1) Legendary Resistances are a finite resource. Once they're used up, that's it. Legendary Actions are not, and replenish every turn 2) Legendary Actions can't be used at all if the creature is incapacitated or can't take actions
appears to be a feature, not a bug. The intended functionality appears to be 'Save or Suck does something (drains legendary actions), just less than actually taking effect.
can easily be fixed by either adding "this action may be used when incapacitated", or changing it to a trait.
Where does it end though? Take out Legendary Resistance because a BBEG deciding to just save is no fun.
The point is to replace LR with a less binary mechanic.
Now, there are several reasons why I think this proposal still needs work, but the concept is solid.
The main reason why LR is needed in the game is because stunlocking the big bad is a poor gameplay experience, as is winning the fight because of a single bad roll. Spellcaster damage against single targets is low enough that applying LR to resist damaging effects as well is kind of unfair.
LR as proposed has two issues
There are are some save or suck effects that wouldn't be removable because they would prevent using legendary actions (even if you remove the disablement situation, something like polymorph that changes the character sheet would remove the ability to recover) or because they aren't status effects in the first place (for example, the charisma save to escape from a force cage, or resisting counterspell). An 'automatically save' mechanic is probably still required.
Downgrading 'potentially losing multiple rounds of actions' to 'lose 1 legendary action' still pretty much renders save or suck abilities useless; the cost should be higher than one LA.
Okay those are good points. In order for Legendary Recovery to work effectively, it would need to be used nomatter the current status effect (like Incapacitated). In my mind the BBEG basically wills themselves out of the magical/status effect--they recover. So currently, in order to keep the BBEG up in running the Legendary Resistance is meant to keep a party from giving the incapacitated effect and thereby keeping the use of L.A.s up and running.
Adapting the phrase:
LEGENDARY RECOVERY: The [monster] may use this ability at the end of any creature's turn and drains one Legendary Action for this round. This results in removing all magical and physical conditions currently afflicting the [monster].
"2. Downgrading 'potentially losing multiple rounds of actions' to 'lose 1 legendary action' still pretty much renders save or suck abilities useless; the cost should be higher than one LA."
That's a valid point. It would need more playtesting to suss that out. My gut feeling is that 1 LA is enough and is more of a 1 to 1 replacement for the current Legendary Resistance to Recovery without changing the game mechanic too much, but still allowing for marginal ability to capitalize on a moments vulnerability.
Thanks for the response Pantagruel666, very constructive!
Banishment gives the incapacitated condition, but it does not end when that condition ends.
Debatable. It can be read as implicit.
Not really. Being incapacitated is a secondary condition of being there, and there is no language that being in the demiplane is dependent on being incapacitated
Unfortunately it sounds as if a group of adventurers went wayyy off the rails and was lower level and not prepared to take on a/the challenge.
The reason for legendary abilities is to make the creature a challenge to fight, but still vulnerable to diplomacy. ( feed the ego and you make a weakness not casually explored. )
It just sounds as if a bad situation was narrowly avoided and it wasn’t an easy fight, but then again BBEG’s or their higher up henchmen shouldn’t be pushovers ether.
And if a party is massively overmatched, nothing wrong with a DM pulling punches, unless the group wants a potential TPK experience.
The system is ok as it is, but then a DM has always customized an experience to fit current group dynamics. Using cut-and-paste stats are fine for most general events, but when heavily customized characters are involved or a group advances faster than normal, then adjustments can be made and considered in order to give a more engaging experience.
No point in attempting to replace or redesign a system that has a fair bit of flexibility just to baby-walk a group of characters for the sake of agency.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
I wasn’t looking for this to get contentious. I’m not sure why many of you are feeling personally offended about the proposed rule. If you don’t like it and find that it fails in comparison to the rule as written then, great. So far all arguments are one of the following:
It works as intended.
You need to protect against making end bosses easy to kill from moments of luck.
I’m wrong and don’t go to Vegas
You aren’t using them the correct way (smoothly lie to cover the auto-save)
LR’s aren’t THAT broken.
So, for a moment, stop trying to sound pithy and “beat” me with a quip and just compare the game mechanics.
Legendary Resistances: creature may choose to succeed on a save if it fails.
Mechanics:
It nullifies a caster round at worst or just their offense at best (assuming the spell caster also did some healing or buffing on the side somehow).
Nullifies any status effect that the monster is normally susceptible to.
IF used in an overt way, takes player agency in forcing character’s play style.
IF used as intended (secretively), it makes the boss feel unbeatable and very tough.
Used at any time.
Legendary Recovery: Creature may use a Legendary Action to remove ALL status/spell effects currently plaguing it.
Mechanics:
Allows for casters to still cast spells and perhaps effect combat for a small period of time.
Nullifies any status effect that the monster is normally susceptible to, but offers up a small window of vulnerability.
Does not cause player annoyance or discomfort whether used overtly or covertly.
Celebrates player agency allowing them to attack a BBEG how they want as opposed to a ‘war of attrition’.
Used at any time.
First way to straw man people's objections to your proposed house rule. Also no one fights a lich at level 10-12. Using the exp budget of the new DMG a party of 5 level 12 characters has an exp budget of 23,500 for a deadly encounter and a lich is 33,000 or 41,000 in their lair. You only get that high of a budget at level 15 or 16. The new Lich does not have 135 Health it has 315; a lich will destroy a level 10-12 party. Also, a DC 21 would be if a level 14 character maxed out their casting stat and had a +3 DC magic item, so while possible it's on the high side. A more realistic DC in your example would be 19 or 20. Here are some rebuttals to your arguments.
1. The primary argument that you're making is that legendary resistances don't feel good for the player. That's on the DM because it is a resource that they have to use and if the DM doesn't make it clear that the creature is using a resource then they aren't doing a good job. It's okay for the players to have adversity and have their efforts thwarted at times. It adds to the satisfaction of finally beating the boss especially after depleting all of its finite resources in legendary resistances.
2. Making Legendary resistance use legendary actions drastically nerfs any legendary creature. First as @AntonSirius points out you can't take legendary actions if you're incapacitated so your legendary recovery action doesn't work. Even if it did, the action economy and balance for fights with legendary creatures relies on them using legendary actions to damage or hinder the party. If you look at an ancient red dragon outside its lair the maximum number of attacks it can make in a round without an opportunity attack is 6. Half come from its attack action and the other half if it only uses its legendary actions to pounce. If you force it to use one of those to nullify 1 save every round, which is probably conservative with martials forcing saves more than casters in 2024 rules, that's a 16.67% reduction in sustained damage from the way the developers balanced the game. If that combat lasts 4 rounds and it has to use a legendary resistance each round, your homebrew essentially makes the legendary creatures significantly weaker.
