D&D 5E Would Allowing Multiple Reactions Break The Game?

[Bill Zebub]

So these problematic scenarios occur when somebody gets FOUR reactions?

That’s a little bit like saying that magic weapons break the game, and then using a +4 sword as the example.

 

[ECMO3]

So these problematic scenarios occur when somebody gets FOUR reactions?

That’s a little bit like saying that magic weapons break the game, and then using a +4 sword as the example.

Even at two reaction its huge. Casting distintegrate followed by psychic lance is a 200% increase in effectiveness per round.

By comparison a +4 magic longsword in the hand of a character with 20 strength is going to boost damage by less than 50% compared to a regular magic longsword with no bonus.

Heck shield and absorb elements would be a huge boost!

 

[Bill Zebub]

Even at two reaction its huge. Casting distintegrate followed by psychic lance is a 200% increase in effectiveness per round.

By comparison a +4 magic longsword in the hand of a character with 20 strength is going to boost damage by less than 50% compared to a regular magic longsword with no bonus.

Heck shield and absorb elements would be a huge boost!

When you say "disintegrate followed by psychic lance" are you referring to the same target, for the same triggering event (presumably an OA)?

Every version of multiple reactions I have seen is either 1 reaction per turn, and/or 1 reaction per triggering event.

And I don't see what the shield + absorb elements problem is. On the rounds where the wizard gets hit by both a physical attack and an elemental attack on different turns, they get to cast two spells to protect themselves. I mean, it's cool and all, but hardly game-breaking. And presumably there was a cost (feat, etc.) to allow them to do this.

 

[ECMO3]

When you say "disintegrate followed by psychic lance" are you referring to the same target, for the same triggering event (presumably an OA)?

Every version of multiple reactions I have seen is either 1 reaction per turn, and/or 1 reaction per triggering event.

And I don't see what the shield + absorb elements problem is. On the rounds where the wizard gets hit by both a physical attack and an elemental attack on different turns, they get to cast two spells to protect themselves. I mean, it's cool and all, but hardly game-breaking. And presumably there was a cost (feat, etc.) to allow them to do this.

No 2 different targets trigger an AOO so you hit both of them with a powerful spell on separate turns.

Shield and AE are huge because with the right build shield can make a wizard extremely difficult to hit for an entire round. The only real negative to shield is the spell uses your reaction and some you tubers have suggested it should be banned. So it is already problematic and you are taking away the only cost of using it.

In specific, when a bladesinger dies in combat in tier 2 it is usually one of 2 things - they are hit with a save attack (often elemental) after they already used shield or they are hit with a crit after they already used shield. Having extra reactions would take care of either of those or even both of them (absorb elements for the elemental damage, silvery barbs form the crit).

With the rules the way they are right now an optimized tier-2 bladesinger running a 10 constitution is a full caster who will last longer in direct combat melee than a Paladin, Ranger or Fighter. They will last about as long as a raging Barbarian and won't need to burn through as much healing between battles. Much of their defense comes from reactions and the only real negative here is they can use one reaction a turn. Give her more reactions and this gap will get even bigger. This defense is mostly done on reactions. When they get to level 10 they can flat directly trade spell slots for hps using a reaction. I am playing a level 9 bladesinger right now and the only times the entire campaign she has been downed in combat is when she was out of reactions and did not have one to use on whatever downed her.

The most powerful reactions in the game are spells and in the hands of smart players this is going to unbalance the game more in favor wizards than it already is, there is no doubt about it.

 

[Maxperson]

It is 4 reactions on 4 different turns.

I am bladsinger I cast Ashardalon's Stride (bonus action) and then use dodge as my action. I pull out my whip (so I have a 10 foot reach) and walk into the midst of a bunch of enemies. I am near impossible to hit and I damaging them because of AS. The worst place to be is right next to me. My turn ends.

1. Enemy 1 turn: Enemy 1 tries to leave and go attack someone else (anyone else). I distingrate him
2. New turn - Enemy 2 turn: He tries to leave. I hit him with psychich lance.
3. New turn - Enemy 3 turn: he tries to leave, I hit him with banishment (dropping AS)
4. New turn - Enemy 4 turn: he tries to leave. hit him with banisment (enemy 3 comes back but his turn is already over)

You don't get one reaction each turn. You get one reaction until YOUR next turn.

"When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn."

It doesn't matter how many other turns happen in-between your turn and your next turn, you only get one reaction during that period.

 

[jmartkdr2]

You don't get one reaction each turn. You get one reaction until YOUR next turn.

"When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn."

It doesn't matter how many other turns happen in-between your turn and your next turn, you only get one reaction during that period.

The whole premise of the thread is changing that, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

"RAW says X" isn't a useful comment to "what if we changed from RAW from X to Y?" We already established that this would be a change.

 

[Maxperson]

The whole premise of the thread is changing that, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

"RAW says X" isn't a useful comment to "what if we changed from RAW from X to Y?" We already established that this would be a change.

I don't know why I thought he was saying that it's already like that. I blame this morning's migraine. Hopefully the meds kick in soon. LOL

 

[Bill Zebub]

No 2 different targets trigger an AOO so you hit both of them with a powerful spell on separate turns.

Yeah that would be a powerful combo, but...it requires two different targets to trigger an AOO. It's not like that happens every round. Or every combat. Or every session. (Caveat: maybe it happens a lot more often at your table than at mine, and that's why you feel so strongly about this.). The forums are full of build ideas that depend on very specific scenarios; all of them sound OP until you realize those scenarios hardly ever occur.

Shield and AE are huge because with the right build shield can make a wizard extremely difficult to hit for an entire round. The only real negative to shield is the spell uses your reaction and some you tubers have suggested it should be banned. So it is already problematic and you are taking away the only cost of using it.

"some you tubers" have suggested a lot of things. I don't really consider that evidence of anything. So, no, it's not already problematic. (This is, in fact, the first time I've ever heard shield described as problematic, except in the philosophical sense of how it's possible for you to react after you've already been hit.). Also, there's no rule saying the DM has to roll in the open or announce the attack roll, even though I know at a lot of tables it is done this way, so the wizard player knows if +5 will turn a hit into a miss. But if the roll is unknown it becomes easy to waste spell slots.)

In those situations in which you take elemental damage and you get attacked by a weapon, by different enemies on different rounds, this could be a nifty combo. Game-breaking? No. Not even remotely. Again, how often do these circumstances actually occur? (Is it game-breaking that a totem barbarian takes half damage from all sources, every round, while he rages? No.)

(anecdotes deleted)

The most powerful reactions in the game are spells and in the hands of smart players this is going to unbalance the game more in favor wizards than it already is, there is no doubt about it.

Actually, there is doubt.

But even if you are right, a discussion about multiple reactions doesn't have to include wizards. It sort of feels...based on your examples...like you took the phrase "multiple reactions" to mean a base rule where everybody gets unlimited reactions on every turn, which I don't think is what anybody is proposing. There are lots of ways such a rule could be implemented, including making it a feature of a class or sub-class.

 

[fba827]

You COULD leave it as is but "some magic time effect washes over the city" and the net result is exactly that.
Giving you a reason to justify it in game AND a way to pull the plug on it should you need to by having the magic effect fade away
and gives you some story potential to mine as to where it came from and where it went.