D&D 5E What is the best way to handle ‘magic resistance’ in D&D 5e?

[Yaarel]

My general impression is, the designers are uncertain about how to handle Magic Resistance. In some contexts it is significantly underestimated, and is widely available, even at the lowest levels. On the other hand, the designers are queasy about granting Magic Resistance to player characters.

 

[Bacon Bits]

My general impression is, the designers are uncertain about how to handle Magic Resistance. In some contexts it is significantly underestimated, and is widely available, even at the lowest levels. On the other hand, the designers are queasy about granting Magic Resistance to player characters.

The issue is that if you've got good saves, magic resistance is amazing. If you've got terrible saves, magic resistance is pretty worthless. That's why it's listed as being worth +2. It varies in power significantly.

For example, when running Rage of Demons, our Wizard found that against high level demons the only spell he could reliably use was fire bolt -- because it was a spell attack -- even though demons resist or are immune to fire. Meanwhile, the weapon users of the group all had magic weapons so that by level 13 our party of 7 was able to destroy two Balors in under 5 rounds.

However, against a set of Iron Golems, the same Wizard killed one by himself with lightning bolts. I don't think the Golem made one save.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What is the best way to handle ‘magic resistance’ in D&D 5e?

Currently, IIRC, "Magic Resistance" in 5e is just advantage on saves vs magic, which is OK, except that many magical effects simply don't give saves - they just happen, or maybe use an attack roll instead.

A very similar mechanic would be to give the Magic Resistant create an up-front preemptive save whenever it would be affected by magic (it's simple enough to figure the DC based on the source of the magic, or just ballpark it anywhere between 10 & 20, really), if it succeeds, the magic does nothing. If it fails and the magic in question normally forces the save, it makes that save normally. The only question is which save bonus to use: it could use, perhaps, CON or CHA or it could vary from creature to creature, or Magic Resistance could have it's own bonus, unrelated to the creatures other saves (rather like it was a % in the classic game, so you'd have "Magic Resistance +3" for relatively minor magic resistance, or "Magic Resistance +11" for really potent).

For Magic Resistance vs specific things, like the classic elf's resistance to sleep & charm, it could work the exact same way, just vs a smaller set of effects. A creature could even have different Magic Resistance bonuses vs different types of magic. You could apply the best one, stack them, or even roll each independently.

If you consider saving throws balanced enough, as it is, then something like that's reasonably balanced - it's not any more powerful vs effects that are negated by saves, only a little more so vs save-for-half, and still hardly broken against others... not particularly worse, for instance, than imposing disadvantage on an attack roll.

Yeah, it could stack with adv/dis. But, as has always been the case, just as the way to cope with magic is generally with opposing magic, the way to cope with magic resistance is with non-magical means. "Balanced" as anything in 5e or the classic game.

 

[Yaarel]

Currently, IIRC, "Magic Resistance" in 5e is just advantage on saves vs magic, which is OK, except that many magical effects simply don't give saves - they just happen, or maybe use an attack roll instead.

Yeah, in 5e, ‘Magic Resistance’ is officially identical to a Magic Save Advantage.

This should not be confused with the Abjurer features: Spell Save Advantage and Spell Damage Resistance.

‘Magic Resistance’ is similar to Gnome ‘Cunning’, which is a Magic Save Advantage if it requires a Wisdom, Charisma, or Intelligence save.

A very similar mechanic would be to give the Magic Resistant create an up-front preemptive save whenever it would be affected by magic (it's simple enough to figure the DC based on the source of the magic, or just ballpark it anywhere between 10 & 20, really), if it succeeds, the magic does nothing. If it fails and the magic in question normally forces the save, it makes that save normally. The only question is which save bonus to use: it could use, perhaps, CON or CHA or it could vary from creature to creature, or Magic Resistance could have it's own bonus, unrelated to the creatures other saves (rather like it was a % in the classic game, so you'd have "Magic Resistance +3" for relatively minor magic resistance, or "Magic Resistance +11" for really potent).

An even simpler version of this preemptive save might be:

Magic Save Advantage. As with advantage, the save succeeds if either d20 succeeds. However if both d20s succeed then the spell effect is negated similar to an antimagic field whose area is self.

For Magic Resistance vs specific things, like the classic elf's resistance to sleep & charm, it could work the exact same way, just vs a smaller set of effects. A creature could even have different Magic Resistance bonuses vs different types of magic. You could apply the best one, stack them, or even roll each independently.

