D&D 5E Is magic resistance (namely advantage to saves versus magic) always broken?

[Sword of Spirit]

The rule that lets a familiar of a certain type grant magic resistance has nothing at all to do with the Warlock class, it's a variant rule where the DM can decide that the monster offers familiar-ship to a character (of any class) and provides different benefit than standard familiars or even standard pact of the chain granted familiars do.

This interpretation is partially true, and the rest of it is debatable. But we've probably debated it before so I won't get into details unless someone asks.

 

[CapnZapp]

This interpretation is partially true, and the rest of it is debatable. But we've probably debated it before so I won't get into details unless someone asks.

I think what he would like you to take away from this is:

Don't claim warlocks get magic resistance when that's a) not a core rule b) way less clear-cut than you made out to be.

If you agree it's only partly true and "the rest is debatable", please don't write simply "Warlocks can get it through familiars" as if that was an uncontroversial feature, okay?

(Note: I fully agree we should not debate the actual issue, so let's not do that. Besides, this post isn't about whether warlocks do or don't gain this feature. This is about you claiming they do with absolute certainty, and how inappropriate that is. Thank you)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think what he would like you to take away from this is:

Don't claim warlocks get magic resistance when that's a) not a core rule b) way less clear-cut than you made out to be.

If you agree it's only partly true and "the rest is debatable", please don't write simply "Warlocks can get it through familiars" as if that was an uncontroversial feature, okay?

(Note: I fully agree we should not debate the actual issue, so let's not do that. Besides, this post isn't about whether warlocks do or don't gain this feature. This is about you claiming they do with absolute certainty, and how inappropriate that is. Thank you)

I'm actually not the one who made the claim that they get magic resistance (and I am myself unsure how I would rule it due to the particularity of their familiar's nature). I was mainly referring to interpretation of the familiar rules from the MM being debatable.

 

[Yaarel]

All of your discussions are helpful. Great contributions.

So, if we think about magic resistance by tiers, we have:

Student tier (L1-L4): magic resistance might be possible depending on DM ruling (familiar). A limited form of magic resistance is available with opportunity costs (Gnome race).
Professional tier (L5-L10): magic resistance is possible depending on DM discretion (magic item treasure).
Master tier (L11-L16): magic resistance is available as a class feature with opportunity costs (Abjuror at L14).
Legend tier (L17-L20): ... presumably magic resistance is nonproblematic at the highest tier.



Clearly, the designers are afraid of player characters having magic resistance, because of how it can disrupt the assumptions about how the gaming systems. The tendency seems to be to limit its effectiveness or leave it in the DMs hands. Guaranteed access is deferred to the higher tiers, which many campaigns will never reach.

I dont have a sense yet of how to quantify the effectiveness of magic resistance. A thought that occurs to me is, ruining a spell during a low tier and ruining a spell at a high tier, is moreorless the same problem. So if it is imbalanced at low tier, it is also imbalanced at high tier. Maybe, the philosophy − of low tier being deadlier, and high tier, after investing emotionally in a character, being more secure − makes magic resistance at high tier more palatable? Or maybe, its occurrence at high tier is more a deference - worry about the problem later?

In any case, making a cautious form of magic resistance seems as if workable at the master tier (Level 11 and up). It seems as if noncontroversial at the legend tier (L17 and up).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Clearly, the designers are afraid of player characters having magic resistance, because of how it can disrupt the assumptions about how the gaming systems.

I think that is an overstatement given the gnome cunning racial feature and how it is very nearly magic resistance (but not entirely, since it only applies against the harsher half of spell effects rather than actually all spell effects).

 

[abirdcall]

Clearly, the designers are afraid of player characters having magic resistance, because of how it can disrupt the assumptions about how the gaming systems. The tendency seems to be to limit its effectiveness or leave it in the DMs hands. Guaranteed access is deferred to the higher tiers, which many campaigns will never reach.

Or it could simply be a thematic choice. There is little reason for most characters to have magic resistance. Especially at low levels. If magic resistance were common the world would be different.

There are also many abilities that can only be gained through feats which are optional as well. Mage Slayer even gives magic resistance against spells that are cast within 5 feet of you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nothing broken about magic resistance, it's just advantage on some saves. No PC can have all-fantastic saves, not even a Paladin or Monk, so the DM can always hammer his worst save with magical attacks or hammer him with non-magical ones.

If there's an issue with Magic Resistance, at all, it's that it not high-enough impact to evoke the degree of challenge it presented to casters in the classic game.

 

[Yaarel]

If there's an issue with Magic Resistance, at all, it's that it not high-enough impact to evoke the degree of challenge it presented to casters in the classic game.

Pretty much.

In 5e, Magic Resistance seems to mean, an advantage on virtually all saves.

This is powerful. Also it is concerning, but mostly because the monotony takes away special feel. Unlike earlier editions, Magic Resistance in 5e cannot really break the gaming system, because advantages cannot stack.

The monotony is sort of like the 3e magic item treadmill stopped making magic items feel special.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Pretty much.

In 5e, Magic Resistance seems to mean, an advantage on virtually all saves.

This is powerful. Also it is concerning, but mostly because the monotony takes away special feel. Unlike earlier editions, Magic Resistance in 5e cannot really break the gaming system, because advantages cannot stack.

It falls far short of the feel/impact of classic magic resistance in that 1) not all spells force saves and 2) even those that do often have some effect on a failed save, while 3) advantage on saves makes relatively little difference if the save bonus is very poor or very high relative to the DC.

The monotony is sort of like the 3e magic item treadmill stopped making magic items feel special.

I can't agree that wealth/level guidelines had that effect. Make/buy, perhaps, but not just the expectation of magic items.

 

[Yaarel]

To help keep Magic Resistance spicy.

4e had different kinds of magic, the ‘sources’: Arcane, Primal, Elemental, Shadow, even Martial, Psi, and so on. In 5e, Magic Resistances might apply to some kinds of magic but not others.

Some forms of Magic Resistance might add additional features. ‘Absolute’ saves might negate those effects that apply even on a successful save.

For what it is worth, the Elf race has a nonpowerful version of Magic Resistance, specific to ‘Charm Resistance’.

The Elf race additionally has ‘Magic Immunity’ in the sense of ‘Sleep Immunity’.

I consider these of negligible worth - essentially a fiddly quirk that is highly situational. Their value exists only to the degree that players enjoy their flavor or not.

That said, for 5e, one might explore other kinds of ‘Magic Immunity’. Albeit extreme caution is necessary because at this point, the feature can swiftly become game-breaking.