D&D 5E Lair and Legendary actions for high-level humanoid "Boss" encounters.

[The Crimson Binome]

Seems fair and relatively balanced.

First of all, no. The ability to make three Legendary Actions every round is significantly more powerful than any ability gained from any other martial archetype. For comparison, look at the level 17 Thief ability, which is the closest thing we have to this.

But it's needlessly complicated and requires you to stat-up the monster as a full character rather than as an NPC.

Alternatively, it's much simpler because it allows you to stat-up the NPC as any other character rather than relying on esoteric monster math.

I don't know about you, but I can stat out a level 15 rogue in under a minute, in either 3E or 5E. It's really easy, because I've done it so many times. Building a level 15 monster with Legendary Actions is going to take a lot longer than that.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Be wary of giving boss humanoids extra powers that other humanoids can't get -- it can seriously interfere with player decision-making. If a guy is tough because of his magic items or magic powers, sure; word gets around, and it's something visual and obvious. The players might try some stuff to counteract the magic or cope with it. For example, I consider the fact that the players could separate the boss from his minions to be a feature; that's clever game play, and a truly smart boss will travel with bodyguards at all times so it won't be easy.

On the other hand, if a mighty warrior looks just like any other might warrior and busts out crazy legendary actions, it's going to feel artificial and the players may feel "cheated." Not because they themselves can't get those abilities -- but because nothing in the game-universe allows for those abilities. It may feel too "gamey" and reduce immersion, because the only way to wrap your brain around a regular dude with legendary actions is on a meta-game level.

A good middle ground, I think, is to describe the legendary actions in-universe as unique and special real traits, possibly as a form of Epic Boons. (Actually, Legendary Resistance sounds like a pretty reasonable Epic Boon, even for PCs to earn.) So, yeah, the Evil Warlord isn't just a high-level fighter who happens to have legendary actions "just because" -- he's trained with the Marilith Commandos of Orcus in the Abyss, and returned to the material plane with knowledge of how to perfectly anticipate his enemy's movements! The Arch-Archmage isn't just casting bonus cantrips because "well a lich can do it and we wanted this guy to be hard," he's unlocked the ancient forbidden art of Weave-Splicing! The Assassin Queen isn't sliding around the battlefield stabbing people when it's not her turn because "well otherwise the fight would be over before she could act," she's subconsciously channeling ki into her nervous system, a technique she developed after meditating in a pit of vipers for 10 years!

Stuff like that can bridge the gap between the game-mechanical requirements of a legendary creature and the in-game reality that people just can't do that kind of thing.

I really like this viewpoint; both you and [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] below make some very good rationales. Most high level foes, like the PCs themselves, should have some interesting training backstoriea that could easily explain any odd actions.

Granted, now that we know the subject matter for MToF, and that it will have a focus on higher level foes, I'm going to hold back and see what we get there. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see, say, a High Priestess of Lolth statted in that book. If MToF gives us some of this type of foe, then all's good; if not, like how Volo's and STK only gave us a few giant variants propelled me to create (and share) a bunch of giant elites, I'll be looking to create some of my own.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I’m running CoS right now and like the simplicity of the first legendary action: move up to max speed without incurring opportunity attack. His lair action of being able to move through any wall, floor, or ceiling is also intriguing - I’m sure you could figure out a way to convert that from vampiric to humanoid... maybe some kind of meld with stone type deal...

 

[Quickleaf]

First of all, no. The ability to make three Legendary Actions every round is significantly more powerful than any ability gained from any other martial archetype. For comparison, look at the level 17 Thief ability, which is the closest thing we have to this.

Alternatively, it's much simpler because it allows you to stat-up the NPC as any other character rather than relying on esoteric monster math.

I don't know about you, but I can stat out a level 15 rogue in under a minute, in either 3E or 5E. It's really easy, because I've done it so many times. Building a level 15 monster with Legendary Actions is going to take a lot longer than that.

