How to not Legendary?

[Ebon Rogue]

So, I am making this thread to discuss alternatives and balance in the design of creatures that would normally have the Legendary feature to denote their "Boss" status. Things like multi-attack, minions, special actions, terrain,inflated CR, thematic overpowered stats, ect are all options.


My issue with the legendary system is that it does away with 5E's balanced action economy. I've been part of an encounter with a Legendary. We won the fight, but it was a bit silly that the boss had 6 attacks per round. I felt there should of been a better way to balance the encounter than just "He just attacks a lot more, because he has to fight alone!"

It seems to be a theme in 5E that this evil wizard has 500+HP and casts 5 spells per turn. In my eyes, if that wizard is dumb enough to let the players fight it on even ground, he should die hard.


So, how would you guy design a BBEG encounter without copping out with Legendary?

[NorthernPhoenix]

I just completely disagree with your premise. The Legendary/Lair monster system is the most elegant and effective way of running solo boss monsters i have seen in any version of DnD. Along with slightly adjusted stats, it completely solves the action-economy problem and let's you run a balanced encounter that still evokes the classic fantasy end fights we all know and love. I honestly can't think of a better system that still stays true to the basics of DND 5e

[Ebon Rogue]

I just completely disagree with your premise. The Legendary/Lair monster system is the most elegant and effective way of running solo boss monsters i have seen in any version of DnD. Along with slightly adjusted stats, it completely solves the action-economy problem and let's you run a balanced encounter that still evokes the classic fantasy end fights we all know and love. I honestly can't think of a better system that still stays true to the basics of DND 5e

I guess I'm just a realist in my themes when I try to imagine fights. I find it hard to suspend my disbelief when this (hypothetical) wizard is casting spells like crack addict with Haste and Time Stop going.

I can see it's appeal in certain scenarios with multi-limbed monstrosities or big dragons, but for most creatures I feel there should be a better solution in these 6-second moments of combat that don't involve an unattainable level of power just to balance the fight.

[JellyPooga]

I guess I'm just a realist in my themes when I try to imagine fights. I find it hard to suspend my disbelief when this (hypothetical) wizard is casting spells like crack addict with Haste and Time Stop going.

I can see it's appeal in certain scenarios with multi-limbed monstrosities or big dragons, but for most creatures I feel there should be a better solution in these 6-second moments of combat that don't involve an unattainable level of power just to balance the fight.

Ever play Baldurs Gate? Remember that first cut-scene battle where Gorion fires off a bajillion magic missiles at Sarevok? Yeah. That's sort of what I'm thinking when I think of legendary spellslingers.

[PanosIs]

Ever play Baldurs Gate? Remember that first cut-scene battle where Gorion fires off a bajillion magic missiles at Sarevok? Yeah. That's sort of what I'm thinking when I think of legendary spellslingers.

The thing is that for some of us, it makes senses that NPCs use the same progression as PCs, what makes a legendary spellcaster so much better than a PC spellcaster? Like the difference is not even close.

[mephnick]

So, how would you guy design a BBEG encounter without copping out with Legendary?

Minions. But then it's just a regular encounter so I'm not sure what you want because that's pretty obvious.

There's virtually no way to balance a solo BBEG encounter without some gamist element like 5e's Legendary Actions or Angry's Paragon system (which also includes extra actions).

[Ebon Rogue]

Ever play Baldurs Gate? Remember that first cut-scene battle where Gorion fires off a bajillion magic missiles at Sarevok? Yeah. That's sort of what I'm thinking when I think of legendary spellslingers.

Had to look up some youtube videos for that one. haven't played bg1 since its gog rerelease. I do see how it seems like legendary actions. I can also see how its seems like sarevok just strolls over to garion casually.

A PC can drop 11 missiles in a turn if they wanted. 21 with metamagic, even. This is some of the stuff, I am trying to discuss. How to give legendary-like utility to a creature without giving them a free action on everyone's turn.

I understand that some(or most) do not agree on my views on the Legendary system, and that's cool(play however you want. Have fun, its a big game), but just disagreeing on my point of view is not the purpose of this thread.

It is to discuss possible alternative within the game for myself and other people may take advantage of.

