Two Sets of Rules, the Good and Bad?

[Silly Name]

Legendary Actions don't exist to counterbalance the action economy--Multiattack already does that, which is why Legendary Actions and Multiattack are both factored into CR exactly the same way (add total damage per round and compare to 5E DMG chart). Legendary Actions exist to solve the "players getting bored" problem by making the monster act more often.

While I agree LA also make the fights more engaging for the players, they have far more impact than Multiattack in a monster's action economy. "Attack more" doesn't really work at higher levels, except to raise a creature's damage output.

Getting to move away without provoking AoOs (a relatively common Legendary Action), however, is a very powerful tool that does change how the next turn is planned and played, counterbalancing the fact players can dogpile a boss monster pretty fast. Other possibilities include casting a spell or using a special ability outside of their turn - it is both more interesting and gives the monster an edge in terms of "how much stuff can I do".

Instead of Legendary Resistance I use TSR-era magic resistance (roll to completely negate a spell which would otherwise affect you, including summoning spells like Conjure Animals when a summoned creature attacks you), slightly tweaked to fit the 5E idiom (takes a reaction, involves an ability check instead of a % roll) because why not and because it makes it more tactically interesting (try to fool the monster into burning its reaction on something else so it can't resist your Hold Monster spell).

Hm, isn't this pretty much the same as rerolling a save as a reaction? Definitely less boring than the boss just no-selling a failed save, though.

[MaxWilson]

While I agree LA also make the fights more engaging for the players, they have far more impact than Multiattack in a monster's action economy. "Attack more" doesn't really work at higher levels, except to raise a creature's damage output.

Multiattack does more than just "attack more". For some creatures, like dragons, it also provides defense (by imposing disadvantage through fear). For others like Gloomweavers, it adds an AoE threat ("The gloom weaver makes two spear attacks and casts one spell that takes 1 action to cast" such as Hypnotic Pattern).

Getting to move away without provoking AoOs (a relatively common Legendary Action), however, is a very powerful tool that does change how the next turn is planned and played, counterbalancing the fact players can dogpile a boss monster pretty fast. Other possibilities include casting a spell or using a special ability outside of their turn - it is both more interesting and gives the monster an edge in terms of "how much stuff can I do".

I agree that it's powerful, but it would be equally powerful as part of a multiattack or recharge ability (see: Star Spawn Mangler) or even just a standalone ability (Flyby).

Hm, isn't this pretty much the same as rerolling a save as a reaction? Definitely less boring than the boss just no-selling a failed save, though.

In practice it's very different, because it works against things like Wall of Force, Telekinesis, and Conjure Animals which don't have a save. It's more like a reaction-based Dispel Magic that also works against instantaneous spells. This makes fighting magic-resistant creatures less of an exercise in metagaming ("what spells use ability checks instead of saving throws?") and more of an exercise in roleplaying and getting inside the creature's head ("what is the demon expecting us to throw at him and how can we use that expectation against him, if we can't just overwhelm its resistance with brute force?").

[Tanarii]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Having to calculate individual initiative every round was horrendous for pacing. That's why they got rid of it in Combat and Tactics.

Side initiative with declare, roll side init, resolve is fine though. It has its benefits (and lots of them) compared to 5e individual init, but also its downsides.

The absolute best part about it is not having to sit around until your turn comes back up, and giving the impression of working as a team, even if you don't allow crosstalk during declaration.

[MaxWilson]

Having to calculate individual initiative every round was horrendous for pacing. That's why they got rid of it in Combat and Tactics.

I think you misremember. "Initiative is normally determined with a single roll for each side in a conflict." (PHB p. 93, 2nd edition.) Rolling individual initiative was an optional rule in a sidebar on page 95, and was never intended to be used in situations where it would be "horrendous for pacing."

Side initiative with declare, roll side init, resolve is fine though. It has its benefits (and lots of them) compared to 5e individual init, but also its downsides.

The absolute best part about it is not having to sit around until your turn comes back up, and giving the impression of working as a team, even if you don't allow crosstalk during declaration.

Concur. I haven't advocated complicated modifiers for initiative (I think that's one of the things Mearls got wrong in his proposal). As time goes on I'm more and more a fan of not rolling initiative at all, most rounds and for most actions. It generally makes things more realistic.

IME the trickiest thing is trying to make sure nobody's action resolution accidentally gets skipped before you go on to the next round, but not rolling initiative actually helps slightly with that because the DM can resolve things in a coherent order that makes sense in his head, such as "Kate enters melee, then Zoog's Fireball goes off and we resolve that, then the frog tries to finish swallowing Benjamin while Benjamin stabs it back, and then finally Kate gets to attack," instead of trying to remember whatever ordering the initiative dice decreed this round.

