Bonus Actions: Not So Fast

 

"We've had one wind, yes. What about second wind?"

I am, admittedly, a rules-as-written kinda guy when it comes to 5E. I don't typically use houserules -- due in no small part to playing and running so many Adventurers League games -- but there's one pretty common houserule that's always bugged me. I've never really thought about why it bugged me so much, but I figured it out, and the answer involves something I don't think I've really seen anyone talk about online.

The houserule in question: allowing a PC to drink a potion as a bonus action. And the reason it bugs me is that that's not what bonus actions are for.

I think there's a lot of unspoken confusion about that, what the bonus action represents in the narrative, and consequently it seems like there's also a lot of people who've silently agreed on what that is. The question "Can I do that as a bonus action?" with regards to opening a door or drinking a potion implies that because the thing the player wants to do is so quick, it shouldn't require a "full" action. I can understand that line of thinking. But the thing is, bonus actions aren't fast, they're just... bonus.

We've had swift actions, minor actions, fast actions, immediate actions, and move actions, all of which basically mean "an action that doesn't take as much time or effort as attacking or casting a spell." And we know that 5E's design loves to reference previous editions for terminology (e.g., the upcoming weapon mastery). If they'd wanted to call it something that meant "fast action," there was plenty of history to pull from. So why didn't they?

The "fast" interpretation implies that time isn't a social construct in 5E. We don't divide time into segments, or have spells that take between 2 and 9 turns to cast. Of the 6 seconds in a round, how many go toward moving, and how many go toward attacking? If my speed is 45, are more of my 6 seconds dedicated to moving than a dwarf with a speed of 25? If I don't move at all, can I take two Attack actions? Because if I can use my action to Dash, which essentially lets me move again, it stands to reason that by not moving I could Attack again. Or if a bonus action is faster than an action, can I cast two healing words if I don't take an action? No to all of those, for many reasons. Six seconds is just a convenient unit of time they settled on so there could be 10 of them in a minute. If you can't tie any of these things -- moving, actions, and bonus actions -- to a consistent fraction of 6, you can't really justify any of them as being any faster than any of the others.

A better "translation" for bonus action might've been "special action," although that sounds... kinda weird, so I'm not faulting them for not using it. Still, "special" is more accurate, if you ask me. Bonus actions are -- well, let's go to the metaphorical videotape:

Courtesy of D&D Beyond.

In other words, you have special training that lets you essentially turn an ordinary action into something extraordinary, or take two actions in the time it would take someone else to perform only one. The only catch is that one of those two actions must be something closely tied to that special training of yours. 

(Do the rules perfectly align with this non-fast interpretation of bonus actions? No, of course not, but I'll get to that.)

Let's take a closer look at those two use-cases.

The extraordinary ordinary. This is stuff like Rage, Bardic Inspiration, and Second Wind. On their own, these bonus actions represent things the common person can't do. There's no existing action equivalent for adding a static damage bonus, giving someone else a die to add to a d20 test, or independently regaining hit points outside of a short rest. But it's also clear that the design intent here is for you to do these things the same turn you use your action for something else, like attacking or casting a spell. When the barbarian charges forward, Rages, and attacks, his class feature is enhancing the Attack action. When a bard casts hypnotic pattern while shouting words of Bardic Inspiration to a companion, they didn't somehow speed up the casting of the spell, and besides, speaking doesn't require an action. When the monk/fighter Dodges or Second Winds, she's not dodging faster or healing faster; she's adding the narrative detail that her injuries or circumstances aren't not as bad as they look.

Two for one. The classic examples here are the aforesaid rogue's Cunning Action and the monk's Martial Arts. I think a better case could be made here for bonus actions being faster than standard actions, especially in the monk's case. They punch you real fast! But it's disingenuous to say that the Attack action always represents only a single attack, rather than how many of the sword-swings you make in 6 seconds have a meaningful effect. Step of the Wind's another good example: spend a ki point to Disengage or Dash as a bonus action, but also your jump distance is tripled. Putting these together makes it clear the intent is for you to jump real far, either to retreat or to close distance. So do two things at once, but also do something ordinary in an extraordinary way. The rogue's Cunning Action is all about being slippery in combat -- you get in, you Sneak Attack, you get out, or you take a shot then Hide -- not because you're doing these things faster, but because you're doing them better. Nearly every spell with a casting time of "Bonus Action" falls under this umbrella, too. Lots of people can cast spells, but your class (or a feat or whatever) lets you cast two at a time, if one of them is closely tied to whatever gave you the ability to cast that "bonus" spell in the first place. Spellcasting and Pact Magic are class features, which makes the spells you can cast with them quasi-class features as well. 

Really, "action" is the wrong word for the vast majority of what bonus actions do, but you don't want to confuse people with too much jargon. "Action" is close enough for jazz.

Anyway, let me get to the elephant in the room.

Okay, look. I have an easy explanation for this: bad design. Well, "bad" isn't really fair -- I don't feel good about using the word "bad" -- but... how about "problematically inconsistent" instead?

I think it's just that they needed to limit how many times you could attack with an offhand weapon, and bonus actions were right there, so that's what they used, even though doing so didn't jibe with the rest of what bonus actions were used for. The description of bonus actions cites "various class features, spells, and other abilities," but this conspicuously leaves equipment out of the discussion. Plus, in the 2024 One D&D playtest materials, attacking with an offhand weapon no longer requires a bonus action. That course-correction indicates to me that two-weapon fighting relying on bonus actions was a "good enough" solution, but not the best one.

So let us now return to the idea of drinking a potion as a bonus action. It doesn't derive from a class feature, spell, or other ability, and thus violates the very definition of the bonus action. Except, of course, in the case of the Thief, whose Fast Hands feature explicitly lets them Use an Object as a bonus action. Letting just anyone do this, even just for drinking a potion, erodes their niche protection. This is Thief erasure, in other words. Which would be a real problem if people played Thieves. (I'm sure you're out there, Thief players -- let me know in the comments how much I've disrespected you!)

One last thing about bonus actions. Why do they exist at all? I think it's pretty clear they're a bit of a kludge. Step of the Wind could say "Until the end of the turn, your jump distance is tripled, and when you jump, you can also Dash or Disengage once without using an action." Is that better? It's certainly wordier, but a few more words might've been worth it to eliminate the concept of a bonus action. At least one original lead designer of 5E has gone on record as saying they wish bonus actions didn't exist. I mean, hunter's mark and hex could be spells you cast as an action or as part of the Attack action, for example. In fact, Second Wind could be divorced from the bonus action required to use it without missing a step! So why keep the bonus action?

Because 4E, that's why. Doing two things at once was a hallmark of 4E's powers. The cleric could laser a guy and heal an ally; the fighter could attack and push an enemy simultaneously, every turn if they wanted. But for the people who didn't like 4E, that sort of thing was (in my experience) a frequently cited reason why. Too video-gamey, breaks immersion, etc. When you split the secondary effect off into its own thing and charge a bonus action to use it, the tiny bit of agency feels more... pre-4E, let's say. I have no inside knowledge, but if I had to guess, I'd say that's a big reason why bonus actions exist in 5E.

This is obviously way too long and seemingly obsessive (I swear it's not!) as it is, but before I let this go I want to say that this whole thing is a bit tongue-in-cheek. You wanna let players use bonus actions to open doors and drink potions, more power to you. Just know that if I'm at your table when you do it, I'll probably mutter something to myself that, if you can manage to make it out, will be the URL of this blog post.