Is Legendary Resistance a Lazy Mechanic?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I think Legendary Resistances are a lazy mechanic that encourages metagaming from the DM and the party. The DM is typically keeping a mental list of what spells or effects the party has yet to use (knowledge that their enemies usually wouldn't have), and the party is trying to walk the line of throwing out a few things powerful enough to burn all the LRs but not so powerful that they have nothing left afterward. It feels awkward and gamey every time I've seen them come up in a session. I can't think of a time where I've seen one used and thought that it added to the game. In addition I think they feel like they take agency away from the player rather than actively giving agency to the people/creatures the party is fighting.

Is there a general consensus on this, or am I an outlier? What would be a better way to give bosses more threat in a less cheap, more narratively interesting way? Has anyone tried ditching them and replacing them with something else?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think Legendary Resistances are a lazy mechanic that encourages metagaming from the DM and the party. The DM is typically keeping a mental list of what spells or effects the party has yet to use (knowledge that their enemies usually wouldn't have), and the party is trying to walk the line of throwing out a few things powerful enough to burn all the LRs but not so powerful that they have nothing left afterward. It feels awkward and gamey every time I've seen them come up in a session. I can't think of a time where I've seen one used and thought that it added to the game. In addition I think they feel like they take agency away from the player rather than actively giving agency to the people/creatures the party is fighting.

Is there a general consensus on this, or am I an outlier? What would be a better way to give bosses more threat in a less cheap, more narratively interesting way? Has anyone tried ditching them and replacing them with something else?

I have a rule with my players:

I will use LR to break the conditions that constitute "Hard CC". That is, the first three spells or effects that would completely deny a legendary monster his turn/actions will get saved against. This includes: banishment, stunning strike, polymorph, hold Xand all similar action-denial spells. It does not include spells or effects that merely restrict actions or impose disadvantage.

In return, I will only very rarely use legendary monsters. It may come up once or twice per campaign. And since hard cc isn't fun against players IMX, I rarely use it. I'll do lots of things that hamper them, but effects that just take them out of the fight are boring.

Without them, solo monster fights quickly degenerate to "stun the boss then clean up". Which is boring for everyone else. That, or you have to give immunities to all those things to the boss anyway...which is the same thing just worse (no limits).

[Tanarii]

So how would you propose to give epic boss monsters, who are facing a huge action disadvantage and very vulnerable to save or suck effects, a fighting chance?

[Mith]

Legendary Resistances (LR), are ment to balance out the action economy of a solo monster, along with Legendary Actions. While I can grumble about precise implementation, the way D&D operates does require something like this, otherwise in order to make a solo boss challenging with other tools, you have essentially a nigh untouchable murder machine.

An idea I had to make LR less metagamey, is to make LR a pool of points that are spent to raise a saving throw such that it passes the save. This eliminates meta gaming, as it's an automatic process akin to HP. Make Indomitable for Fighters the same, and you have rough parallel between a PC class and an NPC feature.

Heck, give Fighters the ability to spend an Action Surge as a Reaction to either move or take an Attack action, and you have a comparison to Legendary Actions as well.

[microstyles]

I was considering replacing legendary resistances with advantage on all saving throws but my players are still low level so I haven't actually tried it or thought about it too hard.

I more or less have the same problems you do with legendary resistances. I'll also note the additional problem of something like setting a trap for a legendary creature. If the trap they set is based on three saving throws or less, the legendary creature can get out of it guaranteed. I could sidestep the game mechanics and handle the situation narratively, but that still points to a problem with the system.

I'm interested to hear what everyone else thinks of this.

[DevilMcam]

There are a lot of level 1-2 spells that would wreck your average dragon day and legendary resistance are here to avoid that.
On the other hand there are a lot of level 1-2 spells that are powerfull enough for the dragon to want to use his resistance on that if you wish to disintegrate him later.

Command/faery fire/hideous laughter/phantasmal force/earthbind, ...

[NorthernPhoenix]

I think they are a pretty good 5e answer to the much older edition baggage problem of save-or-lose spells/powers and how they work.

[Contrast]

AngryGM suggested a paragon mechanic (https://theangrygm.com/return-of-the-son-of-the-dd-boss-fight-now-in-5e/) whereby certain monsters will shake off all effects and potentially (or not) take on a new form or abilities as the fight progresses which would occupy part of the point of legendary resistances.

This just creates its own meta though to be fair where people wait for a new form before casting a spell in case its just about to hit the limit.

[Tanarii]

Also there is a simple solution to LR so-called-meta gaming, and it works for all knowing what spell is coming so-called-metagaming: spell cards.

When a player casts a spell, ask them to play it face down. Then decide if you'll use whatever special ability you gave (LR, CS, etc). Then have them flip it over.

Works the other way too, DM can do this with NPCs casting at players.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Also there is a simple solution to LR so-called-meta gaming, and it works for all knowing what spell is coming so-called-metagaming: spell cards.

When a player casts a spell, ask them to play it face down. Then decide if you'll use whatever special ability you gave (LR, CS, etc). Then have them flip it over.

Works the other way too, DM can do this with NPCs casting at players.

That completely removes the whole point of LR, nevermind creating a atmosphere/culture of mistrust and player-vs-DM.

[MaxWilson]

I think Legendary Resistances are a lazy mechanic that encourages metagaming from the DM and the party. The DM is typically keeping a mental list of what spells or effects the party has yet to use (knowledge that their enemies usually wouldn't have), and the party is trying to walk the line of throwing out a few things powerful enough to burn all the LRs but not so powerful that they have nothing left afterward. It feels awkward and gamey every time I've seen them come up in a session. I can't think of a time where I've seen one used and thought that it added to the game. In addition I think they feel like they take agency away from the player rather than actively giving agency to the people/creatures the party is fighting.

Is there a general consensus on this, or am I an outlier? What would be a better way to give bosses more threat in a less cheap, more narratively interesting way? Has anyone tried ditching them and replacing them with something else?

Old-school magic resistance. Has the advantage of also working against things like Wall of Force that don't allow a saving throw.

[urandom]

This is something I've thought about. I basically agree that they are questionably fun (because they make players feel obligated to wait on their big guns). However I think narrating that the effect was working, but the boss fought it off at some cost to itself makes it effective. They feel like their action did something, not just whiffed, and they know the boss is more vulnerable. I do kinda dislike the 'count to three' aspect. A few alternatives, some borrowed or inspired by other people's ideas.

One option would be to roll a die (d4, d6, or d8 most likely) and if the result is less than or equal to the number of times they've used LR, it fails. So there's a gamble to using it, and the players can't just count to three to see if they are out of LR.

One option would be to give them a number of inspiration dice of different sizes. They can choose one of them and add it to a save, but then it is used up. This way more serious effects, or that they failed quite poorly force them to use up larger inspiration dice, and they can always still get unlucky. I would recommend letting the players see the inspiration pool and watch you roll these, so it adds to the tension, and makes them feel like they are accomplishing something.

The main issue with this sort of thing is that it adds a slight extra mechanic instead of just ticking off a box. However there's usually only one monster with LR in the battle so its not bad.

[RSP]

Also there is a simple solution to LR so-called-meta gaming, and it works for all knowing what spell is coming so-called-metagaming: spell cards.

When a player casts a spell, ask them to play it face down. Then decide if you'll use whatever special ability you gave (LR, CS, etc). Then have them flip it over.

Works the other way too, DM can do this with NPCs casting at players.

I like this with Counterspell, however, with LR, don’t you have to roll the save first to see if they pass sans LR? I’d imagine this would require at least knowing what save is needed, and the DC (usually a static number for all a caster’s spells but not necessarily). I’d imagine knowing if something is a Con save vs a Dex save would weigh the DM’s decision.

It also uses more of a OOC DM vs Player poker game, than an in-game PC vs NPC battle; which I dislike using for determining in-game outcomes. It’s definitely a lot more Metagamey than LR on their own (particularly if Players don’t know if the BBEG passed a save due to their natural roll, or due to LR).

[Willie the Duck]

I think Legendary Resistances are a lazy mechanic that encourages metagaming from the DM and the party. The DM is typically keeping a mental list of what spells or effects the party has yet to use (knowledge that their enemies usually wouldn't have), and the party is trying to walk the line of throwing out a few things powerful enough to burn all the LRs but not so powerful that they have nothing left afterward. It feels awkward and gamey every time I've seen them come up in a session. I can't think of a time where I've seen one used and thought that it added to the game. In addition I think they feel like they take agency away from the player rather than actively giving agency to the people/creatures the party is fighting.

Is there a general consensus on this, or am I an outlier? What would be a better way to give bosses more threat in a less cheap, more narratively interesting way? Has anyone tried ditching them and replacing them with something else?

Well, any part of the game that relies on slots can be metagamed, this is just a little more straightforward (and well known that most creatures with LR get the same amount) than the typical enemy mage or the like.

Overall, I don't find it lazy, so much as the primary goal was not well explained. 5e lowered the save chance on most spells (at least compared to TSR-era D&D) such that high level players and their opponents no longer usually only miss saves on a natural 1. This was predominantly to make 'save or ____' spells more interesting than gambling on a 5% chance to really destroy an opponent. As a consequence, the consequences of failing had to be reduced. No/few 'save or dies,' most 'save or can't act's have serious limits like a save every round or get back online after any damage. This works pretty well -- except for boss fights, where a single round of action from the big-bad is simply too valuable (to the budget of fight challenge, as it were) relative to how effective those spells normally are.

So no, I don't think LR is cheap in any way. It's a vital mechanism for keeping various fight challenges at the appropriate level of challenge. That said, it is just one of many ways to do it. If you dislike the meta-gamability of it, consider switching it for some mostly-equivalent system that doesn't have the same issues -- such as instead of 100% chance to stop exactly 3 effects, have a X % chance of stopping exactly Y effects.



Old-school magic resistance. Has the advantage of also working against things like Wall of Force that don't allow a saving throw.

The prodigal son returns. Nice to see you.
Sure, this or something like it. 50% miss chance beyond the save, extra chance to shake off effect, take XdY damage and get to re-save. Lots of options, but the general principle remains the same.

[Zuras]

So how would you propose to give epic boss monsters, who are facing a huge action disadvantage and very vulnerable to save or suck effects, a fighting chance?


Giving epic boss monsters multiple spots in the initiative order, instead of legendary actions, treating them almost like multiple creatures, and allowing hard CC spells to only affect one “instance” of the boss, is one way of doing it. Something that gets around the issue of the no-sell for landing a powerful save-or-suck spell.

[Tanarii]

Giving epic boss monsters multiple spots in the initiative order, instead of legendary actions, treating them almost like multiple creatures, and allowing hard CC spells to only affect one “instance” of the boss, is one way of doing it. Something that gets around the issue of the no-sell for landing a powerful save-or-suck spell.
So your solution is a two-headed snake: a boss with two sets of actions on two initiatives, two pools of hit points, and two targets for effects?

Thats two snakes. I mean, it can still work if you can sell it as one scary two-headed snake to your players.

[Vogie]

I mean - yes. It's essentially a niche version of counterspell that mechanically allows the BBEG to Outwit (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=240050) or Avoid (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=108886) some of the shenanigans that the players can think up. It's just as lazy as any of the other mechanics that keep creatures alive, like "Immunity from Stunned/Restrained/Prone", resistance/immunity from damage types, Regeneration, counterspells, shields, lair actions, adamantine Armor, or things like the Relentless special ability, the Rakshasa's Immunity from Spells below X level, and whatnot. It essentially makes certain combos less degenerate, and stretch the combat out... no one wants to get to the end of their dungeon, or other climactic point of their story, and watch this built-up villain fail a series of checks and be Disintegrated in 2 turns.

