What spells could a lich cast that is bound and gagged?

[Ancient Words]

What's the easiest way to find what spells can be cast by a wizard who is bound and gagged (or more specifically a lich) in 5e? Is there a list anywhere? Any help saving us from flipping forward and backwards in the references looking up every spell would be great.

[Tvtyrant]

There are no spells with neither somatic or verbal components. There are a lot missing either one, but there are no free castings ala 3.5

[Lunali]

While there aren't any spells that don't require at least one of the two, a sorceror can get around that. Also, a lich still has a few dangerous abilities even without casting spells, not nearly as bad as if they still had their spells, but still dangerous.

As an aside, any attempt to restrain a caster should also include a blindfold.

[Greywander]

I've considered this before. If you want to imprison a lich, then you should bind them, gag them, blindfold them, then bury them in sand (ideally by literally filling the room with it). Remember, liches don't need to eat, drink, or breathe, so this won't harm them. The sand prevents them from moving, speaking, or seeing, and imposes a physical barrier between them and any potential spell target. And even if the sand is somehow dealt with, they're still bound, gagged, and blindfolded.

As someone pointed out, there are no spells without either verbal or somatic components, all spells have either one or the other. You could get around this with the sorcerer's Subtle Spell metamagic. Otherwise, they would need to either slip one hand free of their bonds or chew through their gag. Blindfolding makes this even more difficult, as many spells require you to be able to see a target. Finding some way to get blindsight (or tremorsense?) might get around this.

[Fable Wright]

If you make the lich a sorcerer, and give it Subtle Spell?

Any on its list.

If you make the Lich an Archdruid?

Any on its list.

Both make for some real nasty surprises.

That said, here (https://donjon.bin.sh/5e/spells/)'s a spell filter for which you can search "no somatic" and "no verbal". It has all spells through Xanathar's Guide, but not Acquisitions Inc.

[Bjarkmundur]

Drama > Story > Mechanics

A lich can do whatever he wants, if it serves the drama and doesn't remove the players from feeling rewarded.

If there's an item called Bead of Fireball, I'm pretty sure there's a Bead-of-Turn-Into-a-Mouse-and-Escape-but-the-Bead-is-Kept-Within-the-Ribcage-of-the-Lich-so-you-Won't-Find-it-With-Detect-Magic, if you really want there to be.

[Greywander]

Drama > Story > Mechanics

A lich can do whatever he wants, if it serves the drama and doesn't remove the players from feeling rewarded.
YMMV. I know I'd be expecting a good explanation for why an NPC was allowed to violate pre-established rules. You can't tell me things work one way, and then change it mid-game.

A good way to do this would be with some kind of magic item. If the item is consumable, have the lich be suitably pissed off at the party for forcing him to use it (so that the players can feel some satisfaction over that, at least). You can also bet that the PCs are going to try to get their hands on that item as well (if consumable, the lich presumably has more). If you don't want this happening, let the players know that the lich is angry about "using the last one", which also communicates that he won't be able to escape the same way again. Then either be more careful so this doesn't happen again, or let the players have their victory over the lich.

The point is, if you're going to violate the rules, you need to present a plausible reason for it ("This magic item lets me do that"). Then, don't be surprised when the PCs attempt to use this same logic in their favor ("We're going to steal that magic item"). Letting your NPCs do cool stuff and break the rules, while cracking down on the players and telling them they can't do stuff, is not going to lead to an enjoyable experience for the players.

[StoicLeaf]

I think the OP is a player who, along with other players, wants to stop a lich from casting..
As such I won't be posting my DM friendly advice :P

[BloodSnake'sCha]

A lich should have a way to kill himself.
Like a trap that activate if the lich isn't moving his body for a few hours (he doesn't need to sleep).

To capture a lich you need to make sure he have no magical or mundane trap on him. A lich always have the option to die.

[NNescio]

What's the easiest way to find what spells can be cast by a wizard who is bound and gagged (or more specifically a lich) in 5e? Is there a list anywhere? Any help saving us from flipping forward and backwards in the references looking up every spell would be great.

If you're talking about a players vs. 'monster' situation, with the Lich being exactly like its MM entry, then no, it can't cast any spell on its list.

If we consider other spells (including non Wizard ones), then the answer is also no — (currently as of writing) there is no official first-party spell published (for any class list) that have neither verbal nor somatic components.

