One thing that has always bugged me about D&D is that a lot of classes end up with extremely repetitive actions in combat. Warlocks mostly just Eldritch Blast, Fighters just (multi)attack each turn. So once the initial spell slots or one-time use skills are used up, it's mostly just a matter of repeating the same actions until either PCs or the monsters are dead.
Yes, I know some people will point out that you can still make this fun still if your players and/or DM are fantastic story-tellers and can weave a great tale out of every dice throw ... but most casual players I have known do not tend to be that captivating when describing the same action for the 5th time in a row.
Now, for some Monsters the source books actually have elegant ways around this by e.g. giving the BBEG-type Monsters various "cooldown" abilities, lair actions, etc which they can use every few turns - but not all the time. This is a great feature and forces DMs to actually play our their behaviour a lot more interestingly. For PCs, no cooldown-type such feature exists (yet), so I wanted to float some thoughts on a few house rules that I was considering trying out at some point.
To me, the main motivation would be to make combat more varied and thus also keep players more interested. For instance, it will allow more players to discover weaknesses/resistances in monsters if they have to vary their method of attack, or players could come up with fun "combos" and better role-playing opportunities within combat.
House Rule Idea: 'Overheat' penalty for repeat usage
When an action is repeated without break, each subsequent use of that action gets an additional penalty. So if you try to cast Eldritch Blast for the 2nd time in a row, you get -1 to hit and damage, for the 3rd time it's -2, and so on. The way I think of it is similar to various FPS games where your weapons overheat if you just shoot continuously, hence why I call it the "overheat" penalty.
The way I imagine this rule would work is:
Spell attacks: Overheat penalty increases for each repeat casting (N-th casting gives [N-1] penalty), but casters get an additional cantrip at 1st or 2nd level.
Regular attack action: Overheat penalty starts on the third repeated action (N-th casting starting at 3rd gives [N-2] penalty (fighters etc have fewer action options, especially at low levels, so should be allowed to repeat once)
Ki-based actions (e.g. Quickened Healing) cost an extra Ki-point for each repeat casting without
Spells without hit-roll or DC (e.g. Magic Missile) would require an increasingly higher spell-slot for each repeat casting
The repeat-chain breaks if you perform a different action, cast a different spell, or use a different skill as your main action. (Bonus actions such as off-hand attacks or bonus action spells would not count)
Multi-attacks within the same turn count as just 1 repeat for the purposes of this rule (e.g. your L20 Warlock can cast all 4 beams, or your L20 Fighter do all 4 attacks in one turn. It's only if you have multiple turns of doing the same thing that the penalty would apply). For clarity, switching your attack from Sword to Bow would also count as breaking the chain
In-universe, this would be explained by the fact that repeating the same action over and over makes it much easier for your opponent to anticipate you and to avoid the hit/damage. For the spell-slot case, the explanation would be that the weave and fabric of reality is warped with each spell and if you do not give it some time to normalise, it becomes more and more difficult to continue to warp it in the same way.
What would you expect them to do otherwise? If a fighter can’t multi attack, for example, you are not leaving them with a whole ton of other options. This destroys a lot of base class abilities. If I’m playing a level 11 fighter, and I can’t just attack 3 times, why am I playing a fighter? Especially if it’s something like a champion or samurai who doesn’t really have other class features to activate. Or if my warlock only has 2 spell slots, and none of the spells I have are useful in a given fight, what am I to do besides eldritch blast?
What would you expect them to do otherwise? If a fighter can’t multi attack, for example, you are not leaving them with a whole ton of other options. This destroys a lot of base class abilities. If I’m playing a level 11 fighter, and I can’t just attack 3 times, why am I playing a fighter? Especially if it’s something like a champion or samurai who doesn’t really have other class features to activate. Or if my warlock only has 2 spell slots, and none of the spells I have are useful in a given fight, what am I to do besides eldritch blast?
