How strong is getting an extra reaction per round?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm brewing a class that ends up having lots of competition for its reaction. How strong would it be to give this class a high (10+) level ability that looked something like



You can take two reactions per round instead of one, but only one per turn.


Note that the reaction competition heats up at high enough levels that granting this at those un-dippable levels makes sense. This reduces the multi-classing issue significantly. The class is also not a spell-caster--it uses a clone of the monk's ki pool (essence). All of the reaction abilities cost essence.

Examples of reaction abilities (an average character might have 3 of these by level 10-12, but only one of the sub-class specific ones):

* Shield equivalent.
* Protection Fighting Style's effect (base costs an invocation-esque choice, extending its range costs essence)
* Deflect missiles (without the throw-back effect)
* Re-roll a failed save against a push or prone effect.
* Grant advantage on a save vs loss of control (stun, banish, confusion, etc).
* Force a re-roll of a critical hit against you.
* Move up to half-speed without provoking (sub-class specific, level 7)
* Reflect a spell attack that missed or a single-target spell whose save was failed (sub-class specific, level 13)
* Counterspell equivalent (sub-class specific, level 7)

[guachi]

You'll need to rewrite the ability. You can already take two or even three reactions in one round under the current rules.

Something like: When you use this ability you grant yourself an additional reaction. You may not use this ability again until the start of your next turn. You may take no more than one reaction per turn.

[ad_hoc]

I wouldn't mind a Tier 3 ability that read:

You may take a reaction this turn even if you have already used your reaction. You may not use this ability again until you have finished a short or long rest.

It could even be a Tier 2 ability if it the only ability in a prime level slot.

[Lombra]

I like it, doesn't feel like it's gonna be overpowered, good on a tank for sure, or on someone with defensive duelist, even someone with counterspell/absorb element.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You'll need to rewrite the ability. You can already take two or even three reactions in one round under the current rules.

Something like: When you use this ability you grant yourself an additional reaction. You may not use this ability again until the start of your next turn. You may take no more than one reaction per turn.

?? You only have one Reaction (by default) that resets at the beginning of your turn. Some abilities grant an the use of an additional reaction-like attack (Tunnel Fighter?), but otherwise you only get one per round.

[bid]

You'll need to rewrite the ability. You can already take two or even three reactions in one round under the current rules.

When you take a reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn
So... nope.

[LeonBH]

I dislike it just because it opens up the possibility of chained Counterspells. Since you're not making a caster class anyway, add in the restriction that the additional reaction cannot be used for casting a spell.

[Vaz]

I dislike it just because it opens up the possibility of chained Counterspells. Since you're not making a caster class anyway, add in the restriction that the additional reaction cannot be used for casting a spell.
No it doesn't?

[Hrugner]

Without seeing what this class has to offer, I think it may be a good idea to restrict it's reactions such that it can't take the same reaction more than once per round. For example, They couldn't take two reaction attacks in one round, but they could take one reaction attack and cast a shield spell in one round. This would mostly be to avoid chaining abilities.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm brewing a class that ends up having lots of competition for its reaction. How strong would it be to give this class a high (10+) level ability that looked something like "You can take two reactions per round instead of one, but only one per turn. " Note that the reaction competition heats up at high enough levels that granting this at those un-dippable levels makes sense. This reduces the multi-classing issue significantly. The class is also not a spell-caster--it uses a clone of the monk's ki pool (essence). All of the reaction abilities cost essence.

Examples of reaction abilities...
<edited for size>

First of all, good on you for recognizing that abilities do not exist in a void, and thus not just asking how strong getting an extra reaction per round would be.

Looking over your class, I don't see any obvious abuse, but there could be one lurking somewhere. The advantage of homebrew is that it is only for your campaigns, so if you have 'that one player' who finds 'that one build' which completely breaks the bank with your homebrew, you can just say "that was not the idea for which this was intended" and ask them to try something else.

From an design standpoint, I can see this class being really powerful when surrounded by a mixed group of opponents, and very weak when just up against one big opponent (at least if their normal and bonus action abilities are not equally powerful, in which case they are simply a nova class). Is that the type of class you had hoped to build?

[PhoenixPhyre]

First of all, good on you for recognizing that abilities do not exist in a void, and thus not just asking how strong getting an extra reaction per round would be.

Looking over your class, I don't see any obvious abuse, but there could be one lurking somewhere. The advantage of homebrew is that it is only for your campaigns, so if you have 'that one player' who finds 'that one build' which completely breaks the bank with your homebrew, you can just say "that was not the idea for which this was intended" and ask them to try something else.

From an design standpoint, I can see this class being really powerful when surrounded by a mixed group of opponents, and very weak when just up against one big opponent (at least if their normal and bonus action abilities are not equally powerful, in which case they are simply a nova class). Is that the type of class you had hoped to build?

The full class description is here: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/B12upq1_-

Building some of these as NPCs, it seems like the following:
* They're really strong defensively against casting-dominant creatures (in groups or solos). This is by design--both for fluff and for theme reasons they're anti-caster.
* Depending on which forms they take, they can be very strong defensively (in general), but at the cost of most of their utility.
* Offensively most of their output comes from weapons--one subclass gets an inferior version of the paladin's smite--it's capped lower and uses physical damage, not radiant.
* They do seem better against groups, but that's how I play generally--this edition doesn't handle big solo fights very well for many reasons.
* The defensive sub-class (Eternal Ageis) may be too weak offensively and too strong defensively. It turtles nicely, but may not be able to threaten well enough to be useful. That needs to change.
* The support sub-class (Caduceus) is weak offensively, but provides nicer support. Once they hit level 17 they can contribute more, but that's quite late.