However, Legendary resistances are in place because they're very broad. GEBB the BBEG, when being written, doesn't know if they're going against stunlocking monks, Curse-Bestowing Clerics, Grappling Barbarians or Evocation Blasters, something else (or combinations thereof) - and so legendary resistances are a catchall.

If you're making your own creature, however, you can tailor the defenses of the creature to your group's tactics (provided said BBEG is smart enough to do so):

If against a collection of slashers and shooters, replace the Legendary Actions with just more HP and a crit-negator like adamantine armor, or maybe a Wind Wall they can throw boulders through.
If against a group that uses some sort of "Restrain + Dex Blast" combo, choose one part of the combo, and give the BBEG the ability to make that combo not work. This could be a single absurd Saving throw bonuses, Foresight, Counterspells, immunity to a condition, whatever. "All of my lieutenants have been restrained and disintegrated over the past 3 days... maybe there's a pattern here?!"
If they're focused on single target damage, divvy up the BBEG into a Coven or group combo, maybe by adding a Shield Guardian, Lackey with Warding Bond, or pack of Enlarged Diseased Dire Wolves.
If they're good at AoE, give the BBEG a way to give the party reasons to not use that - maybe the final fight is in a shakey cave, collapsing castle, a wooden ship, or they surround themselves with hostages, et cetera.



So your solution is a two-headed snake: a boss with two sets of actions on two initiatives, two pools of hit points, and two targets for effects?

Thats two snakes. I mean, it can still work if you can sell it as one scary two-headed snake to your players.

Yeah, I could get behind 2 initiative actions, but if you have 2 pools of hit points, I'd call it 2 creatures. You can certainly just do that - Such as fight with "Strahd and Strahd's Animated Armor", or "Manshoon and his Simulacrum". However, I've made a fight with an two-headed giant based on an ettin that is half fighter and half barbarian - While he took a single turn, he had 2 ACs and 2 reactions, one for each half. And that worked really well.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I like this with Counterspell, however, with LR, don’t you have to roll the save first to see if they pass sans LR? I’d imagine this would require at least knowing what save is needed, and the DC (usually a static number for all a caster’s spells but not necessarily). I’d imagine knowing if something is a Con save vs a Dex save would weigh the DM’s decision.

It also uses more of a OOC DM vs Player poker game, than an in-game PC vs NPC battle; which I dislike using for determining in-game outcomes. It’s definitely a lot more Metagamey than LR on their own (particularly if Players don’t know if the BBEG passed a save due to their natural roll, or due to LE).

I agree with this. I actually don't like this that much with Counterspell either, but it's the best I've seen/played. It just still feels kinda bad, like the game within a game where the DM is clearly against the players. There's enough nuance to how DMs play it for it to make sense though. My current DM sometimes allows me as a Wizard to make a free Arcana check to potentially gain knowledge about what spell is being cast or what the effects might be.


Giving epic boss monsters multiple spots in the initiative order, instead of legendary actions, treating them almost like multiple creatures, and allowing hard CC spells to only affect one “instance” of the boss, is one way of doing it. Something that gets around the issue of the no-sell for landing a powerful save-or-suck spell.


So your solution is a two-headed snake: a boss with two sets of actions on two initiatives, two pools of hit points, and two targets for effects?

Thats two snakes. I mean, it can still work if you can sell it as one scary two-headed snake to your players.

It seems like Zuras isn't arguing for two sets of HPs or ACs. It sounds like something I'm keen on, which is giving legendary creatures more proactive tools rather than reactive tools that effectively take a players turn away. I have found with legendary creatures and BBEGs that they don't generally need help passing more than half of their saving throws. Getting a save DC above 15 is really difficult, and for some reason or another it seems like most legendary creatures or BBEGs I've run into have had a large bonus to several saving throws. Even giving these creatures something like the Gnome's resistance to magic (Adv. on Int, Wis, and Cha saves vs magic) would make sense to me. But ultimately giving a Dragon or Giant or Lich about half the turns in initiative that the party has seems like a reasonable power boon. Then you might stun the creature, but it's so powerful that it only ends up losing one of it's turns. I don't know if this is the best way, but it's certainly something I'll consider moving forward.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Giving monsters multiple full turns is risky.

Compare that to a Legendary action: You get up to 3 LA, but they're only specific things they can do with them. Plus they don't reset Reactions or interact with "until your next turn" mechanics (which there's lots of). A creature with 2 turns/round would get

* 2 full actions, including Multiattack or spell casting.
* 2 full sets of Bonus actions (if they have them)
* 2x as many chances to save against ongoing effects or reset rechargable abilities (ie dragons' breath weapon)
* 1/2 duration on effects that last until the beginning/end of your next turn.
* 2x movement
* 2X Reactions
* 2X Legendary Actions unless you remove those as well
* way more effort for the DM and less active play time for the players.

All of those mean that you're significantly enhancing the power of an enemy. Roughly doubling (actually more than that) their offensive CR while not significantly changing their defensive CR. They become glass canons and the fight gets way more swingy as a result.

Legendary Resistances are simple, easy to use, low-effect ways to no-sell encounter ending spells and let the fight be fun for the rest of the party. That's their job. Prevent the monk or caster from just shutting down the whole "epic fight" with a single action. And really, how frequently do they come up? The lowest legendary creature is the Unicorn at CR 5, the next one is the Aboleth at CR 10. Then the Adult Dragons and the Vampire at CR 12-ish. These are final-boss-type monsters, not every-day fare.

Oh, and if you do it as "Boss takes turn at INIT X and INIT X-Y", you risk having the boss take two consecutive turns. Which is bad news.

[Frozenstep]

I'm personally trying a system where legendary actions are more powerful, but a legendary resistance is one legendary action that a boss takes to re-attempt a saving throw (at disadvantage if it's against something that doesn't normally allow another saving throw). So at the very least, a boss failing a saving throw is still losing an attack they'd normally take. In trade though, there isn't a limit on it, so there's no counting to 3 with the system.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I mean - yes. It's essentially a niche version of counterspell that mechanically allows the BBEG to Outwit (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=240050) or Avoid (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=108886) some of the shenanigans that the players can think up. It's just as lazy as any of the other mechanics that keep creatures alive, like "Immunity from Stunned/Restrained/Prone", resistance/immunity from damage types, Regeneration, counterspells, shields, lair actions, adamantine Armor, or things like the Relentless special ability, the Rakshasa's Immunity from Spells below X level, and whatnot. It essentially makes certain combos less degenerate, and stretch the combat out... no one wants to get to the end of their dungeon, or other climactic point of their story, and watch this built-up villain fail a series of checks and be Disintegrated in 2 turns.



I understand the comparison to something like "resistant to magic damage" or "immune to fire damage," but the things like Counterspell actually cost resources (reactions and spell slots) that could be used for other things. LRs are just their own thing by themselves that can't be used as a proactive threat. But if I cast Shield or Counterspell, I'm not going to be making any attacks of opportunity, so it's not just an automatic decision. I'm giving something up either way.

Ultimately I think one of my biggest issues that I haven't explained yet is that it pushes casters even further away from save/suck spells. They're already pretty rough in boss fights given the likelihood that the boss will save over half most of the time (IME at least). So now I've spent my turn on a small chance that my spell takes effect in the first place, and instead they boss doesn't even have to roll. So they've taken a spell slot, an action, my hope, and willingness to continue to cast spells that rely on a save all for the use of 1 extraneous resource specifically designed to that and only that. I recognize this may not actually be the designed intent, but I believe it's often the achieved effect.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm personally trying a system where legendary actions are more powerful, but a legendary resistance is one legendary action that a boss takes to re-attempt a saving throw (at disadvantage if it's against something that doesn't normally allow another saving throw). So at the very least, a boss failing a saving throw is still losing an attack they'd normally take. In trade though, there isn't a limit on it, so there's no counting to 3 with the system.

Anything that denies actions denies Legendary Actions. So hold monster means no Legendary Resistances under your scheme. Which kinda removes the whole point. LR is for things that shut down the monster completely, not for minor effects. But those effects remove the chance to take LA and thus LR.

Edit @OP:

Ultimately I think one of my biggest issues that I haven't explained yet is that it pushes casters even further away from save/suck spells.

Good. That's a feature, not a bug. Save or suck (as well as Save or Die) spells are in high disfavor this edition for good reason. Being able to shut down an entire encounter with a single action is horrible for everyone else.

[Frozenstep]

Anything that denies actions denies Legendary Actions. So hold monster means no Legendary Resistances under your scheme. Which kinda removes the whole point. LR is for things that shut down the monster completely, not for minor effects. But those effects remove the chance to take LA and thus LR.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, they can use the legendary resistance legendary action to reattempt any saving throw to end an effect they're under, including such things that don't give additional chances to save at the start of/end of turns such as banishment.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Giving monsters multiple full turns is risky.

Compare that to a Legendary action: You get up to 3 LA, but they're only specific things they can do with them. Plus they don't reset Reactions or interact with "until your next turn" mechanics (which there's lots of). A creature with 2 turns/round would get

* 2 full actions, including Multiattack or spell casting.
* 2 full sets of Bonus actions (if they have them)
* 2x as many chances to save against ongoing effects or reset rechargable abilities (ie dragons' breath weapon)
* 1/2 duration on effects that last until the beginning/end of your next turn.
* 2x movement
* 2X Reactions
* 2X Legendary Actions unless you remove those as well
* way more effort for the DM and less active play time for the players.

All of those mean that you're significantly enhancing the power of an enemy. Roughly doubling (actually more than that) their offensive CR while not significantly changing their defensive CR. They become glass canons and the fight gets way more swingy as a result.

Legendary Resistances are simple, easy to use, low-effect ways to no-sell encounter ending spells and let the fight be fun for the rest of the party. That's their job. Prevent the monk or caster from just shutting down the whole "epic fight" with a single action. And really, how frequently do they come up? The lowest legendary creature is the Unicorn at CR 5, the next one is the Aboleth at CR 10. Then the Adult Dragons and the Vampire at CR 12-ish. These are final-boss-type monsters, not every-day fare.

Oh, and if you do it as "Boss takes turn at INIT X and INIT X-Y", you risk having the boss take two consecutive turns. Which is bad news.

These are all good points for sure. I think it would have to be thought through, and I haven't done that at this point, but I still like the general direction this takes boss fights more than their current state.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, they can use the legendary resistance legendary action to reattempt any saving throw to end an effect they're under, including such things that don't give additional chances to save at the start of/end of turns such as banishment.

Then they're not really actions. Which I would find way more counterintuitive than the standard ones.

BBEGs no-selling "sure thing" attacks is a staple of fantastic fiction. The standard implementation is way better than just blanket immunity, and doesn't rely on anything else. Not all creatures with LR have LAs, for one thing.

[Frozenstep]

Then they're not really actions. Which I would find way more counterintuitive than the standard ones.

BBEGs no-selling "sure thing" attacks is a staple of fantastic fiction. The standard implementation is way better than just blanket immunity, and doesn't rely on anything else. Not all creatures with LR have LAs, for one thing.

I felt like it was a simple change to make a failed save feel like it had an affect on the fight. BBEG's no-sell plenty of stuff just by having high saves in the first place, and being a staple of fantastic fiction doesn't mean it's fun in the moment for a role playing game where everyone wants to participate and contribute. Different things work for different mediums, and for different people.

[AdAstra]

One thing that could be interesting would be to make LR based off of levels rather than just a set number of spells. So rather than having x number of Legendary Resistances, cancelling a 3rd level spell burns off 3 points of LR, a cantrip/1st level spell 1, etc. This gives more incentive to use heavier-hitting spells, since they burn off more LR when the creature fails and the DM decides to use it.
The only problem of course is that not all abilities that require saving throws are spells. For most cases just making it a flat 2 would probably be sufficient, but there are some like the Open Hand Monk and Assassins' abilities where 2 LR seems like too little. It would be interesting to see a system where ALL abilities are codified in terms of general power level, but 5e doesn't really do that and it's not worth it just for this one specific system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I felt like it was a simple change to make a failed save feel like it had an affect on the fight. BBEG's no-sell plenty of stuff just by having high saves in the first place, and being a staple of fantastic fiction doesn't mean it's fun in the moment for a role playing game where everyone wants to participate and contribute. Different things work for different mediums, and for different people.