Speaking in favor of NPCs using different rules than PCs, the character classes are designed to be highly micro-managed by one player devoting all their attention to just that PC. Whereas the DM frequently has to juggle multiple NPCs/monsters as well as arbitrating the players’ actions. That’s a good reason not to use the complex character classes in the PHB for creating NPCs...and I suspect is why all the official NPCs in the MM and VOLOs are “inspired by, but simplified version of” classes.

By simple, I don’t mean the character/NPC creation process, I mean actual play at the table. There’s lots of PC class abilities that are either superfluous to a NPC or else too much headache for a harried DM to worry about.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Speaking in favor of NPCs using different rules than PCs, the character classes are designed to be highly micro-managed by one player devoting all their attention to just that PC. Whereas the DM frequently has to juggle multiple NPCs/monsters as well as arbitrating the players’ actions. That’s a good reason not to use the complex character classes in the PHB for creating NPCs...and I suspect is why all the official NPCs in the MM and VOLOs are “inspired by, but simplified version of” classes.

By simple, I don’t mean the character/NPC creation process, I mean actual play at the table. There’s lots of PC class abilities that are either superfluous to a NPC or else too much headache for a harried DM to worry about.

Yeah, sometimes it seems like the primary design consideration for character classes in 5E was to avoid empty levels, at the expense of elegance or playability. (Or maybe they had convinced themselves that complexity was its own reward, by be-branding it as "engagement" or something.) In any case, the simplified NPC mechanics show that this complexity is unnecessary, and they could have designed the classes with fewer moving parts if they'd wanted to. That's a bit tangential to the topic at hand, though.

The main point is just that the NPC versions are still clearly just streamlined versions of PC classes. There's never a case where you look at a 14 hit-die mage NPC and it's clearly capable of doing things that a level 14 Wizard could not. That's where Legendary Actions enter the equation: They are very clearly something that the PCs cannot do, and the only reason the NPC is allowed such a powerful ability is the meta-game reason that it's an NPC rather than a PC. That's simply not logic that's permitted in a role-playing game. Fans of 3E are not going to buy into that.

My secondary point is that streamlined NPC mechanics are only useful if you haven't already memorized the PC mechanics. If I already know how the fireball spell works, then giving an NPC mage a similar ability with a different name (as in 4E) is counter-productive from a DMing standpoint; if you had just told me that it was a fireball, then I wouldn't need to read any further, but now I need to read the whole ability in order to determine whether it's actually just fireball or if you've changed any of the parameters. For all that 4E was supposedly easier to DM, it completely killed the transference of skill between being a player and being the DM.

 

[Jester David]

First of all, no. The ability to make three Legendary Actions every round is significantly more powerful than any ability gained from any other martial archetype. For comparison, look at the level 17 Thief ability, which is the closest thing we have to this.

Legendary actions =/= regular actions. They're purposely weaker. A monster might actully be stronger with a regular subclass, being able to nova with a Battle Master's maneuvers as it doesn't need to spread them out over an adventuring day.
But that's far less fun for the player being nova-ed upon, doesn't give other characters an opportunity to react or mitigate the damage, and leaves the NPC vulnerable to being stunlocked. It's gamist but... this IS a game. The design should keep in mind what is most fun at the table. That's almost the most important thing. And Legendary Creatures are designed the way they are to be more fun at the table. To generate more fun encounters, where the monster is moving and attacking multiple people, and doing lots of different things. And is challenging the entire group.

Anyhoo, MY POINT was that it could be a subclass if you worked hard enough. Which is exactly what they did in 3e to give NPC humanoids unique powers. It's very possible to generate dozens of NPC specific monster subclasses or prestige classes that are closely balanced with PC options, but designed with requirements that make them impossible to play as PCs (alignment restrictions, race restrictions, etc). But that's needless. It's a lot more work and design constraints for little gain. The result is the same: the monster does something unique and unexpected. But the DMs now have to make the monster from scratch rather than having it prepared, it's needlessly complex, it takes up extra space, and you need to figure out it's CR with a lot of moving parts.
Why not just make it a straight monster?

