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

[Bayushi_seikuro]

There are certain situations where having multiple reactions might cause some unintended consequences, especially when it comes to attacks of opportunity/Sentinel.

On Critical Role, one of the PCs has the ability to take multiple reactions per turn. Originally, the only cost was burning ki points, but then they re-nerfed if to have a limit of (I believe) one extra reaction. I believe the character can also spend a ki point as a reaction to get a swing at an opponent who missed, so that might be a weird interaction they had to balance out (Cobalt Soul monk)

YMMV. I think a lot of things, mechanicswise, seem to depend on your table and play style moreso than a blanket 'true/false/

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

For me, when you get into counterspelling counterspell, it just sucks the fun out of the game. The idea of extending it further (especially with multiple spellcasters), that would make an even worse not-fun mess.

Although, in one corner case, you’ve potentially doubled (then tripled) the length of the Counterspell v Counterspall chain.

Reactions and Concentration are two mechanics that I'd in particular be loath to change about 5e. Allowing more reactions, could, for example, drastically increase the amount of damage a rogue can do with additional sneak attacks. And a fighter/wizard with the parry maneuver and Shield spell could send their AC into the stratosphere.

 

[Fanaelialae]

For me, when you get into counterspelling counterspell, it just sucks the fun out of the game. The idea of extending it further (especially with multiple spellcasters), that would make an even worse not-fun mess.

This made me wonder whether there's a way to throttle the amount of counter-counterspelling without explicitly banning it, like having the interaction of two counter spells automatically trigger a wild surge or something? Just popped into my head as I was reading this, since I'm also not a fan of it.

 

[Mort]

This made me wonder whether there's a way to throttle the amount of counter-counterspelling without explicitly banning it, like having the interaction of two counter spells automatically trigger a wild surge or something? Just popped into my head as I was reading this, since I'm also not a fan of it.

The 5e version of counterspelling is IMO infinitely better then the 3e/3.5 version - so I can't complain.

Well, that and I haven't encountered the counterspelling loops often presented on this board (But that could be because my players hate picking wizards for some reason).

As to the OP. I'm a big fan of just 1 reaction per round. The 5e designers (rightly) clamped down on the action economy.

Adding in more reactions (in addition to bogging down play) means that much more power to specific aspects of play I'm perfectly comfortable keeping where they are (most of which have already been enumerated upthread).

 

[jmartkdr2]

This made me wonder whether there's a way to throttle the amount of counter-counterspelling without explicitly banning it, like having the interaction of two counter spells automatically trigger a wild surge or something? Just popped into my head as I was reading this, since I'm also not a fan of it.

IME the fact the it cost s a 3rd level spell slot (at least!) is enough disincentive to make counterspelling dominate combat. The occasional back-and-forth is almost always coming at a critical moment with a big-deal spell, even when the pc's don't know what spell the bad guy is casting. You just don't see pc's countering everything the enemies do, because then they can't do their own thing.

 

[GMMichael]

I do not want an unlimited number of reactions. Off the top of my head, my rough idea is to either allow something like. . .

Try it and find out. Just don't try it on BBEG day. Also, listen to your players - if they think up a way to "break the game," someone will blurt it out during play. And you'll be ready.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Adding an element of risk to it, like a wild magic surge, would certainly give it more flavor. At this point my one group called a truce on counterspell after we had a fight with something like three PCs that could counterspell and four enemies that could. If they don't counterspell the monsters, I won't use it on them.

This made me wonder whether there's a way to throttle the amount of counter-counterspelling without explicitly banning it, like having the interaction of two counter spells automatically trigger a wild surge or something? Just popped into my head as I was reading this, since I'm also not a fan of it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

IME the fact the it cost s a 3rd level spell slot (at least!) is enough disincentive to make counterspelling dominate combat. The occasional back-and-forth is almost always coming at a critical moment with a big-deal spell, even when the pc's don't know what spell the bad guy is casting. You just don't see pc's countering everything the enemies do, because then they can't do their own thing.

Early on, that's true. By 9th or 10th level, IME, they're far more willing to expend however many spell slots they need to stop an enemy spellcaster. It's a resource drain, but it's likely that a high level enemy spell will end up costing them resources one way or another, so it's well worth it.

It gets a little annoying, IMO. I don't use that many spellcasting enemies to begin with. If I have a player with counterspell I have two options. Either I give that NPC counterspell and expect to counter chain, or I don't and that NPC will probably not do much aside from eating the PC's reaction. If there are more PCs with counterspell than NPCs, the second option is the only option.

If anything, IMC I think the real cost of counterspell is spending a prepared spell on it despite it not having any utility in the majority of encounters. So I definitely wouldn't want to nerf it. However, I wouldn't mind discouraging counter chaining at least a bit. I think it's a little too ubiquitous currently, at least in my games.

 

[commandercrud]

Make rogues even more OP? No thanks.

 

[Krachek]

Break not obviously,
Slow down surely!