deadman1204
Explorer
In general, my issue is how they try to prevent a couple powerful CC spells from ending the fight. 3rd ed had an immunity list, just make the mob immune to charm, fear, and a few conditions, and away you go! That would work, the fight trivializing spells don't work. Banish and edge cases? Meh they don't win the fight anwyas, they just pause it.Explain how it would be fun for everyone if the wizard's first spell was a successful banishment on round 1. Or a cleric with a hold person? You're so worried about the caster having to work for a victory but what about everyone else if the caster's save or suck spell takes effect early and ends the fight?
The answer here is that there's a balance between the needs of any single spellcaster with the potential to end encounters and the other players around the table. With legendary saves, whether with spell resistance or not, the group has to work together to defeat a major opponent - by ablating away hit points, ablating away legendary saves, so that the enemy is vulnerable to the end move. I feel that balance has gone a long way to improving the play of D&D from the 3e era where save or suck spells had gotten way out of control.
The basic design is flawed when you turn a character off and make them spend the fight trying to do something. Yes legendaries can be balanced from a dm/game aspect, but they are hot garbage from a player perspective because they punish the players that choose to be casters. You aren't allowed to have fun until you pay your dues (if the fight is still going by that point). the only fights where you are allowed to use your big abilities are the ones that don't matter. Thus why even have them? Melee attacks are what kills most bbeg's, should there be an aura that turns off all 2nd and additional attacks because damage trivializes all fights? That would feel terrible for the players of melee characters. This is no different for casters.