Honestly, this is seeking a mechanical resolution to an OOC problem. Since only the DM can implement one of these solutions, and the DM can also implement better policies around LR use (with much less cost), it's a solution in search of a problem.

The two good policies (pick which works for your group):

No metagaming: The boss will always LR vs the first 3 failed saves. Period. Regardless of what they are. This is the "it's not a conscious choice" option--the boss is just that powerful that you have to wear down its resistances, but you can juke it just fine. This one has issues with monks--being able to possibly trigger 4x LR in a single turn means you can

Full metagaming: The boss will only LR vs hard CCs that deny actions entirely. Debuffs, limited movement, etc. will not get LR used against them. This one is more true to the original purpose of them--to allow the boss to strut its cool stuff for at least 3 rounds so that it's actually the challenge it says it is, but is much more openly meta.

Take your pick. In either case, these are announced in session 0 (or with the first Legendary creature) and you announce uses of LR as they come.

[Vogie]

I understand the comparison to something like "resistant to magic damage" or "immune to fire damage," but the things like Counterspell actually cost resources (reactions and spell slots) that could be used for other things. LRs are just their own thing by themselves that can't be used as a proactive threat. But if I cast Shield or Counterspell, I'm not going to be making any attacks of opportunity, so it's not just an automatic decision. I'm giving something up either way.

It shouldn't be an automatic decision - A Legendary Resistance IS a resource... they only get a set number of them, typically 3.

If your only issue between a LR vs Counterspell/Shield is that one costs a Reaction... then make Legendary Resistances cost reactions. Alternatively, they could be:

only available in a specific stance
replaced with Indomitable, the fighter ability, which allows the BBEG to just reroll a fail


Ultimately I think one of my biggest issues that I haven't explained yet is that it pushes casters even further away from save/suck spells. They're already pretty rough in boss fights given the likelihood that the boss will save over half most of the time (IME at least). So now I've spent my turn on a small chance that my spell takes effect in the first place, and instead they boss doesn't even have to roll. So they've taken a spell slot, an action, my hope, and willingness to continue to cast spells that rely on a save all for the use of 1 extraneous resource specifically designed to that and only that. I recognize this may not actually be the designed intent, but I believe it's often the achieved effect.

That's the risk of such spells, just like any type of tactic that a boss fight may have - whether its "immune to damage while the torches are lit", or some sort of countdown, enrage timer, or a change of tactics when they hit a % of their hit points.

If the boss doesn't have to roll, that just means you can't just end a boss-level encounter with an opening salvo... Which is ideal, for a group game.

Think of it the other way around - Would it be fair if a boss fight required you to defeat it on the first turn? Your Tactics fall into "Surprise or Suck" or "Nova or Nope"? Of course not.

[Frozenstep]

Honestly, this is seeking a mechanical resolution to an OOC problem. Since only the DM can implement one of these solutions, and the DM can also implement better policies around LR use (with much less cost), it's a solution in search of a problem.

The two good policies (pick which works for your group):

No metagaming: The boss will always LR vs the first 3 failed saves. Period. Regardless of what they are. This is the "it's not a conscious choice" option--the boss is just that powerful that you have to wear down its resistances, but you can juke it just fine. This one has issues with monks--being able to possibly trigger 4x LR in a single turn means you can

Full metagaming: The boss will only LR vs hard CCs that deny actions entirely. Debuffs, limited movement, etc. will not get LR used against them. This one is more true to the original purpose of them--to allow the boss to strut its cool stuff for at least 3 rounds so that it's actually the challenge it says it is, but is much more openly meta.

Take your pick. In either case, these are announced in session 0 (or with the first Legendary creature) and you announce uses of LR as they come.

I chose a different solution because I felt like it would work well for my group. Those two policies can certainly work, but they both had weaknesses that I've seen and I preferred to avoid. My system certainly has a weakness, a boss might fail 4 saving throws despite having +10 to the save and get bodied, but that felt like an acceptable risk. But I'll have to see and adjust as my party interacts with this system.

[TyGuy]

I was considering replacing legendary resistances with advantage on all saving throws but my players are still low level so I haven't actually tried it or thought about it too hard.


This was hashed out in a previous thread months ago. I think the best idea was doing away with the hard effect drop of LR and instead having a number of Mulligans to reroll saves without a limit on how many can be rolled on one attempt to save.

The more epic the boss the more redo's they get.

And of course, with that number being a mystery and there being a chance that one spell effect could eat up multiple, now it's in the players' interest to let the good stuff rip right away.

[MrStabby]

Honestly, this is seeking a mechanical resolution to an OOC problem. Since only the DM can implement one of these solutions, and the DM can also implement better policies around LR use (with much less cost), it's a solution in search of a problem.

The two good policies (pick which works for your group):

No metagaming: The boss will always LR vs the first 3 failed saves. Period. Regardless of what they are. This is the "it's not a conscious choice" option--the boss is just that powerful that you have to wear down its resistances, but you can juke it just fine. This one has issues with monks--being able to possibly trigger 4x LR in a single turn means you can

Full metagaming: The boss will only LR vs hard CCs that deny actions entirely. Debuffs, limited movement, etc. will not get LR used against them. This one is more true to the original purpose of them--to allow the boss to strut its cool stuff for at least 3 rounds so that it's actually the challenge it says it is, but is much more openly meta.

Take your pick. In either case, these are announced in session 0 (or with the first Legendary creature) and you announce uses of LR as they come.

I dont think the second is metagaming - not at all. Saving a resource for when it is needed is just sensible. "Can I win this fight whilst conserving this resource?" seems a pretty reasonable question for a bad guy to ask. I mean, you could expect all resources to be used as quickly as possible, but that is a wierd world where casters have to cast their spells in descending order, rogues must use their uncanny dodge on the first attack that hits them in a turn and fighters action surge at the start of combat whenever they can.

I do think you need to play this a bit by ear though. If you have a bunch of casters that can burn through the saves, then its ok. If you have one caster who at the earliest will have a chance to impact the fight on turn 4, then you might consider a change there. Generally I think that this is a good reason to provide supporting bad guys to help - it isn't just about the cation economy but also about ensuring there are viable targets there for people who don't want to throw spells into legendary resistances.

I don't think it is a particularly lazy option though. Whilst I do have other preferred systems for handling this (anyone can expend HD - roll and if the total is higher than 6+twice the spell level then they can pass the save or, if no save spell ignore it (for passing through wall of force for example). If they do, they also suffer damage equal to the total rolled on the HD. Experimenting with this for a one-shot), I think that legendary saves do what they are designed to (not perfectly to be sure) - ensure everyone can have a couple of turns taking meaningful actions against dramatically important enemies. More resistances or improved saves make it harder, but never breaks down the rather boring repetition of throwing the biggest effects you can down as quickly as possible - a race to empty the tank. Legendary resistances provide an incentive for a more complex and engaging set of decisions on what resources to use and when. In terms of effectiveness meeting the goals of the tool traded off against the rules simplicity of the ability I think it does well.

[Tanarii]

I dont think the second is metagaming - not at all. Saving a resource for when it is needed is just sensible. "Can I win this fight whilst conserving this resource?" seems a pretty reasonable question for a bad guy to ask. I mean, you could expect all resources to be used as quickly as possible, but that is a wierd world where casters have to cast their spells in descending order, rogues must use their uncanny dodge on the first attack that hits them in a turn and fighters action surge at the start of combat whenever they can.
Whether or not it is "meta gaming" depends on some assumptions about what that means, but also on if a DM assumes that a creature failing a saving throw knows what the negative affects to be applied are after failing, but before using Legendary Resistance.

That simple assumption removes the metagaming issue completely. DM just decides if the creature wants to be subjected to that effect or not, the uses Legendary Resistance if it does not. Done and done.

If the DM doesn't assumed this is the case and the DM wants to limit her own foreknowledge, she can use the Spell Card system I suggested above when PCs are facing creatures with Legendary resistance. Player describes visual effects of the spell (if any) and save required, DM decides if they want to use LR if they fail, flip card. Easy enough.

IMO if PCs aren't using spell cards or some equivalent for spell detail referencing & management, you've already got bigger problems anyway.

[Trickery]

Don't like them. There are ways around LR. One way is by using the Final Fantasy method of giving the boss multiple parts that each take their own turn.

[Asmerv]

I wish resistance to spells and HP were linked (maybe generally, but at least for bosses that have LR) so that it didn't seem like there are two entirely different tracks to defeating a boss. On parties with many martials and one caster it can often be the case where the creature runs out of HP before the caster even makes it through LR. Vice versa and suddenly the boss is a sheep and all the damage you've done is irrelevant as it gets thrown into a volcano or something.

It'd be cooler, more logical, and more supportive of teamwork if a creatures spell resistances continuously degraded as it took more damage. Continuously sliding scale from high risk/high reward to low risk/low reward on trying to land a huge spell as rounds went by.

[Pex]

Giving epic boss monsters multiple spots in the initiative order, instead of legendary actions, treating them almost like multiple creatures, and allowing hard CC spells to only affect one “instance” of the boss, is one way of doing it. Something that gets around the issue of the no-sell for landing a powerful save-or-suck spell.

I like this. You'll need to flavor text why it works this way. For example, Hold Monster would mean the target is slowed, hence not getting all its attacks. Similarly a stunned target is instead confused or loses its train of thought. In both instances the monster suffers the full detrimental effects, i.e. an attacker has Advantage, until its next instance. The owner of the effect can decide which instance is affected he's aware of, defaulting to the first one in initiative when he doesn't know them all yet such as the first round of combat. I'm likely making it more complicated than you intended.


Giving monsters multiple full turns is risky.

Compare that to a Legendary action: You get up to 3 LA, but they're only specific things they can do with them. Plus they don't reset Reactions or interact with "until your next turn" mechanics (which there's lots of). A creature with 2 turns/round would get

* 2 full actions, including Multiattack or spell casting.
* 2 full sets of Bonus actions (if they have them)
* 2x as many chances to save against ongoing effects or reset rechargable abilities (ie dragons' breath weapon)
* 1/2 duration on effects that last until the beginning/end of your next turn.
* 2x movement
* 2X Reactions
* 2X Legendary Actions unless you remove those as well
* way more effort for the DM and less active play time for the players.

All of those mean that you're significantly enhancing the power of an enemy. Roughly doubling (actually more than that) their offensive CR while not significantly changing their defensive CR. They become glass canons and the fight gets way more swingy as a result.

Legendary Resistances are simple, easy to use, low-effect ways to no-sell encounter ending spells and let the fight be fun for the rest of the party. That's their job. Prevent the monk or caster from just shutting down the whole "epic fight" with a single action. And really, how frequently do they come up? The lowest legendary creature is the Unicorn at CR 5, the next one is the Aboleth at CR 10. Then the Adult Dragons and the Vampire at CR 12-ish. These are final-boss-type monsters, not every-day fare.

Oh, and if you do it as "Boss takes turn at INIT X and INIT X-Y", you risk having the boss take two consecutive turns. Which is bad news.

You wouldn't give the monster multiple full turns. The monster descriptions say what the creature can do as a Legendary Action. That's what the monster does in an instance. If it costs more than one action it costs more than one instance. The monster gets its full turn on its normal initiative only.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Don't like them. There are ways around LR. One way is by using the Final Fantasy method of giving the boss multiple parts that each take their own turn.