3. If anything, your legendary recovery would just ensure that no save or suck spell does anything since legendary actions reset at the start of their turn. Because of the resource coming back every round, you either nerf their damage and guarantee that no save or suck spell works or you make it so that they can't resist effects if they fail the save to keep the dealing the damage they were designed to.
4. Legendary resistance is remarkably similar to a fighter's indomitable at later levels. In 2024 rules a level 17 fighter can reroll 3 saves/long rest with an added bonus of their fighter level. You should not fail a save with a +17 on top of your normal modifiers so it's essential a free save with a chance to get very unlucky and fail. These are supposed to be creatures that can destroy a country or the world, surely they can do better than a heroic level fighter since it's supposed to take a whole party of heroic level characters to beat them. If your complaint in the original post is true and you really want to have a dice roll then your legendary recovery misses the mark. You should just make legendary resistance like Indomitable and use their CR as the added bonus for the reroll like a fighter uses their level. That mirrors spells like polymorph and how Proficiency bonus is calculated for monsters. I guarantee it will have the same effect at high levels but at lower levels it may make a difference. This solution to your complaint still makes it clear that they're using a resource because of the reroll, doesn't break the action economy, doesn't decrease the damage output of the monsters, and doesn't give monsters more free saves than intended.
Jumondur, the being incapacitated is what keeps said Lich in the "harmless demi-plane". The Legendary Recovery would remove that status and It can leave of it's own accord via a Plane Shift from that point. Thereby either escaping or posting up in an advantages position.
"In general legendary resistance can only completely nullify save or suck spells. It can only halve the damage on damage spells, using up a resource in the process".
You keep trying to explain how LRs work, like I'm not understanding. I completely understand. I think it's a bad game mechanic.
Lich's are extremely deadly, especially if run in a nefarious way. They do only have 135 hp, so I think a stand-up fight is not in their best interest. (to indulge your TPK assertion) Assuming you have a competent group, that shift in Initiative at the beginning, my group would have done this to place the wizard in a position to counterspell the PWK (he's a Diviner and most likely would have succeeded by using a portent on the roll). So PWK is now used up and worthless. Chain Lighting hurts the group but doesn't kill us. Fighter rushes up and grapples. Lich with an LA = paralyzing touch, if the fighter fails, (heroic inspiration or perhaps another Diviner Portent or lucky), then rogue + Barbarian for attacks with advantage and if the DM doesn't teleport away... I just realized I was looking at the legacy version vs the newest version, they are much more potent in 2024. Yet it still stands. When grappled (for some crazy reason), the grappled person (incapacitated) can't speak, no V, S, M. Older Lich didn't have misty step, but they now have a Deathly Teleport as a L.A. So I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for a group of 10-12 to take on a lich. Now that we went down that rabbit hole.
Yes a lich has the spell plane shift (not every monster with LR does), but that takes its action on its next turn first of all, and second of all, it is unable to attack the party with legendary actions until its turn.
Problems with your scenario in 2024 rules:
As you noted, liches are significantly stronger now. (315 hp, 20 ac)
Counterspell now forces a con save (+12 for liches)
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
NatetheKnife: you may not be advocating for the removal of Legendary Actions but you are turning Legendary Resistance into a choice between it and the Legendary Actions normally available to creatures. The lich cannot use a cantrip, paralyzing touch, frightening gaze or disrupt life if it has to use your Legendary Recovery as a Legendary Action instead of for free like it can now.
Please don’t tell me whom I advocate for. You could not be more wrong. I am not a DM and I most certainly do not promote an adversarial game style. It is not appropriate to cast aspersions on the people who disagree with you. Nor is it appropriate to speculate on peoples’ motivations. Consider instead that maybe your idea is simply not that great.
If my changes to regular resistances and immunities or saving throws in general are to be scoffed at, what is it about this particular case of a player’s wasted turn that sets it apart from the ones that are laughable in your estimation??
Pantagruel666: how does the proposal prevent a binary condition?The creature is still either affected or not. The difference is the timing and cost. Instead of for free immediately upon effect, the creature has to wait until their turn and use an action to use this proposed Legendary Recovery.
If you force it to use one of those to nullify 1 save every round, which is probably conservative with martials forcing saves more than casters in 2024 rules
Um... you can always just not nullify being knocked prone?
However, it's true that just removing legendary resistance, without any change, is a nerf. So, consider this alternative: replace legendary resistance with
Legendary Fortune (XX/day): if the monster fails at a d20 test, it can choose to succeed instead. If it succeeds, it can choose to critically succeed. If it is hit by an attack, it may turn a critical hit into a normal hit, or a hit into a miss.
This changes LR from "bad for spellcasters" to "bad for everyone". In practice using it to negate failed saves is still mostly going to be the best way to use it, though there are certainly exceptions.
If you force it to use one of those to nullify 1 save every round, which is probably conservative with martials forcing saves more than casters in 2024 rules
Um... you can always just not nullify being knocked prone?
However, it's true that just removing legendary resistance, without any change, is a nerf. So, consider this alternative: replace legendary resistance with
Legendary Fortune (XX/day): if the monster fails at a d20 test, it can choose to succeed instead. If it succeeds, it can choose to critically succeed. If it is hit by an attack, it may turn a critical hit into a normal hit, or a hit into a miss.
This changes LR from "bad for spellcasters" to "bad for everyone". In practice using it to negate failed saves is still mostly going to be the best way to use it, though there are certainly exceptions.
Legendary Resistance is already applicable to everyone. It doesn't say that it's exclusive to spell saves. Martials force saves through more than just topple, and those saves are often more debilitating than going prone. The Rogue gets the ability to cause saves for significantly more detrimental effects than falling prone through cunning strike. Battle masters, the most common fighter subclass, can do different effects via maneuvers. Paladin's have smites that do different things as well. Monks have stunning strike that they can do without decreasing their damage. Even the ranger has a 1st level bonus action spell to make enemies make a save on a hit or be restrained. When you add topple it's so easy to force 2 saves or more per turn without really sacrificing anything in damage one of those save would be truly debilitating. Even if they let topple through to stop the other effects that's still bad. Disadvantage on attack rolls, half movement, and incoming melee attacks at advantage from being prone can easily swing a fight. Before you say that they can just stand up that still reduces their speed by half, doesn't stop enemies from having advantage before they can stand up, and doesn't help with the disadvantage on half of their attack rolls because they come from legendary actions. Maybe take some time to consider the argument before being derisive.