That said, the Lich may still effectively cast spells even if it can't technically cast any. The two most overt ways is via Contingency (keyed to "when unable to speak and freely move") or Glyph of Warding (placed somewhere around its lair, or secreted in an extradimensional space). The Lich can use these options to escape, wiggle out of its bonds (or have a minion loose him), then come back to have its revenge on the party.

Also note that even without these options, a Lich that is bound and gagged can also wiggle out of its bonds the mundane way, if the party (or whoever the captors may be) isn't paying attention.

Moving beyond (pseudo-)'RAW' options, if the Lich is custom-tooled by the DM then it may have sorcerer levels for Subtle Spell (or just Subtle Spell on its statblock, no need for PC levels; 5e allows the DM considerable latitude). The Wizard subschools also have 'spell-like' magical effects (that sort of emulate spells) that can be used even when bound or gagged. The main ones to watch out for are Benign Transposition (another escape option), Malleable Illusions (deadly when combined with precast Mirage Arcane), and Illusory Reality.

Related, some magical items can also be used when bound and gagged. By default they don't require components (even when casting a spell via the item). Some are sort of implied to require command words to be uttered or the item to be manipulated in a certain way, but RAW this is left very vague for most magic items.

Edit:
If you make the lich a sorcerer, and give it Subtle Spell?

Any on its list.

If you make the Lich an Archdruid?

Any on its list.

Quibble: Subtle Spell doesn't waive material components. And Archdruid only waives material components if it is both costless and isn't consumed by the spell (costless mats that are consumed still cannot be waived).




That said, here (https://donjon.bin.sh/5e/spells/)'s a spell filter for which you can search "no somatic" and "no verbal". It has all spells through Xanathar's Guide, but not Acquisitions Inc.

And there is nothing if you filter for both.

[Greywander]

Oh, also, if the lich has pre-cast Freedom of Movement before being tied up, then they'll be able to slip out no problem.

Also, speaking of magic items, generally, a spell cast from a magic item does not require components. This can still be tricky, since you usually need to be holding the item (such as a wand), but something like the Ring of Spell Storing only requires you to be wearing the ring. Of course, hopefully the players are smart enough to take all the lich's rings and other magic items away.

[Bjarkmundur]

Forcing the lich to have to blow him up using bead of fireball just to escape seems like dramatically appropriate to me. The lich is now scarred, wounded and broken and has to tend to his wounds, and will forever hate the PCs.

[NNescio]

Forcing the lich to have to blow him up using bead of fireball just to escape seems like dramatically appropriate to me. The lich is now scarred, wounded and broken and has to tend to his wounds, and will forever hate the PCs.

While the Necklace of Fireballs doesn't explicitly say you need a free hand to detach a bead and throw it away, most players (and DMs if the lich is a PC) will likely cry foul if a bound creature can reach for a bead despite not having any hands free.

Though I suppose some DMs may allow a creature to attempt to use Dex (Acrobatics) to do said detaching with its teeth. But since the Lich is also gagged, well...

(Also strictly speaking by RAW Fireball doesn't damage objects; it only ignites them, and only if they are neither being carried or worn. Same technicality why PC equipment don't get harmed by Fireball. Also note that other AoEs that damage objects usually only do so if the objects are, again, neither being carried or worn.)

[Foff]

He may have a contingency in play with the condition "when i'm unable to react" and the dimension door spell or something to break free of grapples

[Blood of Gaea]

It seems like an amazing time to use one of those nifty magical items they've picked up in the possible centuries they've been alive.

[Tanarii]

Drama > Story > Mechanics

That's just terrible.

[Aelyn]

That's just terrible.
Nope, wrong.

Hey, if you can dismiss other people's advice / opinions without any explanation or constructive feedback, we can dismiss yours in the same way?

[loki_ragnarock]

YMMV. I know I'd be expecting a good explanation for why an NPC was allowed to violate pre-established rules. You can't tell me things work one way, and then change it mid-game.


Monsters don't follow PC rules. They follow monster rules. Nothing has been changed mid-game in that scenario.

The Lich entry in the MM is pretty well blunted by the presented scenario, but if that lich has a name all bets are off; that has the potential to be a very different stat block. Lich is a generic known quantity. Harry of Houdinia and Alakazam could be very different entities.

[FabulousFizban]

you don’t need to gag a lich, just pull his jaw off.

