D&D (2024) Best 5.5 Mechanic They Should Use More IMHO

[Rabulias]

You have to be careful with a mechanic that powerful. The 2014 version of the rakshasa was plenty nasty already: immune to all spells 6th level or lower, advantage on all saving throws otherwise. I'm not so sure it's a good idea to make their magic resistance even stronger than that. It can be a cool chance to allow your martials to shine, but that's a concept that probably should be used very sparingly.

This actually seems to make the 2024 Rakshasa weaker, IMO. Magic missile can affect them now, and spirit guardians will cut their Speed in half in the AoE, and they will take damage from it (though they will always make the saving throw for half damage). Under 2014 rules, the Rakshasa could laugh off magic missile and spirit guardians entirely. Many spells do half damage and/or partial effects on a successful saving throw -- I would much rather be totally immune to all spells 6th level and below.

 

[Rabulias]

And that varied by the spell casters level if I recall.

Yes, in AD&D 1E, the listed Magic Resistance was against an 11th level caster, and went up by 5% per caster level lower than 11, and down by 5% per level higher than 11. In AD&D second edition, they did away with this variability, streamlining and simplifying MR.

 

[dave2008]

And that varied by the spell casters level if I recall.

Yes, that is what I was trying to emulate with my proposed revision to Magic Resistance in 5e.

 

[Distracted DM]

This actually seems to make the 2024 Rakshasa weaker, IMO. Magic missile can affect them now, and spirit guardians will cut their Speed in half in the AoE, and they will take damage from it (though they will always make the saving throw for half damage). Under 2014 rules, the Rakshasa could laugh off magic missile and spirit guardians entirely. Many spells do half damage and/or partial effects on a successful saving throw -- I would much rather be totally immune to all spells 6th level and below.

That's an interesting observation, I wonder if it's intended.

 

[Nightfly]

This actually seems to make the 2024 Rakshasa weaker, IMO. Magic missile can affect them now, and spirit guardians will cut their Speed in half in the AoE, and they will take damage from it (though they will always make the saving throw for half damage). Under 2014 rules, the Rakshasa could laugh off magic missile and spirit guardians entirely. Many spells do half damage and/or partial effects on a successful saving throw -- I would much rather be totally immune to all spells 6th level and below.

Good points.

 

[mellored]

I prefer bosses get multiple turns. And thus multiple saves.

Like at initiative + 10, initiative, and initiative -10.

 

[jgsugden]

Wouldn't you say that the higher level spellcaster's DC going up already kinda takes that into account?

Seems like double dipping if I am understanding you.

You could say that. The intent of the houserule is to make higher level foes more resilient so that save or suck are less likely to work - allowing them to still get that big spell off occasionally off a top tier foe, but having it be unlikely to work so as to prevent a save or suck from ending a combat early.

As I said, I am critical of the house rules but feel it is a compromise that might interest some people on this thread who do not want a suggestion spell by an 11th level wizard to end a battle with a CR 18 monster. I prefer design choices be made in the crafting of encounters that allow for the combat to be fun, even if a save or suck spell gets the primary foe quickly,

 

[Blue]

And the former was rampantly overused. Weapon of first resort when it was designed as a weapon of last resort.

If by "rampantly overused" you mean "used just as much as modifiers were in other editions" then I'd agree.

But if not used that much DMs familiar with earlier editions would just ad hoc be assigning modifiers again, much like many still give out 3.x and 4e gear-grind amounts of magic items. And Adv/Dis has the designed advantage (heh) of not stacking nor changing the range you can roll, so a high degree of use isn't bad.

 

[dave2008]

If by "rampantly overused" you mean "used just as much as modifiers were in other editions" then I'd agree.

But if not used that much DMs familiar with earlier editions would just ad hoc be assigning modifiers again, much like many still give out 3.x and 4e gear-grind amounts of magic items. And Adv/Dis has the designed advantage (heh) of not stacking nor changing the range you can roll, so a high degree of use isn't bad.

While I don't disagree with you, I do think the game would be better served if Adv. was much more rare.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If by "rampantly overused" you mean "used just as much as modifiers were in other editions" then I'd agree.

But if not used that much DMs familiar with earlier editions would just ad hoc be assigning modifiers again, much like many still give out 3.x and 4e gear-grind amounts of magic items. And Adv/Dis has the designed advantage (heh) of not stacking nor changing the range you can roll, so a high degree of use isn't bad.

No. What I mean is, Advantage and Disadvantage was used as the weapon of first resort. As in, it was THE go-to thing for functionally EVERY possible "here's a benefit" mechanic they gave to players.

But it was also supposed to be the new GM's Best Friend, AND the new "this situation is helpful" modifier, AND the new "well of course you should be good at this for narrative reasons" modifier, AND the weapon of last resort, meaning, where the buck stops, no further benefits. Oh, AND a single instance of the opposite thing instantly cancels out an infinite supply of the other.

That's what I mean by "rampantly overused." GMs no longer have a codified useful tool for tweaking a character's results because of circumstance, specifically because it doesn't stack, any time you have any instances of both they completely cancel out, AND there's neither a smaller benefit to hand out if Advantage seems like too much, nor a bigger benefit to jump to that isn't leaping all the way to automatic success.

So, no, a high degree of use is in fact bad. It means that any hard-written mechanic which grants Advantage both neuters the GM's ability to reward clever thinking or beneficial circumstances (since they literally don't have any other option, and going back to the old GM's Best Friend would break the design principles of 5e!), and means that now the GM can't inflict any meaningful penalties the moment the player gets a single source of advantage.

I get why folks felt that there were too many modifiers in 3e. (Despite what some claim, 4e actually wasn't as bad as 3e, but I admit it was still overboard, even as a 4e fan I recognize that.) But WotC absolutely threw the baby out with the bathwater. SOME other options should have been present. SOME different design should have applied, so that GMs weren't saddled with such a high frequency of situations where they have so few tools to help them do their job, especially in an edition that is so eager to push everything onto the GM's shoulders.