As I said above, that either

a) ends up being even more contrived--most monsters don't have such parts in any cohesive fashion and so it's pure video-game mechanics that still doesn't solve the problem--how can you "stun the head" but the wings and tail still work? Why does the dragon move on one initiative, but bite on a second?
b) means completely re-writing all legendary monsters, because you're dealing with a 2-4x increase in offensive power because now they get full turns.

All to solve a problem that (under most conditions) should be minimal. Again, how frequently are you seeing legendary creatures? They don't show up till high levels at all--the very first monster with LR is the balhannoth from MToF at CR 11. The vampire and adult white/brass dragons (CR 13) are the next major ones. These are not every-day monsters. These are campaign-arc bosses at least. Most games never even get this high at all.

Exceptions are exceptional. Making changes for something that will take a grand total of 5 rounds of combat (maybe 1 hour if you're playing slow) out of an entire campaign is rather much, IMO.

Not all creatures with LA have LR (the beholder, for example), so any LA-based system would have to account for that as well, increasing the complexity.


Balhannoth (11)
Ki-Rin (12)
Adult dragons (13-19)
Vampire (13)
Elder Brain (14)
Skull Lord (15)
Phoenix (16)
Demilich (18)
Sibriex (18)
Leviathan (20)
Ancient dragons (20-24)
Lich (21)
Astral Dreadnaught (21)
Moloch (21, unique)
Molydeus (21)
Zaratan (21)
Elder Tempest (23)
Empyrean (23)
Demon Princes and Arch-devils (16*-26, unique)

[Pex]

Good. That's a feature, not a bug. Save or suck (as well as Save or Die) spells are in high disfavor this edition for good reason. Being able to shut down an entire encounter with a single action is horrible for everyone else.

Speak for yourself. In my gaming circle we are happy when a spellcaster's spell saves the day. You'd have a point if it was all the time, but game math has shown that's not the case. We appreciate the attempt nonetheless, and spellcasters learn not to try all the time.

[Trickery]

As I said above, that either

a) ends up being even more contrived--most monsters don't have such parts in any cohesive fashion and so it's pure video-game mechanics that still doesn't solve the problem--how can you "stun the head" but the wings and tail still work? Why does the dragon move on one initiative, but bite on a second?
b) means completely re-writing all legendary monsters, because you're dealing with a 2-4x increase in offensive power because now they get full turns.

It's not hard to imagine stunning a wizard but his staff keeps casting spells, or part of the big thing keeps moving, etc. It's also not hard to distribute multiattack over an entire creature, or limit each part to one thing that it does such as lair actions or even movement. It's so easy that I don't know why anyone would think this was hard.

You don't have to poo poo other people's ideas. Just because you don't like it or it doesn't work for you doesn't make it bad.

[detro]

I have the opposite opinion. There should be far MORE monsters with legendary resistances, actions, and lair actions.
At the very least, a template that informs the DM how much legendary actions increases a creatures CR. There is a guideline for legendary resistance but not legendary actions. I guess that's considered under the "damage per round" rulings.

Having one tough enough to fight is far more fun in my opinion ( I prefer Monster Hunter, Dragons Dogma, and Dark Souls overwhelmingly over Diablo and clones), and also easier to keep track of as a DM.
It really sucks that D&D's action economy feels fundamentally broken.

[MirrorDarkly]

My thought would be increase the creatures hit points then change legendary resistance to: If this creature fails a saving throw it may choose to succeed. Until the end of its next turn it gains vulnerability to all damage.

That would encourage teamwork and hopefully make having a spell or ability "fail" due to LR feel awesome while protecting the bosses ability to act.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have the opposite opinion. There should be far MORE monsters with legendary resistances, actions, and lair actions.
At the very least, a template that informs the DM how much legendary actions increases a creatures CR. There is a guideline for legendary resistance but not legendary actions. I guess that's considered under the "damage per round" rulings.

Having one tough enough to fight is far more fun in my opinion ( I prefer Monster Hunter, Dragons Dogma, and Dark Souls overwhelmingly over Diablo and clones), and also easier to keep track of as a DM.
It really sucks that D&D's action economy feels fundamentally broken.

Solo monsters run a very tight line. Even legendary actions (which yes, count for offensive CR) don't close the gap. Full turns are just that strong. If you make it strong enough to be a serious challenge, you also run the risk of a turn-one one-shot, which many players don't find fun at all. If you simply beef up the HP...it feels like smacking a pile of pillows. If you beef up the defenses, the players feel bad because they are just whiffing. Complex ability chains and video-game-style attacks require a different fundamental mechanic than a TTRPG can provide. This is a constant, and will be for any game with D&D-style action resolution.

And one big complex monster is actually harder to run than several simple monsters IMX. Because more's riding on each action and turn--one set of bad rolls or decisions means it falls flat where with multiple monsters you can recover. It also promotes "stand there and smack it", because movement is pretty meaningless with a single big monster (unless it can fly away like a dragon, and even then...).

5e works best with many smaller combats rather than 1 or two big ones.

Now you could design a single monster that is so large that hitting it is pointless. Instead, you've got a set of weak-points, attack sources, etc. These could each take their own turn, have their own HP/etc. and have consequences for killing them. This is basically a set-piece battle with a mutable battlefield. Difficulty is that such fights are a real pain to build right (with lots of ways to go wrong), are very party-dependent, and are inherently one-offs.

[MrStabby]

I have the opposite opinion. There should be far MORE monsters with legendary resistances, actions, and lair actions.
At the very least, a template that informs the DM how much legendary actions increases a creatures CR. There is a guideline for legendary resistance but not legendary actions. I guess that's considered under the "damage per round" rulings.

Having one tough enough to fight is far more fun in my opinion ( I prefer Monster Hunter, Dragons Dogma, and Dark Souls overwhelmingly over Diablo and clones), and also easier to keep track of as a DM.
It really sucks that D&D's action economy feels fundamentally broken.

I have done this, I liked it but it ran into some challenges as it clashed with players expectations. I gave a lot of homebrew monsters one legendary resistance and one legendary action. It worked well for me put players panicked as they couldn't tell the difference between a true legendary boss and a lower threat mini-boss.

Now I generally focus on giving enemies I design good defensive abilities - ways to keep PCs at arms length, ways to mitigate damage, impose disadvantage etc..

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Just make the boss(and PCs) trow arcana on every spell DC 15+spell level to recognize it(I just choose a number that looked nice and dc24. For level 9 spell look right for me).
(The XGtE reaction to recognize spell is stupid because it means you can only dispell as a gambler and if you know it is a dangerous spell it is too late).

[ProsecutorGodot]

Just make the boss(and PCs) trow arcana on every spell DC 15+spell level to recognize it(I just choose a number that looked nice and dc24. For level 9 spell look right for me).
(The XGtE reaction to recognize spell is stupid because it means you can only dispell as a gambler and if you know it is a dangerous spell it is too late).

I don't think it's stupid, it makes a lot more sense to me that counterspell is something that should be done blind.

Look at it this way, if you counterspell something worthwhile then you feel good that they lose a powerful turn. If you counterspell something "worthless" ("not dangerous" as you put it) then you should still feel pretty accomplished. You didn't know it wasn't dangerous and they've still wasted their turn for no benefit.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I don't think it's stupid, it makes a lot more sense to me that counterspell is something that should be done blind.

Look at it this way, if you counterspell something worthwhile then you feel good that they lose a powerful turn. If you counterspell something "worthless" (not dangerous as you put it) then you should still feel pretty accomplished. You didn't know it wasn't dangerous and they've still wasted their turn for no benefit.

I disagree. It removes a lot of the tactical feel of combat and look like a resource sink.
A tactical caster have no reason to take counterspell unless he have a sage with mental connection to inform him on the spell that was cast so he will know if he is using a level 3-9 spell on a cantrip or mass polymorph.

We both had good arguments but I don't think any of us is wrong.
That was a short discussion.


Other way I see to use LR is to make it cap by spell levels(cantrip don't count or something small like 0.1/0.5).

The dragon have 17 spell levels(just a random number) of LR.
A DC25/30 arcana will probably discover it.
After he just ignores your spells he started to take effect.

It make it feel like an awesome and dangerous enemy.

[MrStabby]

I don't think it's stupid, it makes a lot more sense to me that counterspell is something that should be done blind.

Look at it this way, if you counterspell something worthwhile then you feel good that they lose a powerful turn. If you counterspell something "worthless" (not dangerous as you put it) then you should still feel pretty accomplished. You didn't know it wasn't dangerous and they've still wasted their turn for no benefit.

Yeah I agree - a level 3 spell to have an enemy skip their turn is not bad. It isn't so much about losing, as about how much you win by. From a balance perspective I agree it should be blind.

Thematically, should it be done blind? Does it make sense? Not sure - sports players see, interpret and cat on things happening in front of them very quickly. If you have equivalently professional adventurers should a capable PC be lass capable of responding. I put this one on the maybe pile.

From a fun perspective? The xanathars way seems to work pretty well. There is some uncertainty introduced to add to the excitement. Mor importantly from my perspective, it adds to the non combat pillars of the game - the social and the exploration. Discussing tales, gathering information on who knows what spells, getting some insight on what might be cast and so on. In combat it makes things more tactical rather than the kind of thing you could write a flow chart for (if you can write a flowchart to describe completely what you do in combat then why bother playing - give the DM the chart and let them tell you how it all ends). Guessing "what is the worst they could do?" adds depth. Reading cues such as wounds on the caster, to suggest they might have already been in a conflict and missing their top level spell slots is part of the fun and makes the game more than it is without this aspect to it.

[Bobthewizard]

An idea I had to make LR less metagamey, is to make LR a pool of points that are spent to raise a saving throw such that it passes the save. This eliminates meta gaming, as it's an automatic process akin to HP.

I really like your idea. Here's a similar idea that might work too. For each LR they have, give them say 2d4 LR points. They can spend points to pass a save they failed using a number of points equal to the level of the spell. This way they don't have to spend a lot of points on a bad roll versus a low level spell. This would encourage players to use higher level spells to burn through the LR points. The players wouldn't know how many they have to get through.

[Mith]

I really like your idea. Here's a similar idea that might work too. For each LR they have, give them say 2d4 LR points. They can spend points to pass a save they failed using a number of points equal to the level of the spell. This way they don't have to spend a lot of points on a bad roll versus a low level spell. This would encourage players to use higher level spells to burn through the LR points. The players wouldn't know how many they have to get through.

Fair enough. As I mention later in the post, the idea is to also replace Fighter's Indomitable with a similar system, which is why I went with something comparable to the already existing systems.

I appreciate your idea though!

[Anachronity]

I almost always just give the boss credibly-threatening minions; it's the simplest answer. Sometimes the 'minions' are just parts of a particularly big boss, like counting each tentacle of a giant kraken-esque sea monster as a separate creature. Sometimes I'll just put a single non-legendary monster of high CR against them in an independently hostile environment that is difficult to escape for some reason or another, like a bugbear chieftain in a burning building. In that case I treat them similarly to lair actions, though without the other legendary stuff like LR or LA.

If I really want a singular big-nasty and I can't take a shortcut like that because it doesn't make sense (and frequently it does if you're even a little bit creative; Summon spells and other forms of magic are a thing). Then I tend to spend a lot of time on the boss's particular mechanics rather than going by-the-book. And my immediate two considerations when doing so are save-or-loses and action economy.

The multiple-actions-for-multiple heads thing totally works, if you're willing to design the boss around it. Maybe each head of a hydra gets only one action, and its attack is accordingly weaker; and then the body gets a separate move and action of its own. But they all draw from the same health pool or share other resources; maybe it can breathe acid, but only through one head each round.

I appreciate 5e's simplicity of design, but I wish it would be somewhat more complex at times on the GM's side of things. The mechanics I usually create tend to parallel LA and LR, but are both weaker and more nuanced.

