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

[dave2008]

Okay. For the record then, I don't think what I wrote can be usefully distilled (much) past what I already wrote--I already trimmed it down to the point where everything written down is intentional.

My attempt works for me, so it may work for others Though I think I'm sticking with the MM version for now. I don't really have a problem with it.

 

[Quartz]

I like the idea of Legendary Resistance, but, theorycrafting, I dislike the implementation. I recall the idea of MERP that creatures could resist at a much higher level.

Try this:

A Legendary creature may have one or more of the below:

A Legendary Creature adds its Proficiency Bonus to all Saving Throws.
A Legendary Creature adds its Proficiency Bonus to all defensive Ability Checks.
A Legendary Creature always receives a Saving Throw or Ability Check.
A Legendary Creature may succeed in a Saving Throw or Ability Check as a Legendary Action.

 

[Shiroiken]

But how does that BBEG know which spell it should or shouldn't save?
I know that most players say "I'm casting X spell, make a save." but IMHO opinion, the BBEG doesn't know that.
If it sees a wall of fire coming it's way, yes it's clear. But a normal spell like hold person or feeblemind? What are the signs? If the BBEG has the spell in it's own repertoire, it can recognize the V/S parts of the spell.

That's what Intelligence (Arcana) checks are for

 

[CapnZapp]

Honestly, most options are basically "the monster gets to make a roll, instead of just auto-succeeding".

But one thing about the original rule that I think must be kept is how a MM monster can use up all its three autosaves in the same round. Even before it has acted. Before it even knows it's under attack!

The thing I'm most interested in seeing mechanical discussion on, however, is forms of legendary magic resistance that allows the player the satisfaction of getting "in" his spell; that doesn't simply deny the player some effect.

So far the discussion has mostly revolved around different ways to basically give the monster more saves, or even have it automatically make its saves.

But what about failing saves and getting affected by the spell's effect - but not in such a way as to be completely out of the fight?

I'm thinking that if we could define what it means to be "two-thirds in the fight" and "one-third in the fight" we could simply have legendary monsters have "legendary resilience" and not have to mess with the saves at all. Let the player's spell hit the BBEG as usual and let the player get the satisfaction of a spell well used. Only the BBEG is too legendary to stay down...

Then we'd simply track each way you could be "down" (as in petrified, paralyzed, banished or dead) and count "three strikes and you're out".

One strike: you're mostly cosmetically affected. The DM is free to avoid splashy huge effects; like showy lair actions, actions that recharge (dragon breath). If the condition is "immobile" you only move as little as possible to not whiff your action. Use alternative modes of transport if possible. But you're basically free to do anything you need to do to still be effective. Ignore any effect. Break any rule. You're legendary.

Two strikes: you either have disadvantage at everything you do (active abilities) but not defenses. Or the DM only uses your main attack and gives everything else a rest. You're mainly defeated, only the heroes can't just ignore you. If they do, you'll come back (even if only to escape to fight another day).

Three strikes: the heroes actually did it - you are truly defeated (killed/banished/mazed whatevs). The heroes can now mop up any allies and kill your ass when the paralyze/petrification/sleep wears off. Basically, it's over.

With this system, all that's left to hash out is to define how often the monster gets shots at comebacks. The easiest suggestion that parallells the rule as written is:

At the start of each of your turns: erase one strike from each condition "track" automatically.

A Dragon that's been hit with two Hold Monster and one Maze starts its turn as if it's hit by one Hold Monster (strike one) and no Maze.

That's simple, but also fairly crude. There'd be no point in casting different kinds of spells. Let's see if we can't come up with something more satisfying

 

[dave2008]

Honestly, most options are basically "the monster gets to make a roll, instead of just auto-succeeding".

But one thing about the original rule that I think must be kept is how a MM monster can use up all its three autosaves in the same round. Even before it has acted. Before it even knows it's under attack!

The thing I'm most interested in seeing mechanical discussion on, however, is forms of legendary magic resistance that allows the player the satisfaction of getting "in" his spell; that doesn't simply deny the player some effect.

So far the discussion has mostly revolved around different ways to basically give the monster more saves, or even have it automatically make its saves.

But what about failing saves and getting affected by the spell's effect - but not in such a way as to be completely out of the fight?

I'm thinking that if we could define what it means to be "two-thirds in the fight" and "one-third in the fight" we could simply have legendary monsters have "legendary resilience" and not have to mess with the saves at all. Let the player's spell hit the BBEG as usual and let the player get the satisfaction of a spell well used. Only the BBEG is too legendary to stay down...

Then we'd simply track each way you could be "down" (as in petrified, paralyzed, banished or dead) and count "three strikes and you're out".

One strike: you're mostly cosmetically affected. The DM is free to avoid splashy huge effects; like showy lair actions, actions that recharge (dragon breath). If the condition is "immobile" you only move as little as possible to not whiff your action. Use alternative modes of transport if possible. But you're basically free to do anything you need to do to still be effective. Ignore any effect. Break any rule. You're legendary.

Two strikes: you either have disadvantage at everything you do (active abilities) but not defenses. Or the DM only uses your main attack and gives everything else a rest. You're mainly defeated, only the heroes can't just ignore you. If they do, you'll come back (even if only to escape to fight another day).