[mephnick]

what makes a legendary spellcaster so much better than a PC spellcaster?

Think of literally anything. Powered up by a god, found a crazy item that makes him super fast, he's from a forgotten race of super powerful mages, he used magical ores in his blood as physical and magical enhancements.

It's fine for NPCs to have access to powers that PCs don't if the story fits and is consistent. You can tell the group "sure, you can have legendary actions if you get powered up by a dark god for his re-emergence, but obviously that won't happen. It's a game mechanic to make the game fun."

[JellyPooga]

The thing is that for some of us, it makes senses that NPCs use the same progression as PCs, what makes a legendary spellcaster so much better than a PC spellcaster? Like the difference is not even close.

Well...they're legendary. NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs. The High Priest *could* be an 11th level Cleric and use the PC rules, but he could equally use the rules for a Noble with boosted Saves, an Epic Boon or two and the Spellcasting feature, or a completely homebrewed set of stats. Only PCs follow the PC rules; NPCs are what the PCs fight and interact with and they're not beholden to the same rules.

If the GM wants PCs to have access to the same abilities as NPCs, s/he's well equipped to do so, either through use of homebrew material or the many options available in the DMG. At the end of the day though, NPCs can and will have abilities the PCs can/will not.

[NorthernPhoenix]

The thing is that for some of us, it makes senses that NPCs use the same progression as PCs, what makes a legendary spellcaster so much better than a PC spellcaster? Like the difference is not even close.

I'm sorry to tell you then but DnD 5e is built on a fundamentally different premise than that. You can crowbar it in but then you need to accept it won't be a balanced encounter.

If you want a narratavist rationalisation, try to remember that the player classes represent just 10/20/30 out of hundreds or thousands of possible paths to power in the world. Your badguy might be a "Shou-Wa Orrocator" rather than a "Evocation Wizard" and the players can't play as one for the same reason they can't play any other class WotC has yet to release/invent/print.

But there is literally no way to make a one Vs many encounter that is both balanced and not rocket-tag if the action economy is fundamentally lopsided.

[DragonBaneDM]

So one experiment I had great success with (once I explained it to my players) was the Paragon Monster (http://theangrygm.com/return-of-the-son-of-the-dd-boss-fight-now-in-5e/).

It was really fun mixing and matching two unique monsters to fuse together into a different and challenging boss fight. Usually I would start with an idea in mind for a boss fight and find monsters that fit the bill from there, sometimes I would just take two things I thought were cool, mash them together, and make a new monster from it. Notable examples include:

A pair of villainous deep sea hunters (Merrow/Ogre)
A Darakhul spellblade (Darakhul ghoul/witch from Strahd's Ravenloft)
A kraken hatchling (Giant octopus/giant crab)
A child-massacring warforged (Knight/Half Ogre/Ogre)

My Paragon Monsters were sometimes meant to be a powerful challenge to shake up the usual combat formula, sometimes villains masterminding the whole things, and sometimes just rampaging monsters. It's essentially the same as putting two monsters into the same body, resulting in two turns instead of 11, a bit more hardiness, and a "stage progression" that makes players feel like they've accomplished something.

[Ebon Rogue]

Minions. But then it's just a regular encounter so I'm not sure what you want because that's pretty obvious.
Yes, minion would do the trick. It should should be feel like something between a regular encounter and a solo boss fight.
I tried out a Minotaur grappler as a gang leader in an encounter. Without using legendary actions and a some custom actions, he was able to grapple, shove, and charge players. It was a low damage, high HP creature with great control over the fight. He let these 1/2CR minions be useful in the fight. Made for a decent mini-boss that forced PCs to play around his strengths.


There's virtually no way to balance a solo BBEG encounter without some gamist element like 5e's Legendary Actions or Angry's Paragon system (which also includes extra actions).
Well it depends on the party, really. I had ideas over a Hallowed Darkness area with a devil sight warlock that would eldritch blast and sword fight players in the dark. There's also the ever classic wizards tower(minions included) with a spellsniper at the top. A expert(ise) assassin group hunting a bounty.