Thanks. One thing I had in my mind but forgot to write down was actually that changing your weapon or type or attack also counts. So if you fire off a bunch of arrows in one round and then swing your sword in the next, and then throw a chair as an improvised weapon in the 3rd, they would all count as different and not incur a penalty. I've amended that in the original post.
For the Warlock and other spelllcasters, I did note the extra cantrip. So maybe mix up Eldtrich Blast with Chill Touch or Booming Blade or something. To me, that's exactly the point. Gives it a little variety.
Yes, the actual damage output will be lower if not everyone can use their statistically maximised attack each round, but to me D&D is never about min-maxing optimal damage per second, but about having a fun time. The DM can always just adjust the opponents HP down by a few to account for the marginally lower statistically expected damage per round.
One thing I had in my mind but forgot to write down was actually that changing your weapon or type or attack also counts. So if you fire off a bunch of arrows in one round and then swing your sword in the next, and then throw a chair as an improvised weapon in the 3rd, they would all count as different and not incur a penalty.
I should add, each one of those can be multi-attack. As per the original post, multi-attack in one round counts as 1 repeat action only (even if it's 4 attacks that round). So you can fire 4 arrows, then swing your sword 4 times, etc.
It might not just be marginally lower, though, it might make them really suck. If I’m playing an archer, I probably have a crappy str and I’m wearing lighter armor. And I’m 40 or so feet away from my closest enemy, ideally. And I definitely don’t have a shield equipped. So I have to shoot my bow, juggle, then run in (if I can get there) and swing a sword (badly) then I have to use my next action to disengage, (since I can’t swing my sword again without penalty) so I can shoot again in round 4. And since I only get one item interaction a round, I probably had to drop my bow to the ground, so I could draw my sword (or pick up a chair and then have to look up the improvised weapon rules.)
And if I’m eldritch blasting, I probably have sunk one or two invocations into it. And I’m nice and far away, outside the range of other cantrips. So I have to run up much closer (again, if I can get in range) to the fight than I’d like so I can ray of frost someone. And get no benefit from my class features I’ve spent on being able to eldritch blast.
And to your original point, players already have lots of “cooldown” abilities. Things they can do x/short or long rest and spell slots. If they aren’t worried about managing their resources, give them more fights per day, and that will force them to think harder about what they use and when they use it.
You're taking away options from classes that already only have one and providing nothing in return. People play fighters and rogues because they WANT the simplicity of always knowing the one thing they're going to do on their turn. Players who want to use more options will play classes that give them more options.
No. I mean seriously. This is a rediculous idea. Cantrips like eldritch blast are fully intended to be used round after round. That's like telling the fighter they can't swing their sword this round because they did it last round. Or telling the barbarian they have to stop raging this round because they raged last round.
Not a fan of this houserule, while i understand the reasoning behind it, i don't see a problem with repetitive actions aside from being boring to some people, it's otherwise the bread and butter of some build and messing up with these would force players to either limit what they want to do and do something else or be penalised for doing so. It's taking away options and punishing player's choice. This would make D&D worse so a big NO for me.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander? If you apply such houserule to your monsters, it would affect many of them too. Most monsters don't have lair actions or much diversity.
You're trying to create variety by removing things. Many characters don't have much more interesting that they can do without being sub-optimal for no reason.
If you want variety, add variety. Give them magic weapons with charges that let them do cool and impactful things on a limited basis. Add options like the battle master's special attacks. Design encounters where the party's priorities might change mid-fight. Design encounters that are meant to be won by trickery rather than brute force.
Perhaps a better alternative would be to provide situations that encourage alternate actions. If a monster is weak to cold, the warlock might use Frostbite over EB. If the fighter can fire the ship's ballista, they might do that instead of multiattack. If the monk can break the dam and send a rush of water onto the fire elementals, they might do that instead of punching.
Hit'em Til They're Dead encounters will always feel monotonous even if you switch up cantrips. For me, what keeps things exciting is placing things in the environment that the party can use to their advantage. They take the bait pretty much every time.
