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

[dave2008]

I feel it doesn't go far enough. Many spells have an effect even on a successful save, and no monster is invulnerable to that, no matter how much it would make sense for them to be. It's similar to my issue with resistance, in that I feel DR worked better to represent a "lesser immunity" where small amounts of damage are ignored, as opposed to the half or nothing approach of 5e.

I like cantrip immunity as a concept though.

Well, like I said some monsters do have magic immunity. The first was Tiamat, but she isn't the only monster. That works similar to old school MR without the dice rolling!

I've used the two in combo to give some monsters really beefy magic resistance. Give them immunity to spells of 3rd level or less and resistance to all of them. Stuff like that.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Ironically I think that is a myopic choice is part of as trend that shifts things so only a particular niche of players "feel better about using their super powers" with that niche being

Spoiler: this guy

That sort of DPR first last & always build excels in both general mindless combat and boss fights while more nuanced PCs that focus on other roles & place their personal damage output as a secondary or tertiary priority are the ones who tend to be most impacted but least likely to shine in ways that even justify using anything they'd consider their "superpowers" in general mindless combat.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The game bends over backwards to try and make melee as powerful as magic

What game is this?

Where can I buy it?

It sounds amazing and nothing like D&D's attitude toward martial and magic.

 

[dave2008]

What game is this?

Where can I buy it?

It sounds amazing and nothing like D&D's attitude toward martial and magic.

I would guess it is a supers game?!

That being said, if "as powerful as magic" simply means DPR (which I don't agree with btw), then 5e does do a fairly good job at that.

I recently (for my Monsters by level project) did builds of fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard from 1-20 and the fighter came out on top on a purely DPR basis

 

[Willie the Duck]

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.

The real problem here is conditions .... Some of them make the game less fun, imo.

It is certainly part of the problem that so many save-or-penalty effects are 'lose all of your action(s),' which is uniquely debilitating to boss monsters*. As well, oftentimes the effect still leaves the sufferer vulnerable to attack*, without** ability to then test again or spend resources, or are only able to being addressed by a subset of opponents****. If more status effects were closer to '-4 to certain actions,' or the like, the need for workaround 'nopes' for high-value targets would not be so great.
*Also blindness and silence, which through quirks of the rules are devastating to spellcasters
**and excepting Sleep/Hypnotic Pattern, no negative to doing so.
***such as Banishment
****Forcecage

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.

SR, MR (1E and 2E), as well as the basic-classic 'immune to spells of level X or lower' all helped keep BBEGs alive in the face of PC spells (back when it was save-or-dies as well as save-or-sucks). They each had their own limitations*, nuances, and incentivization structures, though -- and I'm really not sure that these were strictly better so much as a different set of problems.*on top of, well, only working on magic

Basic-classic D&D and AD&D 2E were pretty straightforward -- you just didn't cast against many boss monsters -- immunity or an unchanging % fail chance on top of existing good saves just made it not worth it. You fireballed the minions or caste haste for your party, dispel whatever whammy the BBEG put on your party, or the like. In AD&D (1E) you could overwhelm MR if you were in the upper teens of levels, so maybe this strategy shifted at endgame. Only 3e really had a lot of interesting choice in that you did have the fork tetrasodium mentions where you can do the wipe-minions/buff-martials game or (preemptively) have a build based on punching through SR. That's an interesting little dance (frustrating that the decision hinges so much at the build level, as opposed to just which spells to select in a day or the like), but honestly not really more or less nuanced or more or less gamist than trying to get the 5e BBEG to burn 3 LR on your 2nd-4th best spells so you can drop your 1st best on them.

 

[mellored]

I would prefer legendary turns instead of legendary resistance.

I.e.
Take turns on initive +20, +10, and 0.

So getting stunned still loses a turn, but not a round.

 

[Zaukrie]

I would prefer legendary turns instead of legendary resistance.

I.e.
Take turns on initive +20, +10, and 0.

So getting stunned still loses a turn, but not a round.

This works for me. I've started having solos have a 45 percent chance of going after every PC turn.... By stealing from daggerheart

 

[dave2008]

I would prefer legendary turns instead of legendary resistance.

I.e.
Take turns on initive +20, +10, and 0.

So getting stunned still loses a turn, but not a round.

That was the 4e MM3+ solo design strategy. With WotC move away from legendary actions I have been doing something similar. Such as:

or:

 

[Stormonu]

I don't want the decision of when a DM should use a LR to be taken away, but I would not be against there being some cost or knock-on effect for using it. Something perhaps more tangible for the group beyond "you're one step closer to where it can't just shrug your attack off."

For example, noting on things like Stun* - perhaps using the LR to evade the effect uses up one of the creature's Legendary Actions (LA) - the player gets the satisfaction that they slowed the enemy a little bit, but they haven't completely taken it out of the fight. In fact, moving LR to a LA ability may be a more tactical approach for advanced DMs allowing for more interplay between the players and the DM and creating more uncertainty in the will it/won't it get through of the fight.

*Assuming stuns and other effects are a once-per-PC-per-round action, not the unfixed Stunning Fist of the pre-24 Monk.

 

[Zaukrie]

I don't want the decision of when a DM should use a LR to be taken away, but I would not be against there being some cost or knock-on effect for using it. Something perhaps more tangible for the group beyond "you're one step closer to where it can't just shrug your attack off."

For example, noting on things like Stun* - perhaps using the LR to evade the effect uses up one of the creature's Legendary Actions (LA) - the player gets the satisfaction that they slowed the enemy a little bit, but they haven't completely taken it out of the fight. In fact, moving LR to a LA ability may be a more tactical approach for advanced DMs allowing for more interplay between the players and the DM and creating more uncertainty in the will it/won't it get through of the fight.

*Assuming stuns and other effects are a once-per-PC-per-round action, not the unfixed Stunning Fist of the pre-24 Monk.

Using a legendary action to shrug off a condition is a great idea....