Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Legendary Resistance shouldn't be optional
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9413802" data-attributes="member: 6690965"><p>We're in solid agreement here.</p><p></p><p>And you've now completely missed my point.</p><p></p><p>LR functions as an alternative health system, trading out whatever the standard X Attack actions you'd need to to get through a monster's HP, for 4 big spells (maybe barring a stunning strike monk) until the monster hits the "dead" or "as good as dead" status condition. The classic problem with LR is that it doesn't interact with normal HP. Spellcasters spending actions burning down LR get no benefit if the fighters do enough damage first. That's the problem solutions like Charlaquin's solve, and that is obviously preferable but a bigger design question (as you essentially are committing to building a unique series of debuffs for all your solo monsters).</p><p></p><p>The problem I'm solving is that right now, LR creates weird, perverse incentives for spellcasters. You either avoid spells that should be very effective, because they waste your actions, or you end up using less effective spells, and hoping your DM decides to use the LR early, so you can actually deploy one of your winning spells.</p><p></p><p>That's an unnecessary feel bad game for both participants, and leaving a bunch of game design space on the table. LRs should instead recognize the role they're playing as an alternative HP track. If you want them to require spellcasters burn 4 game winning spells before they function, they should just do that. If you want them to use 2, set it at 2. If you want them to burn through 5 actions, but only 1 game winning spell, set them to respond to a bunch of conditions at 5.</p><p></p><p>My point is that 3/LRs that the GM has to decide how to deploy is a worst of both worlds scenario. It creates either a perverse incentive for the GM to play poorly if they want the players to actually use their powerful abilities, or a perverse incentive for players to avoid taking and/or using those abilities in the first place.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 9413802, member: 6690965"] We're in solid agreement here. And you've now completely missed my point. LR functions as an alternative health system, trading out whatever the standard X Attack actions you'd need to to get through a monster's HP, for 4 big spells (maybe barring a stunning strike monk) until the monster hits the "dead" or "as good as dead" status condition. The classic problem with LR is that it doesn't interact with normal HP. Spellcasters spending actions burning down LR get no benefit if the fighters do enough damage first. That's the problem solutions like Charlaquin's solve, and that is obviously preferable but a bigger design question (as you essentially are committing to building a unique series of debuffs for all your solo monsters). The problem I'm solving is that right now, LR creates weird, perverse incentives for spellcasters. You either avoid spells that should be very effective, because they waste your actions, or you end up using less effective spells, and hoping your DM decides to use the LR early, so you can actually deploy one of your winning spells. That's an unnecessary feel bad game for both participants, and leaving a bunch of game design space on the table. LRs should instead recognize the role they're playing as an alternative HP track. If you want them to require spellcasters burn 4 game winning spells before they function, they should just do that. If you want them to use 2, set it at 2. If you want them to burn through 5 actions, but only 1 game winning spell, set them to respond to a bunch of conditions at 5. My point is that 3/LRs that the GM has to decide how to deploy is a worst of both worlds scenario. It creates either a perverse incentive for the GM to play poorly if they want the players to actually use their powerful abilities, or a perverse incentive for players to avoid taking and/or using those abilities in the first place. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Legendary Resistance shouldn't be optional
Top