[Tanarii]

Hey, if you can dismiss other people's advice / opinions without any explanation or constructive feedback, we can dismiss yours in the same way?
Sure. But the dif fence I'm right, and you're wrong. :smalltongue:

Edit: point on constructive feedback though. How about: it's so bad it got a visceral response from a random internet guy. :smallamused:

[ProsecutorGodot]

Sure. But the dif fence I'm right, and you're wrong. :smalltongue:

Edit: point on constructive feedback though. How about: it's so bad it got a visceral response from a random internet guy. :smallamused:

Still not constructive, how about this: Gauge your audience first. At your table, the players might be looking more for a dramatic story than a strict following of the rules where players tactics and wit can be effectively used to disrupt the BBEG.

If the majority of your players want it to be a dramatic saga of your motley crew gaining power to defeat the shadowy lich corrupting the countryside in secrecy, he might have a contingency set up if the ending turns out to be far too abrupt or boring. Or, you have a group who would revel in the fact that their quick thinking and/or long term plan was entirely effective and the seemingly omnipotent lich fell for what most would have considered a mundane trick that never would have worked. It was hubris that prevented the Lich from seeing such a simple downfall.

Personally I prefer not to use Deus Ex Machina that would prevent players from being rewarded for planning. Most of the creatures they fight aren't omnipotent (and most aren't also actively watching the parties actions, although a Lich would be one of the few who could do so regularly) and shouldn't be expected to prepare for the insanity that most player characters employ when dealing with them. That doesn't mean I'm going to outright dismiss the idea that for some the dramatic and heroic plight to find and destroy the lich might be more important than the players simply trapping it, although this trap seems pretty effective against a poorly prepared lich.

You, as the DM, have the best opportunity to find what your players enjoy. It's ridiculous to assume that you can be "correct" in saying that any advice is flatout bad, it just comes from a different environment and perspective. For some that advice could be just what they needed to hear.

With all of that said, this is probably not that case. OP is specifically asking for methods the Lich could use to escape within their spell list. Their intent is very likely to have it actually work out following the mechanics and not be circumvented by DM Fiat.

[Nagog]

Well, if I were a Lich that were both bound and gagged and made so I could not cast spells, I'm probably smart enough to deduce that the party isn't killing me because they know I'll be recreated, and they'll be searching for my Phylactery. So I have two options:

1. Attempt to kill myself to escape. Whether that means wiggling over to the nearest cliff and rolling off, or non-verbally provoking the barbarian into tearing off my head, I need to die.
2. Parley. Offer to tell the party where your Phylactery is under the guise that it's a valuable object a dragon or other entity stole from you long ago, and in this yours and the party's goals are the same: Retrieve the Phylactery. Tell them the name and location of the entity, and if they take you along (to keep an eye on you), you'll likely either die in the battle with said entity and/or the party will die. In which case, you'll have all the time you require to wiggle free. Better yet, pin the supposed theft of your Phylactery on a rival of yours. Obviously if the adventurers are proficient enough to incapacitate you, they can either kill your rival or get killed in the process. Win-win.

[Aelyn]

Still not constructive, how about this: Gauge your audience first...
This. The point is that different tables and games will have different priorities - if you (Tanarii) had said "I disagree, and I'd find that attitude immersion-breaking in a game I was in," that would be more constructive.

For the record, I generally prefer it when story has the highest priority, then rules-driven gameplay, then memorable moments (dramatic or comedic) - but that has to be fluid and it's part of the DM's job to read the room when making this sort of call.

It's also (generally) much easier for most people to accept non-RAW elements which are adding to the universe than ones which are editing or removing things. So it's much easier to accept "This lich has the ability to ignore spell components for a spell by permanently sacrificing part of their body, such as a fingertip" than it is for people to accept "You can't use Quivering Palm on the lich because it doesn't have pressure points."

ProsecutorGodot makes a great point - whether this plan works or not could and should completely change from one table to the next, depending on what the characters want, how long it took them to come up with this plan, their expectations of the game etc.

[Greywander]

Monsters don't follow PC rules. They follow monster rules. Nothing has been changed mid-game in that scenario.
This is a dangerous way of thinking. The entire game is built on a certain framework that applies to everything equally. Things like attack rolls and saving throws always work the same way. Spellcasting, as well, exists independently of both PCs and monsters. The only rules that differ between PCs and NPCs are the method of generating their stats. That's it. If a PC and an NPC can cast a spell, we assume they follow the same rules. If a PC and an NPC can attack with a weapon, we assume they follow the same rules.