If your boss monster doesn't offer the possibility of partial-effectiveness, it feels a lot better when there's something that you as a player can do to get your big-gun-spell not to fizzle completely; maybe identifying a weakness in the monster and then taking some sort of personal risk or loss (perhaps getting closer than you would prefer, or quickly making a perilous climb - or else spending another spell slot on transportation) to exploit it, thereby allowing the spell to take full effect. It places the onus upon the player to succeed through their own actions rather than simply failing three times before the game allows them to succeed.


Though, if I were to use legendary actions,
I'm personally trying a system where legendary actions are more powerful, but a legendary resistance is one legendary action that a boss takes to re-attempt a saving throw (at disadvantage if it's against something that doesn't normally allow another saving throw). So at the very least, a boss failing a saving throw is still losing an attack they'd normally take. In trade though, there isn't a limit on it, so there's no counting to 3 with the system.

This is a pretty neat idea. Obviously it would be usable despite effects that don't normally allow actions at all like PhoenixPhyre describes, but as a given action can only be used once per turn the boss still can't spam it, and if I were running it I'd still have the boss lose its other legendary actions for the turn. The point is that you can keep the big bad down. Just not for long.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

This was hashed out in a previous thread months ago. I think the best idea was doing away with the hard effect drop of LR and instead having a number of Mulligans to reroll saves without a limit on how many can be rolled on one attempt to save.

The more epic the boss the more redo's they get.

And of course, with that number being a mystery and there being a chance that one spell effect could eat up multiple, now it's in the players' interest to let the good stuff rip right away.

I like this a lot. It allows the DM to keep trying if there's a really bad effect they need to avoid, but it also runs the risk of taking up two or three of the Mulligans. Because it's not automatic the DM might also have to consider saving multiple Mulligans for some spell or ability that could be coming down the line. There may be a bad effect immediately, but he/she might bite the bullet since it's no longer a guaranteed save so that they have more chances later if a worse effect comes up.




I do think you need to play this a bit by ear though. If you have a bunch of casters that can burn through the saves, then its ok. If you have one caster who at the earliest will have a chance to impact the fight on turn 4, then you might consider a change there. Generally I think that this is a good reason to provide supporting bad guys to help - it isn't just about the cation economy but also about ensuring there are viable targets there for people who don't want to throw spells into legendary resistances.


Just as a testimonial, I've experienced being the only caster for two years now. We sometimes face homebrewed mini-bosses with LRs, and while nobody has died yet, it's really frustrating that in some of the fights I've had nothing to do with our victory. The monsters didn't have anything to use LRs on from the other players, so for several rounds anything I tried that involved a save just failed. I like some of the options below that implement negative effects for LRs in exchange for using them.


I wish resistance to spells and HP were linked (maybe generally, but at least for bosses that have LR) so that it didn't seem like there are two entirely different tracks to defeating a boss. On parties with many martials and one caster it can often be the case where the creature runs out of HP before the caster even makes it through LR. Vice versa and suddenly the boss is a sheep and all the damage you've done is irrelevant as it gets thrown into a volcano or something.

It'd be cooler, more logical, and more supportive of teamwork if a creatures spell resistances continuously degraded as it took more damage. Continuously sliding scale from high risk/high reward to low risk/low reward on trying to land a huge spell as rounds went by.

I'd be interested to see if people have some more ideas about how to link these two things (HP and magic resistance/LR). Approaching combat this way as a party would be really beneficial in general I think.


Speak for yourself. In my gaming circle we are happy when a spellcaster's spell saves the day. You'd have a point if it was all the time, but game math has shown that's not the case. We appreciate the attempt nonetheless, and spellcasters learn not to try all the time.

Agree. Whether it's been me or someone else playing a caster, our parties have always been happy when spells land. They miss frequently enough that everyone cheers when you successfully use a save/suck spell in an effective way.


My thought would be increase the creatures hit points then change legendary resistance to: If this creature fails a saving throw it may choose to succeed. Until the end of its next turn it gains vulnerability to all damage.

That would encourage teamwork and hopefully make having a spell or ability "fail" due to LR feel awesome while protecting the bosses ability to act.

This is in the running for my favorite idea so far. It's very simple to implement and it makes you feel like you've done something if your spell or ability gets shut down. You didn't just take a random resource that's only used for the purpose of stopping your spells, you also benefitted your team by forfeiting your turn and a spell slot (presumably higher level). It also makes sense narratively that a Legendary Creature might resist a powerful effect but then become more vulnerable to some mundane attacks while it recoups it's energy/magic power/mana or whatever it is for your universe.



Other way I see to use LR is to make it cap by spell levels(cantrip don't count or something small like 0.1/0.5).

The dragon have 17 spell levels(just a random number) of LR.
A DC25/30 arcana will probably discover it.
After he just ignores your spells he started to take effect.

It make it feel like an awesome and dangerous enemy.


I really like your idea. Here's a similar idea that might work too. For each LR they have, give them say 2d4 LR points. They can spend points to pass a save they failed using a number of points equal to the level of the spell. This way they don't have to spend a lot of points on a bad roll versus a low level spell. This would encourage players to use higher level spells to burn through the LR points. The players wouldn't know how many they have to get through.

Both of these ideas sound good too. It adds a little bookkeeping on the DM, but I wouldn't mind that if I were the DM. I've never felt good about using LRs in the first place, because it always makes me wonder if the player is just feeling useless for like 30 minutes.

[stoutstien]

I knowlike this a lot. It allows the DM to keep trying if there's a really bad effect they need to avoid, but it also runs the risk of taking up two or three of the Mulligans. Because it's not automatic the DM might also have to consider saving multiple Mulligans for some spell or ability that could be coming down the line. There may be a bad effect immediately, but he/she might bite the bullet since it's no longer a guaranteed save so that they have more chances later if a worse effect comes up.



Just as a testimonial, I've experienced being the only caster for two years now. We sometimes face homebrewed mini-bosses with LRs, and while nobody has died yet, it's really frustrating that in some of the fights I've had nothing to do with our victory. The monsters didn't have anything to use LRs on from the other players, so for several rounds anything I tried that involved a save just failed. I like some of the options below that implement negative effects for LRs in exchange for using them.


In this scenario if I was the only person in the party that had anything that would be affected by legendary resistance I would not fight it. I would focus on buffing my fellow party members and mitigation.

Not to say that I don't think legendary resistance is a fairly sloppy mechanic but if I started seeing a lot of it and I was the only one who was impacted by it, Id bypass it.

[Nagog]

I usually play it off as they just saved. It's the RAW version of flubbing a roll, usable only 3 times (if you're an honest DM you'll stick to it). The players don't know what the spell is, and I'll typically roll for the monster to see if it knows the spell or recognizes it as powerful before it uses a LR on it. If it sees a caster casting Banishment but believes it to be something like Fireball, it won't bother attempting to resist it as Fireball is something it can tank anyway.

[Pex]

I have done this, I liked it but it ran into some challenges as it clashed with players expectations. I gave a lot of homebrew monsters one legendary resistance and one legendary action. It worked well for me put players panicked as they couldn't tell the difference between a true legendary boss and a lower threat mini-boss.

Now I generally focus on giving enemies I design good defensive abilities - ways to keep PCs at arms length, ways to mitigate damage, impose disadvantage etc..

There's plausible deniability when the iconic BBEG monsters have Legendary Resistance to emphasize their specialness and difficulty. When it's every other BBEG bad guy of the adventure, it starts to smack of the DM being unfair playing against his players. You might as well tell everyone your first action of every combat is lose your highest spell slot or class ability use.

Players are entitled to have their class abilities and spells work. If that means once in a while they win the fight against the BBEG on round one, hooray for them.

[MrStabby]

There's plausible deniability when the iconic BBEG monsters have Legendary Resistance to emphasize their specialness and difficulty. When it's every other BBEG bad guy of the adventure, it starts to smack of the DM being unfair playing against his players. You might as well tell everyone your first action of every combat is lose your highest spell slot or class ability use.

Players are entitled to have their class abilities and spells work. If that means once in a while they win the fight against the BBEG on round one, hooray for them.

It isn't like it is every creature - just a few more. And it isn't like there exists a class that needs these spells to do something - every class (that has spells) has spells that don't need saves.

Also I don't see why this would equate to losing highest level spells? Surely if you knew your first spell was going to be ineffective you would chose a lower level spell? The only reason I can see why you would lead with a high level spell is if you wanted to play a) and intelligence 6 caster or b) you want to play the victim and maximise rather than minimise the effect of legendary saves.

I think players are entitled to have their class abilities and spells work. I don't think they are entitled to have every one of them work all the time and be as effective as they really wished them to be. Sometimes a barbarian faces a flying enemy and needs to pick up a bow or javelins, some times a conquest paladin will face enemies immune to fear, sometimes the caster will face an enemy that will pass one more save than normal. Yes, sometimes it means that scorching ray might be abetter spell than hold person or wall of force is better than banishment. Thank goodness casters know more than one spell.

Even notwithstanding all this, it does enable progress. If the alternative is to make enemies have better saves, such that the average time till a save is failed is the same as with a legendary resistance then the players don't even get the satisfaction of reducing this resource - they literally did nothing. With legendary saves you make progress. With legendary saves you get to make more interesting hostile characters - you can give them low wisdom and still have an interesting fight for example. For a given level of difficulty legendary saves are more appealing than most of the alternatives.

[Vogie]

There's plausible deniability when the iconic BBEG monsters have Legendary Resistance to emphasize their specialness and difficulty. When it's every other BBEG bad guy of the adventure, it starts to smack of the DM being unfair playing against his players. You might as well tell everyone your first action of every combat is lose your highest spell slot or class ability use.

Players are entitled to have their class abilities and spells work. If that means once in a while they win the fight against the BBEG on round one, hooray for them.

Not necessarily. Lazy use of anything is... well, lazy. As much as there are issues with themonstersknow.com (http://themonstersknow.com/), the idea of different monsters having different tactics is something the DM should be implementing on a certain. Even something as simple as:

A feral, headstrong or otherwise bold boss won't bother using LRs (and shields/counterspells/other defensive moves) until they're more than bloodied (below half health)
A timid or nervous boss frontloads their defenses, using them all up front, and usually tries to escape once they're bloodied, rather than fight.
An intelligent boss identifies the potential largest controller or damage dealer and saves up their defenses for that target (or those targets), thus potentially allowing a Grapple Pin, Hold Person or Stunning Strike to connect because they're worried about a Disintegrate later on.
will force the players into various different strategies, or have them try to figure out which paradigm their target fits into. That also allows confounding or tactic shifts to be factored in - a normally intelligent dragon (or Beholder) suddenly enrages when a condition is met (or a goldfish is threatened), shifting both the tactics of that monster as well as the style of their defense usage.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

My thought would be increase the creatures hit points then change legendary resistance to: If this creature fails a saving throw it may choose to succeed. Until the end of its next turn it gains vulnerability to all damage.

That would encourage teamwork and hopefully make having a spell or ability "fail" due to LR feel awesome while protecting the bosses ability to act.

I mentioned that I like this idea. What do the rest of you think about it? It seems simple and reasonable. Would it be more or less balanced to grant advantage on attacks against it until next turn, similar to the Barabian's Reckless Attack.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I mentioned that I like this idea. What do the rest of you think about it? It seems simple and reasonable. Would it be more or less balanced to grant advantage on attacks against it until next turn, similar to the Barabian's Reckless Attack.

Sorcadin's don't need any more excuses to cast Hold Person/Monster and go for nova crits. There's a reason vulnerability is rare. I'd definitely lean more towards granting advantage even though I personally don't see issue with LR to begin with.

