I don't really buy this one. We don't know what spells look like. We don't know what saving throws are like. We don't know what the experience of resisting Hold Monster or Maze or anything like that feels like. It's not automatically unrealistic because the game is mute on that narrative. That's chosing the least charitable interpretation.
Petrification might be completely instantaneous... or it might creep up your arms letting the victim realize what is happening. Nevermind that just because it requires a conscious decision on the part of the player or DM, that doesn't mean it must do so for the in game character at all. It might act like a subconscious reflex like a spidey sense. Of course it's only triggered by the most dangerous effects. It driven partly by divination magic.
There is already so much in combat that is forced to be gamist. Just the basic structure of a combat round is so abstract that it barely represents anything like combat at all. While I'm sure this is a bridge too far for some players, I don't buy that it's really a significant problem. Reactions retconnig events is hardly unique to LR. Even then I question if it even breaks verisimilitude, given how video games, action movies, and fantasy novels feature boss monsters that dodge or shrug off attacks that they simply shouldn't.
All I'm saying is, I've heard many complaints about PC abilities that require metagame thinking on the part of the player, especially reactions that "rewind time" to turn hits into misses and so on. Heck, look at the complaints about Counterspell and all the debate about how one would recognize a spell being cast to know what you're trying to counter.
Now you have LR, which is a no-action Counterspell on crack, and all these arguments vanish instantly because it's something the DM uses?
Again though, I'm not the one making these arguments- I know D&D is a game, not a simulation, and it's chock full of these gamist elements. But it seems to me that if someone doesn't like them, then they shouldn't be on board with legendary resistance either.
-
My main issue with LR has been, and will continue to be, how it unfairly impacts players based on party makeup. If your group has three spellcasters* with spells someone wouldn't want to fail, then the lost of three spell slots isn't the worst thing ever- except of course, it's not just three spell slots, because it's on top of the spell slots they'd likely lose as a normal part of play since most legendary critters have great saves, but that's a whole separate issue. You really have to ask yourself if the battle is really going to last long enough to make that kind of play worthwhile, lol.
*Things may change in the new 2024 version, of course but right now, there's precious few non-casters who have abilities worth using LR on- pretty much the Monk, when you get down to it.
The more "casters" you add, the less punishing LR is to the party's resources, but look at the flipside- if you only have one caster in a party, it's not even worth using spells against LR because it's going to take at least four rounds to land a debilitating spell and the thing is probably going to die before you get the chance!
And some casters don't need to interact with LR at all to be useful- the Warlock can just shrug and spam the old eldritch blast, the Paladin can just turn spell slots into smites, the Druid might turn into a bear or just summon animals- so really LR is basically saying "yeah, if your DM doesn't like a spell, don't use it in this fight", and some casters will be perfectly fine with that and others won't, depending on how they employ their magic.