[DwarfFighter]

What they seem to really dislike is the Legendary Resistance trait - enemies being able to just lolnope their spells and abilities is a bit aggravating to them (partially my fault for always rolling attacks and saves in the open, though), since it makes them feel like usage of their favourite tactics is being punished.

I think you might be able to sell the Legendary Resistance as a better game mechanic out-of-game: When an enemy uses his Legendary Resistance, that's a step towards victory. And a lot of spells have some effect even on a succesfull save.

As for "being punished", I can't really sympathize. The players should pretty quickly discover that they are dealing with a legendary enemy (the Legendary and Lair actions are a huge giveaway!), so they should know better than to open up with their big spells. I get that there may be some frustration at having to come up with a different tactic, but if they stubbornly stick with the tactic that causes their Big Spells to fizzle to LR...

It's like they run along the same track every day, and one day someone has put a big wall in the way. They can climb over it and complain that this wall doesn't belong here, but if they just run head-first into it and get busted up they are at fault for their own injury.

Edit:

If you want a house rule that keeps LR in play but makes it less predictable for the players, how about this:

When the legendary creature fails their save and they have Legendary Resistances remaining, they can roll again. If the save is failed again they don't get a new roll. If the save is successful they must spend one LR.

-DF

[Jerrykhor]

I think you might be able to sell the Legendary Resistance as a better game mechanic out-of-game: When an enemy uses his Legendary Resistance, that's a step towards victory. And a lot of spells have some effect even on a succesfull save.

As for "being punished", I can't really sympathize. The players should pretty quickly discover that they are dealing with a legendary enemy (the Legendary and Lair actions are a huge giveaway!), so they should know better than to open up with their big spells. I get that there may be some frustration at having to come up with a different tactic, but if they stubbornly stick with the tactic that causes their Big Spells to fizzle to LR...

It's like they run along the same track every day, and one day someone has put a big wall in the way. They can climb over it and complain that this wall doesn't belong here, but if they just run head-first into it and get busted up they are at fault for their own injury.

Edit:

If you want a house rule that keeps LR in play but makes it less predictable for the players, how about this:

When the legendary creature fails their save and they have Legendary Resistances remaining, they can roll again. If the save is failed again they don't get a new roll. If the save is successful they must spend one LR.

-DF

There's a stronger case against Legendary Resistance than for it. IMO this is one mechanic that really screws over newer players, as they really have no way of expecting this mechanic just because of Legendary Actions.

The difference is also that Legendary Actions don't feel unfair or oppressive, while LR does. Most DMs also highly metagame LR (won't use it against saves that only deal damage, and only use it against things that debuff/controls the monster). This makes burning the 'Burn LR charges' tactic pretty impossible sometimes, and by the time they realise that, the monster is almost dead from the Martials DPR, and that if they were a cheerleader to the Martials from the start, the monster would have died faster.

Without metagaming or looking at statblocks, new players have no way of knowing that most monsters that have LR usually have +10 to all saves, advantage on saves, a long list of resistances/immunities, and other possible gimmicks like Spell Reflect or some OP crap. Even as a veteran of the game now, I can't be bothered to deal with LR, prefer to just go around it. Hit it till it dies still works 99% of the time.

You mention 'trying different tactics', but spells with no save required are usually deemed cheese, like Wall of Force or Forgecage, or summoning powerful creatures.

LR is a terrible mechanic. Its a cheat-code, an I-Win button.

[Eldariel]

I think you might be able to sell the Legendary Resistance as a better game mechanic out-of-game: When an enemy uses his Legendary Resistance, that's a step towards victory. And a lot of spells have some effect even on a succesfull save.

Legendary Resistance is a good PC mechanic (and something I like to snag up with Shapechange) - it's limited in daily uses and it lets you succeed those impossible save-or-dies in your poor saves. Over the course of an adventuring day, it being worn down and having to be careful as to what to LR works. For enemies though, it's just lousy. Simply because it's not efficient to punch through them. It's much better to just use spells and tactics that ignore them, i.e. turn into a beater and savage the enemy dead in one round or trap the enemy with non-save effects (Wall of Force, Forcecage, Illusory Reality, Mirage Arcana, Maze, etc.). Or summon a bunch of things or a big thing to kill it.

