Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Would Allowing Multiple Reactions Break The Game?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 8283820" data-attributes="member: 6932123"><p>Ohh... I slightly misread what you said, but it still sticks: What if weapons like whips could have multiple reactions? They're kinda junk weapons by default, but they're fast and flexible, and having an extra reaction (opportunity attack only) seems like it would give it an interesting niche use that still feels appropriate.</p><p></p><p>For this, I would consider something like: When an opponent that you're in melee range with makes an opportunity attack against a creature other than you, you may use a reaction to move up to half your speed.</p><p></p><p>Basically, in the moment the enemy is distracted, you have a chance to move away, perhaps getting behind some cover.</p><p></p><p>Yeah, I like that idea. Only melee-threatened squares (including bare-handed types that melee, such as monks or brawlers). It makes a front line actually workable, even without the Sentinel feat. You'll generally have to go through three threatened squares to pass the fighter up front, and that's going to use up all your movement. You'd have to Dash to get the extra movement to reach the casters in the back, which means no attack that round, and time for the defending team to respond.</p><p></p><p>It does mean monk can't as easily beeline for the big bad to use Stunning Strike, but it also actually makes the monk's high movement rate more useful.</p><p></p><p>In general, more use of difficult terrain is desperately needed in combat. 30' of movement makes fights other than massive outdoor areas or volcanic calderas embarrassingly difficult to use as anything other than "walk up and hit each other till one falls over" types of fights.</p><p></p><p></p><p>On the reactions question, I actually probably wouldn't give more general reactions to players, as they can be used for any number of things. Instead, like the Cavalier, have specialty reactions that you might consider more as "maneuvers". EG: Whips in general get an extra opportunity attack per round (but not more than one per turn); have a 'retreat' maneuver that allows you to move away from distracted enemies (when they take an action against someone other than you); etc. Perhaps use 'common' magic items as the vehicle for the bonus pseudo-reaction (eg: Boots of the Coward).</p><p></p><p>With a bit of fine-tuning, I think that would work fine, and better than handing out full additional reactions to everyone without constraint.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kinematics, post: 8283820, member: 6932123"] Ohh... I slightly misread what you said, but it still sticks: What if weapons like whips could have multiple reactions? They're kinda junk weapons by default, but they're fast and flexible, and having an extra reaction (opportunity attack only) seems like it would give it an interesting niche use that still feels appropriate. For this, I would consider something like: When an opponent that you're in melee range with makes an opportunity attack against a creature other than you, you may use a reaction to move up to half your speed. Basically, in the moment the enemy is distracted, you have a chance to move away, perhaps getting behind some cover. Yeah, I like that idea. Only melee-threatened squares (including bare-handed types that melee, such as monks or brawlers). It makes a front line actually workable, even without the Sentinel feat. You'll generally have to go through three threatened squares to pass the fighter up front, and that's going to use up all your movement. You'd have to Dash to get the extra movement to reach the casters in the back, which means no attack that round, and time for the defending team to respond. It does mean monk can't as easily beeline for the big bad to use Stunning Strike, but it also actually makes the monk's high movement rate more useful. In general, more use of difficult terrain is desperately needed in combat. 30' of movement makes fights other than massive outdoor areas or volcanic calderas embarrassingly difficult to use as anything other than "walk up and hit each other till one falls over" types of fights. On the reactions question, I actually probably wouldn't give more general reactions to players, as they can be used for any number of things. Instead, like the Cavalier, have specialty reactions that you might consider more as "maneuvers". EG: Whips in general get an extra opportunity attack per round (but not more than one per turn); have a 'retreat' maneuver that allows you to move away from distracted enemies (when they take an action against someone other than you); etc. Perhaps use 'common' magic items as the vehicle for the bonus pseudo-reaction (eg: Boots of the Coward). With a bit of fine-tuning, I think that would work fine, and better than handing out full additional reactions to everyone without constraint. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Would Allowing Multiple Reactions Break The Game?
Top