D&D 5E To Be or Not to Be: Legendary

[Stalker0]

You are correct.

My point it that I find legendary actions rarely actually change the battlefield. Legendary actions are to weak, IME, to have the impact you suggest. If I have the choice, I prefer 1 impactful off-turn reaction than 3 ineffective legendary actions. Now, these issues can corrected with better design. However, the point is that by design, to maintain CR, each of those LA have to be rather weak.

I will also point to PF2. Monsters in PF2 don't have legendary actions and they make solos threatening by increasing the defense and attack (simply because the monsters are higher level, typical PC level +3-5, no extra actions or reactions). Now, I haven't run PF2, but from everything I have heard, PF2 "solos" work really well. You simply don't need LA to make a monster threaten, no need the right "numbers."

Now, I do like legendary actions and I think they can make a battle more dynamic. I am not suggesting getting rid of legendary actions, only there are other effective ways to make a monster a threat. The big one for me is the correct CR vs PC lvl and # of PCs.

I would say the other argument that dave2008 is making, is that with his model you can lay an ultra smackdown onto the PCs to the point where they have to use their turn to "scramble" and find a way to not get roasted by the legendary.

If a PC gets clobbered on round 1 and realizes "if I take that round again I am going to die", than they act a lot differently than if they think they can take another round of punishment.

that's the theory at least. Though I do think this is heavily dependent on the LAs themselves. If we look at the new gold dragon ancient for example, that banish is nasty nasty nasty business, people able to just take a PC out of the round and then drop them anywhere you want in the area is likely far more effective than "simple damage"

 

[Stalker0]

Dave's design I think also highlights another area where high level design can do better....the alpha strike. 5e's monster design has not kept up with the incredible generous death rules that 5e has compared to 3e/4e, and that really shows up in high level challenges.

In Dave's design, the breath weapon insta kills at 0 hp, no death saves. That's a very big deal, it makes that alpha strike a much more credible threat. In the current game, there basically isn't an attack in the game that will insta kill a high level PC based on just damage alone, and so a PC with even 1 hitpoint can always tank the a dragon's breath weapon full in the face, and the worst that happens is they go to 0. Scary but not too scary. But with dave's version, PCs always have to be fearful of taking any damage as if they get into that breath weapon "threat range" that attack could be a killing blow. It greatly changes the "feel" of how powerful the breath weapon is...and I think its an important considering for other monsters that rely on alpha strikes. Damage alone isn't enough unless its insane damage, it needs a kick to deliver that threat.

 

[dave2008]

Dave's design I think also highlights another area where high level design can do better....the alpha strike. 5e's monster design has not kept up with the incredible generous death rules that 5e has compared to 3e/4e, and that really shows up in high level challenges.

In Dave's design, the breath weapon insta kills at 0 hp, no death saves. That's a very big deal, it makes that alpha strike a much more credible threat. In the current game, there basically isn't an attack in the game that will insta kill a high level PC based on just damage alone, and so a PC with even 1 hitpoint can always tank the a dragon's breath weapon full in the face, and the worst that happens is they go to 0. Scary but not too scary. But with dave's version, PCs always have to be fearful of taking any damage as if they get into that breath weapon "threat range" that attack could be a killing blow. It greatly changes the "feel" of how powerful the breath weapon is...and I think its an important considering for other monsters that rely on alpha strikes. Damage alone isn't enough unless its insane damage, it needs a kick to deliver that threat.

I do like that the 2024 MM has a few monsters that do this, that made me confident to included it as well!

 

[evilbob]

Every group is different.

Every group is different, agreed.

My unsolicited suggestion would be to make these baseline assumptions for a tier 4 party against a solo monster:

• Initiative: all PCs are invisible, many have Alert - "monster will go first" is not assumed
• Movement: all PCs can fly and all melee have haste - there is no "out of range" and martials attack more often
• Breath weapon: all PCs resist appropriate elemental damage and the ones who will be in range will make their saves (too many bonuses) so take the 126 and make it 31
• Spells: globe of invulnerability makes level 5 or lower useless, maybe higher; Fighters do not fail saves!
• PCs don't miss; advantage can be safely assumed for every attack roll
• PCs can't die; if they go down from HP loss it costs a bonus action to get them up and likely happens before their turn
• Reactions: monsters never have an opportunity to use them (PCs can shut these down or avoid them)
• Conditions: 1 Legendary resistance will be consumed per PC turn (prone on a flying dragon is too dangerous not to save IMO), or 5-6 per PC turn for fighters or monks; monsters will need to resist incapacitated or paralyzed at least once per round; monsters will be prone most of the time unless they blow all their LRs on prone

The good thing is that I think you and Reynard are saying the same thing: the dragon doesn't do enough damage quickly enough to warrant its CR. The difference is that Reynard is saying the dragon will get much fewer actual turns/reactions than LAs, and I agree. That's what makes LAs useful: they will happen. It's not equivalent to say "multiply damage on a turn by X is equal to X LAs" because a turn isn't guaranteed to happen. The dragon isn't even immune to paralyze: you can't tuck "shake off conditions" into reactions because they won't get one. Any incapacitate-inducing condition means the dragon never gets a reaction.

