Timeline for What overpowered combinations would be available if I allow a bonus action to be used in place of a standard action?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2020 at 22:00 | history | edited | Will Rhodes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Corrected typo, since that spell isn't available until 3rd character level.
|
| May 2, 2016 at 1:58 | comment | added | PurpleVermont | I came back to report on my experience (I added a separate answer), and also accepted this answer as it was the one caveat that I needed to add to my house rule. | |
| May 2, 2016 at 1:57 | vote | accept | PurpleVermont | ||
| Sep 19, 2015 at 4:51 | comment | added | PurpleVermont | here's my wording if you want it: Using a Bonus Action as your regular Action You may "demote" a bonus action and do it during your regular action. You may not use the same type of bonus action twice in the same round. The rule against casting two spells in a turn (unless one is a cantrip) still stands. I reserve the right to add exceptions if you guys find some way to abuse/exploit/break this. Exceptions: If you cast Spiritual Weapon using your main action instead of a bonus action, you may not use your bonus action that turn to move and/or re-attack with the weapon | |
| Sep 19, 2015 at 0:29 | comment | added | Will Rhodes | Wise choice! =) Fair notice: I am stealing your idea for my own game. In researching bonus actions, I saw many more situations where I thought it would be fair and useful than ones where I thought it would be exploitable. | |
| Sep 18, 2015 at 22:36 | comment | added | PurpleVermont | I wrote it in my house rules as an exception, because "casting" the spell as a bonus action, and "using a continuing feature" of the spell as a bonus action aren't technically the same type of action (and we're all on the rules-lawyerish side, so it's good to be clear). I do have explicitly in there "I reserve the right to add more exceptions when you guys figure out how to break things using this" | |
| Sep 18, 2015 at 20:25 | comment | added | Will Rhodes | @PurpleVermont Looking at how much damage this could do at higher spell levels, I agree. However, the exception is pretty easily included in "don't allow the same type of bonus action twice". | |
| Sep 18, 2015 at 4:22 | history | edited | Will Rhodes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added analysis
|
| Sep 17, 2015 at 22:25 | history | edited | Will Rhodes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 230 characters in body
|
| Sep 17, 2015 at 20:59 | comment | added | PurpleVermont | That actually does sound broken enough to write in as an exception to the rule. | |
| Sep 17, 2015 at 11:09 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Sep 17, 2015 at 11:26 | |||||
| Sep 17, 2015 at 10:54 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 17, 2015 at 10:56 | |||||
| Sep 17, 2015 at 10:51 | history | answered | Will Rhodes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |