Legendary Actions were a bad idea in 5e. They're a bad idea now.

[claiminglight]

They were one of my major reasons for staying away from 5e as a tabletop game, and they remain so now.

The conceit of D&D is that, even if you have magic and monster with wonderous and terrible abilities, they're bound by the same rules of internal logic and physics. If an enemy wizard can cast a spell, you can learn that spell. If an enemy who can't fly falls, they take X amount of damage when they land. And so on.

Legendary actions are a straight up violation of the central logic of the game- that being "We're all moving at the same time, the turns are just there to keep track of it all". But if my fighter hits the Boss on his turn, then the Boss uses a legendary action and teleports next to my paladin, and my paladin his the boss on his turn, then the Boss was literally in two places at the same time.

While we're at it, if a creature can take turns out of order when they feel like it, why not just change other parts of the central ruleset the players and the game agreed to? Why not have monsters sometimes not have hit points as a concept, or sometimes have no ability scores at all, or have 9 of them with names chosen at random from a dictionary?

Ugh. I hate legendary actions. I'm convinced somebody thought they were a "rule of cool" idea, they pooped it out in a design meeting and nobody thought too hard about since.

[Kasa]

Originally posted by claiminglight:

Originally posted by claiminglight:

@Kasa: Yo, that makes three people now! From this year even!

But seriously, it has little to do with immersion. That's only a fleeting symptom of the problem, if it comes up at all. What I'm trying to point out is the difference between this particular DM Tool and, say, the Tool that enables them to insert an NPC.

One of them is working within the confines of the game. The other one is changing the boundries of the magic circle that contains the game.

Seriously, you should read that article on the magic circle. Huizinga wrote the book on it, and he's still mandatory reading for game designers.

It's in that quote. If you've got a degree in the subject, I suppose I can be more technical and say that, in a sense, there's a ludonarrative dissonance problem when you incorporate game mechanics that undermine the suspension of disbelief that players afford to the mechanics necessary to make the game function. But more than dissonance, it's also what I'd called a Blernsball problem ( https://theinfosphere.org/Blernsball), where things can happen for any or no reason, to anything, at any time. But primarily, it's a problem where the structure of the game is being made into a mechanic. It's no different than if the Solasta exe suddenly became a riddle to allow you to restart the program.

OK, That's fair and I can get that. But as it stands now it is a build in game mechanic to be used by the DM.

If we REALLY want to lay the wire bare and explain the reason why there is no in game canonical way to become legendary (so far) is because as soon as the is a mechanic to do it players are going to do it and then we are back to square 1 with the players mashing the boss to paste because they have superior action economy.

There happy?

ps. I hate myself that your current explanation made more sense to me then your other examples.
pps. And from that explanation I believe you when you say your a designer, ether that or just generally well read enough.

[claiminglight]

@Kasa Yeah, I think we can leave it there if we're both speaking the same language. :)

You're right, naturally, that players would want to get those things. Whether that's an issue or not is up for a different debate, naturally.

In any event, I appreciate the exchange. The time flew by. :D

[Kasa]

Same, but I still like my turtles example, even if I might have accidentally annoyed BHEscaper.

XD

[BHEscaper]

Originally posted by Kasa:

Originally posted by BHEscaper:

We need a proper projection form game rule to the in-game lore. A skilled fighter can perform more attack but wizard can't. A powerful wizard capable of time manipulation may have legendary action, but a slow dex 8 dwarf fighter can never have.

There is, because the DM made it a legendary dragon.
Why is it legendary? Because it's stronger then the rest of it's kin.
Why is it stonger? Because the DM made it a legendary dragon.
Why is it legendary? Because it's stronger then the rest of it's kin.
Why is it stonger? Because the DM made it a legendary dragon.

*taps skull*
"Turtles"

Then make this dragon a chosen one of some god with time manipulation ability. And all the chosen one from this god have extra action. What I mean is project those ability onto some aspect inside the game world (race/level/class/feats) and make a general rule (for specific campaign at least).

[Kasa]

@BHEscaper
Actually this is exactly what adventure modules featuring legendary creatures do.

Normally legendary creatures are the final boss or at the very least the Dragon [tvtropes.org] to the final boss of the adventure. Really that's only a bit of a narrative fail on TA's part but it's their first game, can we let is slide?