Highly specific things, like Trance sleep immunity and charmed save advantaged, are situational. I consider each worth about a skill proficiency, and only if the Trance also includes 4 hours light activity counting as a long rest.

If you consider saving throws balanced enough, as it is,

Heh. It is what it is. Still, I am getting the feeling that the three clusters − Constitution, Dexterity+Strength, and Wisdom+Charisma+Intelligence − are each useful. Albeit it seems impossible to ‘balance’ the traditional six abilities. I wish, wish, wish Wisdom would split up into Intelligence-Perception and Charisma-Will. That would make it possible to balance. But for 5e that ship seems to have sailed. So Wisdom hogs both Perception and Will.

Then something like that's reasonably balanced - it's not any more powerful vs effects that are negated by saves, only a little more so vs save-for-half, and still hardly broken against others... not particularly worse, for instance, than imposing disadvantage on an attack roll.

Yeah, it could stack with adv/dis. But, as has always been the case, just as the way to cope with magic is generally with opposing magic, the way to cope with magic resistance is with non-magical means. "Balanced" as anything in 5e or the classic game.

I am surprised you consider preemptive spell negation as balanced as disadvantage on an attack. In my experience with 1e, this kind of thing seemed highly powerful, disruptive to the gaming system, ... and coveted. But if you feel, in the context of 5e, it is less problematic, I will look into it more carefully.

I would still lean toward both advantage d20s succeeding as the mechanic to preemptively negate the effect, for the sake of economy of dice rolls while players take turns.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am surprised you consider preemptive spell negation as balanced as disadvantage on an attack.

I think I left out part of that thought: in the context of spells that take an attack roll, a preemptive save to negate would be comparable to disadvantage on the attack.

In my experience with 1e, this kind of thing seemed highly powerful, disruptive to the gaming system, ... and coveted. But if you feel, in the context of 5e, it is less problematic, I will look into it more carefully.

Magic's very powerful and versatile in D&D, always has been, Magic Resistance can be used as a way of getting players to find other solutions,

I would still lean toward both advantage d20s succeeding as the mechanic to preemptively negate the effect, for the sake of economy of dice rolls while players take turns.

It seems sound enough for save:1/2 spells, but still meaningless for save:neg, no save, and attack-roll spells...

 

[Yaarel]

It seems sound enough for save:1/2 spells, but still meaningless for save:neg, no save, and attack-roll spells...

Tentatively, attack-roll spells as an intentional method to bypass resistance, seems ok.

Save negates is fine.

The issue is no save spells. That is where the difference with the old school magic resistance is.

5e has the Antimagic Field spell ... at spell 8 ... and it likewise negates the magic of caster as well as the magic of any hostiles. But it is the closest 5e comes to 1e Magic Resistance.

There is also Globe of Invulnerability at spell 6, that negates spell effects according to spell level. But that mechanic feels awkward.

 

[Yaarel]

I wonder if it is balanced to think of Magic Negation as similar to the Shield spell. It is a reaction that negates a successful attack. The Shield spell is a powerful spell, and is there when you need it, but once exhausted, the normal vulnerability returns.

So a hostile casts a spell, such as Fireball. You decide whether to eat damage or use the Magic Negation reaction to nullify its effect on you. Say, there is only one Magic Negation per rest. Or per long rest, if per rest seems too powerful.

 

[Yaarel]

Looking at the 1e Monster Manual, the old school ‘magic resistance’ can only resists ‘spells’. Other kinds of magic can bypass it. (Arguably psionics is a nonspell form of magic, that indeed bypasses old school magic resistance.)

Old school would have been more accurate to call it ‘Spell Resistance’.

 

[jasper]

Yaarel depending on the DM if the psionic had a similar spell then they could say magic resistance.
Now today if you want MR. Advantage on spells with saves. No save spells get a save at the monsters best save.

 

[Yaarel]

SPELL IMMUNITY
2nd-level (Abjuration)
Casting Time. 1 reaction, which you can take when you are in the effect of a spell or hit by a spell attack.
Range. Self.
Components. V.
Duration. Instantaneous.

Under threat from a spell, a void in the fabric of magic rips around you. The magical resonance partially nullifies. Make an ability check using your highest spell casting ability versus the spell. Its DC is 10 + the spell’s level. On a success, you and any items on your possession prove immune to the effect of the spell. For example, a Fireball explodes around you, but the fiery energies that seer and char the nearby unattended objects, leave you unscathed.



