D&D General A Homebrew Feat I'm Contemplating

[Guest 7034872]

Hi all,

The "New Feats Survey" thread has prompted me to post this because it's a question I've had in my head for almost two months and I find I'm still undecided.

I'm DMing a new homebrew campaign this March (effectively first-time DM!) and there's a feat idea I came up with, but I worry it's too strong:

Fast Eddie: the player gets one additional reaction this turn.

Think of what this could mean for spellcasters, rogues, and monks, right? It’s too powerful if a player could just keep using this feat all day long, sure, but what about some kind of limited use of it akin to legendary actions where they get only so many per day? Might that work? But might it also not belong in feats anymore because it looks more like, umm.....a legendary action? I mean, when I look at this in the abstract just as a cool thing a player could do, I still love it, but then when I look at game mechanics and what the Taking20 YT channel has taught me to call "action economy," I worry about tilting everything in favor of spellcasters right at a point where the game is already tilted in their favor.

Still, I note that Monks and Rogues are not spellcasters at least in the full sense. If I want to open it up more to help Fighters and Barbarians, I suppose I could re-word it to "one additional reaction or bonus action this turn," but now my worry about over-powering players gets really animated.

So far my thinking has brought me around to "Neat idea, but just too powerful; abandon it before you cause a real mess, South by Southwest." But I just don't know. What do people here think??

 

[Stalker0]

So at the surface, yes its powerful....but it is a full feat afterall, I would expect it to be powerful.

Probably the biggest "abuse" for this would be casting two reaction spells in one round. You could add a clause similar to teh bonus action clause that only 1 reaction spell per round is allowed. Though even that I'm not sure is really that abusive, again this is a feat we are talking about. But beyond that, I don't see any real abuse cases, again, its a full feat, it needs to be good.

The other clause you might consider is "you cannot use the same trigger for both reactions". So that way you can't get 2 OAs when a person leaves your threatened area, or a monk can't reduce the damage on a single ranged attack "twice", etc.

 

[el-remmen]

Personally, I think additional reactions opens up a whole can of worms, but if I were going to limit this I'd do four things:

1. Limit it to a number of times between long rests equal to your proficiency bonus.
2. Rule that you cannot take the same kind of reaction twice in a round.
3. You can't use two reactions in the same instance (i.e. if the same trigger sets off two different possible reactions, you have to choose one for that instance).
4. Just reinforce the no more than 1 spell and one cantrip per round rule (to avoid two reaction spells in the same round).

With all those disclaimers, however, I'd feel like I'd have to push it back to not using it at all. But YMMV.

 

[Guest 7034872]

The other clause you might consider is "you cannot use the same trigger for both reactions". So that way you can't get 2 OAs when a person leaves your threatened area, or a monk can't reduce the damage on a single ranged attack "twice", etc.

That is an especially good point I'd not thought of. Thank you!

Personally, I think additional reactions opens up a whole can of worms, but if I were going to limit this I'd do four things:

1. Limit it to a number of times between long rests equal to your proficiency bonus.
2. Rule that you cannot take the same kind of reaction twice in a round.
3. You can't use two reactions in the same instance (i.e. if the same trigger sets off two different possible reactions, you have to choose one for that instance).
4. Just reinforce the no more than 1 spell and one cantrip per round rule (to avoid two reaction spells in the same round).

With all those disclaimers, however, I'd feel like I'd have to push it back to not using it at all. But YMMV.

These are all good points. Point 3 in particular reiterates Stalker0's, and I think you're both on the money there. I mean, imagine the following conversation:

DM: The counterspell fails because the Big Boss passed her d20 check.
Player: Mmm...I'll say "No" to that by using my feat to re-cast Counterspell at an even higher level.
DM (privately): Why did I give them this???...

Re. point 5 (just abandon it), that is where I'm leaning. What I was thinking last night was, "If I need to do all these different things in order to tame the feat enough so it won't wreak havoc, isn't that evidence it's a bad feat?" For now, that's where I am.

EDIT: I forgot about the uber-rule against casting more than one spell and one cantrip per turn; that does help at least a bit.

 

[CleverNickName]

It's a very powerful feat, for sure...it makes everything better. Counterspell and Shield, yes please. Double-action Sentinel, absolutely. A boss monster or NPC with this feat would be a nightmare for an ill-prepared party. Cheat in even more spells in a turn with the War Caster feat. Etc.

Whether or not it will break stuff would depend on your group. I probably wouldn't allow it for my group; my players are the sort who actively look for exploits and then spam them. But others might really like the versatility.

 

[Redwizard007]

EDIT: I forgot about the uber-rule against casting more than one spell and one cantrip per turn; that does help at least a bit.

That's not actually how that rule works. Nothing prevents you from using 2 or 12 or 1200 spells on the same turn if you have enough actions to do so UNLESS one of the spells you cast uses a bonus action. Further, since reactions usually don't occur on your turn this also usually wouldn't apply.

Example of 3 legal spells cast on the same turn.

F2/W8: I cast fire ball
DM: the NPC casts Counterspell
F2/W8: I use my reaction to Counterspell his Counterspell.
DM: damn! Nice move. Done?
F2/W8: nope. I use action surge to cast another fireball.
DM: I hate you.

 

[Guest 7034872]

That's not actually how that rule works. Nothing prevents you from using 2 or 12 or 1200 spells on the same turn if you have enough actions to do so UNLESS one of the spells you cast uses a bonus action. Further, since reactions usually don't occur on your turn this also usually wouldn't apply.

Example of 3 legal spells cast on the same turn.

F2/W8: I cast fire ball
DM: the NPC casts Counterspell
F2/W8: I use my reaction to Counterspell his Counterspell.
DM: damn! Nice move. Done?
F2/W8: nope. I use action surge to cast another fireball.
DM: I hate you.

Ohhh...thanks, Redwizard007. Yeah, so this feat would need some pretty explicit restrictions on that sort of stuff, then.

I think this thing belongs on the cutting room floor.