Fact is, Legendary Resistance mostly punishes:
- Monks: Their one big thing is being able to land heavy CC so the CC'd target is easy pickings for everyone else. This basically means they need to land 4 before they do anything.
- Diviners, Chronurgists and Eloquence Bards: It basically means their shtick doesn't work. Of course, they're all Bards and Wizards so they don't really mind that much and their shtick is a tad too strong when it does work.

Everyone else doesn't really care. Clerics do their usual thing just without casting CC spells, Druids do their usual thing (summon a horde of things to kill it and turn into a thing while at it), Wizards do their usual thing (whatever the hell they want because they're ****ing Wizards), Bards do their usual thing (same as Wizards), Warlocks just blast away as always and Sorcs...do their best Wizard impression.

What Legendary Resistance does accomplish is that it restricts the spells that are worth using higher up extremely severely to the point that everyone uses the same spells since they're the only ones that work reliably. Your options are basically:
- Summon
- Shapeshifting
- Trap

This is one of the biggest design failures of the system: the fact that it automatically succeeds means that there's no point in even trying. Why try to invoke anything but incidental saving throws if you know they'll make it if it matters anyways? The answer is, you don't. There's no reason to bother. And since most things worth killing are legendarily resistant, this goes double. Worse, legendary resistance doesn't protect against some of the effects that are easily the most powerful effect type in the game (i.e. ones that autosucceed).

Tiamat goes to Maze and gets stuck in Forcecage the same as every other chump. It doesn't matter that it's a literal god, it doesn't have any protection whatsoever (not even as much as a level 5 Wizard who could at least Counterspell or even a level 3 Wizard who at least has Misty Step for Forcecage!). It gets blasted to oblivion by high level Magic Missiles. Or Spirit Shroud + Scorching Ray. Or whatever. All of its magic resistance, legendary resistance and limited magic immunity amounts to jack **** due to the way all magical resistances are tied to saves. It's written as a creature that should be hard for a caster to affect but, due to the way the edition is designed, most of that is just empty rhetoric.

[Tanarii]

I think you misremember. "Initiative is normally determined with a single roll for each side in a conflict." (PHB p. 93, 2nd edition.) Rolling individual initiative was an optional rule in a sidebar on page 95, and was never intended to be used in situations where it would be "horrendous for pacing."

Technically I wasn't clear. I remembered side initiative was the 2e default, what I meant was C&T replaced the rolling individual initiative variant, and the new rule was individual initiative variantV2 that varied with action with 3-4 speeds instead of rolling each time. VFast, Fast, normal, slow iirc. That was way better, although still somewhat clunky.

Concur. I haven't advocated complicated modifiers for initiative (I think that's one of the things Mearls got wrong in his proposal). As time goes on I'm more and more a fan of not rolling initiative at all, most rounds and for most actions. It generally makes things more realistic.

The 1e standard iirc. At least until you started a 1-on-1 duel, and then weapon lengths and spellcasting speed factors and OSRIC initiative time it is!

IME the trickiest thing is trying to make sure nobody's action resolution accidentally gets skipped before you go on to the next round, but not rolling initiative actually helps slightly with that because the DM can resolve things in a coherent order that makes sense in his head, such as "Kate enters melee, then Zoog's Fireball goes off and we resolve that, then the frog tries to finish swallowing Benjamin while Benjamin stabs it back, and then finally Kate gets to attack," instead of trying to remember whatever ordering the initiative dice decreed this round.

I feel like the trickiest thing would be breaking the assumption that who goes first always matters. For example, if you think that removing hit points down to zero will prevent any attacks the opponent was making, then it matters between opponents. If you care about redirecting attacks that would otherwise be "wasted" because they're resolved after someone kills an enemy, then it matters within the party.

If players just get to say "I attack the Orcs" and every kill removes an orc without worrying about which ones it was, and if all the Orcs still get to counterattack even though they've been 'killed' (yay true simultaneity!) then it works fine only rolling when you need to.

------


BECMI had always roll side initiative, and within each side divided the action into phases (something like move, Missile, Magic, melee). I don't believe you had to declare, you just acted. The thing I didn't like was that each side got to do everything before the other side, and order didn't have Magic last.

[MoiMagnus]

I feel like the trickiest thing would be breaking the assumption that who goes first always matters. For example, if you think that removing hit points down to zero will prevent any attacks the opponent was making, then it matters between opponents. If you care about redirecting attacks that would otherwise be "wasted" because they're resolved after someone kills an enemy, then it matters within the party.

Agree. And you didn't even mention save-or-suck spells that are the biggest case of "first to act wins".

