Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback What do you think ? Convert action in bonus action ?

Hello,

This is a part of something more important I have in mind but I'd like to have your opinion on this first.

What would you think if we were able to use a bonus action using our action ? (Or convert our action on bonus action, you get the idea).

So in 1 turn you will, in exemple ne allowed to jump + shove.

Larian wants to offer us more bonus action and this could be something to balance them a bit more and it could leads to something like "complex bonus action".

I don't have specific exemples in mind right now but what do you think about "the idea" ?

I would say, that if player wants to trade their main action for bonus action, then it underlines how damaging the changes Larian made are.

I don’t know DND 5e, but it feels to me like we get far too much mileage out of bonus actions. By the very name, they are a bonus - something extra, on top of what we already can do. One shouldn’t be able to significantly alter the battlefield with a bonus action - and that’s what jump and push do.

Please no. Game is shifted from tactical strategic playstyle to an arcade enough already.

That's actually true to D&D5 rules. And I posted long that it should be implemented, but along with other fixes to actions' cost and effects. Like shove is an attack and supposed to cost full action. Jump is way of movement and supposed to cost movement and don't give disengage effect. For example a 2nd lvl rogue who failed hiding should be able to try again.

This is something I would like to be truer to 5th edition. Especially if we ever get Metamagic, the whole purpose of Quickened Spell is to cast a spell that costs a full action with a bonus action.

Can you please give me links to the rules you're talking about so I can understand how it should/could work ?

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1031604910226198528

That being said, BG3 ruleset isn't really D&D 5E and the game will therefore need to be carefuly rebalanced anyway, so why not. I don't think Jeremy Crawford / WotC would care.

Sorcerer & Metamagic

You'll have to scroll down to find Quickened Spell.

Edit:
Shove is used in place of attack You'll have to scroll down for this again or ctrl+f for "Shoving a Creature".

To note; folks are saying that shove as an action is part of the core rules, not that you can convert bonus actions into full actions or vice-versa as standard. You absolutely cannot do that, and for exceptionally good reason.

A bonus action is not just a 'lesser action' and it's definitely not a 'faster action'; they are different types of activity, and are utterly incompatible except in a few very specific cases, which usually come with a cost or require a specific class perk to gain access to. This is part of the system's balance, normally speaking, and freely trading your BAs into actions to allow you to take more BAs is so completely broken and abusable if you scratch even a little way under the surface to look at the implications and results of allowing it.

That said, as others have mentioned, BG3's system barely resembles 5e rules at all, at this stage, and the likelihood of us having a system that isn't balanced entirely around the abuses of Larian's homebrewing, to the negation of all other systems, is minimal, so, in terms of applying that concept to BG3 specifically...

Well, let's look: If everyone can freely use their action to use an additional bonus action, then everyone, of every class, automatically gains the thief rogues' level 3 perk out of the gate. The thief rogue, presumably, keeps theirs and so could theoretically use three bonus actions in a turn, but it would still be heavily devalued as a result.

Our limited movement speed would be devalued as well, since any character with a positive strength score could always jump multiple times in a turn, and use that busted mechanic to cover inordinate amounts of distance beyond their supposed movement limits - something that would further impact upon and cripple the already reduced ranges of ranged caster and archers.

Even for their own system, this would be a bad idea. But, it would stand a chance of making individual characters feel even more pointlessly over-powered and ridiculous, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they'll put it in.

If Larian maintains the current implementation of spell casting in BG3, Quicken spell is going to be seriously buffed.

In table top, there is a bonus action spell rule that prevents you from casting 2 levelled spells (non cantrips) outside of a single turn, with the exception being action surge.
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Spells#content


I.e. if you quicken a fireball to use as a bonus action this turn, you can only cast a cantrip with your action the same turn.

In table top, quicken spell is best used by Sorcerer/Martials - who can quicken cast a spell and then still make a full attack, or if you have magical items/ability (i.e. Wands) that take a full action.

BG3 currently breaks this rule because there is no spell level limitations. You can launch a guiding bolt and a healing word in the same round. Haste is also implemented as an action surge, letting you cast a spell with that (this is normally not the case). I'm curious to see if this happens, and what kind of game-breaking combos we get out of it.