[stoutstien]

Could just add a Legendary action to repeat saves for one point or make the save at advantage for 2.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Sorcadin's don't need any more excuses to cast Hold Person/Monster and go for nova crits. There's a reason vulnerability is rare. I'd definitely lean more towards granting advantage even though I personally don't see issue with LR to begin with.

I appreciate the perspective even though you might not make a change at all. Granting advantage certainly seems like a more tame approach to test the idea. It's a large cost to avoid giving up a full turn from the BBEG etc., but it's maybe too large to avoid many minor effects that wouldn't take away a full turn.

[Vogie]

One interesting variation on Legendary Resistance would be to start the fight with a boss with 3 d20 rolls, and give each boss a Portent ability instead (as the Divination wizard). Instead of 3 options to "auto-succeed", the boss can do portent-style things in a defensive manner - 3 rolls that determine if they:

Are hit by a crit (by substituting a low roll)
Fail a saving throw (by substituting a high roll)

If you roll those 3 in public ahead of time, and visibly remove them ahead of time, your party will see that they have 3 potential "resistances", but they are randomly determined by the dice in front of them.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

One interesting variation on Legendary Resistance would be to start the fight with a boss with 3 d20 rolls, and give each boss a Portent ability instead (as the Divination wizard). Instead of 3 options to "auto-succeed", the boss can do portent-style things in a defensive manner - 3 rolls that determine if they:

Are hit by a crit (by substituting a low roll)
Fail a saving throw (by substituting a high roll)

If you roll those 3 in public ahead of time, and visibly remove them ahead of time, your party will see that they have 3 potential "resistances", but they are randomly determined by the dice in front of them.

I think this is another good option. I'd probably go with one of the others first, but it's worth trying to see how it compares. We've got something like 5 systems now that I, at least, would be more satisfied with in theory if not in practice.

[MirrorDarkly]

I appreciate the perspective even though you might not make a change at all. Granting advantage certainly seems like a more tame approach to test the idea. It's a large cost to avoid giving up a full turn from the BBEG etc., but it's maybe too large to avoid many minor effects that wouldn't take away a full turn.

That was kind of the point though. You increase the enemy's HP because you know it's going to be taking BIG hits. You enable the players to set up those big hits through a high cost to undoing failed saves, which in turn makes the nova classes want to wait with their big guns until the enemy is vulnerable instead of dumping them all as soon as initiative is rolled.

The DM has a reason to allow failed saves that are less bad than losing an action to stand. Sure Sorcadin's can do it all but every action/spell/sorcerry point they are using to try to get it to fail a save is one less they have to smite with. And since it needs to be a significant save failed they are going to be burning higher level spell slots which are a limited commodity. Also the intent is to make casters more relevant in a "boss fight" not address the Sorcadin issue (if you think there is one).

Although if I was going to try it out I'd probably want to think more on the timing. If the caster goes right before the enemy "until the end of its next turn" would basically be a free save at will. Maybe until the end of the character that provoked the effects next turn?

[sithlordnergal]

Is it lazy? Maybe

Is it necessary? Absolutely

At the point where Legendary Resistance becomes a thing, players have access to spells and abilities that can end entire encounters in a single round. In fact, I have a story of a time when my party faced a villain that didn't have it.

We were playing using Adventure League rules, and going through Tomb of Ahnniliation. Now, most of the party was fine, and they had fun. However, we did have one trouble-maker in the group. He was one of those players who would go to great lengths to make the most OP stuff he could.

I'm talking he found an online game for Curse of Strahd, played a single chapter, took a curse that made his character Lawful Evil, and spent the downtime to leave Barovia and return to Tomb of Ahnniliation just to get a free +2 to his casting stat.

Now, throughout the game I had been building up Ras Nasi as a big encounter. He was the cause of the undead, he had kidnapped two PCs after their players had decided to change characters, with the players permission of course, and more. The party was hyped to fight him.

However, Ras Nasi didn't have Legendary Resistance and I was a new DM, so I had not thought give it to him. Welp, in walks the player and he informs me he had used DM Exp to boost his character to level 14. Since he had returned to Tomb and not done any other hardcovers he was allowed to play with that character.

So, we get to Ras Nasi, we are about to fight him. The players are hyped to do battle with this big bad! But then the trouble maker manages to go first. He hits Ras Nasi with Plane Shift. His DC is well above 20 because he has a 24 Intelligence stat from a stat book and his trip to Barovia.

Ras didn't have Legendary Resistance and failed the save, getting teleported away with no way of returning. The rest of the players were extremely displeased. They had been hoping to finally kill Ras, but instead their grand battle was stolen from them because a player had pushed the rules to the breaking point.

[Trickery]

One simple change: replace legendary resistance with "this creature has advantage on saving throws versus effects that cause loss of control, such as stun and paralysis." That way you can still attempt those things, but you also have a boss character who's difficult to completely shut down. There shouldn't be a problem if the boss fails a Dex save or gets knocked prone, only if he gets knocked out of the fight completely.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

That was kind of the point though. You increase the enemy's HP because you know it's going to be taking BIG hits. You enable the players to set up those big hits through a high cost to undoing failed saves, which in turn makes the nova classes want to wait with their big guns until the enemy is vulnerable instead of dumping them all as soon as initiative is rolled.

The DM has a reason to allow failed saves that are less bad than losing an action to stand. Sure Sorcadin's can do it all but every action/spell/sorcerry point they are using to try to get it to fail a save is one less they have to smite with. And since it needs to be a significant save failed they are going to be burning higher level spell slots which are a limited commodity. Also the intent is to make casters more relevant in a "boss fight" not address the Sorcadin issue (if you think there is one).

Although if I was going to try it out I'd probably want to think more on the timing. If the caster goes right before the enemy "until the end of its next turn" would basically be a free save at will. Maybe until the end of the character that provoked the effects next turn?

I agree that it's a good idea. I just also see that it could be a little too overtuned in the party's favor. It would take some playtesting for sure I think.


Is it lazy? Maybe

Is it necessary? Absolutely

At the point where Legendary Resistance becomes a thing, players have access to spells and abilities that can end entire encounters in a single round. In fact, I have a story of a time when my party faced a villain that didn't have it.

We were playing using Adventure League rules, and going through Tomb of Ahnniliation. Now, most of the party was fine, and they had fun. However, we did have one trouble-maker in the group. He was one of those players who would go to great lengths to make the most OP stuff he could.

I'm talking he found an online game for Curse of Strahd, played a single chapter, took a curse that made his character Lawful Evil, and spent the downtime to leave Barovia and return to Tomb of Ahnniliation just to get a free +2 to his casting stat.

Now, throughout the game I had been building up Ras Nasi as a big encounter. He was the cause of the undead, he had kidnapped two PCs after their players had decided to change characters, with the players permission of course, and more. The party was hyped to fight him.

However, Ras Nasi didn't have Legendary Resistance and I was a new DM, so I had not thought give it to him. Welp, in walks the player and he informs me he had used DM Exp to boost his character to level 14. Since he had returned to Tomb and not done any other hardcovers he was allowed to play with that character.

So, we get to Ras Nasi, we are about to fight him. The players are hyped to do battle with this big bad! But then the trouble maker manages to go first. He hits Ras Nasi with Plane Shift. His DC is well above 20 because he has a 24 Intelligence stat from a stat book and his trip to Barovia.

Ras didn't have Legendary Resistance and failed the save, getting teleported away with no way of returning. The rest of the players were extremely displeased. They had been hoping to finally kill Ras, but instead their grand battle was stolen from them because a player had pushed the rules to the breaking point.

This all sounds like a problem with the player, not the system. I agree that for any boss fights like this they would need to have something to replace the LRs (or use one of the modified versions presented here). Any player that just joins a game to get a quick stat boost that will help him or her in another game needs to chill. It's not that serious, haha. I'm also not super familiar with all the AL restrictions and rules, but that DC seems fishy and maybe miscalculated. It's 8+prof+Spellcasting mod. At max proficiency and a 24 Int that would be 8+6+7=21. That seems like it's about the max possible for any game, AL or otherwise, and that's at a minimum of Level 17. His prof at Level 14 should've still been at +5, taking his DC down to 20 even with his bananas Int stat of 24.

Was there any missing info in that case?

[bigbaddm]

Legendary Resistance is better than the old alternative. A high level monster would just have 85% magic resistance (or such and such number) making spell casters less useful in certain encounters. Now we accomplish two things with Legendary Resistance, first being that players have a target threshold they need to overcome; second it prevents a boss-type encounter from being trivial... knowing the creature will last at least one round.

I do think as written, LR is great for PC group size of 4 to 5. Smaller parties you should subtract an LR from the creature and larger party size add and LR or two.

As for the meta-gaming critique; all that onus is on the players and the DM. One can meta-game or not, depending on their personal play style. It's no worse than an Illusionist in a party, where the 'fun-factor' is determined by the participants' desire to take a backseat to their character (meta-game) or play front and center (role-play).

[MirrorDarkly]

I agree that it's a good idea. I just also see that it could be a little too overtuned in the party's favor. It would take some playtesting for sure I think.


I'm all in favor of playtesting. The big variable is how many more hit points do you give the enemy. If you doubled them the fight under "perfect" conditions would be no easier then it was before (x2 damage 100% of the time vs x2 health). Realistically that would almost certainly make things tougher for the party.

I'd probably start with giving them max HP per Hit Die and see how it goes.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I'm all in favor of playtesting. The big variable is how many more hit points do you give the enemy. If you doubled them the fight under "perfect" conditions would be no easier then it was before (x2 damage 100% of the time vs x2 health). Realistically that would almost certainly make things tougher for the party.

I'd probably start with giving them max HP per Hit Die and see how it goes.

This is one of the few occasions I'd be okay with giving more HP to increase difficulty. In general I favor making enemies more lethal rather than more defensive. I prefer quicker, higher stakes combat as a DM and a player in general.

But adding hp here makes sense because the vulnerability to all damage could come up for up to three rounds of the fight. I wouldn't start by giving more than a a 50% HP increase though. The reality is that it would just add too much tankiness and make the fight drag on. You're essentially incentivizing the DM to never use LRs and make it twice as hard to kill the creature. It's a tight line to try and walk, which is why it's initially more appealing to me to grant advantage to attacks vs the creature instead.

[paladinn]

I've known some lazy mechanics in my time. One rebuilt my car engine.. twice

Nothing legendary about that guy..

[Pex]

Is it lazy? Maybe

Is it necessary? Absolutely

At the point where Legendary Resistance becomes a thing, players have access to spells and abilities that can end entire encounters in a single round. In fact, I have a story of a time when my party faced a villain that didn't have it.

We were playing using Adventure League rules, and going through Tomb of Ahnniliation. Now, most of the party was fine, and they had fun. However, we did have one trouble-maker in the group. He was one of those players who would go to great lengths to make the most OP stuff he could.

I'm talking he found an online game for Curse of Strahd, played a single chapter, took a curse that made his character Lawful Evil, and spent the downtime to leave Barovia and return to Tomb of Ahnniliation just to get a free +2 to his casting stat.

Now, throughout the game I had been building up Ras Nasi as a big encounter. He was the cause of the undead, he had kidnapped two PCs after their players had decided to change characters, with the players permission of course, and more. The party was hyped to fight him.

However, Ras Nasi didn't have Legendary Resistance and I was a new DM, so I had not thought give it to him. Welp, in walks the player and he informs me he had used DM Exp to boost his character to level 14. Since he had returned to Tomb and not done any other hardcovers he was allowed to play with that character.

So, we get to Ras Nasi, we are about to fight him. The players are hyped to do battle with this big bad! But then the trouble maker manages to go first. He hits Ras Nasi with Plane Shift. His DC is well above 20 because he has a 24 Intelligence stat from a stat book and his trip to Barovia.