[anthon]

I generally agree with the sentiment OP has. Low AC monsters with a mountain of HP is a big issue I have with 5e. If I stab something with a sword as a high level character, I want this thing to die, not shrug off the blow because it has enough HP to take 10 other blows. Although I can definitely see why they chose to go this route, it makes combat far less swingy, and thus easier for DMs/Module writers to come up with encounters that don't end up with a TPK because nobody in the party could muster a roll higher than a 12.



You forgot option (d): Let mundane characters have nice things and be able to heal permanent injuries and death with something like a high DC Medicine check (of course, that would also mean letting characters that actually invested in the skill be able to reach such high DCs somewhat consistently)

part of the problem of "investment" in skills in 5e is lack of granularity, which is also evinced in the problem of assymetry.

like, it is lack of granularity of investment (no skill, a skill, double prof for example, vs. +4/+17/+25/etc. point distribution) with actions that led to legendaries, (i.e. because there's a lack of granularity in player abilities, a good ability is always good, a bad ability is always bad. a spell list is lengthy, etc., and its harder for a DM to extrapolate a custom legend worthy defense without pages and pages of options that clutter up the manual)

and it is MMORPG tactics and video games that led people to conclude wall of hp requires x10 best attacks to preserve "need for team work" or whatever.

But ive never been superdependent on artificial rules to make existing rules work for me. if a dragon can cast spells, and in most editions, they do, you can have them have their own buffs, and simply not tell the players their targets were buffed. We used to have a spell that absorbed around 12 melee hits with 0 damage. We had spells that would eat 100% of the breath weapon damage from a White, Silver, Red, or Gold Dragon... or fireball, or meteor swarm, or cone of cold... i mean literally 0 damage would be taken.

Now, think about how drastically that changes the encounter. if each of your uber fighter/wizard attacks is absorbed and you don't tell them why, it gives the impression the creature is invincible. Perhaps it simply has 240 more hit points than you thought. Maybe 500 more than you thought...

But all you did was use existing buffs that players take for granted. My point is you don't need legendary actions,

you need to act legendary.

[KorvinStarmast]

But I'm on the side of "Legendary Actions, while perhaps a bit of a knock against verisimilitude, is a good way to help make the game more fun."

Me also.

Saying "hey, let's just import that into 5e" is a recipe for disaster.

The simplification theme is a core 5e value.

The trick is to take simple turns, and lots of them. If everyone is taking small turns and not dithering, things go by fast and there's no problem.

Yep. Keeps the pace of play moving.

[Telok]

Part of the issue is that the game basically lacks a structure for actors to react to things happening off turn. Yeah, everyone has a "reaction" but that's really just an opportunity attack unless the actor is a caster with a particular set of spells.

If all actors had reaction options beyond "make an opportunity attack" and pcs & significant opponents had a resource or trade to get a couple more reactions, then you wouldn't have legendary actions or the negative reacions to them. The solo monster fights would just just have an extra option or two and a larger pool of resources. You could wrap the legendary resistance thing into it too.

Hmm. One reaction each round, gain another by sacrificing your next turn or spending a hit die or inspiration. Limit of your prof bonus each round and no more than one per turn. Everyone gets... opportunity attack if normal conditions are met, spell if spell conditions are met, move 5' in response to an attack roll or physical spell effect with a check to move before the attack/effect lands, maybe some sort of parry? Your legendary monsters then could get to use a reaction to reroll a save. They mostly have high prof and hit dice, maybe give them a 1/round free inspiration.

Huh. Intetesting. Might be workable, may fix a number of issues.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Having monsters and NPCs use different rules from PCs is one of the best parts of 5e, and a major factor in making DMing it tolerable.

[MaxWilson]

What Legendary Resistance does accomplish is that it restricts the spells that are worth using higher up extremely severely to the point that everyone uses the same spells since they're the only ones that work reliably. Your options are basically:
- Summon
- Shapeshifting
- Trap

This is one of the biggest design failures of the system: the fact that it automatically succeeds means that there's no point in even trying. Why try to invoke anything but incidental saving throws if you know they'll make it if it matters anyways? The answer is, you don't. There's no reason to bother. And since most things worth killing are legendarily resistant, this goes double. Worse, legendary resistance doesn't protect against some of the effects that are easily the most powerful effect type in the game (i.e. ones that autosucceed).

Bravo! A cogent statement of why Legendary Resistance is a bad game mechanic.

It's written as a creature that should be hard for a caster to affect but, due to the way the edition is designed, most of that is just empty rhetoric.