Your proposed change is better than OPs but you're trying to fix something that isn't broken and doesn't address the OP's issues with Legendary Resistance. Like I said in my previous post the best solution without changing game balance drastically by using legendary actions as the resource for the auto save would be to treat Legendary Resistance like Indomitable.
You need to protect against making end bosses easy to kill from moments of luck.
I’m wrong and don’t go to Vegas
You aren’t using them the correct way (smoothly lie to cover the auto-save)
LR’s aren’t THAT broken.
First way to straw man people's objections to your proposed house rule. Also no one fights a lich at level 10-12. Using the exp budget of the new DMG a party of 5 level 12 characters has an exp budget of 23,500 for a deadly encounter and a lich is 33,000 or 41,000 in their lair. You only get that high of a budget at level 15 or 16. The new Lich does not have 135 Health it has 315; a lich will destroy a level 10-12 party. Also, a DC 21 would be if a level 14 character maxed out their casting stat and had a +3 DC magic item, so while possible it's on the high side. A more realistic DC in your example would be 19 or 20. Here are some rebuttals to your argument.
**It's not a straw man argument to bullet point the initial responses to my post. I just didn't want to fully write in detail, but in a nutshell those are accurate. I think a healthy discussion is a good thing, so far I wouldn't classify a lot of this as that... Almost all posts/rebuttals I've received have been laced with condescension. I expected some of this, as it's kind of part and parcel for us gamers to give a little sass with our responses, but sheesh.
**Yeah the 2024 Lich was beefed up a lot. I did mention in a later post that you may have missed; I recognize that change alters the example. Yet, I would hold my sentiment that for 2014 a party of 10-12 could take a lich. The newer version---not so much. I don't know that referencing the CR calculator from WotC is a good thing. It's wildly inaccurate and I find that deadly encounters can be defeated routinely (tough, but they survive). Partially this has to do with the crazy forgiving healing system set up in 5e/2024 vs the original and even later editions of DnD.
--------
"1. The primary argument that you're making is that legendary resistances don't feel good for the player. That's on the DM because it is a resource that they have to use and if the DM doesn't make it clear that the creature is using a resource then they aren't doing a good job. It's okay for the players to have adversity and have their efforts thwarted at times. It adds to the satisfaction of finally beating the boss especially after depleting all of its finite resources in legendary resistances."
It's all on the DM. I'm not sure what you're saying? If a DM doesn't use Legendary Resistances it removes adversity for players and the DM isn't doing a good job because of that? Defeating any boss is satisfying, yes. I never felt extra-joy having to wade through legendary resistance.
2. @AntonSirius points out you can't take legendary actions if you're incapacitated so your legendary recovery action doesn't work.
**Yeah I address that as well. It definitely would need a work around. I also posted a solution a couple of responses above this one.
Even if it did, the action economy and balance for fights with legendary creatures relies on them using legendary actions to damage or hinder the party. If you look at an ancient red dragon outside its lair the maximum number of attacks it can make in a round without an opportunity attack is 6. Half come from its attack action and the other half if it only uses its legendary actions to pounce. If you force it to use one of those to nullify 1 save every round, which is probably conservative with martials forcing saves more than casters in 2024 rules, that's a 16.67% reduction in sustained damage from the way the developers balanced the game. If that combat lasts 4 rounds and it has to use a legendary resistance each round, your homebrew essentially makes the legendary creatures significantly weaker.
**I don't think it makes a legendary creature significantly weaker. Most legendary monsters have insane saves now, I don't expect them to need much help. While Martial classes do tend to have a higher DC for their status causing abilities, I don't see it overwhelming a large Red Dragon to you use your reference. As a DM I would save it for the Stun that might come from a monk, but being knocked prone, or poisoned... I could let those pass and clear them all before my slew of attacks later. The Red Dragon vs the Lich is an interesting comparison, the Red Dragon doesn't actually have a lot of defenses, it's pretty much a large bag of hit points and an onslaught of damage, vs the Lich has many immunities/resistances and tricks. So in this regard the Red Dragon would be more reliant on Legendary Recovery (the proposed change) than a Lich might.
3. If anything, your legendary recovery would just ensure that no save or suck spell does anything since legendary actions reset at the start of their turn. Because of the resource coming back every round, you either nerf their damage and guarantee that no save or suck spell works or you make it so that they can't resist spells if they fail the DC.
**the monster still gets a save, and will more often than not succeed. Using the Recovery vs the Resistance doesn't reduce the overall damage output of the creature by a whole hell of a lot. You basically won't use a Scorching Rays ability which on average will do 21 points of damage if you hit will 3 rays and assume party members don't have Resistances already to drop that to 10 points... meh. Surely, wouldn't give up doing the Rend ability of a Red Dragon (+17 to hit).
4. Legendary resistance is remarkably similar to a fighter's indomitable at later levels. In 2024 rules a level 17 fighter can reroll 3 saves/long rest with an added bonus of their fighter level. You should not fail a save with a +17 on top of your normal modifiers so it's essential a free save with a chance to get very unlucky and fail. These are supposed to be creatures that can destroy a country or the world, surely they can do better than a heroic level fighter since it's supposed to take a whole party of heroic level characters to beat them. If your complaint in the original post is true and you really want to have a dice roll then your legendary recovery misses the mark. You should just make legendary resistance like Indomitable and use their CR as the added bonus for the reroll like a fighter uses their level. That mirrors spells like polymorph and how Proficiency bonus is calculated for monsters. I guarantee it will have the same effect at high levels but at lower levels it may make a difference. This solution to your complaint still makes it clear that they're using a resource because of the reroll, doesn't break the action economy, doesn't decrease the damage output of the monsters, and doesn't give monsters more free saves than intended.
**I think that's not a bad Idea. I was looking for something that would easily replace what is already there just have a minor alteration to the rule in place. So Legendary Resistances 4/day = Legendary Recoveries 4/day. With the minor change of you use a LA to activate them. The thought was it ads the possibility of a delayed recovery and offers openings for the players to exploit if they can time their attacks actions well. However, the idea of making it simply like indomitable is an interesting take. I think it would need some finessing since a Red Dragon (just sticking with you example monster) would get a +20 to the roll which is essentially the same currently saying, I auto-save. But maybe a blanket +10 (similar to Pass without Trace for Stealth).