After all, chances are the PCs won't ever see that subclass. You don't want them to have seen it. (An NPC having unexpected powers is the point.) And including it in a book makes a trap PC option just causes problems, such as if a player sees the class but not the restrictions or a DM decides to lift the restrictions.

Plus the design is show much harder as you're trying to design a fun monster ability while keep in balanced against existing PC abilities, which is needlessly constraining. So why not just give the monster the cool power.

I don't know about you, but I can stat out a level 15 rogue in under a minute, in either 3E or 5E. It's really easy, because I've done it so many times.

What's the exact challenge rating of a level 13 halfling rogue assassin?

But even if you can pop out a level 15 dragonborn fighter NPC in a minute, that doesn't mean everyone can. That everyone should have to.

Alternatively, it's much simpler because it allows you to stat-up the NPC as any other character rather than relying on esoteric monster math.
Building a level 15 monster with Legendary Actions is going to take a lot longer than that.

Not really. Because several NPCs are already in the books. So it's just adding some extra hp and some extra actions on top. (You can almost do it at the table, giving them an extra attack, some movement, and maybe a cool move. You'd just have to figure out the CR after.)

Making a bunch of new NPCs would be harder. But if someone else did it, such as publishing it on the DMsGuild or having it included in a book, then it's be much easier.

The main point is just that the NPC versions are still clearly just streamlined versions of PC classes. There's never a case where you look at a 14 hit-die mage NPC and it's clearly capable of doing things that a level 14 Wizard could not.

Except for the 18HD archmage in the MM who has Magic Resistance, which PCs might not. The Cultists have a unique trait. The gladiator can Shield Bash and their weapons deal extra damage. The knight's Leadership ability is unlike any PC ability. The priest's Divine Eminence ability isn't like any cleric's power. The Tribal Warrior has pack tactics. Etc.

Those are all already in the game.

That's where Legendary Actions enter the equation: They are very clearly something that the PCs cannot do, and the only reason the NPC is allowed such a powerful ability is the meta-game reason that it's an NPC rather than a PC. That's simply not logic that's permitted in a role-playing game.

PCs can take off-turn actions. They're called Reactions. There's a lot of them. The difference is a Legendary Creature gets a couple more. Which seems big, but isn't really. A PC getting legendary actions would find themselves taking fewer and fewer as the fights go on, and might not be able to use them all in many fights with fewer numbers of opponents.

Regardless, the reason for limiting off-turn actions isn't because it's outside of the realm of possibility or the narrative but because it slows down gameplay to give players multiple things they can do off turn. The design is limited by what works most at the table.
Why should monster design be limited by the meta-game reasons of not letting players hog the spotlight?

Fans of 3E are not going to buy into that.

Not every "fan of 3e" liked everything about 3e. That's why 4e and 5e were designed like they are.
(I'm a huge 3e/ Pathfinder fan, and I don't like monster symmetry. Running a Dragonlance campaign where all the major antagonists were class humanoids made me want to scream.)

Also... this isn't 3e. It needs to do what fans of 5e want and are going to buy into.

My secondary point is that streamlined NPC mechanics are only useful if you haven't already memorized the PC mechanics. If I already know how the fireball spell works, then giving an NPC mage a similar ability with a different name (as in 4E) is counter-productive from a DMing standpoint; if you had just told me that it was a fireball, then I wouldn't need to read any further, but now I need to read the whole ability in order to determine whether it's actually just fireball or if you've changed any of the parameters. For all that 4E was supposedly easier to DM, it completely killed the transference of skill between being a player and being the DM.

That's an unrelated discussion point. Yeah, if a monster needs an ability like a PC ability it should work like that PC ability. But we're talking about stuff PCs can't do not based on existing PC powers.

