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

[Ruin Explorer]

I am unconvinced that "most DMs" are too dumb to use LRs correctly. But even if that were the case, the solution isn't to create an even more boring, easily sidestepped version of the rule for those poor benighted souls.

Isn't it? Why not?

I'm not saying they're "too dumb" - many of them are highly intelligent people - they're just not experts at this weird little sphere of the game.

Better yet to have individualized stuff though like described in Charlaquin's post.

 

[p_johnston]

My experience is that most DMs are not good at using LRs in a way that makes a boss fight longer in an interesting way. They tend to either blow them all fairly near the start, or hold them back and just use them to ruin good/expensive/rare abilities the PCs use.

So I think you might have a different definition of a good use of a LR is from some of the other people on this thread.

I'll agree that just blowing all the LR on the first few saves is usually not great and kinda defeats the purpose (though depending on the enemy/how tired my party is I might do it to speed the fight up) but using an LR against the best PC abilities is...Kinda exactly what its meant to do because the best PC abilities tend to be the ones that take someone immediately out of the fight.

 

[MGibster]

Nah... it just adds a level of annoying complexity for the DM. If you want "guidelines" to help DMs make the most of LR, that would be nice, but otherwise you're just hamstringing DMs.

Not only that, but I feel as though they're removing DM agency. Like we can't trust the GM to do their job.

 

[Zaukrie]

Might want to read the first two words of the quote. If that doesn't help you, I'm not sure I'm in a position to lol.

My experience....I assume that meant you experienced it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sounds like a lovely house rule. You should institute it into your own game. Hope it works for you.

For the rest of us, we'll just use the rules as written or do the same. But there's no reason for your preferences to be everyone's preferences.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think something like the systems that @Charlaquin proposed would be much better - for example being able to break a larger or indefinite number of CCs, but taking some damage each time they do it, or just other defences like the Strahd one she described.

Thanks! The way I like to think about. LR replacements is: the replacement should be visible, by which I mean it should be obvious to the players when the character is using the feature. It should mitigate the effects of failing a save, but still make the player feel like their action did something worthwhile, such as straining the monster’s action (and/or legendary action) economy, or using up a resource the monster has, like HP, spell slots, or at least require a recharge before the monster can do it again. And ideally, the players should be able to work around the feature by changing tactics. The only way to get around Legendary Resistance is to just keep wasting throwing away spell slots to force the monster to make saves until it uses up all of its Legendary Resistances. In contrast, my Strahd turning into a swarm of bats can be worked around by trying to bait him into using his reaction on something else. Have your melee characters intentionally provoke opportunity attacks, for example, then bust out your powerful save-or-suck spells while he doesn’t have a reaction to go swarm-mode with. Or, with the example of the monster that sacrifices HP to end conditions on itself, pressure its HP. Throw a few blast-y damage spells first, so the next time you go for a save-or-suck, it will be less likely to risk giving up those HP.

 

[Dausuul]

I don’t mind that it’s a choice, but I think legendary resistance is just boring. It serves an important role because taking out an ostensibly legendary monster with a single save-or-suck effect is very anticlimactic. But, there’s no flavor to legendary resistance. The DM just gets to say “nope” to a failed save 3 times. Heck, if the DM doesn’t directly tell the players the monster failed but it’s using a legendary resistance, it might even be completely invisible. But if they do that, it makes the player feel like the action was wasted. I much prefer something visible, flavorful, and ideally, specific to the monster.

For example, in my custom Strahd stat block, I replaced legendary resistance with the ability to turn into a swarm of bats as a reaction to getting hit with an attack or failing a save. A swarm of bats is immune to most negative conditions, and generally difficult to pin down. So, he can still mitigate the impact of a save-or-suck spell. But, doing so eats up his reaction for the round, and his action on his turn, since turning back into his human form takes a full action to do. You don’t get to restrain or charm him, but you do get to waste his action economy, so there’s still a lot of value in targeting him with such effects.

So, in essence what you are doing here is giving Strahd the option to replace a player-inflicted debuff with a custom debuff tailored to his statblock.

I like this. I like it a lot. It accomplishes the goal of LR (limiting the ability of single-target debuffs to devastate a solo monster), but in a way that doesn't make the initial debuff feel "wasted," and allows smart PCs to strategize around it once they figure out how it works. And it also plays into the monster's theme and flavor.

I'm gonna have to experiment with this...

 

[Charlaquin]

So, in essence what you are doing here is giving Strahd the option to replace a player-inflicted debuff with a custom debuff tailored to his statblock.

I like this. I like it a lot. It accomplishes the goal of LR (limiting the ability of single-target debuffs to devastate a solo monster), but in a way that doesn't make the initial debuff feel "wasted," and allows smart PCs to strategize around it once they figure out how it works. And it also plays into the monster's theme and flavor.

I'm gonna have to experiment with this...

Thank you! That’s exactly what I was going for, so it’s great to hear that came across clearly.

 

[Blue]

Legendary Resistance should specify triggering conditions, and not require a GM judgement call. Instead of choosing the saves to avoid, LR should have text like "the first X times a failed saving throw would cause Y or more damage, or inflict conditions A-G, treat this monster as if it succeeded instead."

Q: What is the primary purpose of Legendary saves?

A: To keep the creature up and active when action economy is stacked against him/as a solo.

Q: Does this change enhance, reduce, or is neutral to the primary purpose?

A: Since this now can be used up by low-level spells and minor effects that would not unduly inhibit a creature, this proposed change undermines the primary purpose of Legendary Saves.

Conclusion: House rule is detrimental to Legendary Saves' purpose and should not be implemented.

I had a drawing book when I was a kid called "How to Draw Comics The Marvel Way". It had a whole section on how many heads tall your average superhero was, vs. how many heads tall an average adult and average child was. Basically, Superheroes are drawn as more adult than adults..

Then they had a section on The Thing, who breaks this rule, but makes up for it in other ways such as width. It say you need not to just understand a rule to break it, but to understand why the rule exists in the first place to break it successfully.

In my professional life, I've learned the same lesson as Chesterton's Fence. Understand why someone put up a fence before tearing it down. It's an exercise in second order thinking - not what are the consequences of the change, but what are the consequences of the consequences. And those have not steered me wrong evaluating rules.

 

[Blue]

I get what you're saying. Legendary Resistances tries to keep solos fighting longer but it has a couple flaws

My thought process is IF you're going to change Legendary Resistances at all, might as well rethink and get rid of it (in its current form). I do want to go one step further though...

The only reason the dissociated mechanic of Legendary Resistances exists as a "one size fits all" paintbrush is due to a fault of rules (how certain conditions are designed), so why not either fix those rules or just totally changing Legendary Resistances into something and consistent application like you're describing.

Just my two coppers.

This I agree with. With the current implementation of Legendary Actions and Legendary Saves to even out action economy, it's a workaround.

One potential option I'd much rather see is to just make it real. Give the ability to save against any spell on them at end of their turn, like Banishment, and then just give them multiple turns per round. Have them roll several initiatives, or perhaps it's at rolled initiative and then again at -5, -10, -15, and so forth to match the number of people in the party.

5e needs something, and the proposed change to Legendary Saves isn't it. But a full rethink could be.