D&D 5E Do You Like the Reaction?

[ren1999]

Expertise Dice issues aside, do you like the reaction idea in which characters can take 1 action out of turn?

For me, it's adding a whole new exciting element to the game. The dwarven fighter saved two first level characters with his Protect maneuver. People are impressed that this is building a spirit of cooperation.

A reaction out of turn is giving new life and future potential to caster defensive spells. Before the defensive spells were always ignored in favor of assault spells. Now Blink has real potential. The wizard is being attacked so he rolls to see if he can Blink to another area before being hit. We could even turn this into a kind of Glancing Blow maneuver. The wizard Blinks out as his 1 reaction and the attacker instead of rolling for damage, will roll expertise dice instead to do damage on the wizard.

I like the reaction out of turn. I'm still not sure about the expertise dice. It is a little hard to track spent dice for people.

 

[Rydac]

In a word. Yes. I also like that you are limited to one out of turn reaction total, and their stated philosophy is to limit off turn actions in order to keep the game moving.

 

[MortalPlague]

In a word. Yes. I also like that you are limited to one out of turn reaction total, and their stated philosophy is to limit off turn actions in order to keep the game moving.

This is exactly my sentiment as well.

In my experience, 5th Edition runs very quickly, which makes combat exciting and fresh, rather than a chore.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Agree with posts above. 1 Reaction per turn is a nice compromise and it fits in well.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I like reactions, they seem straightforward and easy to handle.

I think they could become more central to play, with every class having some opportunity to use them: Fighters with their parries and blocks, Rogues with dodges, Wizards with abjuration and illusion defences, Clerics with minor heals.

Then there's scope for a new condition, or a change to an existing condition: cannot use reactions. Not as harsh as cannot move or cannot act, but appropriate to daze or slow, and something the party can throw at monsters for tactical reasons without shutting them down completely.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I like that Reactions let you jump in when it isn't your turn and still get to act on your next turn, unless noted otherwise. Very few limit your next action in fact.

 

[Starfox]

In my experience, 5th Edition runs very quickly, which makes combat exciting and fresh, rather than a chore.

A waring tough - nothing bogs the game down like out-of-turn actions. So keep them simple, and keep the triggering conditions simple and uniform. It is better to trigger a reaction on a fact (ope, I got hit) than on a possibility (I am attacked and may get hit) because it speeds up the decision process.

 

[Li Shenron]

A waring tough - nothing bogs the game down like out-of-turn actions. So keep them simple, and keep the triggering conditions simple and uniform. It is better to trigger a reaction on a fact (ope, I got hit) than on a possibility (I am attacked and may get hit) because it speeds up the decision process.

Definitely!

I am fine with reactions rules in 5e, but I am afraid that at mid-high levels the PCs will have too many abilities usable as reactions.

There needs to be only a very few triggers and a very few reactions that each PC should keep an eye on. Otherwise combat will slow down with players browsing their character sheet to check if they can do something out of their turn. This can be especially tedious when the trigger is something that happens to someone else: at least if the trigger for YOUR reaction is e.g. an attack or spell against YOU then it is easy to track... but we already have special abilities reactions triggered when someone else is attacked.

 

[Tuft]

There needs to be only a very few triggers and a very few reactions that each PC should keep an eye on. Otherwise combat will slow down with players browsing their character sheet to check if they can do something out of their turn. This can be especially tedious when the trigger is something that happens to someone else: at least if the trigger for YOUR reaction is e.g. an attack or spell against YOU then it is easy to track... but we already have special abilities reactions triggered when someone else is attacked.

When you have lots of reactions in the system, you not only have to look out for your own opportunities, but also have to consider each and every one of your own potentional actions for possible monster triggers. This can bog down things planning regular movement; e.g. "which of paths A, B and C possess the least risk, compared to how well-placed you end up." When we played 4E, taking certain opponents reaction into consideration when planning your turn could really take forever.

At the same time as 4E we played a superheroish fantasy homebrew without OAs, ZoC, interrupts, reactions and so on, and in that you seldom had to wait as long for your turn...

 

[Hautamaki]

My homebrew system has allowed reactions for a couple of years now. It adds a very nice layer of tactical complexity to even basic combat (eg Dodge works a lot better than Parry against Power Attack, but is worse than useless if the enemy Feints). The player has to pay attention to an enemy's description to get an idea of how the enemy is likely to react, and then choose his attacking action accordingly, and of course the same thing goes for choosing his defensive reaction against the enemy's attack.

It does slow down combat compared to just rolling die at each other, of course, but when combat is tactically rich and enjoyable and good play is rewarded, most players don't mind spending more time on it.