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

[billd91]

I'll agree with you that players don't NEED to know what abilities work in combat, but I just think it makes the game more fun if they do.

When you sit there for what seems like eternity waiting for your turn to finally get to do something, only to have the DM negate your entire turn with a legendary resistance, that suuuuuucks. There's just nothing fun to me about having your entire agency taken away by an invisible mechanic. I'd rather keep the unpredictable "try it and see what happens" moments to the exploration and social pillars where player creativity can be rewarded much more easily, and where you can immediately just try something else if your idea doesn't work.

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.

 

[TiQuinn]

Do you mind if a monster succeeds at its saving throws? If not, what is the difference with LR in your mind? If so, why have monsters make saves at all?

This is kind of the MCDM RPG concept. If you hate missing monsters, why roll to hit?

 

[billd91]

I like the idea of a flavorful explanation for why the monster makes the save, but this seems way too punishing to me! It's actually worse than just a damage mitigation reaction. My players would win faster against a monster who did this than one who didn't have the legendary action replacement. I basically can never use any of the monster's entire-action non-damage-dealing abilities as it is, and this would eat the reaction as well.

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.

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. Spells and effects that are completely resisted probably need something to affect the target even if saved against - something like imposing disadvantage on attacks for their next turn or 1d4 (maybe even less) psychic damage per spell level. Then, even if LR is invoked, the save effect still applies.

 

[dave2008]

This is kind of the MCDM RPG concept. If you hate missing monsters, why roll to hit?

Yes, one of the things that turned me off the MCDM RPG. I pretty much checked out when I read that.

 

[deadman1204]

No that is not the function of legendary resistance as implemented. We once had a subsystem in d&d that was there to eliminate "win-button" spells (and sometimes abilities), that subsystem was called Spell Resistance & worked so well that casters tended to fork their build very early on to either specialize in other spells that were weaker or more group friendly (ie force multiplier stuff for the party & minor debuffs for monsters that fell well short of "win button") vrs being specialized for damage & the ability to be more successful in overcoming SR.

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.

I would disagree. LR as HP is only for bad DMs. Good dms know that a fireball is whatever. Your BBEG has 2 boatloads of hp to make the fight last longer. Good DMs save LRs for spells that have an effect that isn't simply some damage. Or if the player uses their biggest damage spell over the garbage ones. The good dms know your throwing out lower level stuff to fish for an LR, and save it for the high impact spells.

I think this is the crux of why people are split on them. Bad DMs just use them up on whatever, so they kinda are like hp. Good DMs know what players can do and save them for all the really good magic. Which means LRs simply turn off all the fun things casters can do. There is no LR to turn off melee classes, which gets into th big problem. LRs simply turn off some characters and not others.

 

[TiQuinn]

Yes, one of the things that turned me off the MCDM RPG. I pretty much checked out when I read that.

Yeah it’s not for me either. I’m more of the mind of make the game faster than coddle me about missing or losing a turn.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Let's be honest, the issue is that certain spells are just too powerful and turn a fight that could have been challenging or interesting into something easily breezed through. Legendary Resistances exist to try to mitigate that, but whether you think they are good way to do that or not, the core root of the problem is that the game wants to give that interesting or challenging experience but also includes a bunch of abilities, mostly spells, that directly does the opposite of that.

As a DM and player, I've seen the upside and downside of LRs. Players do feel bad when they blow their highest level spell slot and it had no chance of doing anything because there was a LR in the monster's back pocket. On the other hand, fights that could have been a tough fight just fall apart because of a single Slow or the like with some bad rolls on the opponent's side. It's a very difficult balancing act.

As for the proposed idea, I don't think it really solves the problem. The idea of baiting out LRs on less impressive abilities doesn't change, it in fact becomes more reliable. It also doesn't help the player who does throw a big impressive thing turn 1 that ends up doing nothing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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."

The exact conditions could vary from with monster CR, but making it not an active choice, players can much more consistently engage with LR as an alternate health pool, and feel like they're burning resources towards defeating their targets.

Disagree. I don't think players need that power, thank you, and it doesn'tmake logical sense in-setting for the PCs to do so. I'd rather the DM make that call.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No that is not the function of legendary resistance as implemented. We once had a subsystem in d&d that was there to eliminate "win-button" spells (and sometimes abilities), that subsystem was called Spell Resistance & worked so well that casters tended to fork their build very early on to either specialize in other spells that were weaker or more group friendly (ie force multiplier stuff for the party & minor debuffs for monsters that fell well short of "win button") vrs being specialized for damage & the ability to be more successful in overcoming SR.

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.

I miss Spell Resistance (and it's TSR predecessor, Magic Resistance) a great deal. Ever since 4e that idea has been weakened in the name of making players feel better about using their superpowers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I often see DM's who feel very unhappy about characters abilities that require the player to make what is, in effect, an out of universe decision. A monster likely doesn't know exactly what failing a given save will do to it, but the DM can make a value judgment about it.

I don't have any problem with this personally- but it is something to consider. The ability to pick and choose what saving throw you choose to succeed is a gamist element that potentially interferes with verisimilitude.

Which is why when I do it I generally create a logical setting explanation for the LR. Spell Resistance, ablative armor and/or minions, instant regeneration, what have you.