Calling multi-attacks by fighters repetitive just reflects a lack of imagination. Its not a video game where "B" does the same motion over and over. Every attack in a multi attack is a chance to take a different angle with a blade, spin, dance, flourish, etc.
Also, as far as monks go, Ki is already so weak and limited, especially at early levels. If anything, monks should have more access to ki (or better yet, more abilities that do not require it), not less.
Perhaps a better alternative would be to provide situations that encourage alternate actions. If a monster is weak to cold, the warlock might use Frostbite over EB. If the fighter can fire the ship's ballista, they might do that instead of multiattack. If the monk can break the dam and send a rush of water onto the fire elementals, they might do that instead of punching.
All brilliant idea, and I totally agree. But the point of my concept for a house rule was really to also add more variety to fights anyway. Not every situation can have a ballista or dam nearby.
Also, I should probably point out that reducing damage or making builds sub-optimal may be a valid concern for most people, but not me. D&D is not about winning or even optimising a build. I do enough mathematical optimisation at work, I really don't need to do that in my free-time as well. Some of the best situations are those where you have to think outside the box (e.g. spell focus and component pouch gone, what can you do with material components that you can find in the jail you are imprisoned in). So you are all perfectly right in that it will make various Warlock or Fighter builds sub-optimal, but the concept here was not to make fights harder or easier but just to make every fight by default something more interesting and varied. And you can still combine it with the other concepts people noted like having fun and interactive environmental hazards or tools that PCs can use. And the "overheat" penalty may exactly force them to think "well, I can't Eldritch Blast again, but what if I untie that Chandelier to let it drop down on them instead?"
While this concept might sound fun for you, it is apparent that it doesn't sound fun at all to those that have voted or commented. Have you asked your players how they feel about the idea and do THEY think that it would be fun?
Try pathfinder (2.0 I think) instead. If I recall the math is already baked in when it comes to attempting 3 attack actions on a single turn for example.
That it probably is the dumbest idea I've seen in a long while? I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but I really do think that you are looking at it completely wrong.
Now, for some Monsters the source books actually have elegant ways around this by e.g. giving the BBEG-type Monsters various "cooldown" abilities, lair actions, etc which they can use every few turns - but not all the time. This is a great feature and forces DMs to actually play our their behaviour a lot more interestingly. For PCs, no cooldown-type such feature exists (yet),
This is just wrong on all counts tbh. The abilities that monsters have on cooldown are their strongest/most special abilities, not their standard actions/attacks that they use round after round. And PC's have loads of cooldownish abilities. all abilities that can be used X times per short/long rest are clear examples, spellslots is another sort of limit.
For the Warlock and other spelllcasters, I did note the extra cantrip. So maybe mix up Eldtrich Blast with Chill Touch or Booming Blade or something. To me, that's exactly the point. Gives it a little variety.
And this is where you are really missing the point. Not just with the Warlock, though it makes for a great example, but for all spellcasters (well every class really).
You say mix it up, mix the EB with a Chill Touch and a BB or something. And you give him one extra cantrip to make it up. Well a Warlock have 2 cantrips until 4th lvl and 3 until 9th so even with extra one you gave him you have pretty much taken up all cantrip choices he have for the majority of the game (as most games doesn't get far beyond lvl 10). So all the interesting things that could have happened from using a Mage Hand or a Minor Illusion or a well applied Friends or even just a creative use of Prestidigitation are all off the table. The same goes for all spellcasters really. Needing to have a large variety of damage dealing spells means a lot less room for situational and/or fun and creative spells, especially spells that have their main use outside of combat. Martials probably doesn't suffer as much (a bit less consumables perhaps as they need to carry around a good variety of weapons) from a options POW but they'll definitely suffer from a damage POW.
What you call adding variety I instead see as reducing options and pretty much completely stunting creativity.
You're trying to create variety by removing things. Many characters don't have much more interesting that they can do without being sub-optimal for no reason.
