D&D 5E Giving monsters more (unlimited?) reactions in one turn

[Peter BOSCO'S]

Do Ettins still have two Reactions? Having two brains seems like a great reason to get two reactions. For everything with one head, just stick with Legendary Actions instead.

 

[Horwath]

I would stick with one Reaction per Round, but I would decouple AoO from using reaction and have it "Once per Turn". To give melee characters ability to be more sticky vs multiple opponents.

adding things that provoke AoO:

drinking potion/applying weapon oil/posion
casting spell that is not personal/melee touch/cone/line
making a ranged attack
standing up from prone

 

[dave2008]

Do Ettins still have two Reactions? Having two brains seems like a great reason to get two reactions. For everything with one head, just stick with Legendary Actions instead.

No, but hydras still do.

 

[dave2008]

I would stick with one Reaction per Round, but I would decouple AoO from using reaction and have it "Once per Turn". To give melee characters ability to be more sticky vs multiple opponents.

adding things that provoke AoO:

drinking potion/applying weapon oil/posion
casting spell that is not personal/melee touch/cone/line
making a ranged attack
standing up from prone

The OP is just asking about adding multiple reactions to some monsters, not PCs. It seems like you were not clear on that, but I could be mistaken.

 

[Horwath]

The OP is just asking about adding multiple reactions to some monsters, not PCs. It seems like you were not clear on that, but I could be mistaken.

I'm clear, but I would keep one Reaction as special move or ability, but put AoO on once per Turn counter so melee monsters(and characters) can be more deadly in melee.

 

[dave2008]

One experiment I have been working on is giving 5E monsters something like Dragonbane's "Ferocity" instead of Legendary actions/reactions. basically, they get 2 or 3 initiative rolls per round, getting their normal full actions on those rounds. BUT, they can forgo their next one to take an immediate reaction. I have not had a chance to playtest it at the table with other people, but have fiddled with it in solo sessions. it has promise, but needs to cook a little more, I think.

we have discussed this design before and I don't recall you mentioning the replacing an extra turn with an immediate action. I generally like that design; however, unless each turn is essentially only one action (no multiattack), then it doesn't make a lot of sense to replace a turn with an immediate action. Not sure what you are tweaking, but that is the direction I would head (make all turns roughly equal to an immediate action)

 

[dave2008]

I'm clear, but I would keep one Reaction as special move or ability, but put AoO on once per Turn counter so melee monsters(and characters) can be more deadly in melee.

OK, so very much like the hydra:

 

[Reynard]

we have discussed this design before and I don't recall you mentioning the replacing an extra turn with an immediate action. I generally like that design; however, unless each turn is essentially only one action (no multiattack), then it doesn't make a lot of sense to replace a turn with an immediate action. Not sure what you are tweaking, but that is the direction I would head (make all turns roughly equal to an immediate action)

Yeah, since we last talked about it I figured legendary action level reactions might be worth losing an initiative count. Like I said, it is still cooking and I have mostly been fiddling. Now that my most recent Con is done, though, i can actually delve into the design(which I need to shore up before my next con in late April).

 

[dave2008]

One experiment I have been working on is giving 5E monsters something like Dragonbane's "Ferocity" instead of Legendary actions/reactions. basically, they get 2 or 3 initiative rolls per round, getting their normal full actions on those rounds. BUT, they can forgo their next one to take an immediate reaction. I have not had a chance to playtest it at the table with other people, but have fiddled with it in solo sessions. it has promise, but needs to cook a little more, I think.

PS - I am looking at something similar. My current thought is:

Everything gets 3 action points and Movement. You need to spend an action point to take an Immediate Action / Reaction. You can also spend an action point to move (haven't decided on the amount) or disengage (not sure the whole list on single point actions), but some "actions" cost multiple points (like 2014 era legendary actions) such as multiattack, some spells, special maneuvers, etc. Not sure on the complete list and cost yet.

In some sense I am trying to merge PF 2e and 5e action economy.

I had not yet decided if boss / legendary monsters get more action points generally or just ones that make sense thematically. Still decided how I want to handle bosses.

EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more (thank you for that @Reynard) I think the baseline should be 2 action points + movement. I think that might it the sweet spot, particularly if I give boss monsters more action points.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Per the 2024 rules, characters can only take one reaction per turn. Is there a supported way around this?

I've homebrewed a monster that basically instantly reacts with a bonus attack any time someone does melee damage to it. I could just, essentially, cover it in spines, but that doesn't really fit the idea for the monster.

It doesn't look like Legendary actions would support this, either.

You could just give it a reaction attack and extra actions, or a Legendary action attack that the creature can only use against a creature that just damaged it.

Ultimately, what is the design intent behind the ability?

Discourage the creature from being swarmed by multiple combatants in melee? Give it reactions from being hit, but that can't be used more than once on any single attacker.

Punish melee characters in general? Give it an "Aura of spinning steel" like a Spirit Guardians or similar, that hits a character when they move into reach or start their turn there, and makes it harder to move around or away from. (If you're feeling really nasty, have the damage also trigger on making at attack as well.)

Pile into the middle of the party and obstruct them? Give the charge attack a push back rather than prone and let it affect anyone adjacent to the initial target. (Prevents being blocked by just one or two characters.

Ultimately, more monsters are generally a better remedy for a larger party than more actions on fewer monsters however. A big part of the action economy is the party's ability to disable opponents using spells or similar abilities, and a Held monster doesn't get to take actions or reactions, no matter how many they have.