That's correct AntonSirius. I think you might be misunderstanding me.
---------
Born_of_Fire74
NatetheKnife: you may not be advocating for the removal of Legendary Actions but you are turning Legendary Resistance into a choice between it and the Legendary Actions normally available to creatures. The lich cannot use a cantrip, paralyzing touch, frightening gaze or disrupt life if it has to use your Legendary Recovery as a Legendary Action instead of for free like it can now.
**yes that's correct. As a DM you might want to keep an extra LR in your pocket to remove a status effect. But have no fear. After the next player's turn you could do one of those Legendary Actions with your remaining 2 L.A.s
Please don’t tell me whom I advocate for. You could not be more wrong. I am not a DM and I most certainly do not promote an adversarial game style. It is not appropriate to cast aspersions on the people who disagree with you. Nor is it appropriate to speculate on peoples’ motivations. Consider instead that maybe your idea is simply not that great.
If my changes to regular resistances and immunities or saving throws in general are to be scoffed at, what is it about this particular case of a player’s wasted turn that sets it apart from the ones that are laughable in your estimation??
[earlier post by Born_of_Fire74] " Ok, then take out regular resistances and immunities too? It’s not fun when I hit something or a spell lands but it doesn’t do as much as it should. Take out saving throws altogether? If I cast a spell, it should do something otherwise I’ve just wasted my turn and that’s no fun
it seems like you want it so the players don’t waste an action casting an unsuccessful spell and you also want the mob to use up a lair action removing the spell effect or condition rather than for some other, useful option currently available to them. The players already enjoy a significant advantage in terms of action economy though. And, since creatures have only a small number of times they can use Legendary Resistance, the mechanic is not that consequential over the course of a longer fight—the type you’d have against a tougher creature with LR.
**You immediately started casting aspersions at me. I'm not sure why, but the way I interrupted your statements were: my proposed idea was SO out of line that we should just dump a good portion of the game because you thought I was claiming it hampered fun. That's WAY overboard. I didn't make any such supposition. I think the current game mechanic for Legendary Resistances is not good and can/should be refined. I've overly explained this. When you engage in hyperbole, to "put me down or my idea down" I'll wonder why... I assumed you were a DM and liked that aspect of the game since you defended it so fervently.
When the players realize the BBEG will nullify three, four or maybe five of the party’s spells outright, it doesn’t take anything away from the casters,
**That is a big deal. Wizards in 5e/2024 aren't like older versions of wizards. you only get 1 6th/7th/8th/9th level spell slot. So assuming you're trying to stick it to Tiamat, you can't waste those, So you need to start with your 4th and 5th level spells, assuming you're at full slots, you wipe off 4-5 spell slots and see how playable your wizard is then.
...A party of adventurers should have more than a handful of scary spells that warrant a use of LR to chuck at a powerful enemy. If they don’t, their primary MO is stabbing things anyway. As such, I’m just not sure why you feel so egregiously short changed by this mechanic as is. Nor do I think your suggestion is an improvement. It is a common refrain that 5e is too easy and this change would only stack the deck further in favour of the players.
**A wizard shirking their spells to the old MO of stabbing? I'm assuming you mean just using their cantrips. Which is still not insignificant, this glosses over the fact that you're higher level spells. the ones you WANT to cast and the reason you chose the class in the first place, don't take place in the final battle. What occurs (as I've said before) is a war of attrition. You cross off your spell and the DM crosses off an LR and you move down the initiative roster to get to the Fighter or the Barbarian or Monk and watch them team up with the Rogue and drop some good damage.
Nor do I think your suggestion is an improvement.
**that's the one bit of info you've said I appreciate. If you don't like it, I can respect that, but going out of your way to make me feel dumb for bringing the topic up is annoying. That's what the forum is for is discussing bits of the game and hopefully making it better for everyone.
**That is a big deal. Wizards in 5e/2024 aren't like older versions of wizards. you only get 1 6th/7th/8th/9th level spell slot. So assuming you're trying to stick it to Tiamat, you can't waste those, So you need to start with your 4th and 5th level spells, assuming you're at full slots, you wipe off 4-5 spell slots and see how playable your wizard is then.
Minor error, at level 20 spellcasters have two level 6 and two level 7 spell slots.
Not an error, I was still going from examples I was giving where the party was all 14th level, but yeah, when you've reached the end of the game you have a total of 6 spell slots from 6th to 9th level.
In 1e AD&D at 20th level it would have been this: (4) 6th / (3) 7th / (3) 8th / (2) 9th... oh how the mighty have fallen.
Not an error, I was still going from examples I was giving where the party was all 14th level, but yeah, when you've reached the end of the game you have a total of 6 spell slots from 6th to 9th level.
In 1e AD&D at 20th level it would have been this: (4) 6th / (3) 7th / (3) 8th / (2) 9th... oh how the mighty have fallen.
I was assuming from the fact that you said they have a level 9 spell slot and that you referenced fighting Tiamat, which you will only really do at level 20.
yes you're right, I typed it out in an irritated state, my mistake; 14th level you only have up to 7th. So I should amend that, you need to sandbag spells lower than your 5th level slots.
-----------------
Yeah I'm gonna amend this. I'm just going to pull away from the thread. You guys obviously hate the idea and love it as written. I'm getting worked up for no reason. I was hoping folks might want to discuss it and figure something out; my bad.
NatetheKnife, I asked you a series of questions in an effort to clarify your position. Then I explained what your opinion seemed to be based on your earlier statements and prior to any clarification. Then I offered my opinion on the matter. None of this is an attack. Disagreeing with you is not an attack. Disliking your house rules is not an attack. I made no assumptions about you or your play style. My comments all directly relate to statements you have made on this subject in this discussion. You cannot say the same of yourself for me.
A party generally consists of more than one character. My groups consider three to be quorum. A creature we fight at level 20 with Legendary Resistance has five at most (that I am aware of) uses of the ability. If the party is mainly spell casters, they will have 4-6 level 6 spell slots, 4-6 level 7 spell slots, 2-3 level 8 spell slots and 2-3 level spell slots amongst them to sling versus those five uses of LR. That’s 12-18 high level spell slots in total versus five LR in total, leaving the party with 7-11 unblockable high level spell slots. If the party is not mostly spell casters, that reduces the advantage quite a lot but then they have an extra martial character to bring to bear against the mob. That is what I meant by the party’s MO being stabbing.