I remember how disappointed I was as a player the first time I saw a Mind Flayer die to an upcasted Fireball. I couldn't believe that that idiotic strategy actually works in 5E. Advantage on saves is not nothing, but it's not much compared to 90% magic resistance (as in AD&D). For my games I wanted to bring back the feel of a monster who just shrugs off magic, like water off a duck's back.

[Silly Name]

Funnily(?), this transplants a common videogame problem into D&D. If you have ever played Final Fantasy or similar RPGs, you'll be familiar with the dreaded useless powerful spells. Stuff like four to five flavours of instant death, poison, time stop, silence and the like: all powerful conditions you can impose on your enemies... Except when it matters. Bosses are almost always resistant to all those nifty powers you can get, while the creatures susceptible to them aren't worth spending the resources on.

Now, this isn't as bad because usually in D&D you can still get some worth out of your class features by directing them at minions or in other encounters, but as we approach higher level the resemblances grow. If the enemy can just auto-succeed at his save against your only ninth-level spell for the day, you will want to pick a ninth-level spell that doesn't allow for a save.

I am perfectly cognisant of the balancing factor of Legendary Resistance, and so are my players. It simply feels bad, especially when you consider that casting a spell that allows for a save means the player has already committed to the chance of failure, just like how the party's fighter knows he could miss on his next big attack. Seeing the boss monster fail the saving throw and then just shrug it off isn't really a cool thing. There should be a more elegant way to address the problem of powerful Save or Suck powers shutting down a boss.

Hell, probably outright immunity would be less feel-bad. "The lich's centuries of research in the deepest arcane secrets have granted her the ability to be unaffected any illusion and charm spell of less than sixth level" is far more interesting and better communicates the lich's powers than "the lich can say 'no' to three saving throws per day".

[MaxWilson]

Funnily(?), this transplants a common videogame problem into D&D. If you have ever played Final Fantasy or similar RPGs, you'll be familiar with the dreaded useless powerful spells. Stuff like four to five flavours of instant death, poison, time stop, silence and the like: all powerful conditions you can impose on your enemies... Except when it matters. Bosses are almost always resistant to all those nifty powers you can get, while the creatures susceptible to them aren't worth spending the resources on.

... probably outright immunity would be less feel-bad. "The lich's centuries of research in the deepest arcane secrets have granted her the ability to be unaffected any illusion and charm spell of less than sixth level" is far more interesting and better communicates the lich's powers than "the lich can say 'no' to three saving throws per day".

Isn't outright immunity exactly what you were criticizing in video games? IMO immunity isn't unfun as long as it makes sense (undead being immune to poisoning and exhaustion) but irritating when it's clearly just unexplained gamism (a modified lich which is immune to grappling and stun purely to mess with monks and fighters).

BTW it's also quite funny that 5E's CR system charges for Legendary Resistance (it's an effective HP increase) but not for condition immunities or teleportation powers. Two ways to skin a cat but only one of them affects CR.

[KorvinStarmast]

Having monsters and NPCs use different rules from PCs is one of the best parts of 5e, and a major factor in making DMing it tolerable.

Yep.

Bravo! A cogent statement of why Legendary Resistance is a bad game mechanic.

Disagree with "bad" - it meets the 'good enough' standard. I understand why some folks would prefer something different.

I remember how disappointed I was as a player the first time I saw a Mind Flayer die to an upcasted Fireball. I couldn't believe that that idiotic strategy actually works in 5E. Advantage on saves is not nothing, but it's not much compared to 90% magic resistance (as in AD&D). For my games I wanted to bring back the feel of a monster who just shrugs off magic, like water off a duck's back.

I never liked that, the magic resistance (it started in Eldritch Wizardry, OD&D, among some of the demons) but that's a matter of taste. It has now become baked in. *shrugs* It's workable.

IMO immunity isn't unfun as long as it makes sense

Yep, but honestly, not all of them do make sense ...

BTW it's also quite funny that 5E's CR system charges for Legendary Resistance (it's an effective HP increase) but not for condition immunities or teleportation powers. Two ways to skin a cat but only one of them affects CR.

You seem to desire a higher level of precision in CR calculation (you are not alone, there are plenty of people who scratch their heads on that) but I like to repeat this frequently: CR is a ballpark estimate.

[EggKookoo]

There's two sets of rules. One for DMs and one for players. They aren't the same.

Correct. There are also two sets of characters. PC and NPCs. They aren't the same. They don't play the same at all. Making PCs with NPC rules would result in overly simplistic characters that are either stuck at the same level of power forever or be subject to an arguably cluttered progression mechanic. Making NPCs with PC rules would result in overly complicated creatures that are saddled with features that they don't need.