The reason I say this way of thinking is dangerous is because I can easily see it leading to a situation where the DM rules by total fiat with regard to NPCs. For example, maybe NPCs get to take a turn whenever the DM feels like it, instead of once per round. Maybe they can cast two spells at the same time. Maybe they can't be hit, even on a 20, despite what the rules say. A big part of playing a game like D&D is that the DM and players have to agree on what the rules are; the DM isn't allowed to just make up new rules during play. And the vast majority of the rules, literally everything that isn't character creation, applies equally to PCs and NPCs.

So yes, if I have the lich bound, gagged, and blindfolded, in an anti-magic field, and he casts Dimension Door anyway, I'm calling BS. That is absolutely breaking the rules.

[Fable Wright]

The reason I say this way of thinking is dangerous is because I can easily see it leading to a situation where the DM rules by total fiat with regard to NPCs. For example, maybe NPCs get to take a turn whenever the DM feels like it, instead of once per round. Maybe they can cast two spells at the same time. Maybe they can't be hit, even on a 20, despite what the rules say. A big part of playing a game like D&D is that the DM and players have to agree on what the rules are; the DM isn't allowed to just make up new rules during play. And the vast majority of the rules, literally everything that isn't character creation, applies equally to PCs and NPCs.

I see zero problem with any of these assuming that these abilities don't just pop up at random. As long as it remains "that one boss with the weird initiative mechanic", "that one demon type that can cast twice per turn", or "that one living illusion we could never hit", all of these are fine.


So yes, if I have the lich bound, gagged, and blindfolded, in an anti-magic field, and he casts Dimension Door anyway, I'm calling BS. That is absolutely breaking the rules.

"Actually, this is based on an old 3.5 build that I'm porting over. Initiate of Mystra with Dweomer Keeper. Supernatural Dimension Door, and he made the check to ignore the AMF.

"Now that you know about the ability, how do you plan to catch him 'alive'? Forbiddance can block teleportation in and out. However, it's very hard to trap the lich in there in the first place. There are a few daemon mercenaries that can get the job done—Canoloths are infamous as living dimensional anchors, after all. However, you'd need to transport the fiend to the material plane, and either steal and enslave it or pay its owner an extortionate fee. Fortunately..."

[JNAProductions]

I see zero problem with any of these assuming that these abilities don't just pop up at random. As long as it remains "that one boss with the weird initiative mechanic", "that one demon type that can cast twice per turn", or "that one living illusion we could never hit", all of these are fine.

"Actually, this is based on an old 3.5 build that I'm porting over. Initiate of Mystra with Dweomer Keeper. Supernatural Dimension Door, and he made the check to ignore the AMF.

"Now that you know about the ability, how do you plan to catch him 'alive'? Forbiddance can block teleportation in and out. However, it's very hard to trap the lich in there in the first place. There are a few daemon mercenaries that can get the job done—Canoloths are infamous as living dimensional anchors, after all. However, you'd need to transport the fiend to the material plane, and either steal and enslave it or pay its owner an extortionate fee. Fortunately..."

Having designed monsters that get multiple turns, I'm okay with the rules being broken.

However, you should break them in advance, and give players warning about it. So, if you want a Lich who can cast without any components? That's fine-include that. Do NOT include it as a reaction to nullify player accomplishment.

[Aelyn]

Having designed monsters that get multiple turns, I'm okay with the rules being broken.

However, you should break them in advance, and give players warning about it. So, if you want a Lich who can cast without any components? That's fine-include that. Do NOT include it as a reaction to nullify player accomplishment.

Does that include when an enemy has an ability which the party can find out about in advance, but might miss depending on what they do?

What about when an enemy's ability is written in ahead of time to be a shocking twist? It's not an ass-pull because it's always part of the game / story, but by its very nature, the twist is spoiled if you tell your players about it ahead of time.

My perspective is that players should be aware from the beginning that the game won't necessarily be 100% RAW, but the detail of that shouldn't be revealed until it comes up in-game.

More importantly, though, any changes made should be done in service of increasing the overall enjoyment rather than reducing it.