 

[Quickleaf]

The main point is just that the NPC versions are still clearly just streamlined versions of PC classes. There's never a case where you look at a 14 hit-die mage NPC and it's clearly capable of doing things that a level 14 Wizard could not. That's where Legendary Actions enter the equation: They are very clearly something that the PCs cannot do, and the only reason the NPC is allowed such a powerful ability is the meta-game reason that it's an NPC rather than a PC. That's simply not logic that's permitted in a role-playing game. Fans of 3E are not going to buy into that.

Well, even if what you're saying isn't totally accurate – see [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]'s reply regarding abilities of NPCs in the MM without direct PC parallels – I think you're speaking of the degree to which a NPC feature makes players take notice that "this breaks the rules of what I thought NPCs could do." Of course, that threshold is going to depend on the players at your table and, likely, experience with 3e.

I think the best response is: Look to the narrative of what "legendary" means first, and incorporate that into play.

I've been asserting this for a while, and would agree that the official books do a poor job of answering that question. [MENTION=12377]77IM[/MENTION] gives some fair examples of how to foreshadow Legendary Actions to your players that are unique to a particular individual NPC, such as the "ancient forbidden art of Weave-Splicing." And I'd argue this should be done for legendary monsters (e.g. beholder) equally as it should be done for legendary NPCs (e.g. warlord). It's fixating on the mechanics that causes designers to lose sight of this & IMO leads to the sort of player dissonance that's been described.

Personally, I'd consider tweaking what "legendary" means according to the setting I was running. For example, in Ravenloft "legendary" could overlap greatly with "Dark Lord", while in Dragonlance it might refer to dragons & Dragon Highlords, while in Planescape it might be factols and proxies. Generally, if the the monster/NPC doesn't have a name, an interesting backstory, and some legends floating around about it, I would not treat it as "legendary."

The clearest treatment of what "legendary" means that I've found so far in a D&D product was in the Planescape Monstrous Compendium Appendix 2, wherein it describes the "legendary" creature as the progenitor, the cloth from which all others were cut, the original as divinely created, e.g. THE Sphinx or THE Gorgon. I could see a similar model being applied to legendary NPCs... e.g. THE Mage of High Sorcery of Palanthus, Master of All Black Robes.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Legendary actions =/= regular actions. They're purposely weaker.

A fair point. If the only legendary actions available were to fall prone, then that's less powerful than having an expanded crit range or being able to cast low-level spells.

But that's not the point of this thread, as far a I can tell. The point of this thread is to give an NPC the ability to seriously challenge an entire party, which is far beyond the power range of any subclass.

It's gamist but... this IS a game. The design should keep in mind what is most fun at the table. That's almost the most important thing.

If you say that it works this way because it's just a game, then you lose anyone who is invested in it as more than just a game. Saying that it's just a game, and not to worry about it, is a flimsy excuse for inconsistent design. At the very least, it's declaring a strong Gamist priority, which will turn away players who don't share that same preference.

What's the exact challenge rating of a level 13 halfling rogue assassin?

The challenge rating of a level 13 halfling rogue assassin is entirely irrelevant, is what it is. It's not my job to figure out what a CR X challenge is, and then true to shoe-horn a particular character concept into that framework. My job at the table is to role-play the NPCs, and adjudicate uncertainty in action resolution. My job before the game starts is to build the world, and (if necessary) stat out everything based on what it is rather than what I want it to be.

But even if you can pop out a level 15 dragonborn fighter NPC in a minute, that doesn't mean everyone can. That everyone should have to.

If you want to be the Dungeon Master, who can authoritatively declare how everything in the entire game world is supposed to work in a consistent and definitive manner, then you really should know every rule in the game at least as well as any of the players do. Or else you will make mistakes, and the players will be confused, and then nobody is having fun.

Being the DM is a lot of work, but when you do it right, it's a better experience for everyone involved.