The biggest single factor in deciding any fight at any level is action economy. The team with the most attempts to attack will virtually always, barring exceptional circumstances, be the team that prevails. The team with the most action economy is virtually always, barring exceptional circumstances, the party of player characters. For this reason, I am saying that there is no need to further rob powerful mobs of their action economy. Play casters intelligently to provoke the creature into expending its LR’s. A party has enough spells to have plenty of resources after this is done or, if they don’t, they have the martial prowess instead. I am also saying that you have explained what you want but have not offered a compelling reason as to why Legendary Resistance should change but the rest of the things in the game that might cause a player to waste their turn do not need the same treatment. I have not speculated as to why you want what you want; that would be inappropriate.
Even if it did, the action economy and balance for fights with legendary creatures relies on them using legendary actions to damage or hinder the party. If you look at an ancient red dragon outside its lair the maximum number of attacks it can make in a round without an opportunity attack is 6. Half come from its attack action and the other half if it only uses its legendary actions to pounce. If you force it to use one of those to nullify 1 save every round, which is probably conservative with martials forcing saves more than casters in 2024 rules, that's a 16.67% reduction in sustained damage from the way the developers balanced the game. If that combat lasts 4 rounds and it has to use a legendary resistance each round, your homebrew essentially makes the legendary creatures significantly weaker.
**I don't think it makes a legendary creature significantly weaker. Most legendary monsters have insane saves now, I don't expect them to need much help. While Martial classes do tend to have a higher DC for their status causing abilities, I don't see it overwhelming a large Red Dragon to you use your reference. As a DM I would save it for the Stun that might come from a monk, but being knocked prone, or poisoned... I could let those pass and clear them all before my slew of attacks later. The Red Dragon vs the Lich is an interesting comparison, the Red Dragon doesn't actually have a lot of defenses, it's pretty much a large bag of hit points and an onslaught of damage, vs the Lich has many immunities/resistances and tricks. So in this regard the Red Dragon would be more reliant on Legendary Recovery (the proposed change) than a Lich might.
3. If anything, your legendary recovery would just ensure that no save or suck spell does anything since legendary actions reset at the start of their turn. Because of the resource coming back every round, you either nerf their damage and guarantee that no save or suck spell works or you make it so that they can't resist spells if they fail the DC.
**the monster still gets a save, and will more often than not succeed. Using the Recovery vs the Resistance doesn't reduce the overall damage output of the creature by a whole hell of a lot. You basically won't use a Scorching Rays ability which on average will do 21 points of damage if you hit will 3 rays and assume party members don't have Resistances already to drop that to 10 points... meh. Surely, wouldn't give up doing the Rend ability of a Red Dragon (+17 to hit).
First, please don't take criticism of your argument as criticism of you. If you post a bad idea and add sass to it, people will criticize it and add sass back. My rebuttals have only been to your arguments, so I would appreciate the same in turn.
I showed the math of how much losing one legendary action decreases the sustained damage using just the attacks of the Ancient/Adult Red dragon in the section you quoted. If you're focused on dealing damage each legendary action you don't use for attacking amounts to a 16.67% loss in DPR outside of the lair and a 14.28% loss in the lair. A normal party of 4 could easily force 6 saves or more in a round making the chance for at least one legendary resistance to be used extremely high even with good saves so I think it's fair to assume they'd be forced to use 1 legendary resistance a round. I think there might be some confusion about this because you started talking about scorching ray. You can use all 3 legendary actions to pounce. You don't have to use each option before you repeat pounce. That damage decrease is significant and if you don't think so that's fine. Statistically it's incredibly significant whether you agree or not. I'm willing to bet if you ran an encounter with this homebrew you will clearly notice the difference in damage output.
In your reply, you also address the issue with the resource returning every round by saying that you have to use both resources. This still doesn't help with game balance, which is my main concern and talked about extensively by myself above, and it doesn't do anything for that apparent desire for random chance that you get from rolling. You seem to want to reject the Indomitable change because the bonus is high but with your proposed change of a flat +10 a player character will get a better feature. Why should a player character get a better feature than a legendary creature? Even though it's almost impossible to fail the save do the players need to know the bonus on the reroll? With a reroll the players don't feel like they wasted their turn because it is abundantly clear that the creature had to use something to save. Plus, with Legendary Indomitable there are cases where a legendary creature may not make the save. Here's a few creatures with the saves they may not make even with Legendary Indomitable:
white dragons - intelligence and charisma, Death Tyrants - dex, black dragons - intelligence, brass dragons - intelligence, beholder - dex, Demilich - Strength it has a -5
If that still doesn't work for you and you'd like to continue the discussion to work out a solution that works for you but doesn't mess with game balance, feel free to message me since you've said you won't reply to this anymore.
I think another reason that they have Legendary resistances is so that if a PC has a class feature, such as the level 14 feature of the 2014 Necromancer wizard, that allows them to control (Maybe even instakill) an enemy. That way, a necromancer can't just have a free Skull Lord or Lich minion that they just order around.
It's an inevitable result of D&D's quite poor design, featuring such blunders as binary success and save or lose effects. Without leaving the system, the only alternative is arbitrarily high saving throws, spell resistance, or immunities, which are really all the same thing - your power fails to work, you waste your turn, and you don't get to have fun.
There is no way for a player to spend resources to overcome a foe's defenses, outside of niche, weak options like the lucky feat, that you have to specifically choose at character creation.
There are no ablative defenses. You can't reduce an enemy's AC or saves with attacks or powers, outside of, again, a handful of specific spells.
Combat stunts, when they exist at all, are a joke, and are only viable for those characters who invest an unreasonable amount of resources into being good at them, crippling their effectiveness at anything else.
The most useful spells in the game are those that remove one or more creatures from play instantly when successful, and do nothing if saved. This ensures that at least one person won't have fun when these spells are cast, and the system design incentivizes players and GMs to use only these spells, since almost anything else is a waste of an action.
There are systems that solve all of these problems.
I mean, they tried to handle save or suck effects back in the design stage for the 2014 rules with the idea of hit point thresholds for a large number of effects, and it didn't go over super well. A core issue with trying to improve D&D mechanics is that many of the problematic mechanics date back decades and are sort of sacred cows, and if you change too many of them you wind up with the 4e problem of people going "that's not really D&D any more".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Debatable. It can be read as implicit.
The point is to replace LR with a less binary mechanic.
Now, there are several reasons why I think this proposal still needs work, but the concept is solid.
The main reason why LR is needed in the game is because stunlocking the big bad is a poor gameplay experience, as is winning the fight because of a single bad roll. Spellcaster damage against single targets is low enough that applying LR to resist damaging effects as well is kind of unfair.