[Digihuman]

Legendary Actions exist to balance the action economy. Even if it's a really powerful entity, a dragon on its own is easily felled by a large enough party. I've seen the action economy at work myself as a DM (8 players of level 3 can easily kill a single mind flayer in 2 rounds).

The name is a misnomer as they needn't be legendary monsters to have them. It's merely that most legendary monsters have them because they are boss monsters normally encountered alone or with minimal allies.

[zero]

Originally posted by BHEscaper:

Originally posted by Kasa:

There is, because the DM made it a legendary dragon.
Why is it legendary? Because it's stronger then the rest of it's kin.
Why is it stonger? Because the DM made it a legendary dragon.
Why is it legendary? Because it's stronger then the rest of it's kin.
Why is it stonger? Because the DM made it a legendary dragon.

*taps skull*
"Turtles"

Then make this dragon a chosen one of some god with time manipulation ability. And all the chosen one from this god have extra action. What I mean is project those ability onto some aspect inside the game world (race/level/class/feats) and make a general rule (for specific campaign at least).

they do, they're called legendary actions, IE like how the vampires made a blinding fog to block out light, or extra attacks.

[Nokturnal]

I don't mind Legendary actions/resistances, but I prefer the players having the knowledge of knowing how many they can make and how many they have left. Whether they return at the end of a round or if they're gone forever, etc. (They don't need to know what the actions can do, but knowing how many the boss has is a must)

Otherwise it just feels like the DM is like a little kid cheating during an imaginary game. "No you missed me with your imaginary lazer gun, I blow you up now, you're dead!"

[Digihuman]

Originally posted by Nokturnal:

I don't mind Legendary actions/resistances, but I prefer the players having the knowledge of knowing how many they can make and how many they have left. Whether they return at the end of a round or if they're gone forever, etc. (They don't need to know what the actions can do, but knowing how many the boss has is a must)

Otherwise it just feels like the DM is like a little kid cheating during an imaginary game. "No you missed me with your imaginary lazer gun, I blow you up now, you're dead!"

I mean, within all official material, there's only ever 3 maximum legendary actions on a creature. On some homebrews I've seen 1 or 2, or even 5 in the case of mythic-tier monsters only players of level 20+ can fight. But overall, in 5e if a creature has legendary actions you should assume it has 3.

Of course, some abilities (particularly attacking or spellcasting) usually cost multiple actions at once.

[volourn]

I agree. Instead of 'legendary actions', they can just have the powerful enemies have 3 extra actions each time their turn comes up. Seems fair to me, and that's often what earlier editions. Plenty of powerful enemies would get a 'bonus action' each round. At least with legendary actions it is more 'honest'. Legendary enemies with legendary actiosn makes sense. Now, if you want to argue an enemy meant for L5/L6 characters shouldn't have legendary actions, we can have a debate for that.

[Salt Refiner]

So what I take away from this is "I'm butt hurt the game is hard. If only they had a difficulty setting...oh wait..."

[Majber]

I love legendary actions. Thats great design for bosses.

[Applefritter]

Originally posted by claiminglight:

They were one of my major reasons for staying away from 5e as a tabletop game, and they remain so now.

The conceit of D&D is that, even if you have magic and monster with wonderous and terrible abilities, they're bound by the same rules of internal logic and physics. If an enemy wizard can cast a spell, you can learn that spell. If an enemy who can't fly falls, they take X amount of damage when they land. And so on.

Legendary actions are a straight up violation of the central logic of the game- that being "We're all moving at the same time, the turns are just there to keep track of it all". But if my fighter hits the Boss on his turn, then the Boss uses a legendary action and teleports next to my paladin, and my paladin his the boss on his turn, then the Boss was literally in two places at the same time.

While we're at it, if a creature can take turns out of order when they feel like it, why not just change other parts of the central ruleset the players and the game agreed to? Why not have monsters sometimes not have hit points as a concept, or sometimes have no ability scores at all, or have 9 of them with names chosen at random from a dictionary?

Ugh. I hate legendary actions. I'm convinced somebody thought they were a "rule of cool" idea, they pooped it out in a design meeting and nobody thought too hard about since.

