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

[Nefermandias]

Sure, but the issue was that people started building up relatively large numbers of them. It wasn't the same guy using them all. After L11 or so, you saw more and more of this, and it added up.

Re: 3.5E, yeah, not a huge difference, except that in 4E, far more characters could voluntarily select abilities which worked out-of-turn, and very often those abilities were also powerful and useful (theoretically a good thing), so you saw it more often.

Overall, in my experience, 4E ran a lot faster than 3.5E in combat (even than lower-level 3.5E), until you got into that higher-level range, at which point it gradually slowed to about the same unacceptably slow pace.

That's fair.
I just feel the need to give my input everytime someone touches on 4e. That edition has suffered it's share of undeserved criticism already.

 

[ECMO3]

The issue with Protection Style is that there's a choice between being able to use the reaction to do something else (such as hit the enemy with an opportunity attack) and protecting. In contrast, Tunnel Fighter (Unearthed Arcana) grants an unlimited number of opportunity attacks (which I believe goes too far in the other direction). I wouldn't say that I feel Protection Style is bad, but there are times when it seems more difficult to use because it burns your ability to do other things.

This is true with most fighting styles. The y fighting style has a choice to use his bow or do something else as an action and archery isn't on if he makes a melee attack or casts a spell or takes dash.

The only fighting styles that don't involve choices to be "on" are blind fighting and defense.

 

[Argyle King]

This is true with most fighting styles. The y fighting style has a choice to use his bow or do something else as an action and archery isn't on if he makes a melee attack or casts a spell or takes dash.

The only fighting styles that don't involve choices to be "on" are blind fighting and defense.

The archery fighting styles adds +2 to every ranged attack.

Likewise, dueling style always adds +2 to damage with the chosen weapons.

Protection helps against 1 attack, assuming the resource to use it wasn't already used for something else.

Even if I don't add more reactions, I'm still considering an option which would allow someone with protection style to use an action on their turn to designate an adjacent ally they are defending. The effect would be to impose disadvantage on the next attack against that ally (assuming the ally is still adjacent) without needing to use a reaction. Basically, I would be granting someone with protection style an additional option for how they can use the help action.

 

[abirdcall]

The archery fighting styles adds +2 to every ranged attack.

Likewise, dueling style always adds +2 to damage with the chosen weapons.

Protection helps against 1 attack, assuming the resource to use it wasn't already used for something else.

Even if I don't add more reactions, I'm still considering an option which would allow someone with protection style to use an action on their turn to designate an adjacent ally they are defending. The effect would be to impose disadvantage on the next attack against that ally (assuming the ally is still adjacent) without needing to use a reaction. Basically, I would be granting someone with protection style an additional option for how they can use the help action.

Right but your contention is that protection is bad because it is limited. You are implying that attacks are unlimited and they aren't. They are both limited.

The damage styles scale with number of attacks.

Protection scales with increasing monster damage.

 

[Argyle King]

Right but your contention is that protection is bad because it is limited. You are implying that attacks are unlimited and they aren't. They are both limited.

The damage styles scale with number of attacks.

Protection scales with increasing monster damage.

I apologize if I implied something which I did not mean. I'm well aware that attacks are not unlimited.

Regardless, that's not the main basis for why I'm contemplating allowing more than 1 reaction.

 

[Horwath]

5E needs to look at 4E for opportunity attacks.

Melee AoO should be decoupled from Reaction "slot"

Reactions should be spells and some special maneuvers.

If you could make one basic melee attack for one opportunity(or at worst limited at prof bonus per round), it would give melee characters that much needed battlefield control.

 

[see]

From the project I've been working on, one of nine new Fighting Style options:

Reactive​

Available to fighters and rangers.
After you take a reaction, you can take a second reaction before the start of your next turn.

As a Fighting Style, it accordingly can also be grabbed by using the Fighting Initiate feat from TCoE.

 

[Mort]

From the project I've been working on, one of nine new Fighting Style options:

Reactive​

Available to fighters and rangers.
After you take a reaction, you can take a second reaction before the start of your next turn.

As a Fighting Style, it accordingly can also be grabbed by using the Fighting Initiate feat from TCoE.

I think this is a better route than to simply give an extra reaction.

5e is all about choices, and by devoting a fighting style - it's an actual choice investment.

Still think it might stack a bit too well with feats like polearm master/sentinel but that's more the feat than this.

 

[Steampunkette]

I agree with @see and @Mort on the use of the Reactive fighting style.

I'd also suggest creating Subclasses, Feats, and possible a whole class which allow a person one additional reaction per round.

Like a Blue Wizard subclass for a Ravnica Campaign that can use a Cantrip at it's lowest level as a reaction to another character casting a spell in an attempt to force a Concentration Check to complete casting the spell (DC 10 or 1/2 damage as normal). Even if they don't manage to stop the spell they still get that free cantrip.

Or a Psionics Class which gains a specific class feature that they can take 2 Reactions of any kind between their turns.

Or a feat which allows you to take a specific kind of reaction separate from their normal reaction use. Like move 5ft when someone moves adjacent to you, forcing them to either stop moving and be out of range or expend a teensy bit more movement to get adjacent to you.

Some different handful of narrowly defined ways to "Break" the 1 reaction between turns rule in specific, small, ways that allow you to measure the impact of it on your game.

 

[Mort]

I agree with @see and @Mort on the use of the Reactive fighting style.

I'd also suggest creating Subclasses, Feats, and possible a whole class which allow a person one additional reaction per round.

Like a Blue Wizard subclass for a Ravnica Campaign that can use a Cantrip at it's lowest level as a reaction to another character casting a spell in an attempt to force a Concentration Check to complete casting the spell (DC 10 or 1/2 damage as normal). Even if they don't manage to stop the spell they still get that free cantrip.

Or a Psionics Class which gains a specific class feature that they can take 2 Reactions of any kind between their turns.

Or a feat which allows you to take a specific kind of reaction separate from their normal reaction use. Like move 5ft when someone moves adjacent to you, forcing them to either stop moving and be out of range or expend a teensy bit more movement to get adjacent to you.

Some different handful of narrowly defined ways to "Break" the 1 reaction between turns rule in specific, small, ways that allow you to measure the impact of it on your game.

Another way to measure impact (I think this may have already been stated) - introduce a magic item. Give the fighter a weapon that allows an extra reaction per turn - see what happens.

If it proves to be a good fit, great - keep the item and/or introduce a more permanent solution (the reactive fighting style proposed by @see as an example).

If it proves problematic - the item goes away. Now, I wouldn't just take it away - I'd talk to the player and make sure the loss of the item isn't seen as sudden or punitive. Make sure everyone is on the same page.