[Derpldorf]

I can see being bound... but why would being gagged affect a lich at all? A lich doesn't have any vocal chords or lungs or anything you would need to actually speak, they use magic to do it. I don't see how sticking a rag between their teeth would affect it at all.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I can see being bound... but why would being gagged affect a lich at all? A lich doesn't have any vocal chords or lungs or anything you would need to actually speak, they use magic to do it. I don't see how sticking a rag between their teeth would affect it at all.

It's a big assumption to make claiming that they don't have any internals at all, the magic that keeps their body alive could be the cause for them not needing to regularly maintain such things but isn't evidence that they lack them.

The only thing we're told that Lich's lack definitively is their eyes and the process in which it takes to become a Demilich implies more that they do have things that can deteriorate further if they don't collect souls.

If the Lich was meant to cast their spells without a vocal component, their default stat block would say so. Since it doesn't we can assume that a Lich that isn't altered by a DM will still need to speak, which gagging is intended to stifle. Even in the event that we accept that they don't have vocal chords or lungs stuffing their mouth would still hamper their ability to reach the tones and pitches for proper casting.

[JNAProductions]

I would consider the players missing clues to a powerful ability to be fine, so long as they had a reasonable chance.

This is not what some are suggesting, though.

[Tanarii]

This. The point is that different tables and games will have different priorities - if you (Tanarii) had said "I disagree, and I'd find that attitude immersion-breaking in a game I was in," that would be more constructive.
And if your priority is to nullify player successes by overriding the rules on the fly because of dramatic necessity, or some kind of story bs, you're bad and you should feel bad.

Design a new mechanic, and do it in advance. It's not like NPC/monster stat blocks don't have unique mechanics that modify the rules, like, all of the times. Just don't pull "Drama > Story > Mechanics" BS to justify your screwing over the players.

Gameplay > Drama/Story, and you're effing that up if you try to DM-fiat because Drama/Story.

[ProsecutorGodot]

And if your priority is to nullify player successes by overriding the rules on the fly because of "dramatic necessity", you're bad and you should feel bad.

Design a new mechanic, and do it in advance. It's not like NPC/monster stat blocks don't have unique mechanics that modify the rules, like, all of the times. Just don't pull "Drama > Story > Mechanics" BS to justify your screwing over the players.

Gameplay > Drama/Story, and you're effing that up if you try to DM-fiat because Drama/Story.

I don't know who took a deuce in your cereal this morning but you really shouldn't be calling other peoples games badwrongfun for being different than your own. It's not helpful and needlessly inflammatory.

I can appreciate and understand that this type of game is not for you (it's not for me either) but that doesn't mean that nobody wants it. One of the other players at my table is a big fan of the story and drama above all else, we can coexist.

[loki_ragnarock]

This is a dangerous way of thinking. The entire game is built on a certain framework that applies to everything equally. Things like attack rolls and saving throws always work the same way.

Well that's just a silly assertion.

Mordenkainen's Tomb of Foes P213 gives all the officially published, non-homebrewed example required to highlight how monster rules and PC rules can indeed be very different.

Automatic success on attacks.

Automatic success on saves (But at least it's modestly limited).

It's not dangerous thinking; it's official material. The slip has already sloped, young sir, from the moment the sled left the top of the hill. It's a design decision for 5e. Enjoy the wind in your hair as we cruise across the ice and snow, content that the sled is working as intended. There's always the potential for a Cool Runnings style disaster, sure, but probably people will just have fun instead.


That magic works the same way for everything else is an assumption based on the players limited understanding of magic. That a Lich uses the Lich statblock and not the Harry of Houdinia statblock is also an assumption, and a bit of a meta one. If someone - a designer, a dm - had thought Harry of Houdinia the Lich was more sorcerer-y or psionic-y when conceiving him, a line that read "Forever Stilled Tongue: Harry of Houdinia doesn't require verbal, somatic, or material components for the spells he casts" in his statblock would be perfectly in keeping with 5e design ideas. PCs don't get that, it ain't in their rules, but monsters just need a line of text. Their abilities are just there to progress a narrative, not the other way around.

I'd probably slant my own eyes if it was just penciled into the statblock last minute, but thems the breaks sometimes. If you have so little trust in your DM to put together a decent narrative, I think that's probably a surer sign of danger than that DM embracing one of the design elements of the system.