Three strikes: the heroes actually did it - you are truly defeated (killed/banished/mazed whatevs). The heroes can now mop up any allies and kill your ass when the paralyze/petrification/sleep wears off. Basically, it's over.

With this system, all that's left to hash out is to define how often the monster gets shots at comebacks. The easiest suggestion that parallells the rule as written is:

At the start of each of your turns: erase one strike from each condition "track" automatically.

A Dragon that's been hit with two Hold Monster and one Maze starts its turn as if it's hit by one Hold Monster (strike one) and no Maze.

That's simple, but also fairly crude. There'd be no point in casting different kinds of spells. Let's see if we can't come up with something more satisfying

The problem is what you want is not simple, it can't be universally applied. So far I have been unable to think of a simple way to impliment it. Maybe I can take a crack this weekend

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] My objection with Legendary Resistance (and to a lesser extent with Magic Resistance & resistance to multiple weapon types) is that it doesn't say anything specific about the monster and it doesn't help the DM craft a narrative. IOW it's way too bland and generic, and all it appears to tell the DM to narrate is "nothing happens." There's no guidance about what it actually MEANS.

I see why something LIKE Legendary Resistance is necessary for solo/boss fights, mechanically, but I think the implementation falls short.

For example, I'm giving a loup du noir Magic Resistance that can be temporarily overcome for a round by dousing it with holy water. This is not the sort of action a player would usually consider against a lycanthrope, but if they invest in the story they can deduce this information, gaining an advantage. If they ignore or overlook it, they can still fight but it'll be harder.

Legendary Resistance is more complex, however, and I think it's better to talk about specific monsters rather than the universal approach WotC opted for. Your "condition track" idea certainly would keep players from that feeling of "ugh nothing happened with my spell?" (even though something DID happen behind the screen reducing the # of legendary resistances the monster has), by encoding some sort of effects each time the monster expends one of its legendary resistances. Alternately the condition track could be tied to certain hit point thresholds, which is something divine word and power word: stun in the PHB refer to.

However, it doesn't yet tell a story specific to that monster. It's still a universal mechanic. It doesn't help me as a DM decide, HOW do I foreshadow the red dragon's Legendary Resistance to the players? Narratively WHAT happens when the dragon uses a legendary resistance?

Answering those questions, and making the answers interesting, IMHO is the missing Step 0.

 

[Mouseferatu]

One could potentially come up with a list of "lesser effects" for Legendary Resistance to provide. What I mean is, rather than "Hold Monster didn't work at all," it could be "Hold Monster didn't succeed in paralyzing the creature, but it slowed its movement for a round."

Maybe the next couple of attacks against the creature automatically deal max damage. Or the creature's next attack deals minimum damage. Or the creature loses one of its legendary actions for the round. A lot of them would default to "disadvantage for a round," but even that's better than accomplishing nothing.

It'd require the DM to create this list in advance, but once done, it's done, with only corner cases to be adjudicated on the fly. It might or might not vary per creature; DM's prerogative.

But...

Something would have to be done to bump up the creature in other respects. Otherwise this change, while adding some flavor, has also weakened them, and they're already barely passable as solos/bosses as is.

 

[Quickleaf]

Something would have to be done to bump up the creature in other respects. Otherwise this change, while adding some flavor, has also weakened them, and they're already barely passable as solos/bosses as is.

I've only run a handful of legendary monsters, and mostly at lower levels, so I don't yet have a feel for this.

What makes them "barely passable"? Is it being subject to stun and other crippling effects, like folks are talking about in this thread, or something more systemic?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I've only run a handful of legendary monsters, and mostly at lower levels, so I don't yet have a feel for this.

What makes them "barely passable"? Is it being subject to stun and other crippling effects, like folks are talking about in this thread, or something more systemic?

Hit points and action economy. Legendary actions go a good ways toward solving the action economy discrepancy, but not all the way. A party that chooses to focus fire--which is usually (albeit not always) the optimal strategy--can take down even a legendary critter pretty quickly.

And legendary creatures don't have any more HP than other creatures of their CR, for the most part. That makes sense in one respect--you don't want combat to become a drag--but it means the above-mentioned focused fire, again, takes them down fast.

Basically, 5E--which I love, and is my favorite edition in many respects--simply doesn't handle solo monsters well, at all. Legendary critters are closer than others, but still not really there, unless there's also a huge level/CR variance. They're really closer to "elites" than "solos," if I may revert to 4E terms.

 

[dave2008]

Hit points and action economy. Legendary actions go a good ways toward solving the action economy discrepancy, but not all the way. A party that chooses to focus fire--which is usually (albeit not always) the optimal strategy--can take down even a legendary critter pretty quickly.

And legendary creatures don't have any more HP than other creatures of their CR, for the most part. That makes sense in one respect--you don't want combat to become a drag--but it means the above-mentioned focused fire, again, takes them down fast.

Basically, 5E--which I love, and is my favorite edition in many respects--simply doesn't handle solo monsters well, at all. Legendary critters are closer than others, but still not really there, unless there's also a huge level/CR variance. They're really closer to "elites" than "solos," if I may revert to 4E terms.

I've been think that I might double Legendary HP, that would seem to solve your problem, thought I think they need to hit harder too.