Ras didn't have Legendary Resistance and failed the save, getting teleported away with no way of returning. The rest of the players were extremely displeased. They had been hoping to finally kill Ras, but instead their grand battle was stolen from them because a player had pushed the rules to the breaking point.

That is not a problem of lack of legendary resistance. That's a problem of a cheating player gaming the system, other DMs enabling the behavior, and lack of experience as a DM to handle a cheating player.

[sithlordnergal]

This all sounds like a problem with the player, not the system. I agree that for any boss fights like this they would need to have something to replace the LRs (or use one of the modified versions presented here). Any player that just joins a game to get a quick stat boost that will help him or her in another game needs to chill. It's not that serious, haha. I'm also not super familiar with all the AL restrictions and rules, but that DC seems fishy and maybe miscalculated. It's 8+prof+Spellcasting mod. At max proficiency and a 24 Int that would be 8+6+7=21. That seems like it's about the max possible for any game, AL or otherwise, and that's at a minimum of Level 17. His prof at Level 14 should've still been at +5, taking his DC down to 20 even with his bananas Int stat of 24.

Was there any missing info in that case?

Hmmm, he may have had some other items. It was about a year ago, but I remember distinctly that Ras could not have made the save without rolling at at least 16 or so. That said, you still run into the issue that at the point where Legendary Resistance is a thing, the players have access to spells and abilities that end encounters as soon as they begin. Be it with Polymorph, Mass Suggestion, Plane Shift, or any number of spells.

A good way to see the use of them is play a tier 3 or 4 game with no spell restrictions, and snag a power gamer or two. You'll see why it is necessary

[MirrorDarkly]

This is one of the few occasions I'd be okay with giving more HP to increase difficulty. In general I favor making enemies more lethal rather than more defensive. I prefer quicker, higher stakes combat as a DM and a player in general.

But adding hp here makes sense because the vulnerability to all damage could come up for up to three rounds of the fight. I wouldn't start by giving more than a a 50% HP increase though. The reality is that it would just add too much tankiness and make the fight drag on. You're essentially incentivizing the DM to never use LRs and make it twice as hard to kill the creature. It's a tight line to try and walk, which is why it's initially more appealing to me to grant advantage to attacks vs the creature instead.

I think advantage is to little of a cost. Since under this system there is no limit to the number of times Legendary Resistance can be used the cost has to be high.

Another way to do it would just be to impose a hit point cost, say 10x the resource being used. So if they used Legendary Resistance to save vs a 5th level spell it would cost 50hp. To save vs a Monks stunning fist would be 10hp (but remember they can force 4 saves a turn and already damage on each hit).

You would still probably want to give the monster some extra hit points, although not nearly as many.

This makes the Sorcerer with Smite less of an issue but also takes away a layer of strategy.

[sithlordnergal]

I think advantage is to little of a cost. Since under this system there is no limit to the number of times Legendary Resistance can be used the cost has to be high.

Another way to do it would just be to impose a hit point cost, say 10x the resource being used. So if they used Legendary Resistance to save vs a 5th level spell it would cost 50hp. To save vs a Monks stunning fist would be 10hp (but remember they can force 4 saves a turn and already damage on each hit).

You would still probably want to give the monster some extra hit points, although not nearly as many.

This makes the Sorcerer with Smite less of an issue but also takes away a layer of strategy.

You're gonna wanna lower that hp cost...a lot. Especially since powerful debuffs like Polymorph, Confusion, and Banishment are 4th level spells, Fear is 3rd, and the spells that simply end combat are 7th level and higher. I suspect you underestimate how much a party can do.

For an example, I have a level 20 Paladin/Sorcerer. Last time I played, we reached what we thought was the big boss of the adventure, and I dished out about 200 damage in one round. After we killed him, it turned out were were wrong...we had a different, stronger boss to fight. I still had enough resources to lay down another 200 damage from smites and attacks.

Now, I can fully see why people who haven't played many Tier 3 and 4 games would think Legendary Resistance is not needed. Your casters don't have access to those encounter ending spells. Sure, they have Polymorph, but they still need to capitalize on Polymorph in order to instantly take down an enemy. Where as with spells like Dominate Monster, Plane Shift, Feeblemind, Maze, Prismatic Spray and Prismatic Wall, True Polymorph, and Imprisonment you only really need the target to fail their saving throw once and the battle is over.

Legendary Resistance gives those enemies a chance to survive those encounter breaking abilities, while forcing players to be more strategic in their use. Otherwise you'll either end up with campaigns that don't have a satisfying final confrontation, like what happened to me, or you just can't allow those spells.

[MrStabby]

I think that the encounter ending spells kick in earlier than that. I don't mean that they literally end the encounter but that with one spell you remove all drama and uncertainty from the outcome.

Spells like banishment, hypnotic pattern and wall of force can turn an encounter from very difficult to trivial. Banishment is still literally able to end an encounter with things from another plane. From the perspective of a climactic final battle that everyone at the table should be able to participate in and enjoy, it amounts to pretty much the same thing.

[Arkhios]

I wouldn't blame Legendary Resistances for being a lazy mechanic (I'm not taking sides on whether it is or isn't).
DM's have a lot on their plate anyway. Giving DM's some easy-to-handle mechanics makes the role at a table a lot less intimidating.
Over the years I've found that many potential games simply won't happen because players are intimidated by the DM's seat.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think that the encounter ending spells kick in earlier than that. I don't mean that they literally end the encounter but that with one spell you remove all drama and uncertainty from the outcome.

Spells like banishment, hypnotic pattern and wall of force can turn an encounter from very difficult to trivial. Banishment is still literally able to end an encounter with things from another plane. From the perspective of a climactic final battle that everyone at the table should be able to participate in and enjoy, it amounts to pretty much the same thing.

From what I've been able to find, Legendary Resistance doesn't start showing up on monsters as a default option until those (and better) spells become more than a once per long rest thing. Aside from several campaign specific NPC the earliest you find monsters with it are around cr 8 (Obzedat Ghost in GGtR) or 11 (Balhannoth, MToF).

This could just be my personal experience, but T1 adventure climaxes tend to rarely have the issue of a final encounter being trivialized because due to a single spell. T2 runs a higher risk but those spells are still limited in use, unless the party is truly well prepared whatever trial they faced to reach BBEG has a pretty high chance of having spent that spell. In the case that it didn't, the players (IMO) deserve the reward of an easier victory, they must have played well to get there.

T3 and T4, which I'm only just reaching into for the first time since I started playing D&D, seems pretty safe because of Legendary Resistance. We've got a group of powerful adventurers who have several ways to debilitate an appropriate threat level monster (Resilient Sphere, Wall of Force, Stunning Strike, Feeblemind) and if monsters didn't have legendary resistance we would scale well past them.

Sometimes it already feels a bit like we've scaled past them with how effectively we deal with both swarms and large foes alike. A squad of (at least) 10 Fire Giant, 1 being a spellcaster, was more a speed bump in our day than a real challenge. Hypnotic Pattern made them as useful as the hobgoblin mooks they brought with them.

To summarize, in case I rambled too much, I agree that there are great examples of "easy win" spells but I also think that Legendary Resistance is a good enough solution as it's presented for that. It shows up at around the time where the players are able to do those things frequently rather than once or twice a day. This might be blasphemy on my party but I think some DM's could do with sprinkling it into more monsters kits, like done with many of those campaign specific NPC I mentioned above.

[Andy 7t1]

I don't think it's stupid, it makes a lot more sense to me that counterspell is something that should be done blind.

Look at it this way, if you counterspell something worthwhile then you feel good that they lose a powerful turn. If you counterspell something "worthless" ("not dangerous" as you put it) then you should still feel pretty accomplished. You didn't know it wasn't dangerous and they've still wasted their turn for no benefit.

Defensive duelist lets you decide to use you're reaction after you:
1. Know what the attack is (Goblin with dagger vs Giant with tree trunk)
2. That its actually hits you &
3. If your GM is rolling openly a good chance of knowing if it will actually make a difference

Why should counterspell have harsher limits?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Defensive duelist lets you decide to use you're reaction after you:
1. Know what the attack is (Goblin with dagger vs Giant with tree trunk)
2. That its actually hits you &
3. If your GM is rolling openly a good chance of knowing if it will actually make a difference

Why should counterspell have harsher limits?

I'm not sure I understand the comparison, you get to choose to use Defensive Duelist when an attack hits you and you get to choose to Counterspell when an enemy casts a spell.

Defensive Duelist doesn't let you check for damage or rider effects (poison, prone, disarmed, etc.) first to see if the attack is worth using your reaction to block, why would Counterspell give you knowledge beyond what triggers the reaction? I guess the way I see it, the limits are the same, I don't see it as being more strict than Defensive Duelist or Shield.

That's just from a mechanical standpoint as well, from a roleplay perspective there's no guarantee that your character will recognize what spell is being cast. There's no real backing in the mechanics for a universally recognized formula to spells aside from those with extremely specific gestures or material components that can't be substituted for a focus, even then there's no guarantee that your character knows what's happening. I think it's appropriate for a check to recognize what spell is being cast to be separated from Counterspell. It's much easier to rationalize that a character is making an impromptu decision to counterspell at a perceived threat than to have the same wizard instantly recognize that it was simply a Minor Illusion spell and that shady cloaked spellcaster wasn't truly threatening you.

Bouncing off that last statement, I also think it's probably appropriated to make a creature with legendary resistances simply save on the first effects rather than choosing debilitating ones. If the party gets a bit gamey on that and starts spending "useless" spells to burn those resists, it's probably still fine although I would encourage them not to do so. They still function their intended purpose of giving the creature more actions to compete with the party.

[malachi]

Sometimes it already feels a bit like we've scaled past them with how effectively we deal with both swarms and large foes alike. A squad of (at least) 10 Fire Giant, 1 being a spellcaster, was more a speed bump in our day than a real challenge. Hypnotic Pattern made them as useful as the hobgoblin mooks they brought with them.

Why are 10 Fire giants fitting inside the 30 ft cube of Hypnotic Pattern? They're Huge creatures, so they basically take up 15 ft cubes on their own, which means it should at most hit 9 if they were literally clumped up in as tight a formation as physically possible. If there's even 5 ft between each giant, Hypnotic pattern could only affect 4 of them at most (unless you go by the nonsensical ruling that a 5 ft cube can be centered on a grid intersection and thus affect 4 squares on a grid).

Huh, quickly looking at https://kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder , 10 Fire Giants is a Deadly Encounter for 4x level 20 characters. So if any single spell (except maybe lvl 8+) made that encounter trivial, that'd be a big problem with that tier of play.



While LR helps keeps solo creatures from being stunlocked into oblivion, what kind of options are there for single spells that stunlock and trivialize swarms?

[MirrorDarkly]

You're gonna wanna lower that hp cost...a lot. Especially since powerful debuffs like Polymorph, Confusion, and Banishment are 4th level spells, Fear is 3rd, and the spells that simply end combat are 7th level and higher. I suspect you underestimate how much a party can do.

For an example, I have a level 20 Paladin/Sorcerer. Last time I played, we reached what we thought was the big boss of the adventure, and I dished out about 200 damage in one round. After we killed him, it turned out were were wrong...we had a different, stronger boss to fight. I still had enough resources to lay down another 200 damage from smites and attacks.

Now, I can fully see why people who haven't played many Tier 3 and 4 games would think Legendary Resistance is not needed. Your casters don't have access to those encounter ending spells. Sure, they have Polymorph, but they still need to capitalize on Polymorph in order to instantly take down an enemy. Where as with spells like Dominate Monster, Plane Shift, Feeblemind, Maze, Prismatic Spray and Prismatic Wall, True Polymorph, and Imprisonment you only really need the target to fail their saving throw once and the battle is over.