If you want variety, add variety. Give them magic weapons with charges that let them do cool and impactful things on a limited basis. Add options like the battle master's special attacks. Design encounters where the party's priorities might change mid-fight. Design encounters that are meant to be won by trickery rather than brute force.
This is a great suggestion and a much better way of looking at the issue. If you want creativity to take place then provide things or situations that allow for creativity to happen.
People repeat the same action because that's what they have. If you want to avoid 'alpha strike and then spam at-will until done', I suspect you'd be best off reversing the process: have everything start off unavailable and roll to recharge at the start of every round (there are other variants on this that also work).
To be more constructive then my previous comments, one thing you can do is to design a more dynamic battle space, and then tell your players in specific game terms how they might interact with the space. For example, point to a 10’ tall statue, and explain that if someone were to knock that over, it will do x damage, save for half, to the 2 adjacent squares, and the rubble will create difficult terrain. In this scenario, x= about as much damage as they’d do with a normal weapon/cantrip attack, usually a couple d8’s. And make sure they know the enemies can do this, too.
Now you’ve given them an option that’s about as good as a normal attack, and they make a tactical decision about if they want to risk standing next to it, and another layer of tactical decision about creating terrain, which could be good or bad.
But you have to tell them, very explicitly. If there’s a chance that the statue will only do a d4 damage, most people won’t take the risk. They need to know it’s worth it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One thing that has always bugged me about D&D is that a lot of classes end up with extremely repetitive actions in combat. Warlocks mostly just Eldritch Blast, Fighters just (multi)attack each turn. So once the initial spell slots or one-time use skills are used up, it's mostly just a matter of repeating the same actions until either PCs or the monsters are dead.
Yes, I know some people will point out that you can still make this fun still if your players and/or DM are fantastic story-tellers and can weave a great tale out of every dice throw ... but most casual players I have known do not tend to be that captivating when describing the same action for the 5th time in a row.
Now, for some Monsters the source books actually have elegant ways around this by e.g. giving the BBEG-type Monsters various "cooldown" abilities, lair actions, etc which they can use every few turns - but not all the time. This is a great feature and forces DMs to actually play our their behaviour a lot more interestingly. For PCs, no cooldown-type such feature exists (yet), so I wanted to float some thoughts on a few house rules that I was considering trying out at some point.
To me, the main motivation would be to make combat more varied and thus also keep players more interested. For instance, it will allow more players to discover weaknesses/resistances in monsters if they have to vary their method of attack, or players could come up with fun "combos" and better role-playing opportunities within combat.
House Rule Idea: 'Overheat' penalty for repeat usage
When an action is repeated without break, each subsequent use of that action gets an additional penalty. So if you try to cast Eldritch Blast for the 2nd time in a row, you get -1 to hit and damage, for the 3rd time it's -2, and so on. The way I think of it is similar to various FPS games where your weapons overheat if you just shoot continuously, hence why I call it the "overheat" penalty.
The way I imagine this rule would work is:
In-universe, this would be explained by the fact that repeating the same action over and over makes it much easier for your opponent to anticipate you and to avoid the hit/damage. For the spell-slot case, the explanation would be that the weave and fabric of reality is warped with each spell and if you do not give it some time to normalise, it becomes more and more difficult to continue to warp it in the same way.
Thoughts?
What would you expect them to do otherwise? If a fighter can’t multi attack, for example, you are not leaving them with a whole ton of other options. This destroys a lot of base class abilities. If I’m playing a level 11 fighter, and I can’t just attack 3 times, why am I playing a fighter? Especially if it’s something like a champion or samurai who doesn’t really have other class features to activate.
Or if my warlock only has 2 spell slots, and none of the spells I have are useful in a given fight, what am I to do besides eldritch blast?
Thanks. One thing I had in my mind but forgot to write down was actually that changing your weapon or type or attack also counts. So if you fire off a bunch of arrows in one round and then swing your sword in the next, and then throw a chair as an improvised weapon in the 3rd, they would all count as different and not incur a penalty. I've amended that in the original post.