D&D 3e tried using the same set of rules for both. At very low levels it wasn't too bad. But it didn't scale well and by the time the players were mid-level, the NPCs were a nightmare to build and run. Fifth realized that the needs of the players aren't the same as the needs of the DM and set the rules up to accommodate each.

Don't get hung up on the literalness of the mechanics. There's no difference in-fiction between Extra Attack and Multiattack. A 1st level PC wizard can swing a longsword five times despite having neither. It's just that, mechanically-speaking, the player only gets one chance per turn to make an attack roll (and that with disadvantage), which means either only one of those swings matters (which one? whichever one you like), or his attack was the cumulative result of all of them. Likewise, when a fighter with 2 attacks hits two separate creatures, narratively-speaking that could well have been one swing that connected to both.

The mechanics only exist for the players. The creatures in the game just have laws of physics, which is the same for all of them.

[MaxWilson]

I never liked that, the magic resistance (it started in Eldritch Wizardry, OD&D, among some of the demons) but that's a matter of taste.

I think it's more than just a matter of simple taste, it's an important game balance factor--magic-immune monsters are also factors that contributing to making playing a fighter fulfilling and fun even at high level when big spells are available. (Powerful consumable magic items, antimagic zones, and tactical options like disarming and parrying also contribute.)

5E's legendary resistances are an attempt to recreate a similar dynamic, and they work, sort of, until players figure out the spell combinations that work around magic resistance, e.g. Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound + Wall of Force, or Conjure Fey (Giant Ape, etc.) from a Shepherd Druid + Planar Binding, or Animate Objects. After that point, playing a non-caster becomes a roleplaying choice or something that you do for extra challenge, not something you do because you think fighters/barbarians/rangers/etc. are actually needed for a balanced party.

D&D 3e tried using the same set of rules for both. At very low levels it wasn't too bad. But it didn't scale well and by the time the players were mid-level, the NPCs were a nightmare to build and run.

That sounds like the fault of the 3E designers then for designing a nightmarishly complex system for PCs, because using the same rules for PCs and NPCs worked perfectly well for the whole two decades before WotC bought the D&D brand. NPC Fighters, Magic-users, etc. are ubiquitous in TSR products.

[Silly Name]

Isn't outright immunity exactly what you were criticizing in video games? IMO immunity isn't unfun as long as it makes sense (undead being immune to poisoning and exhaustion) but irritating when it's clearly just unexplained gamism (a modified lich which is immune to grappling and stun purely to mess with monks and fighters).

Eh, the problem with those videogames is actually closer to what you lament (the bosses' catch-all immunites are due to being bosses, not something inherent to their being), and the fact those powerful spells are wasted on typical random encounters due to cost or efficiency (why try to cast Instant Death at that dragon if a single physical attack/lower costed spell kills it anyways?). Until high levels, in D&D your spells/special abilities can still be useful against the enemy big beater or mook army without feeling like you're wasting precious resources.

When I talked about substituting LR with immunites, I had in mind specific, lore-justified immunites as you said. If there's no good reason for the dragon to bypass illusions, then he shouldn't get to.

Now that I think about it, LR has pretty iffy interactions with illusions from an in-fiction perspective...

[KorvinStarmast]

I think it's more than just a matter of simple taste, it's an important game balance factor--magic-immune monsters are also factors that contributing to making playing a fighter fulfilling and fun even at high level when big spells are available.

Just gonna say that it now works better than it did.

5E's legendary resistances are an attempt to recreate a similar dynamic, and they work, sort of

They work well enough. We fought a vampire a few weeks ago, and that bugger used up his leg saves ... very tough fight.

[Silly Name]

That sounds like the fault of the 3E designers then for designing a nightmarishly complex system for PCs, because using the same rules for PCs and NPCs worked perfectly well for the whole two decades before WotC bought the D&D brand. NPC Fighters, Magic-users, etc. are ubiquitous in TSR products.

Meh, I can whip up a perfectly serviceable NPC Fighter or Wizard for 3.5 in a few minutes. Part of that is system mastery, but it also gets much easier once you abandon the ridicolous attitude of needing to optimise every little thing: pick a theme, stick to core and one or two splats at most, and it's not that difficult to create even high-level NPCs that fulfill their role.

If you go dumpster-diving and search for the best feats and spells all across your library + Dragon magazines every time you build an NPC, sure, it's a mess. The real hassle is choosing equipment, and that's mostly because you need to keep in mind that every fallen NPC is a bag of money you're handing your players...