[Sigreid]

Drama > Story > Mechanics



I truly hate this line of thinking, but I'm not at your table so, whatever floats the boat for you and your players.

[Aelyn]

And if your priority is to nullify player successes by overriding the rules on the fly because of dramatic necessity, or some kind of story bs, you're bad and you should feel bad.

Design a new mechanic, and do it in advance. It's not like NPC/monster stat blocks don't have unique mechanics that modify the rules, like, all of the times. Just don't pull "Drama > Story > Mechanics" BS to justify your screwing over the players.

Gameplay > Drama/Story, and you're effing that up if you try to DM-fiat because Drama/Story.
You seem to have misunderstood me (I assume of course you aren't deliberately misrepresenting me, because that would both be trolling and imply that you realise your argument isn't as strong as you think).

It looks like you thought I was advocating deliberately changing stuff around on an ad-hoc basis, with the specific intent of "winning" somehow (which misses the point of being DM) and frustrating my players by removing their agency, which misses the point entirely.

Try thinking of it like this: the DM and the players are actually on the same side, and they are all working toward the same goal of having an enjoyable and interesting game.

If it helps, please re-read the following posts I have made in this thread - they clarify that I'm not taking the position you seem to think:

For the record, I generally prefer it when story has the highest priority, then rules-driven gameplay, then memorable moments (dramatic or comedic) - but that has to be fluid and it's part of the DM's job to read the room when making this sort of call.

My perspective is that players should be aware from the beginning that the game won't necessarily be 100% RAW, but the detail of that shouldn't be revealed until it comes up in-game.

More importantly, though, any changes made should be done in service of increasing the overall enjoyment rather than reducing it.
The point is not to "screw over" the players by making stuff up on the fly. It is to recognise when to play purely RAW and when to adjust things for the purpose of the story and the experience, to facilitate a more enjoyable game for the players.

[Greywander]

Having designed monsters that get multiple turns, I'm okay with the rules being broken.

However, you should break them in advance, and give players warning about it. So, if you want a Lich who can cast without any components? That's fine-include that. Do NOT include it as a reaction to nullify player accomplishment.
I think this gets at the core of what I was trying to say. It's fine having a monster with that one weird ability, so long as it was always intended to work that way. It's not so much the substance of the rules, but rather that the DM's rulings are consistent. My fear is the DM who makes up new rules on the spot in order to negate the players' achievements. And even then, improvisation is a huge part of DMing, so "making up new rules on the fly" isn't actually the problem, it's that the DM is outright cheating to make the players lose.

You could absolutely have a DM who is sweating bullets because the PCs have his BBEG bound and gagged, them comes up with the bright idea that "he doesn't need spell components, so he goes poof and teleports". It's a spontaneous idea. However, the difference is that when the players object, the DM's response isn't "lol, get rekt nerds", but rather, "Huh, yeah, that's really weird. Everything you know about spellcasting says he shouldn't be able to cast while bound and gagged. You should look into this." This creates the impression that this was pre-planned (even if it wasn't), that it does follow some kind of logic (even if it doesn't, at least, not yet), and it tantalizes with a mystery for the players to solve (and the "real" solution will likely end up being provided by the players, although you'll pretend it was planned all along). For example, maybe the real solution was that it was an accomplice who cast a spell to teleport the lich (so component rules weren't actually violated), and by figuring this out it keys the players into one of the lich's secrets that they can then begin to plan countermeasures to. Maybe they start hatching a scheme to capture the lich's hidden ally.

It's not even necessarily that the DM is antagonistic, or a "killer" DM. Sometimes a DM can just have a disconnect with their players. I've heard numerous anecdotes about situations where, for example, the DM threw a "tough" fight at the PCs, only for them to steamroll it. The DM feels like they failed because they didn't challenge the party, but the players are feeling great about how thoroughly they beat what they knew should have been a tough enemy. It would be easy for a DM, wanting to make the game more fun, to fudge the monster's stats or rolls in order to turn an easy fight into a difficult one, under the mistaken assumption that the players are only having fun when they're being challenged.

For myself, I would probably get pretty angry if I found out the DM fudged the monster's saving throw against my spell because it would have been "too easy" if the spell had succeeded. (Legendary Resistance is at least written into the rules and expected, though it still ticks me off that they just automatically succeed.) I expect the rules to be fair and consistent. On the flip side, if we TPK against an enemy that was too tough, I'd still probably be unhappy, but it will ease the pain knowing that the DM was absolutely fair in how they handled the encounter. I didn't die because the DM was a jerk, I died because the enemy was too strong for my character. Next time, I'll be more careful, and run away if I think I need to. Or go out in a blaze of glory.