Also... this isn't 3e. It needs to do what fans of 5e want and are going to buy into.

Fans of 5E already buy into it. The only reason to tweak the system is to appeal to something that isn't already 5E. That could be 3E, or 4E, or some other concept which hasn't been codified in any other game.

 

[Jester David]

A fair point. If the only legendary actions available were to fall prone, then that's less powerful than having an expanded crit range or being able to cast low-level spells.

Having six d10 superiority die is nothing to sneeze at. And it's not going to be very fun for the target of a high level NPC fighter when it comes up and makes six attacks and can add a d10 to any hit (or 2d10 to any crit), while also knocking your weapon away and dropping you prone.

Instead, why not have it make three attacks and a couple Legendary Actions? Space out the attacks over the round. One of which could be an attack costing two actions while another could be movement, and a third could be a tripping attack or knockback.
Which makes the fight more dynamic, as when you get near the Lord Commander of the Knighthood he smacks you with his shield and pushes you back ten feet. And then after the wizard's turn the Lord Commander shifts fifteen feet across the battlefield.

We're not talking major dramatic stuff here. Just actions in line with the Legendary Actions of other monsters.

But that's not the point of this thread, as far a I can tell. The point of this thread is to give an NPC the ability to seriously challenge an entire party, which is far beyond the power range of any subclass.

No, it's beyond the ability of a balanced subclass meant for player characters. But, again, we're talking about hypothetical NPC subclasses. It's not meant for players. Why on Earth should it be balanced the same? Why on earth would you use the exact same abilities for a monster that is going to be in three rounds of combat before expiring as you would for a character that is going to be in over 1200 rounds of combat spread over twenty levels??
Do monsters even need exploration based abilities?

Again, the question is why should NPCs be limited ONLY to the options PCs have when even PCs aren't entirely limited to that content. New subclasses can be invented at any time. If I have a player that wants to play a shield master that is all about using shields offensively in combat, why shouldn't I homebrew a subclass for that player? Why should they be limited to the book's options?
By that same right, if I want an NPC fighter that is all about smacking people with shields, why can't it have a unique power related to shield bashing?

The problem occurs when an NPC fighter can do something much, much cooler than a PC fighter. Especially when it's something the PC wants to be good at as well. But if the NPC does things close to the PCs but *slightly* differently, then it doesn't matter. If an NPC has an ability that lets them disarm, then the Battlemaster is still better as it can disarm and deal damage. If the NPC has a riposte ability that lets it counterattack after a miss, then the Battlemaster is still better, since it can counterattack and deal bonus damage.
So long as the action feels in line with a player character powers, then it's easier to accept.
Plus, it's not like the players are going to know exactly what the statblock says. They're only going to get a fraction of the information as relayed by the DM. The bit that's relevant to them. To the players, there's no functional difference between Legendary Actions and an NPC with extra Reactions.

And we are talking about NPCs... of legend. By definition they're not normal NPCs. They're the equivalent of epic characters. And what are epic level characters capable of? Well, we don't have rules for that. So why should the boss monsters be hindered and limited because the game doesn't support level 21+ characters?

If you say that it works this way because it's just a game, then you lose anyone who is invested in it as more than just a game. Saying that it's just a game, and not to worry about it, is a flimsy excuse for inconsistent design. At the very least, it's declaring a strong Gamist priority, which will turn away players who don't share that same preference.

D&D is a game. It's always been a game. First and foremost it has to work as a game, because if it doesn't it's not going to be fun. When the game aspect is running smoothly, it's easiest to ignore and focus on the story and the narrative. When the game is being problematic and is drawing attention to itself, that is going to take you out of the story.

