Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7214323" data-attributes="member: 20323">That's sort of what the Protection fighting style does already, isn't it?Hmm.I was contemplating allowing multiple reactions – by sacrificing Extra Attacks. For example, an 11th-level fighter could use an action to Attack, making 2 attacks, then convert his third attack into a bonus Reaction. So he'd have *two* Reactions that round. My concern was the same as yours about confusing players, however.If I did incorporate a "tradeoff Extra Attacks for extra Reactions", then it might be good to include extra ways the fighter can use Reaction (kind of what I was getting at with my previous idea for Martial Alacrity). So maybe that's the 2nd level feature – alternative uses for the fighter's Reaction.That would create 3 main things competing for my redesigned fighter's Reaction:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Opportunity attacks</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Parrying</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Other special stuff</li> </ul>[SECTION]Other things competing for the fighter's Reaction include certain feats like Defensive Duelist, Mage Slayer, Sentinel, and Shield Master. As well as the fighting talent I created called Iron Resolve. Usually, if I were to see 4-5 potential uses for a Reaction (or a Bonus Action), I'd be concerned it was too much competing for the same design space. However, by allowing the fighter to "create" extra Reactions, that makes these 4-5 potential uses more viable.[/SECTION]"Other special stuff" could be equipping a shield, or swapping out gear/weapons – that makes sense given the fighter is probably the one most likely to employ multiple weapons in a party, and their history in D&D as "gear heads."I'm tempted to make the trigger "when a creature hits or misses you with an attack..." but that is kinda limiting. For example, I'd expect "other special stuff" to include reacting to a trap/hazard/non-attack spell as well. When I used to play AD&D with my friend Jarett (who ran a fighter), we'd have exchanges that would often go like this:DM: The shadowy fear demon rises from the mist-covered castle floor and rushes at you!Player (fighter): Hmm, so this is the thing that consumes fear with its gaze? Can I pull out my mirror before combat begins, holding it up to reflect all the fears the demon has absorbed back at it?DM: Sure, you hold up the mirror just as the demon draws near you and it screeches, abruptly stopping a few feet from the mirror. *rolls save* It loses 25% of its current hit points and begins the combat frightened of you. OK, now let's roll initiative.So, in that scenario, the trigger for his "Reaction" would have been "rolling for initiative."Hmm. I'll have to reflect more on what sort of trigger language I should use for this.Overall, I like the idea of the fighter class design encouraging a more reactive, highly adaptive style of play. That *feels* right to me to portray both a worldly tactician & an action hero.However, there are drawbacks to a more reactive fighter, because it can slow down play at a table where a party has lots of options for Reactions. And in the hands of a newer or slower-to-decide player, a fighter using multiple Reactions could also increase the "handling time" of the class.</blockquote>

Verification