D&D 5E (2014) (OOC) Rise of the Dracolich (Full)

[Ancalagon]

The grasping arrow is a strength check, not save... but the dragon has to take an action to remove the thorns (and make that check) so I think he's just going to suck the damage each round?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The grasping arrow is a strength check, not save... but the dragon has to take an action to remove the thorns (and make that check) so I think he's just going to suck the damage each round?

It's one of the flaws to the Legendary creature design, that it's unclear if it's intended that they should be able to use Legendary Actions for that sort of thing. They almost certainly SHOULD be able to do that, and I'm sure I have the "power" to say so, but the rules, AFAIK, are unclear. It makes action-taking things vastly more powerful against this sort of foe. Anyone know if there's any Sage Advice on the subject?

 

[tglassy]

Saves are reflexive reactions to a stimulus. They don't require actions, typically. They are automatic, and go at the beginning or end of your turn.

Checks require conscious effort, and are typically used to attempt to do something. So getting out of a grapple is a conscious effort.

As to whether Legendary Resistance would work, if I'm not mistaken it usually is worded as "If the creature fails the save, it can choose to succeed instead." I'd rule that if you want to be able to use that on checks, then sure. But it still takes an action, and he still has to fail for him to need to use the Legendary Resistance. He can just choose to succeed.

Action Taking Things are vastly more powerful to every type of foe. That's why they're so popular.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I meant using Legendary Actions, not Legendary Resistance. I guess the idea is, if it takes its action to rip off the vines (for example), it at least still has some Legendary Actions to attack with.

Yeah, it'll have to lump it or waste its action to remove the thorny vines.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think using a legendary action like that would make sense, especially when it's a "fitting" thing for the monster. Could a lich use a legendary action to burst free of bonds? It doesn't really fit (but a legendary action to teleport out of the bonds, that could?). But a dragon? Very dragony.

Yes I know this is not to our advantage...

 

[gargoyleking]

Seems legit to me. Still, making it use legendary actions to break free of something like that has it's uses also. Especially if it damages him in the meantime.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Just 'cause it's been hard enough, I'm going to stick with RAW and say that it needs to use it's "real" action. It would still have legendary actions to attack with. But I do think that Legendary creatures are not designed quite tough enough as they are. There's a reason they need minions and lair actions and things to make for a fun fight. Otherwise a decent party will slaughter them.

 

[tglassy]

That’s any single creature. The action economy kills them pretty quick when they’re on their own.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That’s any single creature. The action economy kills them pretty quick when they’re on their own.

Right. Late 4e "Solo" monsters had solved that problem (early ones still had it) but 5e went right back to monsters not being any good/fun to fight when they're on their own.

 

[Prickly Pear]

Does drinking a healing potion count as "Interact with Object" or is it an "Action"?
Sesto would really like to drink that potion, but I reckon he run out of time this round.