D&D 5E Sell/unsell me on Magic Resistance and Legendary Resistance

[dave2008]

Sure. Here's my attempt. Also inline below.

-Max

5E Magic Resistance (variant rule)
Variant rule: Magic Resistance
[This rule replaces both Monstrous Manual Magic Resistance and Legendary Resistance. Creatures with one or the other should be assigned a Magic Resistance ability and score.]

Some extremely powerful creatures strongly resist and disrupt the effects of magical energy. These creatures live and breath arcane energy, and by an act of will they can cause magic to recoil from them like water droplets skittering off a hot griddle.

I like it. Need to simplify for a stat block, would this work:

15) Magic Resistance. The dragon can use its reaction to attempt to negate a spell or magical effect. If the dragon makes a Charisma saving throw (DC = spell level + 10) it suffers no damage, condition, or effect from the spell or magical effect.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not a fan of Magic Resistance, but for the opposite reason: I feel it's not strong enough. Spells that don't allow saves ignore it, meaning that you always have an "out" against those creatures. Creature has Magic Resistance: use Scorching Ray instead of Fireball.

That's my feeling; it's too easy to avoid it via touch-attack spells like Contagion that
don't give a save. As far as I can see, Contagion - Slimy Doom plus an ally to hit the
critter will take out any solo very easily. The only defence is not getting hit. IMC there's a BBEG
ca CR 24 Empyrean Son of Ares with AC 27 due to his +3 shield. The 12th level PC Cleric could
potentially take him out with one spell, he just needs to roll high on the to-hit roll.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure. Here's my attempt.

Interesting. A few questions:

Where did you decide which ability to use for magic resistance? Or is it always Charisma?

You gave the Balor a +12. Can I assume that's Charisma modifier plus proficiency? Are all monsters with magic resistance proficient?

You use the reaction mechanic. Let me discuss this:

Any particular reasons why? Please confirm if the following are intentional consequences of this design choice:
1) by spending its reaction on magic resistance, the monster loses in "stickiness" (since it can't do an opportunity attack in the same round)
2) by having to use its reaction, the monster is helpless against a second spell cast in the same round as the first
3) normally you'd reserve actions you take through your reaction to be reactive actions. What I mean is; it seems as if your idea is that the monster should spend its reaction even on its own turn in the "burst the force cage" example.

Next; you did not chose any lethal effects in your examples. Any particular reason why? Do you intend the monster to be able to recover from all spells or only those who impair the monster somehow but without killing it outright?

For example: you bring up Wall of Force. Fine. So Hold Monster and Flesh to Stone presumably works the same way. The monster can be considered still active - "alive but chained". But how about effects that move the monster to another plane? Changes it into a stupid frog? Or kills it outright? Put simply, are you envisioning any limits on what your magic resistance can save you from?

 

[CapnZapp]

I like it. Need to simplify for a stat block, would this work:

15) Magic Resistance. The dragon can use its reaction to attempt to negate a spell or magical effect. If the dragon makes a Charisma saving throw (DC = spell level + 10) it suffers no damage, condition, or effect from the spell or magical effect.

No comment, just an observation: you just changed Hemlock's ability check into a saving throw. If that matters.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I like it. Need to simplify for a stat block, would this work:

15) Magic Resistance. The dragon can use its reaction to attempt to negate a spell or magical effect. If the dragon makes a Charisma saving throw (DC = spell level + 10) it suffers no damage, condition, or effect from the spell or magical effect.

Change it to an ability check instead of a saving throw and you've got the essence mostly right. Or go ahead and make it a saving throw if you like that better--I like the ability check because of the Counterspell analogy. Your version doesn't collapse ongoing magical effects like Wall of Force but I assume that's on purpose.

If you want to simplify my version for a stat block, just phrase it like this: "Charisma (Magic Resistance): +12". Boom, you're done. After all, monsters don't repeat the Stealth rules inline just because they have Stealth proficiency, they just say "Stealth +6".

 

[dave2008]

No comment, just an observation: you just changed Hemlock's ability check into a saving throw. If that matters.

I used the saving throw so that it could have proficiency added. But either way is fine for me. I could also see it being a limited resource instead of using a reaction.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Any particular reasons why? Please confirm if the following are intentional consequences of this design choice:
1) by spending its reaction on magic resistance, the monster loses in "stickiness" (since it can't do an opportunity attack in the same round)
2) by having to use its reaction, the monster is helpless against a second spell cast in the same round as the first
3) normally you'd reserve actions you take through your reaction to be reactive actions. What I mean is; it seems as if your idea is that the monster should spend its reaction even on its own turn in the "burst the force cage" example.

FWIW, I was in an AL game recently where one of the Legendary Monsters (there were several) had the quality Reactive, which allowed it to use a Reaction every turn.

 

[dave2008]

Change it to an ability check instead of a saving throw and you've got the essence mostly right. Or go ahead and make it a saving throw if you like that better--I like the ability check because of the Counterspell analogy. Your version doesn't collapse ongoing magical effects like Wall of Force but I assume that's on purpose.

If you want to simplify my version for a stat block, just phrase it like this: "Charisma (Magic Resistance): +12". Boom, you're done. After all, monsters don't repeat the Stealth rules inline just because they have Stealth proficiency, they just say "Stealth +6".

No, I intended it to work with wall of force. What prevents it from being used with wall of force? What can be revised to added that concept back in?

Also, what is the preference for ability checks versus saving throws? I like that saving throws can have proficiency added and it is in the stat block - makes it easy to determine the DC.

 

[dave2008]

If you want to simplify my version for a stat block, just phrase it like this: "Charisma (Magic Resistance): +12". Boom, you're done. After all, monsters don't repeat the Stealth rules inline just because they have Stealth proficiency, they just say "Stealth +6".

That only works if you already have rules for Magic Resistance; if it was a "skill". I was not assuming, this. I just want something simple I can drop into a stat block

 

[dave2008]

FWIW, I was in an AL game recently where one of the Legendary Monsters (there were several) had the quality Reactive, which allowed it to use a Reaction every turn.

Marilith Demons have this trait