_____

My spell, Spell Immunity, probably balances. Arguably it is somewhere between spell 2 and spell 3, but probably leans toward being an excellent spell 2. It is a selfish version of spell 3, Counterspell, and in that sense more limited. The caster of Spell Immunity is unaffected, but the rest of the team remains vulnerable to the spell effect, and so on. It models standard mechanics from Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and Antimagic Field. So, it is probably solid.

Now creatures that are innately immune to spells can simply use ‘Spell Immunity’ and regain the ability to use it again after each short rest or long rest. In the D&D tradition, Fey, Celestial, and Infernal creatures typically exhibit magic resistance. The idea seems to be, these creatures are made out of magic, thus innately able to adapt to magical effects. Sorta like a fish cant drown in water. Translating this tradition into 5e in a balanced way is a challenge, but this Spell Immunity seems to do that.



That said, this class of antimagic spells raises issues.

I insist on transparency between a spell effect and a psionic effect in my campaigns. So I dislike the technical language that keeps on referring to ‘spells’ and ‘spell levels’. Whether a Wizard is casting a Fireball or a Psion is manifesting a Fireball (heh, please dont call it a Pyrokinetic Detonation), it is the same thing and Spell Immunity should interact with it in the same way. The difficulty is the standard mechanics: ‘10 + spell level’. Suppose, the future Psion Fireball uses ‘psionic points’. Even tho spell 3 Fireball equals 5 points, technically, the antimagic spell wouldnt apply to these psionic points or spell points. Essentially, adding on diverse mechanical calculations, all to do the same simple task, is cumbersome and conflictive.

Personally, I wish all spell descriptions referred to class levels, instead of spell levels. So a Fireball would be a Wizard level 5 spell. Much simpler in my mind. And reference to ‘levels’ would interact with other game mechanics elsewhere. For example, a +1 sword might be considered a ‘level 1 magic item’, a +2 sword a ‘level 9 magic item’, a +3 sword a ‘level 17 magic item’, or whatever. Anyway, we already have the cumbersome mechanical distinction between ‘class level’, ‘character level’, and ‘spell level’, as part of the D&D tradition. It is what it is.

One virtue of referring to the spell slot level versus the d20 + the casting ability modifier, is the simplicity removes all possible bonuses and modifications, that could accumulate into brokenness at some point in the future of the game. There might be merit in converting all psionic and similar magic effects into their equivalent spell slot.

In any case, I want the spell description of Spell Immunity to easily and obviously refer to psionic and other magical effects as well.



An other issue with the antimagic spell type is they raise up all kinds of Schroedingers Cat paradoxes. Lets talk about the spell 8 Antimagic Field because this is an official spell that finds use often enough among those who reach the highest tiers. Difficulties with this spell happen in the game.

No magic can exist within the 10-foot radius nonmagical field around the caster. Explicitly, the Fireball explodes all around but is negated (or suppressed) within the circle. So the question is, can the caster even see the Fireball if its effect is unable to enter? If the caster can see it, then light can enter the field, so does that mean it is possible to attack a hostile caster with radiant energy? I assume no. Does that mean I can attack the caster by magically making an object emit nonmagical light, then blinding or burning the caster with a laser beam? I assume yes? If I cast a Fireball, the fielder is immune to it but what if he is standing on something combustible, like a pool of oil, that catches fire, does that Fireball effect burn the fielder? I assume yes? Does an Earthquake spell and it collapsing walls affect the antimagic fielder? I assume yes? Casting Fog Cloud blinds the fielder? I assume yes? Does Darkness? Maybe not? And so on. There are even more situations that get more convoluted and weirder. It reminds me of some of the weird scenarios that require adjudication when casting an objective illusion or a subjective phantasm.

It is worth noting. Introducing old school magic resistance into 5e means: these kinds of quasi-paradox adjudications become a normal part of the gaming experience, even at the lowest levels. As of now, these issues are mostly part of the flavor of illusion and phantasm spells. Or at the highest levels with an Antimagic Field. But with old school magic resistance, such adjudication becomes a normal part of the gaming experience for all magic in the game.

Maybe such continual DM adjudication helps magic ‘feel’ more magic. It requires subjective visualization and imagination. But it is an issue.



[Edit.] It is possible to update the spell description of Spell Immunity to allow the use of the reaction *after* any damage is determined.

‘Casting Time. 1 reaction, which you can take when you are in the effect of a spell or hit by a spell attack, and after the potential effect including any damage is determined.’

This makes the decision about whether to use the reaction significantly better. As such, it might be worth a spell 3. If so, I will keep Spell Immunity as is, to ensure it stays appropriate for spell level 2, thereby suitable as a trait of certain player character races.