[Cybren]

The thing is that for some of us, it makes senses that NPCs use the same progression as PCs, what makes a legendary spellcaster so much better than a PC spellcaster? Like the difference is not even close.

While I understand there's people who disagree, I honestly think it's an incredible mistake to build or think of NPCs directly as PC classes

[Inglorin]

My issue with the legendary system is that it does away with 5E's balanced action economy. I've been part of an encounter with 4 PCs, 4 friendly NPCs, and a Legendary. We won the fight, but it was a bit silly that the boss had 11 attacks per round.

Just to be clear here. The Legendary Creature gets a maximum to his number of legendary actions. Normally three. So it has the OPTION to get an action in between all these looters in his lair, but he may only take this option a maximum of three times.

[Ebon Rogue]

Just to be clear here. The Legendary Creature gets a maximum to his number of legendary actions. Normally three. So it has the OPTION to get an action in between all these looters in his lair, but he may only take this option a maximum of three times.
Yes, my bad. We were pretty controlling in the fight, so we didn't let it happen to often, it was an Aboleth in that instance, which was awful. Its not as bad with a 3 action limit, but there still should be some other options to pick from to make a boss more engaging, especially thematically. Possibly forcing the PCs to fight it on/under the water.

Anywho, I'll edit the first post.

[Spore]

So, how would you guy design a BBEG encounter without copping out with Legendary?

AoE attacks and complete control of the battlefield and/or minions? I don't believe you've DMed until you pulled some minions out of your behind because it would've made sense to have them there and the backline heroes are frankly just not challenged at all.

Use traps because having them guard an abandoned room as the only defense mechanism is frankly stupid.
Use MANY minions because throwing them in squads of 4 against the heroes is just wasted ressources.
Use the battlefield because there is a reason the heroes encounter villain xyz in his lair and not on a sunny hill during his picnic. His alchemical lab explodes on command. His throne is surrounded by an infinite chasm. The bridge over the lava sea is detachable.


Ever play Baldurs Gate? Remember that first cut-scene battle where Gorion fires off a bajillion magic missiles at Sarevok? Yeah. That's sort of what I'm thinking when I think of legendary spellslingers.

This always brings two problems. If the spellcaster is friendly, why doesn't he deal with the world ending threats? If the spellcaster is an enemy why doesn't he just END your pitiful group right at the start?

[NorthernPhoenix]

Yes, my bad. We were pretty controlling in the fight, so we didn't let it happen to often, it was an Aboleth in that instance, which was awful. Its not as bad with a 3 action limit, but there still should be some other options to pick from to make a boss more engaging, especially thematically. Possibly forcing the PCs to fight it on/under the water.

Anywho, I'll edit the first post.

If you don't have the limit of it being a solo boss, there's loads of exciting things you can do without legendary actions. Even beyond boss+minion brawls, you can have underlings pulling levers, rolling boulders or similar to harass the party with traps or machines for example.

[PanosIs]

I'm sorry to tell you then but DnD 5e is built on a fundamentally different premise than that. You can crowbar it in but then you need to accept it won't be a balanced encounter.

If you want a narratavist rationalisation, try to remember that the player classes represent just 10/20/30 out of hundreds or thousands of possible paths to power in the world. Your badguy might be a "Shou-Wa Orrocator" rather than a "Evocation Wizard" and the players can't play as one for the same reason they can't play any other class WotC has yet to release/invent/print.

But there is literally no way to make a one Vs many encounter that is both balanced and not rocket-tag if the action economy is fundamentally lopsided.

But no creature that is designed with the same rationale as a player character will ever be able to take four times the number of actions. See below.


While I understand there's people who disagree, I honestly think it's an incredible mistake to build or think of NPCs directly as PC classes

I'm not necessarily talking about building NPCs directly as PHB classes, but I don't get how legendary actions are justified for an opposing adventurer/whatever (no, not a dragon or a 15-legged gargantuan monstrosity) who followed the same path to acquire his abilities as the PCs. Yes, I like the result of legendary actions and the dynamic they generate in a fight, what I dislike is the premise of it all.