A balance needs to be struck. As such, a challenging boss fights should work as boss fights. If the bosses aren't challenging and a real threat, then it breaks the narrative. It feels anticlimactic. It doesn't match the tone of the unfolding story. Now, at the same level, the abilities of the boss also shouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility or that too breaks the narrative.
But I think modern players are going to be a bit more forgiving of special abilities. Anyone under 40 has been raised on a diet of video games that do have NPCs doing all kinds of crazy stuff that the PCs cannot do. I've never, ever seen anyone call foul on a Warcraft raid boss just because it can do something the human warrior cannot.

The challenge rating of a level 13 halfling rogue assassin is entirely irrelevant, is what it is. It's not my job to figure out what a CR X challenge is, and then true to shoe-horn a particular character concept into that framework. My job at the table is to role-play the NPCs, and adjudicate uncertainty in action resolution. My job before the game starts is to build the world, and (if necessary) stat out everything based on what it is rather than what I want it to be.

Um, no.
Part of your job as a DM is also to provide combat encounters of a narratively appropriate challenge. Introducing a mook working for a big bad that is ridiculously overpowered or a big bad that is a push over will break the narrative. Knowing the challenge of a classed NPC is essential to actually using them at the table.
If you're going to use classed NPCs that use the full PC rules, you NEED to know their CR. Period.

So, tell me, is a level 13 halfling rogue assassin an appropriate as an enemy for a level 6 party? How much of a challenge is that fight? Is it a deadly encounter? Hard? Easy?

Plus the whole "stat out everything based on what it is rather than what I want it to be" is kinda B.S. The rules are guidelines. To be customized. What "is" in the game is what I "want". If I want new monsters, then there's new monsters. If I want lava trolls that are immune to fire and set people ablaze with a bear hug then they exist. I'm not bound by the printed word of the gamebooks.

My monsters aren't limited by the finite amount of material published by WotC. Why should my NPCs be any different?

If you want to be the Dungeon Master, who can authoritatively declare how everything in the entire game world is supposed to work in a consistent and definitive manner, then you really should know every rule in the game at least as well as any of the players do. Or else you will make mistakes, and the players will be confused, and then nobody is having fun.

It's one thing to have a playable knowledge of the game to be able to run combats and adjudicate rulings, it's another to have functional knowledge of every class and race and spell in the game. The players need to know their powers. I don't. I need to have a loose idea for planning's sake, but if they have a question it doesn't take long to read. The rules of 5e aren't that complicated.
It's unnecessary for me to know every single spell in the PHB.

For example, I don't have any elemental monks or dragon sorcerers at my table. That information is irrelevant. Memorising it is literally a waste of my brainpower and time I could spend actually prepping things that will make a difference at my table. As such, if I did need to make a draconic sorcerer NPC, it would take time. A lot of time. And running it would be slow.
It's much easier to just have a simplified version that has half the powers. The key ones that would identify it as a sorcerer.

Fans of 5E already buy into it. The only reason to tweak the system is to appeal to something that isn't already 5E. That could be 3E, or 4E, or some other concept which hasn't been codified in any other game.

Right, but we're not tweaking the system. Monsters already aren't identical to PCs. Limiting monster abilities to match PCs would be tweaking the system.

 

[77IM]

D&D is a game. It's always been a game. First and foremost it has to work as a game, because if it doesn't it's not going to be fun. When the game aspect is running smoothly, it's easiest to ignore and focus on the story and the narrative. When the game is being problematic and is drawing attention to itself, that is going to take you out of the story.

A balance needs to be struck. As such, a challenging boss fights should work as boss fights. If the bosses aren't challenging and a real threat, then it breaks the narrative. It feels anticlimactic. It doesn't match the tone of the unfolding story. Now, at the same level, the abilities of the boss also shouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility or that too breaks the narrative.

I like this line of reasoning, because it really emphasizes that this is a matter of degree. All RPG rules are abstract, and already treat NPCs different than PCs to some degree. Too much abstraction breaks immersion and/or leads to metagame thinking; too little abstraction and you're left with a bland game in which you can't roll the dice without performing calculus. "Legendary Actions" are merely another such abstraction.