LR as proposed has two issues
Okay those are good points. In order for Legendary Recovery to work effectively, it would need to be used nomatter the current status effect (like Incapacitated). In my mind the BBEG basically wills themselves out of the magical/status effect--they recover. So currently, in order to keep the BBEG up in running the Legendary Resistance is meant to keep a party from giving the incapacitated effect and thereby keeping the use of L.A.s up and running.
Adapting the phrase:
LEGENDARY RECOVERY: The [monster] may use this ability at the end of any creature's turn and drains one Legendary Action for this round. This results in removing all magical and physical conditions currently afflicting the [monster].
"2. Downgrading 'potentially losing multiple rounds of actions' to 'lose 1 legendary action' still pretty much renders save or suck abilities useless; the cost should be higher than one LA."
That's a valid point. It would need more playtesting to suss that out. My gut feeling is that 1 LA is enough and is more of a 1 to 1 replacement for the current Legendary Resistance to Recovery without changing the game mechanic too much, but still allowing for marginal ability to capitalize on a moments vulnerability.
Thanks for the response Pantagruel666, very constructive!
-Nate the Knife
"You are neither beer nor gems." -dismissive Dwarven saying.
Not really. Being incapacitated is a secondary condition of being there, and there is no language that being in the demiplane is dependent on being incapacitated
Unfortunately it sounds as if a group of adventurers went wayyy off the rails and was lower level and not prepared to take on a/the challenge.
The reason for legendary abilities is to make the creature a challenge to fight, but still vulnerable to diplomacy. ( feed the ego and you make a weakness not casually explored. )
It just sounds as if a bad situation was narrowly avoided and it wasn’t an easy fight, but then again BBEG’s or their higher up henchmen shouldn’t be pushovers ether.
And if a party is massively overmatched, nothing wrong with a DM pulling punches, unless the group wants a potential TPK experience.
The system is ok as it is, but then a DM has always customized an experience to fit current group dynamics. Using cut-and-paste stats are fine for most general events, but when heavily customized characters are involved or a group advances faster than normal, then adjustments can be made and considered in order to give a more engaging experience.
No point in attempting to replace or redesign a system that has a fair bit of flexibility just to baby-walk a group of characters for the sake of agency.
But that’s my two copper on the topic.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
First way to straw man people's objections to your proposed house rule. Also no one fights a lich at level 10-12. Using the exp budget of the new DMG a party of 5 level 12 characters has an exp budget of 23,500 for a deadly encounter and a lich is 33,000 or 41,000 in their lair. You only get that high of a budget at level 15 or 16. The new Lich does not have 135 Health it has 315; a lich will destroy a level 10-12 party. Also, a DC 21 would be if a level 14 character maxed out their casting stat and had a +3 DC magic item, so while possible it's on the high side. A more realistic DC in your example would be 19 or 20. Here are some rebuttals to your arguments.
1. The primary argument that you're making is that legendary resistances don't feel good for the player. That's on the DM because it is a resource that they have to use and if the DM doesn't make it clear that the creature is using a resource then they aren't doing a good job. It's okay for the players to have adversity and have their efforts thwarted at times. It adds to the satisfaction of finally beating the boss especially after depleting all of its finite resources in legendary resistances.
2. Making Legendary resistance use legendary actions drastically nerfs any legendary creature. First as @AntonSirius points out you can't take legendary actions if you're incapacitated so your legendary recovery action doesn't work. Even if it did, the action economy and balance for fights with legendary creatures relies on them using legendary actions to damage or hinder the party. If you look at an ancient red dragon outside its lair the maximum number of attacks it can make in a round without an opportunity attack is 6. Half come from its attack action and the other half if it only uses its legendary actions to pounce. If you force it to use one of those to nullify 1 save every round, which is probably conservative with martials forcing saves more than casters in 2024 rules, that's a 16.67% reduction in sustained damage from the way the developers balanced the game. If that combat lasts 4 rounds and it has to use a legendary resistance each round, your homebrew essentially makes the legendary creatures significantly weaker.
3. If anything, your legendary recovery would just ensure that no save or suck spell does anything since legendary actions reset at the start of their turn. Because of the resource coming back every round, you either nerf their damage and guarantee that no save or suck spell works or you make it so that they can't resist effects if they fail the save to keep the dealing the damage they were designed to.
4. Legendary resistance is remarkably similar to a fighter's indomitable at later levels. In 2024 rules a level 17 fighter can reroll 3 saves/long rest with an added bonus of their fighter level. You should not fail a save with a +17 on top of your normal modifiers so it's essential a free save with a chance to get very unlucky and fail. These are supposed to be creatures that can destroy a country or the world, surely they can do better than a heroic level fighter since it's supposed to take a whole party of heroic level characters to beat them. If your complaint in the original post is true and you really want to have a dice roll then your legendary recovery misses the mark. You should just make legendary resistance like Indomitable and use their CR as the added bonus for the reroll like a fighter uses their level. That mirrors spells like polymorph and how Proficiency bonus is calculated for monsters. I guarantee it will have the same effect at high levels but at lower levels it may make a difference. This solution to your complaint still makes it clear that they're using a resource because of the reroll, doesn't break the action economy, doesn't decrease the damage output of the monsters, and doesn't give monsters more free saves than intended.
Yes a lich has the spell plane shift (not every monster with LR does), but that takes its action on its next turn first of all, and second of all, it is unable to attack the party with legendary actions until its turn.
Problems with your scenario in 2024 rules:
Sure thing, my dude
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
NatetheKnife: you may not be advocating for the removal of Legendary Actions but you are turning Legendary Resistance into a choice between it and the Legendary Actions normally available to creatures. The lich cannot use a cantrip, paralyzing touch, frightening gaze or disrupt life if it has to use your Legendary Recovery as a Legendary Action instead of for free like it can now.
Please don’t tell me whom I advocate for. You could not be more wrong. I am not a DM and I most certainly do not promote an adversarial game style. It is not appropriate to cast aspersions on the people who disagree with you. Nor is it appropriate to speculate on peoples’ motivations. Consider instead that maybe your idea is simply not that great.
If my changes to regular resistances and immunities or saving throws in general are to be scoffed at, what is it about this particular case of a player’s wasted turn that sets it apart from the ones that are laughable in your estimation??
Pantagruel666: how does the proposal prevent a binary condition?The creature is still either affected or not. The difference is the timing and cost. Instead of for free immediately upon effect, the creature has to wait until their turn and use an action to use this proposed Legendary Recovery.