I want my world to be consistent with itself, and barring epic levels, I can't seem to find a way to make legendary actions make sense. What if the PCs manage to get a "legendary" spellcaster as their ally? The game breaks down. What if the PC fighter wants to challenge a "legendary" fighter to a one on one? The game breaks down. Legendary actions are a band-aid solution to the problem of lopsided action economy, and yes, when you run the game as it is supposed to be ran then they work out like a charm, but I don't want my game to be constrained by this structure.

[Laurefindel]

What if the PCs manage to get a "legendary" spellcaster as their ally? The game breaks down. What if the PC fighter wants to challenge a "legendary" fighter to a one on one? The game breaks down. Legendary actions are a band-aid solution to the problem of lopsided action economy, and yes, when you run the game as it is supposed to be ran then they work out like a charm, but I don't want my game to be constrained by this structure.

Any sufficiently powerful ally will break down the balance of power. 'Legendary' and 'lair actions' is just another gauge of power. Add a (non-legendary) 20th high-level spellcaster built with PC rules as an ally to any PC group and it will offset the balance of power for sure.

As for your second example, the PC won't be facing a legendary fighter (at least not as in the PC class called "fighter"), he/she will be facing a legendary monster or NPC, built with monster/NPC rules, which are much more restrictive than PC rules in terms of options. If there is only one PC facing it in a one on one combat, then the legendary creature will have only one legendary action. Is this much worse than facing a 20th level fighter with 16 attacks in the first two rounds?

[RickAllison]

It would be best to remember that Legendary Actions don't all cost 1 LA either. A Lich, for example, has literally devoted their lives and corrupted both body and soul to attain amazing magical power. Technically it can cast four spells a round, but only one of those is a leveled spell while all others must be cantrips. The Androsphinx, a creature beyond normal spellcasters, can cast a second full spell in a round but at the cost of all three Legendary actions. They won't be dropping five Fireballs on the party, though the Lich can do some nasty work with three Rays of Frost. The sphinx trades that extra spell for being able to teleport to an advantageous position and attacking. A spellcaster with Legendary Actions can do some awesome things, but they are not able to simply spam all their spell slots in a round.

[PanosIs]

Any sufficiently powerful ally will break down the balance of power. 'Legendary' and 'lair actions' is just another gauge of power. Add a 20th level spellcaster ally to any PC group and it will offset the balance of power.

As for your second example, the PC won't be facing a legendary fighter (at least not as in the PC class called "fighter"), he/she will be facing a legendary monster or NPC, built with monster/NPC rules. If there is only one PC facing it in one on one, the the legendary creature will have only one legendary action. Is this much worse than facing a 20th level fighter with 16 attacks in the first two rounds?

The thing is
a) Add a 20th level character to a 20th level group and you have a group with 25% more power, add a 10th level character with legendary actions to a 20th level group and the action economy breaks down
b) Yes he/she will be facing a legendary npc built with monster/npc rules, an npc that somehow is more powerful when its facing more foes?!? and has (almost) double the actions. Yes on high CR/Levels it kinda balances out, especially when the legendary actions are *make an attack* but when said actions are *cast a spell* it can very easily get out of hand.

In any case, in the end, I stand by the opinion that legendary actions are a nice and working mechanic, that I don't find consistent with the rest of the system. That's my problem with it, not the actual way it plays out, legendary creatures do work quite well as bosses.

[Laurefindel]

The thing is
a) Add a 20th level character to a 20th level group and you have a group with 25% more power, add a 10th level character with legendary actions to a 20th level group and the action economy breaks down
b) Yes he/she will be facing a legendary npc built with monster/npc rules, an npc that somehow is more powerful when its facing more foes?!? and has (almost) double the actions. Yes on high CR/Levels it kinda balances out, especially when the legendary actions are *make an attack* but when said actions are *cast a spell* it can very easily get out of hand.

In any case, in the end, I stand by the opinion that legendary actions are a nice and working mechanic, that I don't find consistent with the rest of the system. That's my problem with it, not the actual way it plays out, legendary creatures do work quite well as bosses.

My point was that between Action Surge, Cunning Action, Revised Ranger Animal Companion, Haste spell, Twin spell metamagic, Ki points etc, PCs have many ways of breaking action economy that are (mostly) unique to PCs. Monsters/NPCs have theirs: legendary action. The system is asymmetric but not unfair. Yes, a creature with (lets say) 3 attacks per round and a potential of 3 more attacks from LA have 6 attacks per round, which is the same as a 11th level fighter with action surge (or a 5th level TWF fighter with Action surge).