For the Warlock and other spelllcasters, I did note the extra cantrip. So maybe mix up Eldtrich Blast with Chill Touch or Booming Blade or something. To me, that's exactly the point. Gives it a little variety.
Yes, the actual damage output will be lower if not everyone can use their statistically maximised attack each round, but to me D&D is never about min-maxing optimal damage per second, but about having a fun time. The DM can always just adjust the opponents HP down by a few to account for the marginally lower statistically expected damage per round.
I should add, each one of those can be multi-attack. As per the original post, multi-attack in one round counts as 1 repeat action only (even if it's 4 attacks that round). So you can fire 4 arrows, then swing your sword 4 times, etc.
It might not just be marginally lower, though, it might make them really suck. If I’m playing an archer, I probably have a crappy str and I’m wearing lighter armor. And I’m 40 or so feet away from my closest enemy, ideally. And I definitely don’t have a shield equipped. So I have to shoot my bow, juggle, then run in (if I can get there) and swing a sword (badly) then I have to use my next action to disengage, (since I can’t swing my sword again without penalty) so I can shoot again in round 4. And since I only get one item interaction a round, I probably had to drop my bow to the ground, so I could draw my sword (or pick up a chair and then have to look up the improvised weapon rules.)
And if I’m eldritch blasting, I probably have sunk one or two invocations into it. And I’m nice and far away, outside the range of other cantrips. So I have to run up much closer (again, if I can get in range) to the fight than I’d like so I can ray of frost someone. And get no benefit from my class features I’ve spent on being able to eldritch blast.
And to your original point, players already have lots of “cooldown” abilities. Things they can do x/short or long rest and spell slots. If they aren’t worried about managing their resources, give them more fights per day, and that will force them to think harder about what they use and when they use it.
You're taking away options from classes that already only have one and providing nothing in return. People play fighters and rogues because they WANT the simplicity of always knowing the one thing they're going to do on their turn. Players who want to use more options will play classes that give them more options.
No. I mean seriously. This is a rediculous idea. Cantrips like eldritch blast are fully intended to be used round after round. That's like telling the fighter they can't swing their sword this round because they did it last round. Or telling the barbarian they have to stop raging this round because they raged last round.
Not a fan of this houserule, while i understand the reasoning behind it, i don't see a problem with repetitive actions aside from being boring to some people, it's otherwise the bread and butter of some build and messing up with these would force players to either limit what they want to do and do something else or be penalised for doing so. It's taking away options and punishing player's choice. This would make D&D worse so a big NO for me.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander? If you apply such houserule to your monsters, it would affect many of them too. Most monsters don't have lair actions or much diversity.
You're trying to create variety by removing things. Many characters don't have much more interesting that they can do without being sub-optimal for no reason.
If you want variety, add variety. Give them magic weapons with charges that let them do cool and impactful things on a limited basis. Add options like the battle master's special attacks. Design encounters where the party's priorities might change mid-fight. Design encounters that are meant to be won by trickery rather than brute force.
Perhaps a better alternative would be to provide situations that encourage alternate actions. If a monster is weak to cold, the warlock might use Frostbite over EB. If the fighter can fire the ship's ballista, they might do that instead of multiattack. If the monk can break the dam and send a rush of water onto the fire elementals, they might do that instead of punching.
Hit'em Til They're Dead encounters will always feel monotonous even if you switch up cantrips. For me, what keeps things exciting is placing things in the environment that the party can use to their advantage. They take the bait pretty much every time.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Calling multi-attacks by fighters repetitive just reflects a lack of imagination. Its not a video game where "B" does the same motion over and over. Every attack in a multi attack is a chance to take a different angle with a blade, spin, dance, flourish, etc.
Also, as far as monks go, Ki is already so weak and limited, especially at early levels. If anything, monks should have more access to ki (or better yet, more abilities that do not require it), not less.