My gut reaction to your dragon in the OP is that it will get one breath weapon attack off and maybe one multiattack with disadvantage, or reverse that. It won't get a third turn. If you're playing the dragon smart, the multiattack will NOT be against the 25 AC PC who also resists blud/slash/pier and cannot be crit, but the party will do their best to make that its only option. My gut estimation for the total damage output: 31 damage to 2 or 3 PCs, and ~100 damage to a martial who has like 150 HP and healed themselves during their turn anyway. And that's generously assuming the PCs don't just Hold Monster the thing and slaughter it.

To be fair: the LA version does even worse! It gets more attacks in, but they hit like wet noodles; the spells are worthless (and also fire, lol); its movement gets it eaten alive by AOs. Total damage: 31 damage to 2 or 3 PCs and ~50 to a martial who doesn't even bother healing themselves. But the PCs can't just kill it with one spell.

This is what makes the "hitbox" idea so interesting: nothing gets around this, because it's a new idea.

 

[evilbob]

Sorry: "hitbox" meaning "mythical trait" / "final boss" / once you kill it, it gets back up with a new set of HP and loses all conditions and recharges its stuff. I don't know if we have a standard word for that idea yet. I think I like "mythical trait" best so far.

Or the "hitbox" idea that Reynard had where each area of the monster has its own HP/condition/etc., and taking down each part makes it weaker.

 

[dave2008]

Thank you for your thoughts! They are very helpful.

I do want to be clear, the intent of this thread was not about tier 4 design. It was to discuss legendary vs non-legendary solos.

Every group is different, agreed.

My unsolicited suggestion would be to make these baseline assumptions for a tier 4 party against a solo monster:

• Initiative: all PCs are invisible, many have Alert - "monster will go first" is not assumed
• Movement: all PCs can fly and all melee have haste - there is no "out of range" and martials attack more often
• Breath weapon: all PCs resist appropriate elemental damage and the ones who will be in range will make their saves (too many bonuses) so take the 126 and make it 31
• Spells: globe of invulnerability makes level 5 or lower useless, maybe higher; Fighters do not fail saves!
• PCs don't miss; advantage can be safely assumed for every attack roll
• PCs can't die; if they go down from HP loss it costs a bonus action to get them up and likely happens before their turn
• Reactions: monsters never have an opportunity to use them (PCs can shut these down or avoid them)
• Conditions: 1 Legendary resistance will be consumed per PC turn (prone on a flying dragon is too dangerous not to save IMO), or 5-6 per PC turn for fighters or monks; monsters will need to resist incapacitated or paralyzed at least once per round; monsters will be prone most of the time unless they blow all their LRs on prone

Interesting list. I am DMing tier 4 now and my PCs are not doing anything close to this! One issue (and also a feature) with 5e is that there can be such a large range of capabilities between groups.

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer, I also want to stress that monsters are designed with the thought that PCs don't need magic items. So, if you are awarding magic items the DM needs to revise a monster for their group. Anyway, I did address some of those issues in my dragon (particularly the mythic version)

• Initiative: the dragon has blindsight (so can "see" invisible) and +14 beats PCs with Alert typically
• Movement: You will notice my dragon as 180 flying speed. So, yes it can probably get out of range
• Breath weapon: Look at the mythic version. Once its mythic trait is active the Fire ignores resistance and nerfs immunity. I originally had this in the non-mythic version but this discussion wasn't really about tier 4 monster design, but legendary vs non-legendary.
• Spells: The dragon's best attacks aren't spells. Also, the mythic version has access to multiple 7th level spells
• PCs do miss in my experience, but I get your point. I upped the AC to 24 with the mythic version, but yes they hit alot!
• Death: Look again at the Fire Breath. 0 = death.
• Reactions: The dragon doesn't necessarily need them, but its Draconic Resilience reaction is meant to active even when reactions are shut down, that was the intent of "even when incapacitated or unconscious," but that may not cover everything. They are hard to avoid as well since the triggers are: a creature ends its turn, the dragon starts its turn, and the dragon takes damage. If you avoid all of those the dragon is probably doing just fine!
• Conditions: The intent is to make monsters with high enough saves they avoid some conditions, and then give them a way to mitigate them. I am not sure LR is the best way to do that, but I am not sure I have the answer either. My attempt was Draconic Resilience that can always be used (don't run out of them like LR), but it has a cost to the dragon. If you have a better idea, let me know!

The good thing is that I think you and Reynard are saying the same thing: the dragon doesn't do enough damage quickly enough to warrant its CR. The difference is that Reynard is saying the dragon will get much fewer actual turns/reactions than LAs, and I agree. That's what makes LAs useful: they will happen. It's not equivalent to say "multiply damage on a turn by X is equal to X LAs" because a turn isn't guaranteed to happen. The dragon isn't even immune to paralyze: you can't tuck "shake off conditions" into reactions because they won't get one. Any incapacitate-inducing condition means the dragon never gets a reaction.

As mentioned the dragon is not stopped by the incapacitated condition. However, there may be a better way to do this than my Draconic Resilience. I also could look at giving it more condition immunities. A lot of high CR monsters have these (and they don't factor in the CR at least per the 2014 guidelines).

