Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Multiple reactions replacing Legendary Actions?!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9158434" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>So, after thinking on this idea for a bit, I think what they’re trying to do here is make legendary creatures easier to play. With legendary actions, you have this pool of LAs that all fuel the monster’s various special attacks, which all cost variable numbers of LAs, and you can do any of them at the end of any creature’s turn. That makes for a pretty complex decision tree, and finding the optimal line round after round could be pretty difficult. This might make them unappealing for some DMs to run, and it almost certainly contributes to a lot of variability in how much of a threat legendary creatures pose, depending on how optimally the DM runs them.</p><p></p><p>With the multiple reactions approach on the other hand, each reaction has specific conditions for when it can be taken, and they don’t have variable costs. So instead of trying to figure out the best use of your limited resources, a DM running one of these multiple reaction creatures is basically just running a few simple “if, then” functions:</p><p></p><p>• If hit by an attack and a creature is in Rend range, then Reactive Rend.</p><p>• If hit by an attack and no creature is in Rend range, then Time Slip.</p><p>• If a creature ends its turn weakened by Time Breath, then Slow Time.</p><p></p><p>The only real decision to make is how to prioritize those three functions (and I’m <em>pretty</em> sure prioritizing Slow Time first, then Reactive Rend, then Time Slip is optimal.) This makes such creatures much easier to run, at the cost of making them much less flexible, and much more predictable. The loss of flexibility is obviously a drawback, but I think the increased predictability might actually be a benefit. It gives these monsters more consistent tactics, which players can more easily analyze and develop strategies to counter, which I think will make them feel better to play against from the player side.</p><p></p><p>Another benefit of this approach is that it divorces the multiple off-turn action mechanic from legendary status. Technically there was no reason you couldn’t give legendary actions to any random creature, but I think the name “legendary action” made it feel like something that was only “supposed to” go on very special, usually high level monsters. Multiple reactions is something it feels fine for any monster to have.</p><p></p><p>Overall, I think I like the change, though I do hope mythic actions and lair actions stick around; maybe even keep original legendary actions as a rare thing some truly legendary monsters like archdevils, demon princes, great wyrms, etc. can have.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9158434, member: 6779196"] So, after thinking on this idea for a bit, I think what they’re trying to do here is make legendary creatures easier to play. With legendary actions, you have this pool of LAs that all fuel the monster’s various special attacks, which all cost variable numbers of LAs, and you can do any of them at the end of any creature’s turn. That makes for a pretty complex decision tree, and finding the optimal line round after round could be pretty difficult. This might make them unappealing for some DMs to run, and it almost certainly contributes to a lot of variability in how much of a threat legendary creatures pose, depending on how optimally the DM runs them. With the multiple reactions approach on the other hand, each reaction has specific conditions for when it can be taken, and they don’t have variable costs. So instead of trying to figure out the best use of your limited resources, a DM running one of these multiple reaction creatures is basically just running a few simple “if, then” functions: • If hit by an attack and a creature is in Rend range, then Reactive Rend. • If hit by an attack and no creature is in Rend range, then Time Slip. • If a creature ends its turn weakened by Time Breath, then Slow Time. The only real decision to make is how to prioritize those three functions (and I’m [I]pretty[/I] sure prioritizing Slow Time first, then Reactive Rend, then Time Slip is optimal.) This makes such creatures much easier to run, at the cost of making them much less flexible, and much more predictable. The loss of flexibility is obviously a drawback, but I think the increased predictability might actually be a benefit. It gives these monsters more consistent tactics, which players can more easily analyze and develop strategies to counter, which I think will make them feel better to play against from the player side. Another benefit of this approach is that it divorces the multiple off-turn action mechanic from legendary status. Technically there was no reason you couldn’t give legendary actions to any random creature, but I think the name “legendary action” made it feel like something that was only “supposed to” go on very special, usually high level monsters. Multiple reactions is something it feels fine for any monster to have. Overall, I think I like the change, though I do hope mythic actions and lair actions stick around; maybe even keep original legendary actions as a rare thing some truly legendary monsters like archdevils, demon princes, great wyrms, etc. can have. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Multiple reactions replacing Legendary Actions?!
Top