D&D 5E Legendary actions... should it be 3?

[bedir than]

I built a legendary monster with only two legendary actions. One of them takes both slots, and the other is a smaller effect and can be used both times.

It fits the story I want to tell. If you have larger parties, you may want more actions. You could also have minions.

 

[Prism]

Tiamat has 5 legendary actions btw. Whether that is because she has 5 heads or just because she is nails I do not know.

 

[nswanson27]

You're thinking of legendary resistance, not legendary actions.

Ahh yes. You are correct.

 

[Valdier]

It depends on how close you feel like hewing to the mechanical guidelines. Giving a legendary creature more legendary actions probably--unless none of them are attacks--is also going to bump up its CR. Which bumps up XP, and indicates a tougher fight, etc. etc.

If you know your party well enough to account for that, or else just don't care, then of course don't worry about it. I just wanted to bring it up for those who do want to consider such things.

You do make a good point here about bumping the CR. My thought is that I am trying to get a single creature to actually meet their CR I think. It is possible that 5e (like previous editions) just really isn't built for solo encounters. The CR system just doesn't work for it be default.

edit: I would lean toward beefing up the effect of the actions, maybe making one have an area of effect.

the downsides of more legendary actions as I see it are:
1. It will slow down combat (which will be a factor with a group of 5+ players)
2. It means if you summon an ally or bring along some muscle you just made the encounter tougher
3. If it has minions with seperate initiative each of those generates a chance for a legendary action

I think you also make a good point here... rather than extra legendary actions, increase the effects of the ones they have to better encompass the opposition of the PC's and to give a little more challenge to represent the CR in question.

Tiamat has 5 legendary actions btw. Whether that is because she has 5 heads or just because she is nails I do not know.

Yeah, I think Tiamat gets a few extra by being a god

 

[NotActuallyTim]

Since the monsters were built around a specific number of PCs per fight, then if you're designing a Legendary monster from scratch it should have an appropriate number of Legendary actions for your party size. After all, going overboard isn't going to do much, since a creature with 100 Legendary actions isn't likely to use all of them against a party of 4. Unless, of course, it has an ability that costs 25 Legendary actions to use.

 

[Jester David]

From a mechanical perspective, legendary actions are designed so boss monsters can stand a chance against entire parties. Otherwise, it becomes too easy for groups withe four actions to counter their one. In that respect, acting every round makes sense.
For larger or smaller groups this could be adjusted. Or not...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But that is literally how it works currently in the "default" rules. The party is 4 players as the assumption, and the monster gets its action +1 legendary per player (Default 3), past the 1st. It can take one between every players turn unless it has one that costs multiple actions.

That's exactly why I just give it three legendary actions all the time, no matter how many PCs are involved. It doesn't make sense to do otherwise.

(Specifically, I just give it three legendary actions which occurs on initiative counts -5, -10, and -15 points respectively behind its main action.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Personally I think it should be 0. I know it's part of the rules and has a history, but it's not realistic. "Why did he just make that save? Because he's really "legendary"...?" I feel like there's other better ways to make a boss fight challenging if that's what's needed.

If you don't like Legendary Resistance as written you may be interested in my rewrite, inspired by AD&D Magic Resistance and 5E Counterspelling. Perhaps you will find inspiration there for your own rewrite.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

From a mechanical perspective, legendary actions are designed so boss monsters can stand a chance against entire parties. Otherwise, it becomes too easy for groups withe four actions to counter their one. In that respect, acting every round makes sense.
For larger or smaller groups this could be adjusted. Or not...

This logic has never made sense to me in 5E. There is no practical difference between a monster with a multiattack claw/claw/claw/bite and a monster with a bite attack and three legendary claw actions. It's not the raw number of actions that matters; it's the product of DPR and HP on each side. (Cf. Lanchester's Square Law.) Plus of course other considerations like stealth, mobility, magic, etc. The DMG math acknowledges this, which is precisely why it treats Legendary Actions just like any other action: you just roll it into the DPR.

In practical terms, I've had zero problems terrifying players with solo creatures, when terror is appropriate. A single tough creature is less vulnerable to AoE than the equivalent adjusted XP of smaller creatures would be; it has an easier time coordinating its actions with itself than a whole group would with each other (especially important for hit-and-run scenarios); it doesn't degrade in effectiveness until it's completely dead; unlike a group, it can restore itself to full effectiveness just by fleeing and resting/spending HD (whereas a group will leave behind casualties who don't come back to life after an hour of rest); it has higher saving throws and more effective skills. It typically has much less HP than a whole equivalent mob of lesser creatures would have, and it probably does less damage, but those factors simply compensate for its increased effectiveness in other ways.

The real "problem" with solo creatures in 5E is the expectations game: you have to realize that 5E encounters are generally designed to be easy, and 5E monsters are generally inefficiently designed compared to e.g. the Tome of Beasts or the DMG guidelines. But a properly-played Strahd or a proactively spellcasting dragon will rip the face off parties who would handily beat an equivalent XP value of orcs or wraiths or whatnot.

Solo monsters are not weaker than mobs. They are just different.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

This logic has never made sense to me in 5E. There is no practical difference between a monster with a multiattack claw/claw/claw/bite and a monster with a bite attack and three legendary claw actions. It's not the raw number of actions that matters;

Designwise, splitting the actions up makes more sense. After all, DPR can be increased by having one monster make one attack with +10000000000000 damage. Slicing it up into smaller actions, each of which can fail, is a practical difference worth appreciating, even for non designers.