Truthfully, I'm less fussed about the bonus action spell limitation rule being ignored. Every DM I know and play with ignores it and considers it arbitrary and pointless.

There are no breaks or abuses that emerge as a result of not having the rule, that are not exceeded by other perfectly legal alternatives, or paid for in adequate balance cost, with the sole exception of Quicken meta-magic. Quicken meta-magc deserves to have the bonus action spell limitation applied to it; every other spell-caster everywhere else does not. (There's an easy rewrite for the quicken meta-magic specifically, that uses similar wording to denote that when you use this meta magic to cast a spell as a bonus action, you can only use your action to cast another spell if that spell is a cantrip)

There are only a limited number of bonus action spells, and a large swathe of them are spells designed to be coupled with the player taking the attack action - they're ranger and paladin spells. For the rest, there aren't any breaks or abuses that show up, even if you scan the entire list of BA spells in the current game.

Misty Step + any offensive spell.

It's 30 feet, and it burns an extra spell slot; it has literally never caused any kind of offensive edge in any combat situation in any game I've ever been in, certainly not one that is worth more than the resources spent to do it.

Describe a situation where what you gain from that over doing something similar without the misty, is worth substantially more than the extra resources you spend (an additional 2nd level spell slot) to do it.

Have you got any other examples? Because I'll say again, one spell is not enough justification for creating a counter-intuitive arbitrary rule with completely stupid and asinine results from its enforcement that punishes literally every spell caster everywhere.

Want to see an example of how silly that particular rule is?

It means that you can have a high level fighter-wizard climb a 30 foot ladder and then cast meteor swarm (9th level spell slot), have an enemy attempt to counterspell them, have that same wizard counterspell the enemy's counterspell, with a 7th level slot just in case, finish casting meteor swarm, then action-surge and cast an 8th level disintegrate with impunity because the other caster already used their reaction. (Net turn: Fighter-Wizard successfully cast a 9th, 8th and 7th level spell over the course of one turn)

BUT, because of the arbitrariness of that specific rule, that same wizard might first try to misty step up the ladder instead of climbing, only to have the enemy caster counterspell them.... now our high level fighter-wizard CANNOT counterspell the enemy caster - that would be casting a spell that is not a cantrip with a casting time of one action on their turn after all, and they already cast a bonus action spell (even though it's being countered). So their misty step fizzles.... The wizard CANNOT try to cast either meteor swarm or disintegrate, or even a little 1st level magic missile with their action, and moreover, they CANNOT action surge in the hopes of casting at least one of those spells, because of this rule; that entirely fresh action granted by an independent class ability is still being crippled, because of that bonus action spell.... so the wizard is forced instead to either end their turn having successfully cast nothing at all, or possibly tossing a cantrip. (Net turn: Fighter-Wizard successfully cast 0 leveled spells)

I've never seen a fair defence of this rule existing put forward that is not better answered by fixing the edge-case situation, rather than punishing all spellcasters everywhere, and why this rule should exist, in defiance of the actual listed part of your turn that it takes up being the only limitation (like literally everything else in 5e).

Don't get me wrong, I dislike that rule as well - then again I kinda dislike the whole action vs bonus action 5E f**kery (or 4E minor actions, but 4E had even bigger issues). While it makes perfect sense from a rules/balance perspective to not allow the conversion of bonus actions to actions, it makes no sense from the perspective of "realism" / suspension of disbelief. Realistically, a character SHOULD be able to do two bonus actions (and no action) per turn if they can do action and a bonus action per turn, as bonus action is supposed to be easier/shorter. If jump is a BA like in BG3, then jumping twice per turn (6s) and taking no action should definitely be possible if jumping once AND CASTING A SPELL is OK. And balance in BG3 is a moot point, the whole game will have to be rebalanced, Larian's implementation is simply not D&D 5E and spells, abilities, classes etc. will have to reflect that.

