Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="duneguy" data-source="post: 8397702" data-attributes="member: 56672">My belief is that there should be a continuum of monster complexity. At one end are the types of monsters that are likely to be character allies and minions. That's why you've seen some previews like the Hippogriff that aren't significantly more complex than the MM version: these monsters are likely to make their attacks alongside a character, perhaps during most or all battles. If the hippogriff is complex, then the hippogriff-rider's turn becomes more complex.At the other end of the spectrum are campaign bosses: dragons, vampires, and so on. They're likely to be fighting the characters on their own or with much weaker minions. In order to hold their own against a party, they need to have a rich action economy. These are usually the monsters that get the "legendary" treatment.To me, a unicorn is miscast as a legendary creature. I think its most common purpose isn't as a final boss but as an ally. Sure, you could have a big bad unicorn as the final adversary, or maybe a big good unicorn against an evil party... but I bet that most unicorns in D&D are used as plot devices, allies, or even steeds.Since I designed the unicorn as a potential ally/steed, I don't want it slowing down combat with lots of legendary actions where the GM attacks the GM. I wanted it to be fairly streamlined. (That said, I love unicorns and I also wanted it to feel magical.)</blockquote>