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

[urLordy]

Due to their magical nature, dumb luck, or an innate resistance to magic, legendary creatures can mess with the dice and sometimes dictate outcomes. You can think of this as fate or the gods, in the form of the DM, intervening on the creature's behalf.

The more I think about this, the less I like it. It seems like the only purpose of the legendary mechanics is to make combat more tactical and take more time to resolve. That is literally the opposite of what I want in D&D.

Perhaps each creature should have a suggested default fluff. A high priest might be protected by divine favor, while a dragon might have innate magic resistance, while an psionic abberation might use probability manipulation. I wonder, however, if there shouldn't be any follow through on that theme (if the creature can do x, can it also do y).

 

[Jack99]

The problem here is more with the execution of the "Legendary" trait. That its a dragon as example is a coincidence.
WotCs idea of what defines a legendary creature shows to me that, again, its all about combat. A creature is legendary because it moves outside its turn?

This dragon has no ability to affect the outside besides combat, not even skills. Its writeup suggests that it exists purely to combat the PCs. The regional effects go into the right direction but I hardly call it a step. A small shuffle at most because it is a giant rule0 with no explanation how this happens and the effects are minor at best.
The small section about the personality also isn't much when you compare the writeup of dragons in previous editions, but that is a dragon thing.

You can of course say that for a playtest they limit the examples to the relevant information and you might be right (although, then why have they published the personality entry?) but to me this example shows that with 5E WotC again has very different priorities than I have.

I disagree. If it had been a legendary something-else, I am not convinced that you would have reacted the same way, since dragons seem to be one of your trigger-points.

Either way, I am okay with it overall, especially when considering it a first draft. There are some interesting aspects, but I would like it's metagame abilities to not only deal with magic (as others have mentioned). Also, much like Derren, I would love if there was more info on how the dragon affects the world around it, as in, more ways for it's legendary status to make an impact on the campaign.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Even a first draft shows the design philosophy of WotC/the design team. And no mater the iteration, that won't change.

I think it's more that they want to do things other than combat, but they have no idea how. It's like they've never played a game that wasn't super combat-focused, so they don't know what those players want.

Nope:
magical nature - in fiction
dumb luck - in fiction (possibly lame, but still...)
innate resistance to magic - in fiction
fate or the gods intervening on the creature's behalf - still in fiction

I don't agree, but even if I did: None of those represent the creature doing anything. I have to make a choice that my character is not making. That is my definition of a metagame mechanic.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think it's more that they want to do things other than combat, but they have no idea how. It's like they've never played a game that wasn't super railroady and combat-focused, so they don't know what those players want.

On that, I think I can agree. With the caveat that they're stuck with D&D's legacy, which must make it harder. Also, any system that would hand out too much player agency or "metagame" mechanics in those areas (which are often the most effective for those players, IME) would need to be clearly "modularized" to avoid offended OSR types. If they are working on such systems, I wouldn't anticipate seeing them soon, so as to avoid a years worth of griping.

I don't agree, but even if I did: None of those represent the creature doing anything. I have to make a choice that my character is not making. That is my definition of a metagame mechanic.

The items in that list are just the general sources/explanations of the actions, not the actions themselves. Those actions will vary a lot between various legendary critters. The Black Dragon writeup makes it pretty explicit (to my eyes) that the dragon is actively utilizing its mojo to accomplish its effects.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think we may not have access to a connecting piece of the Interaction pillar. That section of the black dragon's writeup looks keyworded to me. And those keywords could interact with rules in the as-yet unseen Interaction section that they are working on.

And I'm not sure if anyone really knows what they want from an interaction pillar. I'll admit I may have missed such discussions easily, but what I've seen so far amounts to "we want equal rule coverage for interaction like combat has." Like what? I have yet to see anyone answer this. I, personally, think there is no need for major interaction rules. But I look forward to what they develop and hope they can prove me wrong.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Why? What in the article makes that a concern?

The point is, what it says is irrelevant. As past performance has shown, even beating gamers over the head with the fact that something is optional doesn't mean that some (perhaps a lot) will insist that its official, and therefore not to be messed with. New DMs tend to be especially prone to this sort of thinking, IMO.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think we may not have access to a connecting piece of the Interaction pillar. That section of the black dragon's writeup looks keyworded to me. And those keywords could interact with rules in the as-yet unseen Interaction section that they are working on.

And I'm not sure if anyone really knows what they want from an interaction pillar. I'll admit I may have missed such discussions easily, but what I've seen so far amounts to "we want equal rule coverage for interaction like combat has." Like what? I have yet to see anyone answer this. I, personally, think there is no need for major interaction rules. But I look forward to what they develop and hope they can prove me wrong.

The keywords could be used as hooks for player options: there might be a skill or feat that lets you know what an NPC's goals or values are. I'm not sure if they should do that, but they could.

 

[Cyberen]

The Dragon has no skills, because there are (almost) no skills in Next. It has ABILITY SCORES !
I like the fact some creatures break the rules, and I like the tone of the article ("Legendary creatures break your silly action economy" for the win).
I am not really swept up with the legendary action set, though.
I have a weird question : do you think the dragon can use its legendary actions as interrupts ? If so, it can't be hit in melee ! (but an archer will soon be eating legendary steacks for dinner...).

 

[GX.Sigma]

I have a weird question : do you think the dragon can use its legendary actions as interrupts ? If so, it can't be hit in melee ! (but an archer will soon be eating legendary steacks for dinner...).

At the start or end of a creature's turn.

 

[Rhenny]

They represent the sheer force of will such an ancient and powerful creature has, to be able to resist the effects of mortal magic that would render it helpless.

I have no problem with this.

I'm with MortalPlague on this. These creatures break the mold and that's ok. Imagine how exciting it will be as a player to encounter a fire elemental, but then realize that the cone of cold spell that you thought would be so damaging turns out to be merely an inconvenience. Heck, it's basically a different species of monster, not just a metagamey augmentation.

I kind of like the idea that an artifact can also grant these types of extra actions to NPCs and PCs too. This rule is an excellent modular element that gives DMs the ability to play with difficulty levels. From most of my experience with the playtest (and years of DMing and playing) one issue that we'll never be able to end is that different groups like different levels of grit/challenge. There are some groups that may never even use Legendary monsters...while other groups will use them more frequently.