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

[the Jester]

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.

Or you have a good dm who plays the dragon based on what it knows.

God I hope we dispense with all of 4e's "Tell everyone everything!" conceit.

You could also let it have advantage on all saves, as magic resistance.

Uh... it does.

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.

Okay, I'm guessing a lot of folks are commenting without actually reading the stat block? It's clearly spelled out. You can't use the same legendary action consecutively.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Dragoslav]

I really like the details about the lairs of Legendary monsters. Dangerous and interesting terrain features were a key part of 4e encounters, so I'm glad to see them emphasizing this in Next's set-piece encounters, as well.

As for the dragon itself, I'd have to see how it works out in play, but I don't see how this is any more of an improvement over 4e Solo dragons, who already have an interesting array of abilities that accomplished the same result without resorting to mechanical contrivances like a refreshing pool of fate points.

And what does this mean for other large, but not "Legendary" creatures? Are they just bigger sacks of HP that only act once per round while the party gangs up on them and kills them in one round? And, if not, then why come up with this convoluted new category of creatures? It sounds like they came up with this "Legendary" concept and just ran with it, blinded to the larger implications.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Overall I think it is a good start.

I'm not crazy about the lair making attacks. I'm a little surprised they didn't link the attacks to the dragon's fate points or legendary actions.

 

[Gundark]

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.

I think I'd prefer have 4 actions that were not tied to any specific trigger. To me that's easier to keep track of.

 

[Jack99]

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?

1st rule of ENworld is the grandma rule.
2nd rule is to never discuss dragons with Derren. Won't get you anywhere.

 

[Derren]

1st rule of ENworld is the grandma rule.
2nd rule is to never discuss dragons with Derren. Won't get you anywhere.

I am so sorry that my standard for "legendary creature" is a bit more than 4d6 damage and heal 20hp a round which sits passively sits in its lair waiting for the PCs to slay it.
Motivation? Its a start but basically just says that it is the biggest challenge in the area and the lair is hardly a big exploration point with just a 10 mile effect of bad water and darker skies.

This entire entry describes the dragon as passive, entirely focussed on its lair and surrounding area with. The lair actions makes sitting passively in its lair waiting for the PCs even more attractive.
The dragon has no ability to actively influence except providing a nuisance for the PCs through regional effects. Anything else is claw/claw/bite. No skills, no utility spells or rituals etc.
Besides, without DR the dragon is still archer fodder for every mid sized city and upwards. If thats specific for black dragons, fine. But when this is the example of how WotC sees the role of monsters, well, its another reason not to buy 5E.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

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.

I think triggers do become repetitive though, unless you design them well. I wonder if some of the legendary actions could be better imagined as 'passive' defences - for instance the tail sweep could trigger any time you move within the Dragon's reach (does reach exist any more?), and you have to make a reflex save to avoid taking damage and being knocked prone.

 

[MortalPlague]

I think I'd prefer have 4 actions that were not tied to any specific trigger. To me that's easier to keep track of.

I'm right there with you. Having four actions I can use any time lets me pace the fight as a DM. It lets me move the dragon in reaction to shifting battlefield conditions or placement. It keeps the party on its toes, knowing the dragon is a constant unpredictable threat. The triggered actions feel more like I'm running a puppet, despite their effectiveness. Pull this string, get this reaction.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Or you have a good dm who plays the dragon based on what it knows.

Sadly, not all DMs are good DMs - and I still think it's a weird way to handle this. Either the casters deliberately burn 4 'knockout' spells to get through those saves, or they keep up the damage spells to tempt the DM to use them, which might open the way for a 'knockout' spell. I prefer the idea that it can just shake off these effects very quickly, but that one might just work for a short period. Spend a legendary action to save against an effect, with advantage of course (good catch there, I missed it).

Okay, I'm guessing a lot of folks are commenting without actually reading the stat block? It's clearly spelled out. You can't use the same legendary action consecutively.

Hm, I can't see that rule.