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

[Kurotowa]

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.

It's a clever reposing of existing game mechanics. It's a half decent way of reproducing a mythological item's effects in D&D. It also breaks the action economy over its knee and stomps on the pieces. So really, it's a question of what effect the DM wants.

Any DM using this should be clearly aware that they're introducing a massively powerful artifact that will significantly increase one PC's power and disrupt the usual turn order, possibly slowing combat down considerably. If they're okay with that, well, their game. Sometimes you want to hand game-breaking artifacts out to the entire party because you're deliberately aiming for that slightly gonzo "Deities and Demigods is our Monster Manual" campaign. Just, you know, eyes open and be aware of what you're doing. Giving legendary actions to PCs is not a small step.

 

[Quartz]

It also breaks the action economy over its knee and stomps on the pieces.... and disrupt the usual turn order,

I'm not sure it actually does: remember that these actions come immediately after the initiating action. So there is no breaking of the turn order. No more than any other Reaction event anyway. So you get something like:

DM: "Fred, the ogre's club smashes into you for 15 points of bludgeoning damage."
Fred: "My Heavy Armour Mastery reduces that by 3 points to 12. I'll use Fragarach's Riposte, hitting ACs of 15 and poorer for 12 points of damage."
DM: "The ogre winces and says, "Puny human hurt!"
DM: "Anne..."

 

[Quartz]

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...

Just to elaborate on my earlier answer, part of the reason of using the Legendary Action mechanic was to prevent a cascade when more than one of these are available. Suppose a PC had both a Sword of Answering and a Shield of Repelling. By using the Legendary Action mechanic - you only get one Legendary Action at a time and only three per round - you prevent such a cascade.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

I agree. As I said, I was going from memory of the wording of the Mark description. That's why I specifically called it out. I figured I was mis-remembering something, and I wasn't actually some place where I had access to the book.

This is the language I'm thinking of:

The opportunity attack doesn't expend the attacker's reaction, but the attacker can't make the attack if anything, such as the incapacitated condition or the shocking grasp spell, is preventing it from taking reactions. The attacker is limited to one opportunity attack per turn.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Just to elaborate on my earlier answer, part of the reason of using the Legendary Action mechanic was to prevent a cascade when more than one of these are available. Suppose a PC had both a Sword of Answering and a Shield of Repelling. By using the Legendary Action mechanic - you only get one Legendary Action at a time and only three per round - you prevent such a cascade.

Yeah, I understand that. I'd still rather see the item just tell you that you can't use more than one. "An answering weapon cannot be used in the same turn as another effect which takes a reaction or substitutes for a reaction, such as a second answering blade, a repelling shield, and so on."

I don't have a problem with an NPC using both an answering weapon and a legendary action consecutively any more than I have a problem with an NPC using a reaction and a legendary action consecutively.

 

[Quartz]

Yeah, I understand that. I'd still rather see the item just tell you that you can't use more than one. "An answering weapon cannot be used in the same turn as another effect which takes a reaction or substitutes for a reaction, such as a second answering blade, a repelling shield, and so on."

Making it a Legendary Action simplifies all that.

And really, at high levels, what is the problem with PCs having very restricted Legendary Actions? It's not like the Legendary Action is 'Acererac casts a spell' - any spell, mind you, from Magic Missile to Wish.

 

[SkidAce]

Technically, having the answering sword auto hit and damage is like having some type of damage shield cast on the fighter.

So balance it in view of that being cast on the fighter every combat.

 

[CapnZapp]

What was wrong with the original version?

 

[Kurotowa]

I'm not sure it actually does: remember that these actions come immediately after the initiating action. So there is no breaking of the turn order. No more than any other Reaction event anyway.

Well, it really depends how streamlined your group's combats are. I've played with DMs who batch up NPC actions, do a bunch of rolls at once, and then announce the results. I've played with people who had to re-check their character sheet for the modifiers every time they make a roll, then all but count on their fingers to get the total result. I've played with people who tend to tune out in between their own actions, needing recaps of what just happened and often jumping in late with reactions.

What I'm saying is, there's a lot of people I very specifically would NOT want to have an item like this attached to their PC.

 

[Quartz]

What I'm saying is, there's a lot of people I very specifically would NOT want to have an item like this attached to their PC.

Fair enough, but why prevent others?