Well that's just a silly assertion.

Mordenkainen's Tomb of Foes P213 gives all the officially published, non-homebrewed example required to highlight how monster rules and PC rules can indeed be very different.

Automatic success on attacks.

Automatic success on saves (But at least it's modestly limited).

It's not dangerous thinking; it's official material. The slip has already sloped, young sir, from the moment the sled left the top of the hill. It's a design decision for 5e. Enjoy the wind in your hair as we cruise across the ice and snow, content that the sled is working as intended. There's always the potential for a Cool Runnings style disaster, sure, but probably people will just have fun instead.
The difference is that these abilities were all decided on beforehand. They weren't made up on the spot just to punish the players. And yes, some of these do break the pre-existing conventions, but that's kind of the nature of 5e. You start with some very basic rules, and then the rest of the rules is about all the exceptions to those basic rules. You can only attack once per round. But Extra Attack is an exception to that rule. Using an item requires an action. But Fast Hands is an exception to that rule. You can only draw one weapon as part of your turn. But Dual-Wielder is an exception to that rule. Creatures take exhaustion penalties if they don't eat, drink, and sleep. But undead are, you guessed it, an exception to the rule.

When you encounter something unfamiliar in a game, be it a creature, object, location, or whatever, part of what makes it unknown and unfamiliar is that you don't know what exceptions it's using. Part of the point of investigating that thing is to figure those exceptions out. But this makes several assumptions: (a) That these were already planned out and written down, (b) That it's possible to figure out what they are, and (c) That you can then use that knowledge to your advantage. When a DM makes things up on the fly just to punish their players, it becomes impossible to figure out what the rules actually are, and will certainly be impossible to turn them to your advantage.


That magic works the same way for everything else is an assumption based on the players limited understanding of magic. That a Lich uses the Lich statblock and not the Harry of Houdinia statblock is also an assumption, and a bit of a meta one.
I once heard about a DM who threw a giant, teleporting spider with all kinds of weird abilities at their party. Turns out, it was actually the sphinx stat block, refluffed to a spider. So instead of "Oh, it's just a sphinx", the players were crapping their pants over such a bizarre and strange enemy. Same level of challenge, but a much more interesting fight because the players couldn't rely on their meta knowledge, and the DM didn't even have to homebrew a new enemy to do it.


I'd probably slant my own eyes if it was just penciled into the statblock last minute, but thems the breaks sometimes. If you have so little trust in your DM to put together a decent narrative, I think that's probably a surer sign of danger than that DM embracing one of the design elements of the system.
This is also an excellent point. As I said above, improv is a very important part of DMing, so it's to be expected that they'll be changing things on the fly and making stuff up as they go. Being able to trust your DM is very important. If I try to light a torch and the DM says, "You still can't see anything, the torch isn't working," and my first thought is that he's BSing me, that's probably a sign I should start looking for a new DM. What should happen is that I start looking for solutions to the puzzle that is presented. Am I in magical darkness? Have I been blinded somehow? I should be able to trust in my DM that there's a legitimate reason for what's happening, and that he's not just jerking me around.

On a different note, this is also why doing certain things can be a really bad idea most of the time, but also be really awesome ideas if you can trust the people at your table. For example, the one player who was secretly the BBEG all along, or who, without telling the DM beforehand, becomes the BBEG, and either enslaves or overthrows the DM's BBEG. Or if a PC betrays the party. These can be really cool twists if you can trust the other people at the table, but if you can't then they can go very bad very quickly.


To change topics somewhat, one thing that might be interesting would be to have an NPC that does follow slightly different rules. But these aren't always in their favor. Sure, they can do something you can't, but they also can't do something that you can. Folklore is actually full of this stuff, like the immortal vampires with superhuman ability, but who can't enter your home unless invited, or is compelled to stop and count every grain of rice/salt when you drop a bunch of it on the ground.

The creature might be so weak that even a level 1 party could destroy them, if only they knew what its weaknesses were. But without that knowledge, they become a terrifying foe, and the whole point of the campaign is to figure out these weaknesses and leverage them.