D&D 5E June 17 Legend & Lore - Playtesting Dragons

[Chris_Nightwing]

I like the ideas presented, but I think the implementation needs a little work..

For instance, the 4 auto-saves, well, that's quite a lot of work for the DM in my opinion, figuring out when best to use them - and it leads to this dynamic where the DM wants to know what spells he ought to save them for, so asks the players what they have prepared, and it becomes adversarial. I would rather the effective condition immunity be built in via the legendary actions. You could also let it have advantage on all saves, as magic resistance.

The legendary actions, again, seem like a lot of work for the DM, and they might be a bit skewed. Can each one only be used once each round? Otherwise the healing 20hp 4 times could drag the fight out forever. With regards to conditions - would the perfect legendary action not be 'make another saving throw against something affecting you'? Also if you really want to balance the action economy, give one such action at the end of each player's turn. The Fighter acts, moves in and attacks, BAM the dragon tailwhips him over; the Wizard tries to lock him down with a stun, BAM it makes another save to wrestle free of it (and it can try again after the next player if that fails).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Some of [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION] 's concerns, above, are why I went with triggered actions and weaknesses myself. Triggers make it clear when such actions work, and weaknesses make it clear how to defend against the mighty creature or handicap its strength. It's a lot less of a judgment call, and a lot less prone to spamming one ability or another.

So, like, those 4 Legendary Actions? I'd give each one a trigger, like "Character scores a hit," or "Character deals more than X damage" or the like.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think the black dragon looks very good. I like how it feels unlike any other monster to me as a DM and will probably have the same effect on the players. This is one badass legendary creature.

I don't understand the arguments about it being a big job for the DM to run this Dragon. It's one badass monsters that quite often will be the culmination of a campaign or adventure. Some extra preparation will go a long way. Anyway I see it, it's still much less complex than any high-level spellcasting mob from 3.x

 

[MortalPlague]

For instance, the 4 auto-saves, well, that's quite a lot of work for the DM in my opinion, figuring out when best to use them...

I think the idea behind this is to prevent the moment when the heroes kick down the door, roll initiative, and then immediately paralyze the campaign's Big Bad Evil Dragon for three rounds and chop it to bits without a fight. As a DM, I would use these to negate the powers that incapacitate.

Otherwise the healing 20hp 4 times could drag the fight out forever.

In the stat block, the dragon can only use the healing ability once per round, and only five times per day.

 

[Derren]

Is that all?
How do dragons and other powerful creatures affect all the other "pillars"? The region effect are interesting, but in the end just a small annoyance for the group while they go to the lair where the dragon waits to be slain by them as that is its entire role in the game.
If you want to use a dragon in some other way its rule 0 time again.

 

[urLordy]

I believe that separation was the point of the article.

Ya. When I read "never quite happy with... mechanical contrivance" and " didn't clearly represent something within the world of the game", I give it a little cheer that D&D Next is still concerned about keeping rules married to the fiction.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Like the general mechanics; the article flavor text needs work -- unless I'm going to call my next game The Dragon Matrix. Sees into the source code of the universe my breath weapon ...

The dragon itself -- other than probably too many actions (four after every turn?) -- is a promising first draft.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Legendary Means Something: I was never quite happy with how the solo tag from previous editions transformed into a mechanical contrivance. The original concept in 4th Edition was that solos and elites were meant to be size Large and bigger creatures—massive foes that by their nature posed a constant threat. ... That definition didn't stick over time.

Legendary did mean something in all the monster manuals. The only non-large solo in the MM1 was the Berbalang, who had multiple bodies. But the first non-large solo other than the multi-bodied Berbalang was in 4e right at the launch. It wasn't in the Monster Manual. Instead it was an undead knight in Keep on the Shadowfell, which had as lead author ... Mike Mearls.

Legendary Creatures Ignore Your Silly Action Economy:
...

Legendary creatures have a set of bonus actions they can use between their turns. This is a bigger point of emphasis than in 4th Edition. We learned that creating a dynamic interaction between a solo monster and the characters goes a long way toward making such battles dramatic and tense.

Why he can't say that "Legendary creatures use the lessons learnt over the first few years of 4e" I do not know. But that black dragon is every bit as bound by the action economy or able to break it as the Monster Vault Red Dragon. Except that the black breaks the action economy by the tailwhip blender (every action point spent on a tail whip) whereas the 4e one got the instinctive action (instinctive devouring - charge or bite for a black), a tail sweep, and bloodied breath. And a couple of action points. Calling "Can tail sweep a lot or give up extra actions to recharge a breath weapon" a bigger point of emphasis than the same monster in 4e is IMO just plain wrong. Especially if they are planning to do it all through the same mechanical contrivance of the Legendary Actions Pool rather than through tailored extra actions the way 4e did.

That said the lair itself looks pretty interesting as an approach to designing things. And to designing legendary areas.

I'd probably be looking a lot more favourably on D&D Next if Mearls wasn't busy running down 4e in ways that are directly unjustified.

 

[JasonZZ]

Is that all?
How do dragons and other powerful creatures affect all the other "pillars"? The region effect are interesting, but in the end just a small annoyance for the group while they go to the lair where the dragon waits to be slain by them as that is its entire role in the game.
If you want to use a dragon in some other way its rule 0 time again.

Did you read the same writeup I did? The first page (detailing the dragon itself) has 1/3 of the page dedicated to a detailed description of its motivations and outlook, and about half of the second page (the lair and environs) is dedicated to exploration-pillar stuff and more interaction (who it uses, why, and how). Is that all purely-combat material?

 

[Zaukrie]

I really like the write up. Love the interactions section. The lair concept is good, not sure i love the specific powers. 5 and 10 miles is a bit much for my taste for the regional effects.....