D&D 5E Legendary Resistance shouldn't be optional

[Composer99]

So you would use LR but then tell the players that the monster succeeded on their roll? That feels icky to me personally, but I'm not judging anyone who uses that style. We roll in the open so that isn't an option either way - you can't exactly roll a 2 and pass it off as the monster passing their saving throw

I mean, the text of legendary resistance is, "If the <monster> fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead." If you narrate the result via game mechanics, such as, "<the monster> succeeds on its saving throw" despite a bad roll... I don't really see the problem here? It lines up with the rules text of the ability.

I guess there's the meta information being given that the monster has used one of its LRs for the day, but at least at my table that wouldn't be an issue.

---

Apropos of the thread topic, put me down in favour of replacing legendary resistance with burning through legendary actions or some other kind of "action-denial-lite" that tangibly reduces a legendary monster's action economy without completely nullifying it, so that if you land that slow or hold monster or what-have-you, you're still doing something.

 

[tetrasodium]

Fiat implies the following: That the DM is making an arbitrary decision. Arbitrary in the sense that they are abusing their authority as a DM or that their decision is made on a whim without rhyme or reason. If we're worried about DM fiat, let's just assign a formula to each creature dictating its actions. If PCs do X then Y happens this round. If they do A then B happens. That way the DM isn't in any position to make a decision.

There are plenty of good arguments against legendary saves here, but DM fiat isn't one of them. A basic function of the DM is to decide what the bad guys do, when they do it, and how they do it. And if they're following the rules then it isn't an abuse of their authority or done at their whim without rhyme or reason.

Those bold bits sound very much like what was said earlier about legendary resistance itself... It sounds like you are saying that dm fiat is arbitrary and capricious..

Legendary resistance impacts literally any ability with a save resulting in what often feels arbitrary & capricious or singling out a particular player who just opts out of contributing in any meaningful fashion beyond phoning it in

Having trigger conditions would accomplish that, the current implementation does nothing of the sort.

Legendary resistance does so little to accomplish that it would be a stretch to even make the claim that it does so even a smidge.

 

[MGibster]

Those bold bits sound very much like what was said earlier about legendary resistance itself... It sounds like you are saying that dm fiat is arbitrary and capricious..

That's what fiat means. I'm arguing legendary resistance is neither arbitrary nor capricious. (I keep calling them legendary saves for some reason.) A DM makes all sorts of decisions about how monsters conduct business in regards to butchering player characters, but we don't generally describe a good DM as engaging in arbitrary and capricious behavior. What makes legendary resistance any different?

 

[CleverNickName]

Eh, fiat is overrated (or at least overstated). One year for Christmas, I gave all of my players a special coupon they could use, any time they wanted. It was about the size of a business card, and on one side were the words "I Call Bulls--t!" in big bold letters. On the other was the following rule:

"Redeem this coupon to reroll any one dice roll: any dice roll, made by anyone, for any reason. You must accept the new roll even if it's worse. Expires: (next Christmas)."

All six of my players got one of these. And here's how they got used:
1 person rerolled a failed death save
1 person rerolled their hit point roll at level-up
2 players rerolled their failed save throws
2 players rerolled one of my monsters' critical hits

They liked it so much it became a tradition in my group. Everyone looks forward to getting their new coupon every Christmas.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Fiat implies the following: That the DM is making an arbitrary decision.

That's not how I have generally heard the word used (I've always heard it just mean an authoritative decree), but I'll take your word for it and clarify that I wasn't claiming a DM would be doing anything wrong by using LR. Just that the DM is choosing for the player's spell to not work, and that the player has nothing they can do about it, which is not fun.

 

[MichaelSomething]

That is a great game mechanic, but it doesn't always work for me from a world building / simulation stance. Now should that matter for a game, probably not, but I enjoy what I enjoy

Why not? This monster is so powerful/special, an effect that would out right kill/render powerless other beings only slightly weakens it!

You're free to come up an answer that'll best fit your sense of simulation; but I'm not willing to spend the time or energy to jump through the loops necessary to make it feel real to you.

 

[dave2008]

Why not? This monster is so powerful/special, an effect that would out right kill/render powerless other beings only slightly weakens it!

That has nothing to do with having an ability that scales with the number of opponents? What you describe is standard LR, which I don't really have any issue with.

You're free to come up an answer that'll best fit your sense of simulation; but I'm not willing to spend the time or energy to jump through the loops necessary to make it feel real to you.

Such a strange response. I'm not asking you too.

 

[Charlaquin]

But the turn isn't negated any more than for a fighter whose attack doesn't deplete all of a target's hit points. If the legendary save was used, it's been used. The alt-hp track has been depleted bring the enemy closer to being vulnerable to those big ticket, save-or-suck spells and effects.

This is true, but it doesn’t always feel like it. Dealing damage feels like something still happened - the monster may still be kicking, but you landed a solid blow, maybe gave it a cut or a bruise. The monster spending a legendary resistance feels like nothing happened. Yes, it’s down one use of a limited resource, but that’s just abstract rules mumbo-jumbo. You don’t get that in-universe indication of your progress that you do from HP damage.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Some kind of impact might be reasonable, sucking away a reaction and, effectively, an action is FAR too harsh. The significant NPCs and monsters given LR are probably already on the disadvantageous side of the encounter action economy - hitting it harder is too much.

Again, that example was specific to Strahd, who is designed specifically not to stand and fight but to show up, toss a fireball or summon some bats or something, and then phase through a wall and run away so the players have to navigate his confusing trap-filled castle to find him again. An action is no great loss to him because he doesn’t even have to be in the same room as the PCs when he spends it.

He could also just stay in swarm form for a few rounds if that’s more strategically sound. He won’t be able to access his claw attacks or spells as a swarm, but he could still summon a truckload of rats, or charm a PC into helping him out, or again, dash and fly away straight through the ceiling.

I think a better tactic is to look at the save or suck effects themselves. IF, and that's a big IF, LR is SO bad that it's a waste of the caster's turn, then the same should hold true for a spell negated by a successful save because that doesn't even cost a resource - just a luckier roll than a failure.

Using up a Legendary Resistance isn’t actually a waste of the caster’s term and spell slot. It just feels that way. Quite often in game design, feel is far more important than on-paper impact. Yeah, the monster failing it’s save and losing a legendary resistance technically achieves just about as much as hitting them with an attack that deals a quarter of their HP and damage. But the in the former case you’ve created no visible change in the fictional scenario, whereas in the latter you’ve struck a blow with your weapon that left the target at least a little winded, perhaps bleeding. That’s a bigger difference to our irrational monkey brains than it logically ought to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why not? This monster is so powerful/special, an effect that would out right kill/render powerless other beings only slightly weakens it!

You're free to come up an answer that'll best fit your sense of simulation; but I'm not willing to spend the time or energy to jump through the loops necessary to make it feel real to you.

Good thing no one's asking you to.