5e is still faster and easier to use, especially when wanting to create a proper monster rather than an NPC. Hit dice by size rather than type in particular is a very effective choice, and the consolidation of saves and attack bonuses in Proficiency and divorcing Prof. score from how many HD an NPC has are the two other great simplifying factors.

[EggKookoo]

That sounds like the fault of the 3E designers then for designing a nightmarishly complex system for PCs, because using the same rules for PCs and NPCs worked perfectly well for the whole two decades before WotC bought the D&D brand. NPC Fighters, Magic-users, etc. are ubiquitous in TSR products.

IIRC, 1e monsters weren't built like anything resembling PCs. A 1e monster typically had stuff like hit dice rather than hit points (although it could be converted over) and things like "number of attacks" and "damager per attack" sort of independent of weapons or any detailed equipment you'd find on a PC. No abilities listed aside from Intelligence, and that set as an adjective ("average") instead of a number. And so on... Really, 1e monster stat blocks were more "different" from PCs than they are in 5e. I don't remember much about how 2e did it.

Also, pre-3e PCs were ridiculously simple compared to what came afterward.

[MaxWilson]

IIRC, 1e monsters weren't built like anything resembling PCs. A 1e monster typically had stuff like hit dice rather than hit points (although it could be converted over) and things like "number of attacks" and "damager per attack" sort of independent of weapons or any detailed equipment you'd find on a PC. No abilities listed aside from Intelligence, and that set as an adjective ("average") instead of a number. And so on... Really, 1e monster stat blocks were more "different" from PCs than they are in 5e. I don't remember much about how 2e did it.

You misremember. 1E has monsters like orc chieftains, yes, but it also has NPCs, as does BECMI D&D, and those NPCs use the exact same rules as PCs--the only distinction between them is whether they're being run by a player (PC) or non-player (NPC).

E.g. Bargle is a magic user (initially level 5-7).

Aleena is a cleric (level 2 IIRC).

Mordenkainen starts off as a 12th level wizard and eventually goes to 20+ (depending on which book you consult).

Elminster is a 29th level wizard, IIRC with some remnants of Fighter and Thief skill from dual-classing in his youth. The Simbul is a 30th level wizard.

All of the Athasian sorcerer kings are dual-classed 21st level or higher wizard/psionicists (Nibenay is level 23 initially, IIRC goes to 24 eventually; Hammanu goes from 21 to 23 I think). Borys of Ebe of course is a 30th level wizard/psionicist/dragon.

Online sources tell me that Lord Robilard is a 24th level Fighter but I'm taking that on faith because I'm not very familiar with Greyhawk.

[EggKookoo]

You misremember. 1E has monsters like orc chieftains, yes, but it also has NPCs, as does BECMI D&D, and those NPCs use the exact same rules as PCs--the only distinction between them is whether they're being run by a player (PC) or non-player (NPC).

So I'm thinking of things like this.



This reminds me of a 5e-ish stat block. Or are we talking about different things?

[Tanarii]

This reminds me of a 5e-ish stat block. Or are we talking about different things?

It also had elves, dwarves, halfling, and Men (bandits, berserkers, merchants etc). I can't remember if it had commoners though.

But in both AD&D and BECMI modules, PC classed individuals were endemic.

[Eldariel]

Just gonna say that it now works better than it did.
They work well enough. We fought a vampire a few weeks ago, and that bugger used up his leg saves ... very tough fight.

I'll say that this probably really depends on the table. The more savvy the players are, the less likely they are to waste time hitting through legendary saves simply because they prepared spells that don't care. The same thing solves magic resistance too. In this edition, magic resistance is "All eggs in the same basket" - nothing [except like Big T's carapace, which is a unique effect on a chump monster so it doesn't really matter] protects you against attack roll spells (which is why Scorching Ray + Spirit Shroud is actually pretty good as is Magic Missile + Empowered Evocation).

So if players do burn through legendary resistance, they might be doing things "as intended" but they're also wasting a lot of resources: generally once they figure out which spells always work, this simply won't happen (except in cases where it doesn't matter like Spirit Guardians, which is really good against...everything regardless of whether they save or not). Which is what I fear may happen with you: players learn and get more savvy and the next Vampire will be a cakewalk. Then again, this might not be the case: it depends on the players' goals and table style as much as everything else. But I can say that for instance in my tables, it simply doesn't work.

