D&D 5E Reworking Answering. Or, would you allow an item to give a Legendary Action?

[Quartz]

I was voting in the Survivor Swords thread and down-voted the Sword of Answering, but I remembered the original Sword of Answering, Fragarach (?) and thought about how to better implement the answering power in 5E. Using Legendary Actions seems the obvious way.

So:

Weapon Property: Answering.

This property grants no bonus to hit or damage, but does make the weapon magical.

If not Attuned, this weapon property allows the wielder the use of the Battlemaster's Riposte manoeuvre (PHB p74) once per Short Rest. This manoeuvre uses (but does not consume) the wielder's superiority die, d6 otherwise (q.v. Martial Adept).

If Attuned, when the weapon is wielded, immediately after an enemy within reach has has dealt damage to the wielder, as a Legendary Action, the wielder may make a basic melee attack against that enemy using a Riposte manoeuvre (PHB p74). If a weapon has more than one attack method (e.g. polearms have the blade and the butt) then the wielder may choose the method. This manoeuvre uses (but does not consume) the wielder's superiority die, d6 otherwise (q.v. Martial Adept). This damage ignores any damage resistance or immunity. The wielder may use this Legendary Action a maximum of three times per round.

More potent weapons may let you make the Riposte at a bonus, Advantage, or both.

What do you think? What about other items and powers? For example a Shield of Rejection might grant the Legendary Action of a Pushing Attack.

 

[Shiroiken]

Generally speaking, Legendary Actions are VERY powerful abilities. Attacks even more so, as they are designed to allow a solo monster to face off against a full party. Giving a PC such power would be overwhelmingly strong, and they would quickly dominate combat.

If you wanted to having something along this lines, an item that gives 1 Legendary Action per round would be strong, but manageable. Another option would be a item that for an action, gives 3 Legendary Actions per round for 1 minute, 1/Long Rest (I strongly recommend against allowing attacks with those). In either case, these would be Legendary level magic items.

 

[Quartz]

Generally speaking, Legendary Actions are VERY powerful abilities.

Well yes. But Fragarach is supposed to be a powerful, legendary weapon. I gave some ideas for scaling it up; ideas such as yours for scaling it down are equally viable.

 

[Satyrn]

What do you think? What about other items and powers? For example a Shield of Rejection might grant the Legendary Action of a Pushing Attack.

I've created a few magic items that give the character a power to use as a reaction.

That's much the same thing, but it does limit the players to one such power per round. If you don't want that limit, then a legendary action sounds perfect.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Regardless of the power level, giving players access to out-of-turn actions has the potential to seriously slow down combat. If you're going to introduce an item that gives out legendary actions, I suggest you have a plan for how to take it away without player resentment if it doesn't work out.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Generally speaking, Legendary Actions are VERY powerful abilities.

The actual Fragarach is a blade from Irish mythology. It's unique -- though I have read stories that describe other such blades -- so I would say that at the very least it would be a relic or minor artifact. It's not as famous as Excalibur, but it's on par with Hrunting, Gungnir, and Durendal. If I remember right, it appeared in the 1e DMG as such, but I'm not completely sure anymore. I'm also pretty sure that the weapon made you attack when struck, and I think you automatically hit, too. Edit: Ah, ha! I should read my own link! "Fragarach appears in the Dungeons & Dragons module The Temple of Elemental Evil as a sword that never misses and 'answers' any strike to the wielder with a strike of its own."

Personally, I wouldn't use Legendary Actions at all. Don't be cumbersome. Just describe how you want it to work. I would just phrase it like so:

"An answering weapon compels an attuned wielder to strike any creature that damages the weilder. When you are damaged in combat by an attack from an opponent you can reach and if you have a reaction available, you make an immediate melee attack against that opponent. This attack does not use your reaction, but you can only make the attack if you have a reaction available to use and be able to use your reaction. You can't retaliate in this way if you are unconscious, stunned, or otherwise unable to make an attack or take a reaction."

Personally, I like the idea that it's not optional so I worded it that way, but you can make it so if you wish. This wording is roughly the wording of the "Mark" option in the DMG. You might look at that for even cleaner phrasing.

 

[Harzel]

"An answering weapon compels an attuned wielder to strike any creature that damages the weilder. When you are damaged in combat by an attack from an opponent you can reach and if you have a reaction available, you make an immediate melee attack against that opponent. This attack does not use your reaction, but you can only make the attack if you have a reaction available to use and be able to use your reaction. You can't retaliate in this way if you are unconscious, stunned, or otherwise unable to make an attack or take a reaction."