That being said, the combination of Misty Step + specific offensive spells is definitely very powerful, if not OP. Use all movement to move in the middle of enemy group, cast Arms of Hadar or similar spell, misty step away (used and abused in BG3). Whether it is OP or not really depends, are there any actions that are not spells, but have a similar effect? Andi f yes, what is their "price", do they expend an item/slot/charge or something?

Interesting thread: https://www.enworld.org/threads/removing-the-bonus-action-analysis.554034/

I generally like 5E TT for its simplicity, though I think 3/3.5 is by far the best ruleset for CRPGs. Taking 5E, removing the spellcasting rule, allowing to use BAs as As and rebalancing accordingly would, IMHO, lead to a perfect and simple ruleset for P&P.

Healing Word into a full spell is extremely potent in terms of action economy and Healing Word into Cure Wounds significantly increases the pace of healing at lower levels. I wouldn't argue that it's broken but being able to do so is a substantial buff. The other standout is Misty Step into Thunderwave letting a player gain high ground, displace multiple enemies from the high ground, deal damage and bonus fall damage.


Bonus action spells for caster classes are generally balanced around the idea that they don't have a zero time cost. If you do set them to have a zero time cost then you need to nerf pretty much all of them because that's a fairly major buff. Any that you don't have to nerf are either edge cases where it doesn't really matter that you can't cast a spell that turn or spells that probably need a buff.

In terms of the specifics you've stated I think there is definitely a case to be made that both reactions in your own turn shouldn't be prevented nor should action surges. But I don't think it makes sense to open the floodgates to high level clerics having a constant stream of additional healing nor Wizards constantly teleporting for little to no cost once they reach a sufficiently high level. To the best of my knowledge those characters are strong enough already and don't need buffs.

I agree that the game should allot us to convert our main action into a bonus.

If my ranger would rather take another potion instead of attacking the enemy twice, he should be able to.
If my warlock would rather crouch and hide instead of casting a super complicated spell, she should be able to do it.

I would never say no to a player asking to replace the main action for another potion or another simple action that could be done with a bonus action.

I do not consider that problematic, when you are spending the requisite limited resources, in a system where your spell slots actually mean something of value (not BG3). If a caster wants to burn their slots that quickly on at high-burn high-effectiveness, well, they're going to burn out faster than others who don't, and the price will be well paid overall. It's not problematic or unbalanced. In terms of what other abilities exist that aren't spells... well, there are other class abilities, and their paid cost is generally the same as spells; they are a rest-limited resource.

You know what is? Fighter-paladins who can, in the right conditions, blast off eight (Eight) spell slots in a single turn, all converting into guaranteed, rarely resisted damage, and all perfectly legally. I make that example, because the main "official" response for why the bonus action casting limitation exists, from WotC, was to make a statement about it being a gate against novaing spell slots... Said while even pure paladins can nova three spell slots per turn at bare minimum, freely.... or, to use a more pointed example, walk up to a big bad monster, pump two spells slots into it, and then misty step away out of its range, perfectly legally. If the wizard wants to spend two of their limited resource slots in one turn just to balance their standard offence with some precautions, that is in no way over-balanced. For your example, though... I don't see it as being any grave difference in benefit over walking part way into the group of enemies, using AoH, and then walking the rest of your movement back out again, because, you know, AoH is reaction denial. Don't just consider what you can do with this; consider it in relation to what you could do without it as well and measure them. The difference is, in nearly every case, minimal to minor. Healing, as mentioned below, is a consideration... but Ill answer that below.


In the lower levels, yes... where your spells lots are very tightly limited, and burning two in a single turn is a big hit to your total long rest resource pool, when you might be having to get through two or three encounters in a day. More than acceptable for the cost. In the higher levels, where HW truly shines as the absolutely worst scaling spell in the game, then it's positively a detriment to be using spell slots on it except in emergencies... it doesn't even pass muster as maintenance healing,, past level 10, compared to the by turn damage output that parties will generally be facing. So if players want to, they can certainly weigh that cost themselves, without needing an extra, counter-intuitive rule that stands outside the general design philosophy of the rest of 5e.