Can it break suspension of disbelief? I accept that for some it does, but as a game construct, it doesn't make 'less sense' than many other PC abilities.

[PanosIs]

My point was that between Action Surge, Cunning Action, Revised Ranger Animal Companion, Haste spell, Twin spell metamagic, Ki points etc, PCs have many ways of breaking action economy that are (mostly) unique to PCs. Monsters/NPCs have theirs: legendary action. The system is asymmetric but not unfair. Yes, a creature with (lets say) 3 attacks per round and a potential of 3 more attacks from LA have 6 attacks per round, which is the same as a 11th level fighter with action surge (or a 5th level TWF fighter with Action surge).

Can it break suspension of disbelief? I accept that for some it does, but as a game construct, it doesn't make 'less sense' than many other PC abilities.

Most of these don't break action economy though, they just allow you to do more with it. Action Surge, Haste and Animal Companion are the only ones to actually grant you extra actions, the rest just allow you to use your actions more efficiently, remember, monsters have bonus actions as well and can use them to make offhand attacks/cast bonus action spells just as well as PCs can.

You do have a point in that the player characters are better at abusing the action economy than npcs though, and legendary actions are indeed not unfair when used in the correct environment (read: monster vs party) I just don't like them when it comes to a more general view of the world. And they do make less sense, because when you've met monsters that do Cunning Action and Haste and Metamagic you are put under the impression that npcs have similar capabilities with pcs, it's not as much breaking suspension of disbelief as it is breaking the consistency of the system.

In any case, we mostly agree, legendary actions are a tool with certaina dvantages and disadvantages, I just tend to care more about said disadvantages :P
-off to the session

[Beelzebubba]

I guess I'm just a realist in my themes when I try to imagine fights. I find it hard to suspend my disbelief when this (hypothetical) wizard is casting spells like crack addict with Haste and Time Stop going.

I can see it's appeal in certain scenarios with multi-limbed monstrosities or big dragons, but for most creatures I feel there should be a better solution in these 6-second moments of combat that don't involve an unattainable level of power just to balance the fight.

In 99.9% of all 'realistic' cases involving 4-6 against 1, the 1 loses almost instantly.

The only way to make that fight a challenge is to give the BBEG unattainable power. :smallsmile:

If you want realism, there are plenty of grognardy games made in the 80's that will work perfectly fine, and in every single one of them any monster that is capable of standing up to 6 players either a) kills a player each round or b) has a vastly different combat system that doesn't have nearly the breadth of conditions, nerfs, battlefield control, or save-or-suck spells.

I've played them. I've come to the conclusion that realism in games sucks.

[Lombra]

Either you give MUCH more HPs to the BBEG or you fake everything and decide when to end the fight at the proper moment. I don't see why you don't like legendary actions, maybe you can't abstract them enough to see them fit during the fight, I do, but it's hard to explain, it just makes sense that a Tarrasque can stop you with his tail if you try to recklessly hug it, and that you have to choose the appropriate time to attack safely. It makes the fight feel more dynamic and action-like (kind of like switching from a fire-emblem type of fight to a more souls-like fight).

[MrStabby]

So the legendary actions are different and seem to break your world. This is fair enough a comment and very probably true. At some point you have to decide between inconsistencies and lack of fun. Legendary actions are firmly on the side that fun is more important.

It isn't hard to balance encounters without legendary actions... More damage, hp, magic items, higher save DC and so on. The problem is that a lot of these are not fun. How much extra damage per attack does an enemy need to do to be fair? Generally enough to end a PC's life in one round. So one player is probably sitting out of a climactic fight having no fun. On the other hand spreading these attacks through the initiative order let's each side respond to what the other is doing - one PC takes a beating and they can dissengage before eating a load of legendary actions or another player can help them out. Likewise the players do not get to have all their turns together without their enemy reacting.

You can add minions, which are fun and a reasonable response but this means you are no longer having a solo fight. You don't balance solo monsters by stopping them being solo monsters... That doesn't help you.

