3 Actions, heal fricking everyone and everything in 30′ for 1d8+8 as a Burst effect!
So… circling back to Bohemian Steampunk, you’ve got several variations on this Action mechanic you can play with. 4e and 5e are just distorted reflections of each other, while PF2e gives you another viewpoint. Shoot with the blaster at 5d, shoot again perhaps at 3d, and you can still run to the ship!
(To further complicate things, 5e2024 introduced the “Nick” weapon mastery mechanic: [paraphrased] make your offhand attack AS PART OF THE ATTACK ACTION. I.e. with the *right* weapons, and/or the *right* training, you don’t spend your Bonus/Minor/3rd Action for the off-hand attack! stab-slice-Smite is available!)
duncan
hey Rick, thanks for supplying some additional context here! Especially in regards to 4e.
Yes, I guess what Mike Mearls did was come up with the term “Bonus Action” without really coming up with a new concept. The main difference between BAs and MAs was one of intention (that players shouldn’t feel the need to use them), and that totally failed, so you could argue he didn’t invent anything new in the end!
The PF2e action economy makes good sense on paper…. but I think 3 actions adds too many permutations and may encourage indecision (at least I would guess that’s how it plays out?!). By having Move as a separate action, 5e saves a lot of time, as often players have no reason to Move, so now they are just down to their Action, and totally optional (😉) Bonus Action.
I think I have some good solutions for my Steampunk game… but let’s see if they survive playtesting!