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="Argyle King" data-source="post: 8284502" data-attributes="member: 58416"><p>I agree that there should be some drawbacks to ranged combat (and casting spells). 5E has a few, but overall is not built that way. (Ranged combat strong options which have few -if any- downsides.)</p><p></p><p>The things I've mentioned go both ways. It is also difficult for the enemy to protect their vulnerable party members. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>While typing this, I had the thought that perhaps a fight with protection style should be able to use an action on their turn to give an adjacent ally the benefits of the dodge action until the beginning of the fighter's next turn (as long as the ally is adjacent to them).</p><p></p><p>Really though, the protecting people thing is only a small piece of what I'm looking at. Overall, what I'm looking at is making combat seem more fluid (and less stop-and-go) between turns. I'm aware (as others have said) that turns are an abstraction necessary for rpgs to function as a game; at the same time, some of the other games I play (and other editions of D&D I've played) had options for people to do things through a conflict.</p><p></p><p>Still, maybe it would break the game. I appreciate the input. I'm not concerned with things taking "far longer" because I do not believe that would be the case with the group I game with. (In my view, combat taking a while is more due to how 5E monsters use HP as a primary method of scaling.) However, I do think that this change may break parts of the game. I will consider it more.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 8284502, member: 58416"] I agree that there should be some drawbacks to ranged combat (and casting spells). 5E has a few, but overall is not built that way. (Ranged combat strong options which have few -if any- downsides.) The things I've mentioned go both ways. It is also difficult for the enemy to protect their vulnerable party members. 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. While typing this, I had the thought that perhaps a fight with protection style should be able to use an action on their turn to give an adjacent ally the benefits of the dodge action until the beginning of the fighter's next turn (as long as the ally is adjacent to them). Really though, the protecting people thing is only a small piece of what I'm looking at. Overall, what I'm looking at is making combat seem more fluid (and less stop-and-go) between turns. I'm aware (as others have said) that turns are an abstraction necessary for rpgs to function as a game; at the same time, some of the other games I play (and other editions of D&D I've played) had options for people to do things through a conflict. Still, maybe it would break the game. I appreciate the input. I'm not concerned with things taking "far longer" because I do not believe that would be the case with the group I game with. (In my view, combat taking a while is more due to how 5E monsters use HP as a primary method of scaling.) However, I do think that this change may break parts of the game. I will consider it more. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Would Allowing Multiple Reactions Break The Game?
Top