Legendary actions work pretty well from a fun perspective but of you want to swap fun for consistency then feel free to try it.

[Slipperychicken]

I agree that legendary actions and saves are the best solution I've seen so far. I'd be open to an idea that offers more consistency with non-boss enemies, but I haven't heard of a good one yet.

I did run into a weird issue where I convinced a boss enemy to be an ally to us. I think our GM didn't know how to deal with such a powerful friend, so he just had her be totally useless and refused to help afterward.

It's a matter of what happens when a boss enemy leaves the context of a boss-fight and how its powers interact with the world.

[RedMage125]

OP,
I find that I, too, disagree with your basic premise. And part of the disconnect here seems, from my perception at least, that you are only looking at this from a PLAYER pov, and not that of a DM.

First off, in 3.P and prior, a solo fight was just never as awesome and majestic as it sounded. When it comes down to it, the "action economy" that you are so desperate to preserve is exactly what made those encounters trivial. I've run a group of level 14-15 characters against a CR20 Red Dragon, and they stomped it a new mudhole simply because they EACH got a turn for every ONE of the dragon's. 4e answered this with Solo monsters, and 5e with Legendary.

When thinking in terms of game design, it's less productive to attempt pure simulationism than it is to just look for what makes it a game. In 2e, for example, there were optional rules that made certain armor types better or worse against certain weapon attacks. Chainmail, for example, was 2 points of AC worse against bludgeoning attacks. Which totally makes sense. But those rules are clunky and tedious. Far better to have armor set AC (or give bonuses to it), and that just be a static number that one uses to simulate how overall hard it is to hurt someone wearing it. At some point, simulationism needs to give way to the realization that D&D is a game, and not an attempt to simulate realistic experiences.

That brings us back to Legendary Actions. While it may seem "unfair" or "breaking simulation" for you for a single creature to have multiple actions within a round, it makes for a more cinematic and exciting encounter than "this creature takes its turn, probably only targeting one character, and then each member of the party takes a turn whaling on it". Lair Actions are also fun and exciting, because it lends to the idea that the creature's environment is a part of its defenses.

Legendary Actions are not a "cop out", they're an intentional game mechanic specifically implemented to allow for exciting battles with individual creatures. The keyword here is "exciting". In order to be exciting, it should be a challenge, and the action economy of a 1v4 or 1v5 fight is grossly disproportionate in favor of the larger group. Things that are too easy are not challenging.

In regards to your aboleth encounter, was it fun? Was your party challenged? Did that ONE monster present an equivalent challenge to you and your party that you felt a sense of actual accomplishment in your victory? If the answers to those questions are yes, then it means the legendary action system is doing its job. Nothing needs to be changed.

EDIT: In regards to the idea of "legendary spellcaster joining PCs as an ally", it's a simple matter of removing Legendary Actions from said NPC. Legendary actions are meant to make a creature a challenging fight for PCs, not as some kind of OP game mechanic intrinsic to that creature type. A creature's "Legendary" status is a metagame concept. One that should only apply to enemies. Much like how "Minions" in 4e only had 1hp. That was not to say that a creature was so frail that it would die if anything touched it, but rather that its importance was so minimal that-cinematically-one strike would fell it.

[KorvinStarmast]

It seems to be a theme in 5E that this evil wizard has 500+HP and casts 5 spells per turn. What evil wizard has 500 HP?
Hmm, I consult the monsters in the book, and I arrive at Arch Mage. (Evil, if you like).
Hit Points 99 (18d8 + 18)
Spells up to 9th level.
(SRD pages 396-396, similar stats in the MM).

An Ancient Golden or Red Dragon with spell casting (optional but used) with lair and legendary actions? It's supposed to be hard.

[mephnick]

Even with legendary actions, creatures still rarely have the HP required to stand against 4-5 PCs, so maybe the DM pumped it up. It's another reason I prefer the Paragon system. I find I still need to add minions to some Legendary encounters.

[Maxilian]

I guess I'm just a realist in my themes when I try to imagine fights. I find it hard to suspend my disbelief when this (hypothetical) wizard is casting spells like crack addict with Haste and Time Stop going.

