D&D 5E Multiple reactions replacing Legendary Actions?!

[Pedantic]

To me the simplest way is to give such a legendary two spots in the initiative order, and have it go twice. No weird out of turn mechanics.

I generally think this is a much cleaner design, and it's something you can stack on top of an existing monster more easily. The risk mostly comes in a monster spending all those actions targeting the same PC and acting many times before the PCs get to react. That's significantly mitigated by giving the monster significantly different initiative bonuses for its two action slots, and frankly the currently structure of legendary actions doesn't really do anything for the picking on one PC problem.

Alternately, the game could just make an action economy comparison part of CR/EL calculations. If the system is upfront that mismatched numbers of opponents requires a significant gap in relative power and that such fights tend to be swingy as a result I don't particularly think that's a problem.

 

[Zaukrie]

My biggest issue with the change is that there will be more words in every spell that limited reactions now! Other than that? I'm not sure....Frankly, I'd probably go back to legendary actions (and rename them)....and I'd likely have a "spells" section too.

The more I think about it, the less I like the change.....these should be something like "any time actions" that state the creature can use them at any time in combat. Reactions should, imo, be about reacting to something (like a spellcaster casting a spell, or an enemy moving or whatever else we feel like).

That said, I don't think it is more or less hard to do it this way, I'd just like it more separate and more clear (and not to have to rewrite every spell and action that limits reactions).

 

[billd91]

I generally think this is a much cleaner design, and it's something you can stack on top of an existing monster more easily. The risk mostly comes in a monster spending all those actions targeting the same PC and acting many times before the PCs get to react. That's significantly mitigated by giving the monster significantly different initiative bonuses for its two action slots, and frankly the currently structure of legendary actions doesn't really do anything for the picking on one PC problem.

Re: targeting the same PC with legendary actions (or reactions).
Kind of funny, that's more or less what the legendary actions are alleviating with respect to the boss monster - all of the PCs targeting it without it being able to respond.

At least with legendary actions, which happen after a PC's turn, some PC has had a chance to react to the monster's activities even if it's not all the same PC. So if the monster is starting to concentrate on just one PC, someone else has at least had a chance to intervene or try to draw away the monster's attention.

 

[dave2008]

In 4e when Monster Vault came out WotC came up with "instinctive actions" as a way to handle action economy in solos. I think Legendary Actions where developed from this idea.

I don't think it is better than Legendary Actions, but might be an interesting replacement for multiple reactions.

Never mind. From a design standpoint I prefer Legendary Actions to multiple reactions or instinctive actions. Legendary Actions are easier to handle and more flexible. I will still use LA in my monster designs.

 

[Zaukrie]

In 4e when Monster Vault came out WotC came up with "instinctive actions" as a way to handle action economy in solos. I think Legendary Actions where developed from this idea.
View attachment 304848

I don't think it is better than Legendary Actions, but might be an interesting replacement for multiple reactions.

Never mind. From a design standpoint I prefer Legendary Actions to multiple reactions or instinctive actions. Legendary Actions are easier to handle and more flexible. They will not believe my monster designs.

Not a fan of any actions being under traits or such. I'm already bothered by it now (and was in 4e). All actions should be under actions....for ease of running.

 

[dave2008]

Does anyone else find it odd that the Time Dragon doesn't have a Bite attack?!

 

[dave2008]

Not a fan of any actions being under traits or such. I'm already bothered by it now (and was in 4e). All actions should be under actions....for ease of running.

It was not a suggestion to put it into the traits section. WotC has already moved all actions to the actions section so I would image they would do the same if they added something similar.

 

[Zaukrie]

It was not a suggestion to put it into the traits section. WotC has already moved all actions to the actions section so I would image they would do the same if they added something similar.

ah, got it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This seems like another situation where a change no one asked for was made in response to a problem no one asked to fix, while problems that have been brought up continue to ignored, or addressed in the most weak-sauce of ways.

 

[dave2008]

This seems like another situation where a change no one asked for was made in response to a problem no one asked to fix, while problems that have been brought up continue to ignored, or addressed in the most weak-sauce of ways.

Well I have definitely heard people complain about Legendary Actions and Legendary Resistance, so that part of your statement is not true. However, I didn't agree with those complaints then or now.

Again, I don't mind the multiple reactions idea as an option in addition to Legendary Actions. Just not a full replacement for them.