Does that agree with what you see?

[LeonBH]

No it doesn't?

I'm questioning your current understanding of the rules of 5E.

[Aett_Thorn]

I'm questioning your current understanding of the rules of 5E.

I'm questioning yours. How do you think that the rule as he currently has it opens the door for chained counterspells?

[LeonBH]

I'm questioning yours. How do you think that the rule as he currently has it opens the door for chained counterspells?

:smalleek:

[Joe the Rat]

In general an extra reaction has a lot of appeal. For most purposes, this phrase will fix a lot of issues: "once per turn."

Since the base rules don't consider multiple reactions, I went with the closest existing option for inspiration: Sneak Attack. This also means you need a certain level of understanding of the rules to take advantage of multiple reactions, and to see the limits. But the general effect is a spread of effects, rather than a stack of effects.

Opportunity Attacks: Are generally unaffected. Unless you have a creature hopping in and out of reach, you would normally only get one shot at each mover.
Reaction Features and abilities are usable against two different targets on different turns.
Casters: Shield is a non-issue; the effect lasts until your next turn, and it doesn't stack. Hellish Rebuke is once per attacker. No single-caster-Counterspell-Blue-Control-Deck strategies.
Defense style: One attack deflected per attacker; Strong early, becomes a softer defense once multiattack becomes prevalent.
Monk BS: Now you can slow fall and deflect missiles in the same round. Alternatively, you're good against two archers, but not one with a high rate of fire.
Defensive Feats: (Defensive Duelist, Shield Master) Can be used against two attackers, not so much for one-on-one.


Just as a note, we do currently have a class that can get two reactions a round: Rogue(Thief) 17 gets two turns in the first round of combat, and could potentially get a reaction between each turn. This is a lot more useful, and less flexible, than a two-reaction feature, but if you really think this could become a problem, keep the benefit at or above 4th level. That's your floor.

[Vaz]

:smalleek:

Here's your participation medal.

[guachi]

So... nope.

Yes. You are wrong. Sorry. You literally quoted the entirety of the PHB on Reactions (as far as I can find, anyway) and still didn't understand what you quoted.

Combat starts.
Bad guy casts a spell.
I counterspell.
My turn. I do stuff.
Bad guy #2 casts a spell.
I counterspell.
End of round.

Two reactions in a round? Un-possible!!!!!

I'm a 17th level Thief.
Combat starts.
Bad guy hits me. I use my reaction to Uncanny Dodge.
My turn #1. I do stuff.
Bad guy hits me. I use my reaction to Uncanny Dodge.
My turn #2. I do stuff.
Bad guy hits me. I use my reaction to Uncanny Dodge.
End of round.

THREE reactions in a round? It's a D&D miracle!!!!!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes. You are wrong. Sorry. You literally quoted the entirety of the PHB on Reactions (as far as I can find, anyway) and still didn't understand what you quoted.

Combat starts.
Bad guy casts a spell.
I counterspell.
My turn. I do stuff.
Bad guy #2 casts a spell.
I counterspell.
End of round.

Two reactions in a round? Un-possible!!!!!

I'm a 17th level Thief.
Combat starts.
Bad guy hits me. I use my reaction to Uncanny Dodge.
My turn #1. I do stuff.
Bad guy hits me. I use my reaction to Uncanny Dodge.
My turn #2. I do stuff.
Bad guy hits me. I use my reaction to Uncanny Dodge.
End of round.

THREE reactions in a round? It's a D&D miracle!!!!!

When we say "multiple reactions in a round", we're considering a rolling round--starting and ending at the beginning of an individual's turn. Thus, each person (barring edge cases like 17+ level thieves who get 2 turns during the first round) gets a single turn (and a single reaction) per (rolling) round. The proposal would increase that two two reactions (but only one in the same turn) per character's turn. Since it would be at high enough level that you can't get both the Thief capstone and this ability, any interaction is impossible.

[Jama7301]

The whole turn/round thing, and how it's been used interchangeably at some tables I've been at made me glad I learned the words "initiative pass" from Shadowrun.

[guachi]

When we say "multiple reactions in a round", we're considering a rolling round--starting and ending at the beginning of an individual's turn.

Nice goal post moving. Too bad the term rolling round doesn't exist in 5e. It has no meaning in 5e that I'm aware of. The rules never refer to such a thing. The general rule is that a round starts when the first person takes a turn in combat and ends when everyone has taken a turn. Then a new round starts.

[Vaz]

Nice goal post moving. Too bad the term rolling round doesn't exist in 5e. It has no meaning in 5e that I'm aware of. The rules never refer to such a thing. The general rule is that a round starts when the first person takes a turn in combat and ends when everyone has taken a turn. Then a new round starts.

Yes. And normally, you may take one reaction per round.

This allows you to play 2 within that same round, but only 1 reactoon can be made per turn.

What is it you are willfully misunderstanding?

[bid]

Two reactions in a round? Un-possible!!!!!
Technically correct, the best kind of correct.
Well played, sir!

Now stop playing with fire traps, you'll burn yourself.

[Willie the Duck]

Technically correct, the best kind of correct.

It's unclear based on your usage here, but you know that that scene was making fun of people who thought that way, right?