All brilliant idea, and I totally agree. But the point of my concept for a house rule was really to also add more variety to fights anyway. Not every situation can have a ballista or dam nearby.
Also, I should probably point out that reducing damage or making builds sub-optimal may be a valid concern for most people, but not me. D&D is not about winning or even optimising a build. I do enough mathematical optimisation at work, I really don't need to do that in my free-time as well. Some of the best situations are those where you have to think outside the box (e.g. spell focus and component pouch gone, what can you do with material components that you can find in the jail you are imprisoned in). So you are all perfectly right in that it will make various Warlock or Fighter builds sub-optimal, but the concept here was not to make fights harder or easier but just to make every fight by default something more interesting and varied. And you can still combine it with the other concepts people noted like having fun and interactive environmental hazards or tools that PCs can use. And the "overheat" penalty may exactly force them to think "well, I can't Eldritch Blast again, but what if I untie that Chandelier to let it drop down on them instead?"
While this concept might sound fun for you, it is apparent that it doesn't sound fun at all to those that have voted or commented. Have you asked your players how they feel about the idea and do THEY think that it would be fun?
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Instead of punishing repetitive actions, have you though of rewarding action diversity? Ex. granting advantage when doing a different action.
The game is not designed for everything to have multiple good options (besides full casters).
You've basically gone about this backward. If you want to encourage different actions, give the different actions a buff.
Try pathfinder (2.0 I think) instead. If I recall the math is already baked in when it comes to attempting 3 attack actions on a single turn for example.
That it probably is the dumbest idea I've seen in a long while? I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but I really do think that you are looking at it completely wrong.
This is just wrong on all counts tbh. The abilities that monsters have on cooldown are their strongest/most special abilities, not their standard actions/attacks that they use round after round. And PC's have loads of cooldownish abilities. all abilities that can be used X times per short/long rest are clear examples, spellslots is another sort of limit.
And this is where you are really missing the point. Not just with the Warlock, though it makes for a great example, but for all spellcasters (well every class really).
You say mix it up, mix the EB with a Chill Touch and a BB or something. And you give him one extra cantrip to make it up.
Well a Warlock have 2 cantrips until 4th lvl and 3 until 9th so even with extra one you gave him you have pretty much taken up all cantrip choices he have for the majority of the game (as most games doesn't get far beyond lvl 10). So all the interesting things that could have happened from using a Mage Hand or a Minor Illusion or a well applied Friends or even just a creative use of Prestidigitation are all off the table.
The same goes for all spellcasters really. Needing to have a large variety of damage dealing spells means a lot less room for situational and/or fun and creative spells, especially spells that have their main use outside of combat. Martials probably doesn't suffer as much (a bit less consumables perhaps as they need to carry around a good variety of weapons) from a options POW but they'll definitely suffer from a damage POW.
What you call adding variety I instead see as reducing options and pretty much completely stunting creativity.
This is a great suggestion and a much better way of looking at the issue. If you want creativity to take place then provide things or situations that allow for creativity to happen.
People repeat the same action because that's what they have. If you want to avoid 'alpha strike and then spam at-will until done', I suspect you'd be best off reversing the process: have everything start off unavailable and roll to recharge at the start of every round (there are other variants on this that also work).
To be more constructive then my previous comments, one thing you can do is to design a more dynamic battle space, and then tell your players in specific game terms how they might interact with the space.
For example, point to a 10’ tall statue, and explain that if someone were to knock that over, it will do x damage, save for half, to the 2 adjacent squares, and the rubble will create difficult terrain. In this scenario, x= about as much damage as they’d do with a normal weapon/cantrip attack, usually a couple d8’s. And make sure they know the enemies can do this, too.
Now you’ve given them an option that’s about as good as a normal attack, and they make a tactical decision about if they want to risk standing next to it, and another layer of tactical decision about creating terrain, which could be good or bad.
But you have to tell them, very explicitly. If there’s a chance that the statue will only do a d4 damage, most people won’t take the risk. They need to know it’s worth it.