I can see it's appeal in certain scenarios with multi-limbed monstrosities or big dragons, but for most creatures I feel there should be a better solution in these 6-second moments of combat that don't involve an unattainable level of power just to balance the fight.

Well... i think you should talk this with your DM, not to change the actual mechanics but how they are presented, for example: A Wizard could activate glyphs in his turn to cast extra spells (That is possible my RAW it just need a lot of preparation and an X place, if you are fighting in the Wizard tower it makes sense for them to have something like this).

Sometimes Mobs will have things that PC will never get (like the Lizardfolk shield that work as a weapon -Not Improvised-)

[Spore]

What evil wizard has 500 HP?


Strahd has 144 HP and regenerates 20 HP per turn if not hit by radiant damage. He is more of a Vampire than a Wizard but he casts as a 9th level mage. He is CR 15 so if we were to extrapolate CR 20 wizard we could at least end up at 200+ HP plus various magical defenses. Baba Lysaga is another high level spellcaster with 120 HP (and a more pitiful CR 11).

[Sabeta]

Snip

Came here to post Paragon, so instead I'll just shorten what Angry GM wrote. He's a man not good at being concise.

A Paragon monsters is a monster which, in all ways except spatial, is more than one monster.

Let's make a Paragon Orc. Cool, grab three orcs. You're basically done already. Now, make these three orcs share one square. When one orc moves, so do all of them. Each one is treated both as a seperate monster, and as the same monster at the same time. (ie: a CC effect on "one" orc hurts all three, but only one health bar is attacked at a time)

The Paragon Orc therefore
-Has three healthbars
-Takes three turns of initiative
-May use an Action, a possible bonus action, and a reaction on each turn of initiative.
-His xp is calculated as if he's three orcs, instead of one super orc.

I've done a number of things with the Paragon System to further refine it. Such as: Giving a creature a large health pool, and then giving limbs their own HP stat. Hits to the limbs count against the total HP of the monster, but if the limb hits 0 it "breaks" and weakens the monster. I also like smashing mismatched monsters together. Ever see what happens when a Living Armor, Animated Weapon, Animated Cloak look like when encasing a Fire Elemental? It looks like a burning black night who explodes into a pile of living weapons when the Elemental's HP hits 0.

As for TCs actual problem. BBEG's have to be special. That's their nature. If the evil archwizard isn't more powerful than the PCs and capable of doing things they can't do, then there's no hope for any villain ever. You're forced to run encounters other than solo encounters, because otherwise the action economy completely screws the wizard over. Hell, the Paragon system itself is a way to run horde encounters that just look like solo encounters. Legendary Actions give BBEGs the means to break action economy so that they're actually a posable threat. Paragon does it pretty well too, but no matter what you do, Action Economy has to be broken or you can't run a solo encounter.

(I suppose you could, in theory just give him infinite health and resistances and just let him die right before the players do, but that's pretty much the definition of boring. Trading blows back and forth infinitely just plain sucks. It's when the boss does cool things the players can't that the pressure is on)

[PanosIs]

To be fair, most legendary creatures ARE multi-limbed monstrosities and most legendary actions ARE stuff like "make a tail attack" which does make a lot of sense considering.

But at the same time I do think a lot of it comes down to poor encounter design. Yes an end boss that is a fighter is gonna need some help to deal with 1v5 action economy. An archwizard in his lair/tower though is an almost impossible challenge for the unprepared no legendary actions needed whatsoever.

Think Glyphs of Warding, and Symbols and Contingencies and presummoning an Earth Elemental and all that stuff along with terrain manipulation via Walls and similar allow for a huge array of options. This does allow for a well designed encounter to be run even with no tweaks to a PC or NPC build with a few different spell choices.

In the end it all comes down to options, an NPC with a lot of options will have the room to be optimized and tweaked to fight a party of five, a character whose options are "hit people" and "hit people more" (see Tarrasque) will rarely be an exciting encounter without some short of "legendary" thing about it.

Although even then I don't think a MM Dragon or a Tarrasque makes for an exciting encounter, they're too plain in my taste for supreme magical beasts, that's a discussion for another time though.