D&D 5E "Unstoppable" new reaction introduced in Descent?

[Xenonnonex]

Is it that powerful?

It does make them Unstoppable.

 

[Nebulous]

It only gets one reaction. So no, not all that powerful. And it could easily blow it before the big hitting attack came in, or end up not using it because the big hit attack it was saving it for missed anyway.

I can't even see it living long enough to use it three times.

I think it's relevant to note that the Death's Head of Bhaal doesn't seem to be designed as a boss monster. It's nasty, but it doesn't have legendary actions or legendary resistance, so it's action economy doesn't really support it being a solo.

I think that Unstoppable, if used in addition to Legendary Resistance on a boss monster, might be overkill. At the same time, it isn't sufficient as a replacement for Legendary Resistance, since without that a boss could easily be stunlocked (or the equivalent).

That said, I could see an ability that combines Unstoppable with Legendary Resistance, giving the choice of either or. That combination would make for a very mean and formidable adversary in my opinion.

This is where I miss how D&D used to suggest how many of said monsters appear at once. Now it's totally DM fiat. One Deathhead? 10 Deathheads? What is their organizational structure like?

 

[darjr]

What? There are guidelines on number of creatures based on encounter design based on CR.

DND Beyond even has a BETA encounter creator that uses it.

D&D Beyond - Encounter Builder for Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) Fifth Edition (5e)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is where I miss how D&D used to suggest how many of said monsters appear at once. Now it's totally DM fiat. One Deathhead? 10 Deathheads? What is their organizational structure like?

If you think that is how D&D used to be you are clearly very young...

 

[Nagol]

If you think that is how D&D used to be you are clearly very young...

1e and Holmes both have organization in monster descriptions. Even Chainmail has # appearing entries. Hard to find older than that.

 

[darjr]

While true, I don’t think it was a balancing tool. More like a “this is the way they are, no matter the str or level or capability of the PCs”

 

[Nagol]

While true, I don’t think it was a balancing tool. More like a “this is the way they are, no matter the str or level or capability of the PCs”

Balancing happened on the random monster by dungeon level tables. The number appearing varied based on actual dungeon level vs. typical dungeon level. It was never balanced against the party because the assumption was the party would pick a dungeon level with a comfortable threat level.

 

[SkidAce]

If you think that is how D&D used to be you are clearly very young...

But it did suggest how many...and a structure...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But it did suggest how many...and a structure...

View attachment 114432

View attachment 114433

Not in a way that had any relevance to building a balanced encounter or was at all practical, unless you want to roll the dice for 300 orcs...

 

[SkidAce]

Not in a way that had any relevance to building a balanced encounter or was at all practical, unless you want to roll the dice for 300 orcs...

@Nebulous merely stated he missed how it used to state how many appeared, which 1st ed did. I didnt infer he was speaking of balanced encounters, but I may have missed that.