dave2008
Legend
I like the concept of legendary actions, and how they allow a legendary monster to better square off against a group of opponents. I do however, dislike how they often end up working in practice.
Gamey because, well, why the heck is Timmy the bard getting tail whipped after Sammy the cleric has cast a spell, then again after Bob the archer has fired its bow, then again after Morty the wizard has made its death saving throw? Where's the in-game world connection?
Dragon are a bad example IMO. Which is bad for such an iconic creature. There are other legendary creatures that have better legendary actions. For dragons, i also don't like the idea if it swinging its tail 3x so I revised them. The key, to me, is to have interesting things to do and to have choices. My fix was to give dragons gargantuan damage (4d10 bite, 4d8 tail, 4d6 claw/wing) and make the tail attack cost 2 actions (+ a save or be stunned for 1 turn). I then gave it one of its lair actions as a legendary action. These changes don't change its CR, but give it interesting options. It makes a tail or wing attack a choice dependent on the situation. It also feels more realistic to have a claw/claw/bite/tail (or wing) attack versus the claw/claw/bite/tail/tail/tail attack by RAW
Am I the only one that feels this way? I'd much prefer if legendary action attacks could only be used against the character that just ended its turn, the character that "triggered" the legendary attack, so to speak.
Then run them that way. The whole point of 5e is DM flexibility. I like that I can do other things if I want, but completely get that they are a type of reaction as well. I am quite glad that they are not restricted to reactions only.