Um... you can always just not nullify being knocked prone?
However, it's true that just removing legendary resistance, without any change, is a nerf. So, consider this alternative: replace legendary resistance with
This changes LR from "bad for spellcasters" to "bad for everyone". In practice using it to negate failed saves is still mostly going to be the best way to use it, though there are certainly exceptions.
Legendary Resistance is already applicable to everyone. It doesn't say that it's exclusive to spell saves. Martials force saves through more than just topple, and those saves are often more debilitating than going prone. The Rogue gets the ability to cause saves for significantly more detrimental effects than falling prone through cunning strike. Battle masters, the most common fighter subclass, can do different effects via maneuvers. Paladin's have smites that do different things as well. Monks have stunning strike that they can do without decreasing their damage. Even the ranger has a 1st level bonus action spell to make enemies make a save on a hit or be restrained. When you add topple it's so easy to force 2 saves or more per turn without really sacrificing anything in damage one of those save would be truly debilitating. Even if they let topple through to stop the other effects that's still bad. Disadvantage on attack rolls, half movement, and incoming melee attacks at advantage from being prone can easily swing a fight. Before you say that they can just stand up that still reduces their speed by half, doesn't stop enemies from having advantage before they can stand up, and doesn't help with the disadvantage on half of their attack rolls because they come from legendary actions. Maybe take some time to consider the argument before being derisive.
Your proposed change is better than OPs but you're trying to fix something that isn't broken and doesn't address the OP's issues with Legendary Resistance. Like I said in my previous post the best solution without changing game balance drastically by using legendary actions as the resource for the auto save would be to treat Legendary Resistance like Indomitable.
**It's not a straw man argument to bullet point the initial responses to my post. I just didn't want to fully write in detail, but in a nutshell those are accurate. I think a healthy discussion is a good thing, so far I wouldn't classify a lot of this as that... Almost all posts/rebuttals I've received have been laced with condescension. I expected some of this, as it's kind of part and parcel for us gamers to give a little sass with our responses, but sheesh.
**Yeah the 2024 Lich was beefed up a lot. I did mention in a later post that you may have missed; I recognize that change alters the example. Yet, I would hold my sentiment that for 2014 a party of 10-12 could take a lich. The newer version---not so much. I don't know that referencing the CR calculator from WotC is a good thing. It's wildly inaccurate and I find that deadly encounters can be defeated routinely (tough, but they survive). Partially this has to do with the crazy forgiving healing system set up in 5e/2024 vs the original and even later editions of DnD.
It's all on the DM. I'm not sure what you're saying? If a DM doesn't use Legendary Resistances it removes adversity for players and the DM isn't doing a good job because of that? Defeating any boss is satisfying, yes. I never felt extra-joy having to wade through legendary resistance.
**Yeah I address that as well. It definitely would need a work around. I also posted a solution a couple of responses above this one.
**I don't think it makes a legendary creature significantly weaker. Most legendary monsters have insane saves now, I don't expect them to need much help. While Martial classes do tend to have a higher DC for their status causing abilities, I don't see it overwhelming a large Red Dragon to you use your reference. As a DM I would save it for the Stun that might come from a monk, but being knocked prone, or poisoned... I could let those pass and clear them all before my slew of attacks later. The Red Dragon vs the Lich is an interesting comparison, the Red Dragon doesn't actually have a lot of defenses, it's pretty much a large bag of hit points and an onslaught of damage, vs the Lich has many immunities/resistances and tricks. So in this regard the Red Dragon would be more reliant on Legendary Recovery (the proposed change) than a Lich might.
**the monster still gets a save, and will more often than not succeed. Using the Recovery vs the Resistance doesn't reduce the overall damage output of the creature by a whole hell of a lot. You basically won't use a Scorching Rays ability which on average will do 21 points of damage if you hit will 3 rays and assume party members don't have Resistances already to drop that to 10 points... meh. Surely, wouldn't give up doing the Rend ability of a Red Dragon (+17 to hit).
**I think that's not a bad Idea. I was looking for something that would easily replace what is already there just have a minor alteration to the rule in place. So Legendary Resistances 4/day = Legendary Recoveries 4/day. With the minor change of you use a LA to activate them. The thought was it ads the possibility of a delayed recovery and offers openings for the players to exploit if they can time their attacks actions well. However, the idea of making it simply like indomitable is an interesting take. I think it would need some finessing since a Red Dragon (just sticking with you example monster) would get a +20 to the roll which is essentially the same currently saying, I auto-save. But maybe a blanket +10 (similar to Pass without Trace for Stealth).
------
Sure thing, my dude
That's correct AntonSirius. I think you might be misunderstanding me.
---------
**yes that's correct. As a DM you might want to keep an extra LR in your pocket to remove a status effect. But have no fear. After the next player's turn you could do one of those Legendary Actions with your remaining 2 L.A.s
**You immediately started casting aspersions at me. I'm not sure why, but the way I interrupted your statements were: my proposed idea was SO out of line that we should just dump a good portion of the game because you thought I was claiming it hampered fun. That's WAY overboard. I didn't make any such supposition. I think the current game mechanic for Legendary Resistances is not good and can/should be refined. I've overly explained this. When you engage in hyperbole, to "put me down or my idea down" I'll wonder why... I assumed you were a DM and liked that aspect of the game since you defended it so fervently.
**That is a big deal. Wizards in 5e/2024 aren't like older versions of wizards. you only get 1 6th/7th/8th/9th level spell slot. So assuming you're trying to stick it to Tiamat, you can't waste those, So you need to start with your 4th and 5th level spells, assuming you're at full slots, you wipe off 4-5 spell slots and see how playable your wizard is then.
**A wizard shirking their spells to the old MO of stabbing? I'm assuming you mean just using their cantrips. Which is still not insignificant, this glosses over the fact that you're higher level spells. the ones you WANT to cast and the reason you chose the class in the first place, don't take place in the final battle. What occurs (as I've said before) is a war of attrition. You cross off your spell and the DM crosses off an LR and you move down the initiative roster to get to the Fighter or the Barbarian or Monk and watch them team up with the Rogue and drop some good damage.
**that's the one bit of info you've said I appreciate. If you don't like it, I can respect that, but going out of your way to make me feel dumb for bringing the topic up is annoying. That's what the forum is for is discussing bits of the game and hopefully making it better for everyone.
-Nate the Knife
"You are neither beer nor gems." -dismissive Dwarven saying.
Minor error, at level 20 spellcasters have two level 6 and two level 7 spell slots.