I generally like this better than the OP, and requiring that you be able to use reactions seems reasonable, but what is the purpose of requiring that "you have a reaction available"?

 

[Quartz]

Personally, I wouldn't use Legendary Actions at all. Don't be cumbersome.

I'm not sure what's cumbersome about it. Can you elaborate?

"An answering weapon compels an attuned wielder to strike any creature that damages the weilder.

Apart from not using the Riposte mechanic, that's actually more powerful than using Legendary Actions! One of my reasons for using the Legendary Action mechanic was to limit this sort of thing. For instance, if the sword were in the hands of a boss monster with its own Legendary Actions, it would have to choose between them; with your way it would get the riposte from the sword and its own Legendary Action. Similarly, if there are two items that grant Legendary Actions, for example both sword and shield above, again the owner has to choose between them.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I generally like this better than the OP, and requiring that you be able to use reactions seems reasonable, but what is the purpose of requiring that "you have a reaction available"?

It means that you're still required to pick between, say, casting shield or taking an opportunity attack or using uncanny dodge and gaining the benefit of Answering. Like I said, it's how the DMG words the "Mark" optional rule. It makes the effect free and repeatable and you can still use your reaction, but you've still got to reserve your reaction for it if you want the benefit.

I'm not sure what's cumbersome about it. Can you elaborate?

Unless you're going to use multiple items that grant legendary actions, it's not really meaningful to spend the time to categorize them and define their use. Do you really intend to do that? I don't really like the idea of magic items creating yet another action for the PC action economy. First of all, too many players already worry about having meaningful bonus actions. Second of all, legendary actions exist so solo monsters can provide a meaningful threat against a group of PCs.

Also, I would argue that any magic item that needs to list a page number in it's description to pull in rules from elsewhere is already cumbersome. Yeah, riposte is a lot more flavorful, but in actual play I don't want to stop to look at the PHB to figure out how to resolve it. Even if you included the wording for riposte, I don't think I would want it to be that way. A standard attack is so much easier and is 90% of the power of the effect. I really don't want that extra die roll in there.

Apart from not using the Riposte mechanic, that's actually more powerful than using Legendary Actions!

It was supposed to be Fragarach, so I made it powerful enough for a relic or artifact. If you want to limit it, it's easy enough to add it in. You can specify, "The weapon can retaliate in this fashion no more than three times in one hour/rest," or, "The weapon will retaliate against multiple attacks, but it will never retaliate against the same attacker more than once each turn."

One of my reasons for using the Legendary Action mechanic was to limit this sort of thing. For instance, if the sword were in the hands of a boss monster with its own Legendary Actions, it would have to choose between them; with your way it would get the riposte from the sword and its own Legendary Action. Similarly, if there are two items that grant Legendary Actions, for example both sword and shield above, again the owner has to choose between them.

Hm. I don't know if I care for that, actually. I understand that by making it a riposte and not a basic attack that it makes it worthwhile over a legendary creature's normal basic attack, but it feels like the weapon then doesn't benefit the legendary creature nearly as much as a PC. Again, remember that the legendary actions are there to make the creature more of a solo threat than they otherwise would be. I'd fully expect a legendary creature with an answering blade to get the full benefits of both in order to be as threatening as they ought to be.

In that case I could see saying that the riposte is something only available to creatures that already have legendary actions. I don't see why a PC who picks up the sword would get legendary actions and riposte. There's no reason that the PCs should automatically get identical effects from magic items that NPCs do. I could see Orcus getting an additional special legendary action if he was using the Wand of Orcus because that's a legendary combination, but I would expect that to be something unique to those two individuals. If the PCs face Manannan mac Lir with Fragarach, I'd certainly expect he'd be able to do some awe inspiring feats with it that the PCs couldn't. An NPC who has possessed an Answering blade for years and years and trained in it's use to the point of specialization might also be able to do things with it that the PCs simply couldn't.

 

[Harzel]

It means that you're still required to pick between, say, casting shield or taking an opportunity attack or using uncanny dodge and gaining the benefit of Answering. Like I said, it's how the DMG words the "Mark" optional rule. It makes the effect free and repeatable and you can still use your reaction, but you've still got to reserve your reaction for it if you want the benefit.

Just to make sure I'm understanding your intent, my understanding of your wording is that if I make an Answering attack, then before my next turn I can still use, say, Uncanny Dodge, but if I use Uncanny Dodge, then before my next turn I cannot make an Answering attack. Is that correct? If so, introducing an order dependency seems both fiddly and not obviously needed.

As for the DMG Mark rule, I don't see what you are referring to in it. It says that you can't make two opportunity attacks, but does not otherwise say anything about other reaction-fueled abilities.