Can a second reaction break the game?

[suplee215]

Just a question I have. I DM and I am thinking of introducing an item that grants characters a second reaction per round. The intent of this is for an NPC abjuration wizard who relies heavily on reaction spells but I could see the players getting their hands on this. I do not see anything too broken a player can do with this but figured I'll ask here as there are very few things that allow a secondary reaction in the game, and those that do usually allows only opportunity attacks.

[JNAProductions]

Shield and Counterspell in the same round would be nice.

Double Shield should DEFINITELY be disallowed. +10 AC is insane.

But so long as you have a "The same spell cannot be used twice with your extra reaction" I don't foresee any major issues.

[nickl_2000]

A second reaction on a rogue where the PC is strategic would be a huge boost to damage.

[Man_Over_Game]

Effects from the same feature or source never stack. So you'd never be able to add Shield twice in the same turn.

Same as if two friends cast Shield of Faith on the same person.

What OP is basically asking is about Legendary Actions, or some kind of high level Cavalier feature kind of thing. So the answer is probably "No, with moderation".

[Lunali]

I can't think of anything more broken about this than an extra sneak attack, but since it's originally intended for an NPC, you could just give them an extra reaction per round. If your players are particularly rules lawyery, give him a legendary action to recover his reaction.

[Vekon]

Break the game? No, not really.

It would be a decent magic item, depending on the make-up of your party. Another reaction for a PAM/Sentinel martial would be quite good, as well as a caster being able to counterspell more than one enemy spellcaster in a given round. But even still, nothing insane.

Make it require attunement and they probably won't keep using it for very long.

[Jerrykhor]

If 2 reaction is considered breaking the game, you don't want to know how reactions work in 4e. They have a type of reaction that can trigger on each creatures turn.

[some guy]

Just a question I have. I DM and I am thinking of introducing an item that grants characters a second reaction per round. The intent of this is for an NPC abjuration wizard who relies heavily on reaction spells but I could see the players getting their hands on this.

If the intent is solely for a NPC, why not just write it in the stat block instead of an item? PC's and NPC's aren't 'build' the same way in 5e like they were in 3.5.

[Bjarkmundur]

5e really dislikes complicated tracking, and that's why the whole system revolves around a single reaction and advantage/disadvantage.
Having more things to track is very much against 5e's design philosophy, and will slow down combat if applied to a player, but it is hardly broken.

Worst case, it's a Houserule, and Houserules can always be removed after testing.

Something much more 5e would be

"Your mind goes blank and your instincts take over. Once per short rest, you can take a reaction even if you've already taken a reaction since the end of your last turn".

[Nightgaun7]

If 2 reaction is considered breaking the game, you don't want to know how reactions work in 4e. They have a type of reaction that can trigger on each creatures turn.

And it was fine.

[Bjarkmundur]

And it was fine.

Once my player's figured out to abuse the action economy with free actions, opportunity action, immediate reactions and immediate interrupts, a single round of combat went from taking 20 to 40 minutes.
It happen slowly over the course of a couple of levels, and I ended up asking my players to swap encounter powers. I explained how each player is entitled to his own turn as his spotlight, and how unfun it is when someone takes over your turn with off-turn actions.
It's like when someone is in the middle of a story, and about to deliver the punchline, and someone just pushes you away and finishes the joke.
I do miss 4e tho, but not ALL of 4e.

[geetika]

even 100th reaction can't break the game

[Unoriginal]

The Marilith's Boon allows several reactions (IIRC only for AoO).

Doesn't break the game, but it's still very powerful and not intended for PCs.

[suplee215]

Shield and Counterspell in the same round would be nice.

Double Shield should DEFINITELY be disallowed. +10 AC is insane.

But so long as you have a "The same spell cannot be used twice with your extra reaction" I don't foresee any major issues.
Does this fall under the "you cannot benefit from the same spell more than once"?

[suplee215]

If the intent is solely for a NPC, why not just write it in the stat block instead of an item? PC's and NPC's aren't 'build' the same way in 5e like they were in 3.5.

The intent is for it to be used on an up coming villain. THey can loot the body if they kill him and decide to. I am looking at this as also just a possible unique magic item for the group as well but when the idea began I was basically just trying to think of possibilities for the character before going "it might be neat if the group has their hands on it"

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a caution, the DMG (pg 263) specifically warns against 3 modifications:

1. Allowing people to concentrate on more than one spell at a time.
2. Granting extra bonus actions or reactions.
3. Letting people attune to more than 3 magic items.

This is both for NPCs and PCs. The concern is that the possible interactions/loopholes grows much more rapidly than you might think (making it easier for something bad to break) as well as the more-than-linear increase in table time spent.

If you want them to be able to take more than one reaction, give them Legendary Actions instead. That's a system-friendly way of achieving the same effect, especially since they can be specific.