I still think the non-legendary dragon is more likely to damage a party than the legendary version, but that may not be the case for specific parties and builds.

My gut reaction to your dragon in the OP is that it will get one breath weapon attack off and maybe one multiattack with disadvantage, or reverse that. It won't get a third turn. If you're playing the dragon smart, the multiattack will NOT be against the 25 AC PC who also resists blud/slash/pier and cannot be crit, but the party will do their best to make that its only option. My gut estimation for the total damage output: 31 damage to 2 or 3 PCs, and ~100 damage to a martial who has like 150 HP and healed themselves during their turn anyway. And that's generously assuming the PCs don't just Hold Monster the thing and slaughter it.

To be fair: the LA version does even worse! It gets more attacks in, but they hit like wet noodles; the spells are worthless (and also fire, lol); its movement gets it eaten alive by AOs. Total damage: 31 damage to 2 or 3 PCs and ~50 to a martial who doesn't even bother healing themselves. But the PCs can't just kill it with one spell.

This is what makes the "hitbox" idea so interesting: nothing gets around this, because it's a new idea.

I will say, I would only use my Mythic version for a tier 4 solo. It resolves even more of the issues you discuss.

 

[dave2008]

Sorry: "hitbox" meaning "mythical trait" / "final boss" / once you kill it, it gets back up with a new set of HP and loses all conditions and recharges its stuff. I don't know if we have a standard word for that idea yet. I think I like "mythical trait" best so far.

Or the "hitbox" idea that Reynard had where each area of the monster has its own HP/condition/etc., and taking down each part makes it weaker.

Did you look at the mythic version (3rd statblock in the OP). I agree the mythic trait is the way to go. It gives a lot more design flexibility.

 

[Reynard]

You are correct.

My point it that I find legendary actions rarely actually change the battlefield. Legendary actions are to weak, IME, to have the impact you suggest. If I have the choice, I prefer 1 impactful off-turn reaction than 3 ineffective legendary actions. Now, these issues can corrected with better design. However, the point is that by design, to maintain CR, each of those LA have to be rather weak.

I will also point to PF2. Monsters in PF2 don't have legendary actions and they make solos threatening by increasing the defense and attack (simply because the monsters are higher level, typical PC level +3-5, no extra actions or reactions). Now, I haven't run PF2, but from everything I have heard, PF2 "solos" work really well. You simply don't need LA to make a monster threaten, no need the right "numbers."

Now, I do like legendary actions and I think they can make a battle more dynamic. I am not suggesting getting rid of legendary actions, only there are other effective ways to make a monster a threat. The big one for me is the correct CR vs PC lvl and # of PCs.

I like distributing big solo's actions over the round. Give them 2 or 3 initiative counts (like Dragonbane does). That usually results in a much more dynamic battle against solo monsters.

 

[evilbob]

Did you look at the mythic version (3rd statblock in the OP). I agree the mythic trait is the way to go. It gives a lot more design flexibility.

Nope, you're right, I missed it! I definitely like that one the best.

Damage is excellent and the mythical renewal is great. I'd suggest making the fire ignoring resistance/reducing immunity the normal state: in the interest of the 5.5 idea of keeping it simple, it's easier to run if the breath weapon isn't split into two. Also in the same vein, I'd leave out fireball, scorching ray, and firestorm. They're not good actions for the dragon to take, and require referencing another source. I don't think they add anything, but I could be missing something.

I still don't like putting Resilience in the reaction section. I assumed not having reactions would negate that section, and missed your exception. It's more like a special action that costs one reaction. Not sure how to show that tho. I guess that's what makes LRs easier to deal with.

Separately: another good thing about LAs is that they break up PC combos. After the solo's first turn, all the PCs go before it gets another turn, and comboing actions are stronger than individual ones. For example, if the dragon is prone at the end of your turn, but gets a free LA to move, then it ruined the prone without having to waste a LR.

Also: one size doesn't fit all, and magic items change things, but I think everything I suggested as baselines are class features (including spells as class features). That said: I think it's far more unrealistic to assume no magic items.

And while you've said you're trying to balance legendary vs. non, not tier 4 monster design, my belief is that they are inexorably intertwined.

 

[evilbob]

For some of your other specific points:

• I agree 180 movement is huge, I missed that too. That stops everyone except hasted monks or rogues or paladins with hasted flying mounts from closing range in one round. Which I guess leaves rangers who don't use bows, and unhasted fighters who don't use bows or have teleport options, and some barbarians. Ok as I type that I out I'm actually not sure that stops many characters lol. But it is huge, and will require resources to be spent (like bonus actions) that will not be available for more damage.
• I didn't pay much mind to fire breath killing things instantly while it did 31 damage - that was a wasted feature at that point - but ignoring fire resist makes that much more deadly, I agree. Also stops revivify, which is another reason high-level PCs can't die.

(Fun story: I had assassins attack my group and it still took multiple creatures focusing all their attacks to actually kill a downed PC, thanks to all their tricks. And they still revived before the end of the battle.)