As an optional rule, a character who has already used their reaction may take one additional reaction before the start of their next turn. If they do so, they lose their action on their next turn. This represents overextending yourself in the moment by reacting again at the cost of future momentum.
This rule preserves 5e’s action economy by trading an immediate defensive or tactical benefit for a significant drawback. It enables cinematic clutch moments (extra deflection, parry, or counter) without increasing damage output or allowing reaction spam, making it especially useful for survivability-focused abilities like a monk’s Deflect Missiles.
If you are a dm, give it a try at your table. It might be fine. I dm and one of my players is a monk and they are doing just fine with one reaction/deflect attack per turn.
Is there something specific you are tryijg to fix? Or just adding more flexibility for players?
Also, in general, if my players come up with some do or die clutch-moment idea, i try to find a way to makr it work in the moment, but sometimes making it part of the core rules creates new problems.
This doesn't sound like it would ever be worth it. Why would a wizard trade their action to cast Fireball to cast Shield, and why would a Fighter trade Extra Attack to make an opportunity attack?
At least if "its not worth it" that basically means its not OP and someone wants to do it more for flavor or something, so it would probably be fine to allow it in homebrew.
But if its not worth it, that also means its another rule to add to the rule books, making the game harder to pearn, and for something no one would use much.
Stuff like this is why i try to allow on-the-fly stuff from my players at least when theyre in a serious jam. Doesnt need to be a specific rule, just improv on the fly.
This doesn't sound like it would ever be worth it. Why would a wizard trade their action to cast Fireball to cast Shield, and why would a Fighter trade Extra Attack to make an opportunity attack?
The wizard may need a Shield or Absorb Elements to survive until his turn comes up, a Fighter might have Sentinel which would keep the opponent from escaping or a Topple/Slow weapon that might keep the opponent nearby for other party members to attack. I can see reasons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As an optional rule, a character who has already used their reaction may take one additional reaction before the start of their next turn. If they do so, they lose their action on their next turn. This represents overextending yourself in the moment by reacting again at the cost of future momentum.
This rule preserves 5e’s action economy by trading an immediate defensive or tactical benefit for a significant drawback. It enables cinematic clutch moments (extra deflection, parry, or counter) without increasing damage output or allowing reaction spam, making it especially useful for survivability-focused abilities like a monk’s Deflect Missiles.
Thoughts?
If you are a dm, give it a try at your table. It might be fine. I dm and one of my players is a monk and they are doing just fine with one reaction/deflect attack per turn.
Is there something specific you are tryijg to fix? Or just adding more flexibility for players?
Also, in general, if my players come up with some do or die clutch-moment idea, i try to find a way to makr it work in the moment, but sometimes making it part of the core rules creates new problems.
I'm not fond of alternate Homebrew & House Rules pertaining to trading future action for immediate reaction.
Try asking in homebrew & house rules.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
This doesn't sound like it would ever be worth it. Why would a wizard trade their action to cast Fireball to cast Shield, and why would a Fighter trade Extra Attack to make an opportunity attack?
At least if "its not worth it" that basically means its not OP and someone wants to do it more for flavor or something, so it would probably be fine to allow it in homebrew.
But if its not worth it, that also means its another rule to add to the rule books, making the game harder to pearn, and for something no one would use much.
Stuff like this is why i try to allow on-the-fly stuff from my players at least when theyre in a serious jam. Doesnt need to be a specific rule, just improv on the fly.
The wizard may need a Shield or Absorb Elements to survive until his turn comes up, a Fighter might have Sentinel which would keep the opponent from escaping or a Topple/Slow weapon that might keep the opponent nearby for other party members to attack. I can see reasons.