I concur with the general sentiment, and the general knock-on effect of balance-before-consistency when it comes to the rules of the world in 5E. Though I think there can be room for Legendary Actions if presented and employed reasonably. Admittedly, I am a build-maniac and RAW rules-layer wishing for a set of consistent fundemental rules to govern the gameworld that one can plop characters in and have them run around in a simulated world.

My general impression of that design philosophy through the lens of 3.5E vs 5E is this:

3.5E was primarily concerned with crafting rules to simulate a world for the DM and players to create an emergent (albeit guided) narrative in.

5E was primarily concerned with the DM and players crafting a narrative for which the rules of the world exist to support - logical consistency of the funementals taking a backseat to the story being told.

I suspect this is part of the reason 5E feels more bland than 3.5: the focus on "balance" to facilitate "good story telling" to the detriment of consistency in world logic. The onus on the DM and players to create an interesting world and story is greater in 5E which can be great if you have a table talented in that respect.

However, the cost is immersiveness and the even greater straining of suspension of disbelief in a world already filled with magic and fantasy creatures. (It can also lead to players not knowing what they are actually able to do since whether some idea will work or not is more on the DM's discretion and mood regardless of its plausability or whether or not it worked on prior attempts.)

You can probably tell my preference is 3.5. Though i do understand, 5E is inarguably easier on DMs and more accessible to a larger fraction of the population of tabletop players.

Controversial TLDR:
5E is the shounen battle anime of DnD; flashy but shallow and the characters pull off a lot of ♥♥♥♥ they really shouldn't be able to do because "f*ck physics".

[claiminglight]

Originally posted by Applefritter:

They were one of my major reasons for staying away from 5e as a tabletop game, and they remain so now.

I suspect this is part of the reason 5E feels more bland than 3.5: the focus on "balance" to facilitate "good story telling" to the detriment of consistency in world logic. The onus on the DM and players to create an interesting world and story is greater in 5E which can be great if you have a table talented in that respect.

The proficiency system strikes me as a good example of the design philosophy for 5E: simplicity at the cost of personality, nuance and individuality. 5E is turn-based Diablo. Which is fine- there's room in the world for video game style TTRPGs. But it's also disappointing- because 3E isn't a perfect system and it could have used some clean up (and Pathfinder wasn't the solution, I don't feel).

Still, seeing as how Solasta is a video game, I was excited to dive into it. 5E is a great system to use for this medium. Except for legendary actions. Those are abominations. :D

[Severian]

Originally posted by volourn:

I agree. Instead of 'legendary actions', they can just have the powerful enemies have 3 extra actions each time their turn comes up. Seems fair to me, and that's often what earlier editions. Plenty of powerful enemies would get a 'bonus action' each round. At least with legendary actions it is more 'honest'. Legendary enemies with legendary actiosn makes sense. Now, if you want to argue an enemy meant for L5/L6 characters shouldn't have legendary actions, we can have a debate for that.

The problem with just having three more actions per turn, instead of legendary actions, lair actions and legendary resistance is that a well-equipped party of level 5 and up that has time to prebuff will murder-death-kill any monster of even remotely appropriate CR in just a couple of short, bloody rounds.
Make that one round, if you have a fighter and a gloom stalker ranger in your party.
- Edit: Which illustrates that it is indeed an issue of action economy, above all else!

The moment you get access to spells like banishment or even just hold monster, legendary resistance is really the only thing keeping the fight that ought to be the crowning moment of a campaign that took you weeks or even months to work up to from becoming a disappointing farce.

I think 5e needs legendary actions, etc. - maybe because it is a bounded system, compared to 3.5 or pathfinder, where stats and bonuses go into the 60s - but I wish WotC had been more creative with the name, because it invites the same lazy approach that we know from every single arpg around these days, where they just slap a golden star icon on the nameplate and go "that's why".

Aksha, at any rate, had not earned the legendary tag, and I was really taken aback when I saw her legendary actions. It didn't keep my hasted Level 5 Paladin from smiting the unliving crap out of her, obviously, but still - the character needed WAY more build-up and lore to justify her legendary status.
Disappointingly, the devs did exactly what I wrote above - they took the invitation to take the lazy route to making an encounter more challenging.