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

[overgeeked]

One of the most important differences is that lots of things can take away your reactions, but not your legendary actions.

And those will be revised, as we’re already seeing with the cold cantrip previously discussed.

Also, LAs don't need triggers.

They do have a trigger, “at the end of another creature’s turn.” Making them reactions opens up other options for triggers. Note how one of the reactions in the shared stat block even has that as its trigger.

Also, you can vary the cost of them ("costs 2 legendary actions") and create tactically interesting and distinct choices for the DM.

Sure, but there’s no reason to assume that won’t carry over and I’m not really sure it needs to.

 

[dave2008]

Hmmmm... not entirely sure if I'm keen on it. To fully replace legendary actions, the triggering event that causes the legendary creature to react is "ends its turn". And, frankly, that's a lame trigger to "react" to. I feel the concept of legendary action is just stronger than gaining a bucketload of reactions to things that are dubious to react to.

Yep, i noticed this trend with the Eldrain (Sp) compendium (and Vecna the Archlich) and I like it as an additional option, but not as a full replacement. I found Legendary Actions easier to remember than reactions in general and definitely easier then three different triggers for those reactions.

 

[dave2008]

Also, you can vary the cost of them ("costs 2 legendary actions") and create tactically interesting and distinct choices for the DM.

Actually I think this is the biggest one (difference).

 

[dave2008]

Sure, but there’s no reason to assume that won’t carry over and I’m not really sure it needs to.

I guess it could carry over, but it would be odd. Being able to spend multiple LA on one LA is a great innovations of this type of reaction. I will miss and probably still design monsters with legendary actions.

Also, as a DM it is easier to remember "act after another's turn" rather than 3 different triggers. I have a hard enough time remembering just one reaction trigger during a big battle!

 

[James Gasik]

So actually my session tonight hinged on something like this; I'd cast Confusion and hit an enemy caster, preventing them from using their reactions, which really turned a combat around, and I realized if they want to prevent players from cheesing monsters with "legendary reactions" they're going to have to do a lot more than nerf one cantrip.

 

[overgeeked]

So actually my session tonight hinged on something like this; I'd cast Confusion and hit an enemy caster, preventing them from using their reactions, which really turned a combat around, and I realized if they want to prevent players from cheesing monsters with "legendary reactions" they're going to have to do a lot more than nerf one cantrip.

The chances of them not doing it for you, if this is the path they choose, is effectively zero.

 

[overgeeked]

I guess it could carry over, but it would be odd. The being able to spend multiple LA on one LA is a great innovations of this type of reaction. I will miss and probably still design monsters with legendary actions.

Also, as a DM it is easier to remember act another turn than 3 different triggers. I have a hard enough time remembering just one reaction trigger during a big battle!

That’s why I give my solo monsters a number of actions equal to the number of PCs. I also don’t bother with initiative for them. They go when it makes sense.

 

[dave2008]

That’s why I give my solo monsters a number of actions equal to the number of PCs. I also don’t bother with initiative for them. They go when it makes sense.

That is a little too gamist for my personal taste, but it makes the most sense from an encounter balance perspective

 

[overgeeked]

That is a little too gamist for my personal taste, but it makes the most sense from an encounter balance perspective

That’s…you know 5E is designed around a party of four and that’s why higher level solo monsters have 3 LA/round in the first place…to match the assumed number of PCs, right?

 

[mamba]

That’s…you know 5E is designed around a party of four and that’s why higher level solo monsters have 3 LA/round in the first place…to match the assumed number of PCs, right?

no idea if that is why, esp. with some LA costing 2 or 3 points, so they might end up with as few as one LA