Legendary Resistance gives those enemies a chance to survive those encounter breaking abilities, while forcing players to be more strategic in their use. Otherwise you'll either end up with campaigns that don't have a satisfying final confrontation, like what happened to me, or you just can't allow those spells.

Sure you can adjust the damage and bonus hit points however you want. That being said as you point out a Paladin/Sorcerer can easily do 200 damage is one round, so how is allowing a Wizard to do 90 max damage, at the cost of a 9th level spell slot, on a failed save (and likely no damage on a successful one) overpowered?

Also I hope it is clear that I'm not saying Legendary Resistance should not be a thing. I know why it's needed. I just think there are ways to do it that make it feel rewarding to the player when they are used as opposed to the current, "it failed its save but your spell still has no effect, now you get to watch the paladin do 200hp worth of of damage on her turn" paradigm.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure you can adjust the damage and bonus hit points however you want. That being said as you point out a Paladin/Sorcerer can easily do 200 damage is one round, so how is allowing a Wizard to do 90 max damage, at the cost of a 9th level spell slot, on a failed save (and likely no damage on a successful one) overpowered?

Also I hope it is clear that I'm not saying Legendary Resistance should not be a thing. I know why it's needed. I just think there are ways to do it that make it feel rewarding to the player when they are used as opposed to the current, "it failed its save but your spell still has no effect, now you get to watch the paladin do 200hp worth of of damage on her turn" paradigm.

As a note, disintegrate, cast out of a 9th level slot only does 106.5 damage on average. Getting 90 or incapacitating them if they choose not to use LR means that you'd always choose a disabling spell over a damage one. And that seems a little off to me.

And that paladin is only doing 200 HP if
a) everything hits and probably crits
b) they have high level slots left to burn on smites
c) they're in particular builds and have high-end magic polearms (which are not exactly common)

Things with LR also tend to have high AC--the vampire (AC 16) is the lowest, most are 19+. They also strongly punish anyone for getting close. If the paladin misses, he's going to take a load of damage, lots of it unavoidable.

Yes, LR makes it harder for control wizards[1] to dominate those fights. Good. It forces them to switch tactics instead of always using the same lazy option. That's a pro, not a con. If you don't have a broad swath of ways to contribute, if you're laser-focused on control, that's your problem and you're paying the consequences of pigeon-holing yourself.

[1] or clerics, or druids, or ...

[Bobthewizard]

Defensive duelist lets you decide to use you're reaction after you:
1. Know what the attack is (Goblin with dagger vs Giant with tree trunk)
2. That its actually hits you &
3. If your GM is rolling openly a good chance of knowing if it will actually make a difference

Why should counterspell have harsher limits?

Disclaimer: I let my players know the spell before they decide to Counterspell. But I think that is wrong by RAW. Defensive duelist states in its description how it works. Counterspell does not state that you know what spell is being cast.

There is a mechanic for identifying a spell in Xanathers. "If the character perceived the casting, the spell's effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action." By RAW, you have to use an action or reaction to identify a spell. If you use your reaction to determine the spell they are casting, you wouldn't have your reaction left to use your Counterspell, so you would need to do it blind.

[MirrorDarkly]

As a note, disintegrate, cast out of a 9th level slot only does 106.5 damage on average. Getting 90 or incapacitating them if they choose not to use LR means that you'd always choose a disabling spell over a damage one. And that seems a little off to me.


Would you really use disintegrate cast out of a 9th level slot?

Cast out of 6th level slot it does 75/0 which is 25% better then the 60/0 you'd get out of forcing LR use. And that assumes it's equally good in all save categories, if you know it has a bad Dex save (which is the only time I would gamble with disintegrate) you'd likely come out further ahead.

Also most save or damage spells have half effect on a successful save, where as most control spells have no effect. So changing LR in this way doesn't help you at all if they make the save. Finally if you have no hard cap on LR use why would you ever choose not to use it and be incapacitated instead?

[Pex]

Yes, LR makes it harder for control wizards[1] to dominate those fights. Good. It forces them to switch tactics instead of always using the same lazy option. That's a pro, not a con. If you don't have a broad swath of ways to contribute, if you're laser-focused on control, that's your problem and you're paying the consequences of pigeon-holing yourself.

[1] or clerics, or druids, or ...

But it is equally not fun if your main shtick, the whole point of you playing the character, never works because every time you try it's Nope! Legendary Resistance! You use your other stuff, but you never get to use your favorites because they'll be denied.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But it is equally not fun if your main shtick, the whole point of you playing the character, never works because every time you try it's Nope! Legendary Resistance! You use your other stuff, but you never get to use your favorites because they'll be denied.

If it never works, you're way off the standard. Because there just aren't that many LR monsters in the books, and they're supposed to be campaign-ending level bosses. 99.9999% of encounters shouldn't involve LR at all.

This idea that the only fights that matter happen at CR 15+ against huge solo monsters is mind-boggling to me.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Why are 10 Fire giants fitting inside the 30 ft cube of Hypnotic Pattern? They're Huge creatures, so they basically take up 15 ft cubes on their own, which means it should at most hit 9 if they were literally clumped up in as tight a formation as physically possible. If there's even 5 ft between each giant, Hypnotic pattern could only affect 4 of them at most (unless you go by the nonsensical ruling that a 5 ft cube can be centered on a grid intersection and thus affect 4 squares on a grid).

Huh, quickly looking at https://kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder , 10 Fire Giants is a Deadly Encounter for 4x level 20 characters. So if any single spell (except maybe lvl 8+) made that encounter trivial, that'd be a big problem with that tier of play.

While LR helps keeps solo creatures from being stunlocked into oblivion, what kind of options are there for single spells that stunlock and trivialize swarms?

I didn't say that all 10 giants were in one casting of hypnotic pattern, I caught 3 of them. Fire Giant's are powerful but they don't really have a lot of tools to make use of. Lowering the number of major obstacles in an encounter by 1/3 to 1/2 is a big deal.

That said, it's entirely possible that my memory exaggerated the events as it's been nearly a month since the encounter. It doesn't change too much as CR calculation has any encounter of more than 2 fire giants go straight to deadly for a lvl 15 party. I know there were at least 6, one of them being stronger than the others and many mooks in the room (smoke mephits, hobgoblins). It was a modified encounter in Dungeon of the Mad Mage, our DM tends to beef up the encounters slightly.

As for swarms, I don't see the issue. You're not usually fighting swarms of high CR creatures. Fireball/lightning bolt is usually all it takes to trivialize a swarm of enemies. Death is the best crowd control.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

My thought would be increase the creatures hit points then change legendary resistance to: If this creature fails a saving throw it may choose to succeed. Until the end of its next turn it gains vulnerability to all damage.

That would encourage teamwork and hopefully make having a spell or ability "fail" due to LR feel awesome while protecting the bosses ability to act.

I like the idea, but I might switch it from vulnerability to all damage to "disadvantage on all saves, and all attacks against it have advantage". I think that's more in line with the idea of knocking the boss off balance/breaking their concentration/shaking their resolve, however you want to flavor it, but it makes the result a bit more tactical than "okay, now everybody hit it with everything you've got".

OTOH, my way could just lead to trying to chain save/sucks to shut down the encounter, rather than your idea's more "weakpoint exposed" mechanic.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Or maybe vary between the two, depending on the boss.

[lordshadowisle]

I think the issue isn't so much with Legendary Resistance, but with Save-or-Suck spells/effects. If the spell either wins an encounter or does nothing, then that can lead to unfun gameplay (either direction) when you have bosses/BBEGs.

I quite like the approach taken by PF2, with more graduated effects for spell success/failure. Degrees of failures/success means that the spell can do something even if it doesn't take its full effect. As a player, it can make you feel you've contributed instead of feeling you've wasted your big spell of the day.

Unfortunately, this also introduces a lot of rule complexity and isn't directly applicable to 5e.

[Xetheral]

I'd be interested to see if people have some more ideas about how to link these two things (HP and magic resistance/LR). Approaching combat this way as a party would be really beneficial in general I think.

How about this:

A legendary monster gets X rerolls when it rolls initiative. It can spend a reroll to reroll a d20 (for any purpose), and there is no limit to the number it can spend on one roll. If the original roll was made with advantage each reroll is made with advantage. If the original roll was made with disadvantage, each reroll is made with disadvantage. At the end of each of the legendary monster's turns, it loses any leftover rerolls and recovers X*(current HP)/(total HP) rerolls.

Forcing the monster to use rerolls defensively gives it fewer rerolls available to use offensively on its turn, so there is an incentive to use powerful abilities that force saves or contested checks, to try to burn through rerolls. And as HP goes down, the monster has fewer and fewer rerolls to work with, so there is also an incentive to save the big guns until after the party starts wearing it down. Thus, when to use the big abilities is a tactical choice with trade-offs, rather than just a question of gaming automatic legendary resistance uses.

Optionally, you could require the Legendary Monster to use a reroll whenever it activates a Legendary Action, further incentivizing forcing it to burn through rerolls defensively.

[Mith]

How about this:

A legendary monster gets X rerolls when it rolls initiative. It can spend a reroll to reroll a d20 (for any purpose), and there is no limit to the number it can spend on one roll. If the original roll was made with advantage each reroll is made with advantage. If the original roll was made with disadvantage, each reroll is made with disadvantage. At the end of each of the legendary monster's turns, it loses any leftover rerolls and recovers X*(current HP)/(total HP) rerolls.

Forcing the monster to use rerolls defensively gives it fewer rerolls available to use offensively on its turn, so there is an incentive to use powerful abilities that force saves or contested checks, to try to burn through rerolls. And as HP goes down, the monster has fewer and fewer rerolls to work with, so there is also an incentive to save the big guns until after the party starts wearing it down. Thus, when to use the big abilities is a tactical choice with trade-offs, rather than just a question of gaming automatic legendary resistance uses.

Optionally, you could require the Legendary Monster to use a reroll whenever it activates a Legendary Action, further incentivizing forcing it to burn through rerolls defensively.

How I would refine this idea: Legendary monster get Legendary Actions with Resistance as an option. They have a sliding scale of how many Action points they have based on health (essentially a pre done table). This works into bloodied mechanics like in 4e as well.

[MirrorDarkly]

I like the idea, but I might switch it from vulnerability to all damage to "disadvantage on all saves, and all attacks against it have advantage". I think that's more in line with the idea of knocking the boss off balance/breaking their concentration/shaking their resolve, however you want to flavor it, but it makes the result a bit more tactical than "okay, now everybody hit it with everything you've got".

OTOH, my way could just lead to trying to chain save/sucks to shut down the encounter, rather than your idea's more "weakpoint exposed" mechanic.

Thoughts?

I'm glad you like it. Since the enemy can succeed at any and all saving throws I don't think giving it disadvantage on them is that meaningful.

If you wanted to avoid vulnerability or direct damage for using LR you could try something like having attack rolls against it gain an expanded crit range (say crit on a 15-20). The biggest issue I see there is that most good damage spells would not benefit but maybe you could give them a 25% chance to do double damage too.

If you went this way I'd be careful not to give the enemy to many extra hit points, maybe a 10-20% bump?

It would probably be a more swingy fight too, a good crit smite or two could end the fight fast with the lower HP buffer.

[MeeposFire]

If you want to make it more interesting, complicated, and with more of a choice you could add a negative effect whenever legendary resistance is used such as possibly vulnerability to damage or lower AC/saves. So then they have a choice. Of course anything really nasty that could disable it they would likely take the resistance but the caster should feel good since now it has vulnerability to damage. IN return you may give the creature more uses since it now gets a negative if it uses it.

[Atranen]

The bigger problem is that save-or-die spells don't really work for the style of "cinematic boss fight" that 5E is going for. Given the choice between getting rid of save-or-dies (without which it might feel like not D&D) and getting rid of "cinematic boss fights", legendary resistance is a good compromise.