Rather, I would say that HAVING the rule in place where it doesn't belong and has no business being is a substantial and utterly unwarranted handicap on casters who do not need it. The game's balance is not served by the existence of that rule.


You're going to have to explain to me where you're getting this talk about 'time cost'. They have a time cost; they take a bonus action, which is a specific part of your turn, and of which you get one and only one per turn. That is their time cost. There is no need for the implementation of further rules on top of that, when the existing structure already fully defines and limits their use.


Or, rather than creating even more niggly specific rule minutia to define exceptions hither and thither, they could just abandon that one rule that sits there over the top of existing definitions, and sticks out like a sore thumb as a rule that clearly doesn't fit in with the entire rest of the 5e design style, and was only put in as a legacy response from older editions, due to preconceived (and historically founded, I admit) notions of casters as badly overpowered especially in their ability to nova powerful spells in rapid succession, which is something that has already been taken care of and is not an issue in 5e at all and does not need additional rules shackled onto it any more.

Right now, I'm involved in 5 different games, with various groups of friends, and not a single one of those games has not unilaterally decided to discard the silly bonus action spell restriction. Most of them have been running for several years now, and believe me when I say that it is not the spellcasters who are the ones shining the most, in any of those games. It's pretty well balanced, for the most part... the most class-centric comments tend to be about the barbarian that cannot be killed, at one table or the monks at another; there are multiple sorcs, wizards, warlocks and clerics scattered about the groups, but they aren't the ones stealing the show of gaining excessive extra value from anything. The cases of actual bonus action spell and action spell use are rare-ish. Not entirely uncommon, but not consistent either. But they do have the comfort of the freedom not having to stress about whether they can or not, because every spell just takes up the portion of your turn economy that it says it does, and that's all you have to worry about. The level brackets for the ranges currently between 5 and 13; not quite in the end tiers yet anywhere, but getting there.

I'd seriously just invite anyone to try it; play a campaign without that silly rule. I swear; you will not miss it, and you will not go back... because you will see that there is truly no need to.

Healing Word at higher levels is primarily used as a way to get party members up from dying. It's the ~most effective way to do so, given it has a 30ft range, is a bonus action, and only a 1st level slot.

RAW, casters have to choose between getting someone up and doing minimal damage that turn (via a cantrip), or casting a high level spell. This choice adds to tactical decision making during combat, and it would be significantly less interesting/tense if casters could cast Healing Word and Fireball.

The key phrasing here is "Fighter-paladins" and "in the right conditions." You have to multiclass, which slows your progression in each class and in getting ASIs. And you use limited resources (Action Surge?), so you can't just do this all the time.
Being able to cast multiple spells per turn under specific conditions is different than blanket permission to always cast a spell & bonus action spell every turn.

As I said,


But, whereas the caster doesn't even get this same baseline, because of an extra arbitrary rule, they also CANNOT, even in the right conditions, achieve the same degree of magical nova. Not even remotely close to it. so it makes the WotC response to WHY the Ba rule exists being to prevent resource novaing seem entirely disingenuous and fallacious.


That's certianly not been my experience. At higher levels, having sub ten Hp in a situation where characters have been knocked down is asking for the risk of traumatic death, and at the very least a swift trip back to unconsciousness. Begin able to get them up again so that they don't miss their turns, but still remain in a tense situation where everything feels increasingly close to the wire of life and death adds to the experience, generally speaking, and does not detract from the dramatic tension. Characters still have to make the choice about how to use their resources, and how to use up the economy of their turn, and those choices are still meaningful.

==

That said...

The topic of this thread is about using your Action to use Bonus Action abilities and spells, in relation to BG3... so we've strayed a bit off topic, and I will probably choose not to engage the above topic any further in this thread (though people can feel free to message me if you like)

Bonus: Ding! Ahievement Unlocked: A Hill To Die On (You discovered one of Niara's particularly strongly felt opinions that divert from core rules)

I think this could be a good idea and give the player more options. Since DnD rules and Baldurs Gate gameplay are allready off the Table anyway, i would even propose maybe getting the actionpoint system into game again. It would give the player alot more actions especialy with a Lone Wolf styled Gameplay.