Not an error, I was still going from examples I was giving where the party was all 14th level, but yeah, when you've reached the end of the game you have a total of 6 spell slots from 6th to 9th level.
In 1e AD&D at 20th level it would have been this: (4) 6th / (3) 7th / (3) 8th / (2) 9th... oh how the mighty have fallen.
-Nate the Knife
"You are neither beer nor gems." -dismissive Dwarven saying.
I was assuming from the fact that you said they have a level 9 spell slot and that you referenced fighting Tiamat, which you will only really do at level 20.
yes you're right, I typed it out in an irritated state, my mistake; 14th level you only have up to 7th. So I should amend that, you need to sandbag spells lower than your 5th level slots.
-----------------
Yeah I'm gonna amend this. I'm just going to pull away from the thread. You guys obviously hate the idea and love it as written. I'm getting worked up for no reason. I was hoping folks might want to discuss it and figure something out; my bad.
-keep on gaming,
Laters.
-Nate the Knife
"You are neither beer nor gems." -dismissive Dwarven saying.
NatetheKnife, I asked you a series of questions in an effort to clarify your position. Then I explained what your opinion seemed to be based on your earlier statements and prior to any clarification. Then I offered my opinion on the matter. None of this is an attack. Disagreeing with you is not an attack. Disliking your house rules is not an attack. I made no assumptions about you or your play style. My comments all directly relate to statements you have made on this subject in this discussion. You cannot say the same of yourself for me.
A party generally consists of more than one character. My groups consider three to be quorum. A creature we fight at level 20 with Legendary Resistance has five at most (that I am aware of) uses of the ability. If the party is mainly spell casters, they will have 4-6 level 6 spell slots, 4-6 level 7 spell slots, 2-3 level 8 spell slots and 2-3 level spell slots amongst them to sling versus those five uses of LR. That’s 12-18 high level spell slots in total versus five LR in total, leaving the party with 7-11 unblockable high level spell slots. If the party is not mostly spell casters, that reduces the advantage quite a lot but then they have an extra martial character to bring to bear against the mob. That is what I meant by the party’s MO being stabbing.
The biggest single factor in deciding any fight at any level is action economy. The team with the most attempts to attack will virtually always, barring exceptional circumstances, be the team that prevails. The team with the most action economy is virtually always, barring exceptional circumstances, the party of player characters. For this reason, I am saying that there is no need to further rob powerful mobs of their action economy. Play casters intelligently to provoke the creature into expending its LR’s. A party has enough spells to have plenty of resources after this is done or, if they don’t, they have the martial prowess instead. I am also saying that you have explained what you want but have not offered a compelling reason as to why Legendary Resistance should change but the rest of the things in the game that might cause a player to waste their turn do not need the same treatment. I have not speculated as to why you want what you want; that would be inappropriate.
First, please don't take criticism of your argument as criticism of you. If you post a bad idea and add sass to it, people will criticize it and add sass back. My rebuttals have only been to your arguments, so I would appreciate the same in turn.
I showed the math of how much losing one legendary action decreases the sustained damage using just the attacks of the Ancient/Adult Red dragon in the section you quoted. If you're focused on dealing damage each legendary action you don't use for attacking amounts to a 16.67% loss in DPR outside of the lair and a 14.28% loss in the lair. A normal party of 4 could easily force 6 saves or more in a round making the chance for at least one legendary resistance to be used extremely high even with good saves so I think it's fair to assume they'd be forced to use 1 legendary resistance a round. I think there might be some confusion about this because you started talking about scorching ray. You can use all 3 legendary actions to pounce. You don't have to use each option before you repeat pounce. That damage decrease is significant and if you don't think so that's fine. Statistically it's incredibly significant whether you agree or not. I'm willing to bet if you ran an encounter with this homebrew you will clearly notice the difference in damage output.
In your reply, you also address the issue with the resource returning every round by saying that you have to use both resources. This still doesn't help with game balance, which is my main concern and talked about extensively by myself above, and it doesn't do anything for that apparent desire for random chance that you get from rolling. You seem to want to reject the Indomitable change because the bonus is high but with your proposed change of a flat +10 a player character will get a better feature. Why should a player character get a better feature than a legendary creature? Even though it's almost impossible to fail the save do the players need to know the bonus on the reroll? With a reroll the players don't feel like they wasted their turn because it is abundantly clear that the creature had to use something to save. Plus, with Legendary Indomitable there are cases where a legendary creature may not make the save. Here's a few creatures with the saves they may not make even with Legendary Indomitable:
white dragons - intelligence and charisma, Death Tyrants - dex, black dragons - intelligence, brass dragons - intelligence, beholder - dex, Demilich - Strength it has a -5
If that still doesn't work for you and you'd like to continue the discussion to work out a solution that works for you but doesn't mess with game balance, feel free to message me since you've said you won't reply to this anymore.
I think another reason that they have Legendary resistances is so that if a PC has a class feature, such as the level 14 feature of the 2014 Necromancer wizard, that allows them to control (Maybe even instakill) an enemy. That way, a necromancer can't just have a free Skull Lord or Lich minion that they just order around.
Roll for Initiative: [roll]1d20+7[/roll]
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
It's an inevitable result of D&D's quite poor design, featuring such blunders as binary success and save or lose effects. Without leaving the system, the only alternative is arbitrarily high saving throws, spell resistance, or immunities, which are really all the same thing - your power fails to work, you waste your turn, and you don't get to have fun.
There is no way for a player to spend resources to overcome a foe's defenses, outside of niche, weak options like the lucky feat, that you have to specifically choose at character creation.
There are no ablative defenses. You can't reduce an enemy's AC or saves with attacks or powers, outside of, again, a handful of specific spells.
Combat stunts, when they exist at all, are a joke, and are only viable for those characters who invest an unreasonable amount of resources into being good at them, crippling their effectiveness at anything else.
The most useful spells in the game are those that remove one or more creatures from play instantly when successful, and do nothing if saved. This ensures that at least one person won't have fun when these spells are cast, and the system design incentivizes players and GMs to use only these spells, since almost anything else is a waste of an action.
There are systems that solve all of these problems.
I mean, they tried to handle save or suck effects back in the design stage for the 2014 rules with the idea of hit point thresholds for a large number of effects, and it didn't go over super well. A core issue with trying to improve D&D mechanics is that many of the problematic mechanics date back decades and are sort of sacred cows, and if you change too many of them you wind up with the 4e problem of people going "that's not really D&D any more".