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

[Argyle King]

Normally, a 5E character only gets 1 reaction.

Most of the time, that is fine. However, I am of the opinion that there may be aspects of the game which may benefit from allowing more than 1. For example, creating a front line to protect squishy party members is difficult to do when a character can only attempt to hit/stop one enemy. There are also fighting styles -such as the protection style- which seem rather weak because you get one use per turn and then your fighting style effectively turns off (as opposed to being constantly usable like most styles are). Also, I feel as though combat could feel less static if there are more opportunities to react to what is happening and engage in the action.

I do not want an unlimited number of reactions. Off the top of my head, my rough idea is to either allow something like
[# of reactions = 1/2 proficiency bonus (round up)].
This would mean 1 reaction for levels 1 - 4; 2r for levels 5 - 12; and 3r for levels 13 - 20.

How do you feel this would change play?

More importantly, would this break the game?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Probably fine and not game breaking based on the way you’ve laid it out. Although, in one corner case, you’ve potentially doubled (then tripled) the length of the Counterspell v Counterspall chain.

Also, try running a Marilith or three against the PCs to see how multiple Reactions plays out currently.

 

[Argyle King]

Probably fine and not game breaking based on the way you’ve laid it out. Although, in one corner case, you’ve potentially doubled (then tripled) the length of the Counterspell v Counterspall chain.

Also, try running a Marilith or three against the PCs to see how multiple Reactions plays out currently.

I'm not bothered by a chain of counterspells. I may think differently after seeing it in play, but I feel as though a caster investing in those options should benefit from it. In my head, I can picture a movie scene in which two mages struggle to get the upper hand. That seems cool.

The Marilith issue might be something more concerning.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The biggest worry would be making turns take too long, because everyone has a bunch more stuff they can do and that adds time (especially if you want to pause to give people a chance to jump in with their reaction). In 4e this got out of hand.

It might be better to look at specific cases and rule around those, rather than make a blanket change to the basic rule and hope it doesn't cause problems.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm not bothered by a chain of counterspells. I may think differently after seeing it in play, but I feel as though a caster investing in those options should benefit from it. In my head, I can picture a movie scene in which two mages struggle to get the upper hand. That seems cool.

The Marilith issue might be something more concerning.

The counter spell PC is actually being punished. Instead of 1 slot he now has to blow up to 3 at a time.

If you do this, it should be limited to no more than 1 reaction per turn.

 

[jayoungr]

I'm a little confused about what problem you're trying to solve. I can't recall ever being in a game where protecting the squishies was a problem due to lack of reactions. Are you running lots of combats where there are tons of enemies swarming the party?

 

[Oofta]

I think it could significantly help certain class builds and monsters more than others. The marilith is one example, but there are other combinations of feats and abilities that could be overpowered. Imagine a protector style fighter (disadvantage as a reaction) and sentinel at the same time. Add in some spell interactions.

It doesn't break anything per se, but it does change the balance of the game in ways you might not expect. If I were considering I'd get the group together and try it out.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It removes a lot of the trade-offs of reactions. An arcane trickster can cast shield AND uncanny dodge in the same round. Is that game breaking? Probably not. Does it make characters who have access to multiple reactions more powerful? Definitely.

Personally, given your what you said about protecting allies, if I were to go this route I would probably just open up the number of opportunity attacks a character can make in a round. If you really want to have multiple reactions be a thing, I'd most likely balance it by making it a feat.

Another thing to consider is that, depending on your group, tracking the number of reactions made in a long round is more difficult than the simple binary state of whether you've used a reaction at all. So consider that it might result in increased mental load.

 

[Blue]

"Break the game" is a bit open ended.

Action economy is a big deal in the game, and it already doesn't handle when one side or the other hand a lot more or less - usually through incompatible numbers. If there's more on one side, there's more opportunities to trigger reactions already, and now more reactions to go around. This will exasperate that issue.

Some classes and builds can make better use of reactions. This furthers that imbalance. A rogue getting three sneak attacks during a round - one on their turn, and more from (sometimes triggered) OAs or things like Commander's Strike or Order Cleric. That starts to get quite powerful. A martial with sentinel at a choke point can shut down a bunch of foes - and cause rules issues but reducing two creatures to 0 speed in the same square

Being able to pull out multiple magical defenses in the same turn as opposed to leaving yourself vulnerable by picking one helps casters. If you did Absorb Elements you can still do Shield later. Or even another Absorb Elements since that spell is single source.

Some class features, like the Glamour Bard's Mantle of Inspiration grant bonuses to a good number of people and then additional bonuses if they can spend their reaction. So certain classes can take advantage that others have more as well.

All in all it will have an effect on play that will be uneven based on the classes, features, and feats that the players have.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm a little confused about what problem you're trying to solve. I can't recall ever being in a game where protecting the squishies was a problem due to lack of reactions. Are you running lots of combats where there are tons of enemies swarming the party?

Currently, I am on the player side of things. 5E is the edition of D&D that I have the least experience running, but I am prepping to run an upcoming game. From playing, I try to take note of how other players interact with the game, note things which have become issues at a table, and whatever else I feel might make the game "better."

Things I've noticed:

You get 1 reaction, and trying to stop someone from moving by you (with an attack) also takes up that 1 reaction. It's also somewhat easier to move around someone in 5E than it was in other editions already. So, in a combat with multiple foes, trying to use traditional tactics to protect someone behind you doesn't work as well.

It goes the other direction too. When facing a group of enemies, I've seen it become a tactic to trigger one of the enemy's reactions and then just choose that enemy to run by.

During higher level fights, when some monsters start to get things they can do off-turn, it seems weird that a PC just kinda has to stand there and not do much of anything.

Looking at how some of the newer members of the group (who are also new to D&D) interact with the game, I've noticed that a few tune out a little when it's not their turn and they're not able to be involved in what is going on. This seems to happen more now that some monsters of lair actions and such. I believe (but have not asked yet) that some of this comes from feeling as though a lot is going on, but they cannot really interact. Facial expressions and body language has given me the perception that they feel it's kinda lame that they cannot react to what is happening very much.

===============

I'm not concerned with extra reactions causing turns to take longer. Oddly, I find that a lack of options is what causes choice-paralysis for some of the newer players. In particular, knowing that there's only 1 option for something to do seems to cause anxiety for the guy currently playing a cleric because he's too worried about not being able to protect the party if he chooses the wrong thing. (Likewise, the same player struggles to choose a feat because there are so few opportunities to choose one.) I do think D&D combat take a while sometimes, but I haven't found the number of options to be the cause; instead, I most often find that the way HP scales is more of the issue.

==============

Off topic, but, other things I am considering doing differently:

~reactions: the topic of this thread

~Initiative not being based on Dex. Instead, it would just be a d20 roll. Though, I'm considering adding a home-brew feat which would influence that in some way. This is somewhat related because I had thought about having effect of the feat being +1 reaction and some sort of bonus to initiative.

~Using the alternate rule from the DMG of proficiency dice instead of a flat bonus.

~adding "quick rests" that are 10 minutes, with the idea that you'd have some very limited ability to recover between fights; what's now a short rest would become more of a medium option for when time is still important but not rushed; long rests would still be 8 hours. I'm still hashing out how exactly this works.

~combat rounds are 10 seconds long (instead of the usual 6)

~bonus feat during character creation (with some limitations one what's available for this bonus choice)