[Keravath]

A bard with an extra reaction becomes a powerhouse for shutting down caster attacks through counterspell. It would also work for an abjuration wizard (with their bonus to counterspell) though it would be useful for any caster with counterspell. Does it "break the game"? No but it does make the creature much more difficult to shut down. It also makes it much more difficult to prevent their spells from going off ... caster with this item casts a nasty spell. The players cast counterspell. The caster with the item counterspells the counterspell (this uses their reaction and normally another player could then step in and counterspell the counterspell). However, with an extra reaction, the person casting the spell originally can counterspell again using the second reaction. This makes it pretty much impossible for the players to prevent the target with the magic item from forcing through their spell.

There is also the possibility of using shield and counterspell in the same turn. One strategy players use has melee attacking the caster to force them to use shield as their reaction, this then allows another party member to cast a spell without worrying about counterspell. Having 2 reactions prevents this tactic from working.

Anyway, neither of these "break the game" since the DM is in charge and the encounters will likely be designed around knowing that this capability is in play. (though that gets back to the point that there really is nothing that will "break the game" as long as the players and DM are having fun with what is happening in the game).

[suplee215]

A bard with an extra reaction becomes a powerhouse for shutting down caster attacks through counterspell. It would also work for an abjuration wizard (with their bonus to counterspell) though it would be useful for any caster with counterspell. Does it "break the game"? No but it does make the creature much more difficult to shut down. It also makes it much more difficult to prevent their spells from going off ... caster with this item casts a nasty spell. The players cast counterspell. The caster with the item counterspells the counterspell (this uses their reaction and normally another player could then step in and counterspell the counterspell). However, with an extra reaction, the person casting the spell originally can counterspell again using the second reaction. This makes it pretty much impossible for the players to prevent the target with the magic item from forcing through their spell.



Thank you. I think I'll make a imitation where you can't use the reaction twice on the same turn to avoid counter spell counter spell counter spell. And also my party has players, 2 wizards, a bard, a warlock, an arcane trickster and a eldritch knight so they are heavy spell casters.

[suplee215]

A bard with an extra reaction becomes a powerhouse for shutting down caster attacks through counterspell. It would also work for an abjuration wizard (with their bonus to counterspell) though it would be useful for any caster with counterspell. Does it "break the game"? No but it does make the creature much more difficult to shut down. It also makes it much more difficult to prevent their spells from going off ... caster with this item casts a nasty spell. The players cast counterspell. The caster with the item counterspells the counterspell (this uses their reaction and normally another player could then step in and counterspell the counterspell). However, with an extra reaction, the person casting the spell originally can counterspell again using the second reaction. This makes it pretty much impossible for the players to prevent the target with the magic item from forcing through their spell.



Thank you. I think I'll make a imitation where you can't use the reaction twice on the same turn to avoid counter spell counter spell counter spell. And also my party has players, 2 wizards, a bard, a warlock, an arcane trickster and a eldritch knight so they are heavy spell casters.

[Grog Logs]

As a caution, the DMG (pg 263) specifically warns against 3 modifications:

1. Allowing people to concentrate on more than one spell at a time.
2. Granting extra bonus actions or reactions.
3. Letting people attune to more than 3 magic items.

This is both for NPCs and PCs. The concern is that the possible interactions/loopholes grows much more rapidly than you might think (making it easier for something bad to break) as well as the more-than-linear increase in table time spent.

If you want them to be able to take more than one reaction, give them Legendary Actions instead. That's a system-friendly way of achieving the same effect, especially since they can be specific.

I second PhoenixPhyre. If you really want to allow more specific actions, I'd recommend something like the item below to avoid Rogue Sneak Attack double reaction shenanigans.

Cloak of Deflection
Armor, Legendary (requires attunement)
This magic cloak grants you 1 legendary reaction, chosen from the options below. Only one legendary reaction can be used at a time, and only on another creature's turn. The cloak regains spent legendary actions at the start of your turn. You must still spend the normal resources, such as spell slots and arcane ward hit points, to use them. This item only grants you the ability to use a second reaction once per round if you already possess the ability to do so. It does not grant you new abilities.

Shield
Counterspell
Arcane Ward, including Projected Ward

[Kurt Kurageous]

How about a "Sentinel Sword (or other weapon)"?

Grants a reaction to complete an AOO when target enters or leaves reach. Does not allow two reaction attacks against same target. Unlike feat, does not drop targets speed to zero.

Use: PC moves towards foe, uses reaction to attack granted by the sword per Sentinel, then normal action. Foe disengages, sword allows second AOO as Sentinel feat.

Use2: PC engaged by two foes, both of which move away/disengage. The PC is able to use their reaction and the sword-granted reaction to AOO each one, but not one foe twice.

Use3: PC ally attacked by foe within 5' of PC, sword grants reaction to attack attacker. This use may make the item OP.

Limiting the reaction limits the potential broken-ness. And its not an AOE reaction.

If the user of this sword has Sentinel, then you have some doubling. I don't think it's broken because its pretty situational (first round and if opponent flees) unless use 3 is allowed.