D&D 5E How Trigger/Reaction Powers Could Work in 5E

[ren1999]

Every 5 levels a monster or character gets 1 additional standard action.

DM: O.k. fighter, you're being attacked. I rolled a hit and great damage.
Fighter: Before I take the damage, I ask the wizard if she foresees it. She says yes so I decide to use my Parry Defense feat to put the enemy at disadvantage. (Or the fighter could just say he sensed great damage.)
DM: Very well, I want you to put your standard action chip in the used pile.
The DM rerolls the attack and misses.
DM: Fighter, you are lucky to have such a wizard friend. You parry the attack.
Fighter: It's my turn. I will..
DM: You will skip this turn and put your standard action chip back in the available pile.

The Fighter becomes 5th level.
DM: Fighter, you're being attacked.
Fighter: I choose to use no reaction powers. I'm waiting for my turn.
DM: Rolls and hits, you take 14 damage.
Fighter: It's my turn. I'm putting two standard action chips in the used pile and attacking twice. Once with my main weapon and once with my off-hand weapon.
DM: roll to hit. But this monster is going to use a standard action chip on its reaction power to Blink out and put your first attack at disadvantage. Re-roll it and take the lower roll.
Fighter: I missed. But the monster is only 10 feet away. I move 10 feet and attack with my off-hand weapon. Hit.

 

[the Jester]

So high (20th) level creatures will have like 5 actions per round?

A major drawback would be slowing the game down a ton. I don't really want to see that, personally. I also don't want a heavy emphasis on off-turn actions if they slow play down.

I want to see a system where we can have 8 or 12 combats in an evening of dungeon delving.

 

[ren1999]

Like you, I too want more combats in a session.

But if we don't allow more standard actions per turn for characters then monsters should not have them. Monsters also shouldn't have triggers if characters don't.

 

[BobTheNob]

It is possible to just be very selective what monsters get these sort of reactions. We are always making the distinction that players are meant to be "heroic", so why cant this rule of thumb extend to this?

For instance, run of the mill Orcs dont have any reactive capability, but that Orc warlord Might. It stops monster reactions from slowing things down (as only one monster one the board has the capability) and also adds a bit of extra capability to the Orc warlord.

At the same time, all players can do them, putting them above the monsters they face in terms of there versatility and ability to handle the situation.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I don't want players getting any more than 1 action, with a possible free attack or spellcast on top of this.

Of course monsters can get multiple actions, since as a party you also get multiple actions.

Of course monsters can have triggers, and players too, and at low levels the player triggers will make them miss their action, but later perhaps they get a free trigger a turn, or similar.

 

[ren1999]

Yet it just isn't fair.
If you let monsters have triggers, reactions, 2 standard actions per turn, and recharges for that matter

You've got to allow the same for players. Players already get 2 standard actions with off-hand weapons in Pathfinder. That doesn't seem to slow the game.

Most abjuration spells really don't work well as a standard action. They need to be a reaction to an attack or a fall or something like that. Blink would only work as a reaction.

We've got to allow for actions outside of the player's turn. If you want to make it cost them their standard turn, then fine.
If they get only one standard action then all monsters should get only one standard action. I fought for this in the last edition play-test.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

No - monsters like dragons, who will typically fight alone, should get as many actions as appropriate. The big problem with Solo creatures in 4E was their lack of actions - they got slaughtered at the hands of a 5-actions per turn party.

 

[the Jester]

Yet it just isn't fair.
If you let monsters have triggers, reactions, 2 standard actions per turn, and recharges for that matter

You've got to allow the same for players.

Why?

Monsters and pcs are different; there is no reason that a human fighter should have anything at all in common with a red dragon, mechanically.

I disagree with your premise here.

Players already get 2 standard actions with off-hand weapons in Pathfinder. That doesn't seem to slow the game.

Holy cow, do I disagree here. 3e and its derivatives are incredibly slow to play at mid-levels or above when compared to earlier versions of D&D, and the increasing number of actions is a major culprit.

Most abjuration spells really don't work well as a standard action. They need to be a reaction to an attack or a fall or something like that. Blink would only work as a reaction.

Since almost all of D&D's history has seen abjurations spells as almost entirely on-your-turn actions, I disagree again. There are definitely a few spells that work best as reactions (feather fall!), but if (f'rexample) shield lasts more than one round, there is no need to make it a reaction.

We've got to allow for actions outside of the player's turn.

Again, why?

If you want to make it cost them their standard turn, then fine.
If they get only one standard action then all monsters should get only one standard action. I fought for this in the last edition play-test.

And here again.

Do you really think a red dragon ought to be limited just like a pc? I don't. That dragon should be able to get in two claws and a bite, a tail slap or sweep and a couple of wing buffets in the same time a mid-level fighter takes to attack, IMHO.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

If you let monsters have triggers, reactions, 2 standard actions per turn, and recharges for that matter.

So if I let my monsters breath fire and fly should I let the PCs do that too?

If you want to talk about what's "fair" the PCs should have a 50% chance of a TPK every encounter.

Players already get 2 standard actions with off-hand weapons in Pathfinder. That doesn't seem to slow the game.

No, what you have in Pathfinder is the ability for a PC to make two (or more at high levels) attacks as part of a full round action. This is VERY different from having two standard actions, which would (among other things) allow wizards to cast two spells. Those of us who remember 3.0 haste will likely agree that this makes wizards even more overpowered.

Also the multiple attacks does slow down play, especially at high levels.

As to reactions themselves, I think 5e's current agenda is fine. You get one per turn, and more major reactions (most likely attacking) take your action next turn.

 

[ren1999]

I'm not saying that casters should get to cast 5 different spells at 20th level. I'm saying that they could cast 5 magic missiles at the same target or 5 different targets. Or they could cast blade barrier as a reaction and then cast a fire ball as their standard action and the blade barrier disappears.

The hook horror has two hooks and attacks twice per turn.

The fighter has a sword and a shield but can only attack with the sword and not bash with the shield. 4th edition powers were often combinations of 2 different actions or specified 2 attacks. Call the off-hand weapon swing a minor action if you want, it is still 2 attacks per turn.

I know that multiple standard attack actions don't slow down the game. Greater damage is done each turn and reduces rounds.

I also am not wanting to go back to monsters having 1 attack per turn. That's why I say let them keep their multiple attacks but give the same respect to characters.