The older versions didn't have this problem. You didn't have a single optimal way of dealing with all problems nor a single category of effects that autofails while others succeed (okay, 3e was pretty bad about this too since immunities became endemic on high levels) - which preserved the plurality of solutions available for caster to contribute, but still made weapon damage something you actively wanted in the party. In 5e you generally just use summons or minions on high levels so you don't need weapon damage really, and when you do well, shapeshifting makes you every bit as good a warrior as any Fighter (better, actually, 'cause you can cast spells like Shield and Absorb Elements and Counterspell while at it, and get to use NPC-only damage riders, which get pretty ridiculous pretty fast).

[MaxWilson]

That sounds like the fault of the 3E designers then for designing a nightmarishly complex system for PCs, because using the same rules for PCs and NPCs worked perfectly well for the whole two decades before WotC bought the D&D brand. NPC Fighters, Magic-users, etc. are ubiquitous in TSR products.

IIRC, 1e monsters weren't built like anything resembling PCs. A 1e monster typically had stuff like hit dice rather than hit points (although it could be converted over) and things like "number of attacks" and "damager per attack" sort of independent of weapons or any detailed equipment you'd find on a PC. No abilities listed aside from Intelligence, and that set as an adjective ("average") instead of a number. And so on... Really, 1e monster stat blocks were more "different" from PCs than they are in 5e. I don't remember much about how 2e did it.

Also, pre-3e PCs were ridiculously simple compared to what came afterward.

So I'm thinking of things like this.



This reminds me of a 5e-ish stat block. Or are we talking about different things?

We are talking about different things. I'm talking about when Gary Gygax wrote NPCs, not monsters, for example this (Against the Giants pg 7):



or this (pg 25)



To repeat the point: if (arguendo) 3E NPCs are nightmarishly complex (although @Silly Name appears to disagree that this is the case), that's the fault of the 3E designers for making character design nightmarishly complex. 5E character design isn't nightmarishly complex and so using the Gygaxian approach to NPCs works well in 5E.

[Necrosnoop110]

This kind of thing never bothered me as a player or DM. Sometimes there are things you just can't do. I actually like it when Monsters can do things I (as a PC cannot) it increases novelty, challenge, and uniqueness for me.

I think there are plenty of legit flavor reasons for such abilities to exist above and beyond any meta- or breaks in verisimilitude that may or may not exist. Maybe the NPC makes a deal with an evil power that will only communicate with evil monsters of a given race, maybe it grinds babies up for a ritual, maybe it has two brains and can do things humanoids just cannot or will not do.

We're part of the most intelligent and technologically advanced species on the planet and there are still things animals can do that humans cannot, sometimes we even fail to understand how the animals do it. And yes I realize that theoretically we could one day understand and replicate what an animal does but right now we can't. Who's to say that in a given fantasy world in the arms race between PCs and NPCs there are things in one camp that the other cannot currently perform.

I think a modern "I can just youtube it and master any skill" mentality bleeds over into the game world sometimes. Trust me there is a skill out there that you cannot master regardless of effort, and even more so if that skill or ability depended on anatomy that you simply do not have.

I'd also ask, doesn't this "two rulesets problem" go both ways? To the best of my knowledge Monster NPCs don't have access to certain class abilities, from mundane up to 20th level capstones? Sure a humanoid NPC that can take up classes maybe could but an outright monster?

[Silly Name]

To repeat the point: if (arguendo) 3E NPCs are nightmarishly complex (although @Silly Name appears to disagree that this is the case), that's the fault of the 3E designers for making character design nightmarishly complex. 5E character design isn't nightmarishly complex and so using the Gygaxian approach to NPCs works well in 5E.

I think they are less complex than most people seem to think, and experience with the system makes (N)PC creation and control more intuitive (as well as picking up some tricks for streamlining character creation). No disagreeing that they're more complex than both previous and successive editions, it'd be a pretty ridicolous position.

I also recognise I seem to have a very different experience with 3e than the majority of this forum, in the sense that the people I've played with always kept the game far simpler and less optimised (saw very little "dipping", a very conservative ACFs, think I've seen only... three or four PCs that were non-standard races), so a lot of the NPCs even at high level could be "[Base class] X/[Prestige Class] Y" (or even pure base class, or simply dual-classing for simplicity) and remain competent, because that was the baseline level of complexity for PCs too.

(I also find Pathfinder NPCs to have far much more "noise" due to some design choices of that game. If I ever ran a game in that system again, I'd probably be tempted to backport some 5e design into NPC creation just so I could cut down all the pointless clutter)

Creating monsters, now, that was an ungodly mess that required far too much cross-referencing. I had some fun spending afternoons homebrewing creatures, but it is needlessly complicated. As I said above, 5e simplifies the process and corrects many problems in a way I think is very satisfying.