My gaming roots lie firmly in Basic D&D and First Edition AD&D, but my gaming sensibilities have changed over the years. The OSR edict: "Rulings, not rules" makes perfect sense to me in theory, and I'm quite certain there are lots of players out there who can work with a DM to make this practical around the table. My longtime Tuesday night players, on the other hand, are...curmudgeonly(?)...to say the least, and any free-form decision I make at the table is likely to provoke a spirited debate from at least one of them.
We all came out of a local gaming community in the early 80s where the DM was definitely the opponent and the players had to scrape for any possible advantage. The local DMs weren't so much "killers" as they were "sadists"—cunning, cruel, and merciless—so we learned to be confrontational as a strategy. Sometimes it worked (but usually didn't.) Post-session player chatter usually amounted to how bad the latest screw-job was versus how much fun the adventure had been. I mean, surviving to complain about it was its own kind of fun, so I guess that made us masochists.
In any case, one of the things I enjoy about 5e is the reliably-simple core game engine. The mechanics are easy to understand, they provide a good flow through the action economy, and there are just a few sub-systems to learn rather than dozens. My curmudgeonly players get it and, more importantly, they abide by it. It's right there in black and white, where I can point to it and say, "Welp, that's the rule..."
It gives them structure within which to behave, and that takes almost all the pressure off me. I appreciate that and it makes me a more confident DM because in most cases, my players' innate skepticism about everything is soothed by an easy rule reference (even if they still don't necessarily agree).
That said, the official game is barreling off in a direction I don't appreciate: a pablum of high-fantasy nonsense and performative virtue. Much of the inherent "threat" of the game has been outright neutralized as a result because the current designers don't seem to believe characters should ever lose (or even be mildly inconvenienced). This is especially evident in the monster designs, where much of what made the creatures unique, interesting, and/or deadly have been dramatically altered or dropped altogether.
I mentioned the owlbear losing its Hug special attack in a previous post, but some other examples include rust monsters no longer eating magic items, carrion crawlers having a single tentacle attack (and a superfluous bite) instead of eight (!) tentacles, and displacer beasts whose primary defensive ability (displacement) is automatically nullified if they are hit by a single attack during a round. Silliness like that abounds, turning many 5e monsters into the much-maligned "boring bag of hit points."
Broadly, one of the most awesome monster abilities in 1e was magic resistance. Back in the day, it was a simple "percentage chance of any spell absolutely failing in the monster's presence." The base percentage indicated the monster's resistance against an 11th-level spellcaster, with a commensurate 5% increase or decrease in the net difference between 11th level and the level of the PC spellcaster. "Thus, a magic resistance of 95% means that a 10th level magic-user has no possibility of affecting the monster with a spell..." That's bad-ass. It certainly made creatures like demons, devils, and powerful undead absolutely terrifying in combat (especially if you are the now-nearly useless magic-user).
On top of that, "(e)ven if a spell does take effect on a magic-resistant creature, the creature is entitled to normal saving throws." So 1e magic resistance provides a potent additional layer of defense, scaled by the percentage listed under the monster's description. Finally, it's "always-on," meaning that your BBEG will be completely ignoring many/most spells.
 | |
| One of my favorite D&D images from my absolute favorite artist, the great Erol Otus. In your face, wizard! |
This was a huge component of 1e boss fights that has been trivialized to the point where 5e sort of warns DMs against using a single enemy opponent because they won't survive long. But the concept of fantasy heroes uniting to defeat a singular powerful entity in a final, all-or-nothing battle is a staple of heroic fiction. A staple which 5e struggles to support.
To wit: In 5e, magic resistance boils down to having advantage on saving throws versus spells and magical effects. That's it...a measly +4-ish modifier. It also provides no protection whatsoever from directed spell attacks, which must only overcome the creature's AC. Creatures with magic resistance are typically powerful extraplanar creatures that do not always abide by the laws of the universe. They deserve more than a mere 20% greater chance to succeed against such haughty mortal wizards with their spell save DCs of 18 and their +10 spell attack modifiers.
In fairness, 5e often provides such creatures 1-3 applications of Legendary Resistance, so when the monster blows its save, it can choose to make it instead. That still means the creature takes half-damage from a blasty area-effect spell, and LR doesn't help at all against a spell attack that hits. The creature can use its LR freely during any part of the round, even multiple times in a round, but once they're gone, that's it. Your BBEG is now a regular schlub with mundane magical defenses.
Magic resistance is one of the few house rule changes I have made to the base system, and the change is virtually invisible to my players who grew up under 1e. It helps that I've simply modified 5e's rule rather than fully incorporated 1e's percentile mechanics (which don't exist in 5e combat). Instead, I created three tiers of magic resistance for monsters:
- Minor Magic Resistance. The creature has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects. (Official 5e's current mechanic)
- Magic Resistance. The creature automatically takes half-damage from any spell attack targeting it. If the creature is subjected to a damaging spell or magical effect that allows it to make a
saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it
succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails.
- Greater Magic Resistance. If the creature is subjected to a damaging spell or magical effect that allows it to make a saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails. The creature also has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects. Spell attacks targeting the creature have disadvantage, but even if the attack hits, the creature automatically takes half-damage from it.
To compound certain creature's defenses, I also allow the magic damage resistance to stack with other forms of damage resistance (e.g., a creature with magic resistance and resistance to fire would take one-quarter damage from a fire bolt spell that hits.) Most magic-resistant creatures have one of the first two tiers, with the third tier reserved for the most powerful creatures like demon princes and aberrant gods.
This brings us to another aspect of 5e's overall resistance mechanic which is the ability to shrug off an ongoing spell effect with a successful saving throw on consecutive rounds. Most spells and monster effects provide additional saves, typically at the end of a target's turn, to end one or more effects such as poison, fear, or paralysis (including hold person). I both love and loathe this mechanic.
I agree with the general sentiment that, as a player, it absolutely sucks to be knocked out of the action for an entire combat by a single flubbed roll. This suckiness is magnified by online play where you have to sit alone and watch helplessly while others enjoy themselves. On the other side, it also absolutely sucks as a DM to finally land a monster's special attack on a PC only to have it done away with in the following round by the character's insanely-high save bonuses (and vice-versa for players). There's got to be a better way...and there is.
The current save mechanic says that when a creature is targeted by a spell/effect and fails its initial saving throw: "At the end of each of [the target's] turns, the target can make another saving throw. On a success, the [effect] ends on the target."
By keeping the basic mechanic, but applying a simple disadvantage mechanic to the follow-up saves gives the
spell/effect a fighting chance while still allowing a struggling player
to end a debilitating effect before the fight is over. My house rule for such effects is that...
- If a target fails its initial saving throw, the target can make another save at disadvantage at the end of each of their subsequent turns. On a success, the effect ends on the target.
Related to this, certain monsters have innate, sometimes iconic powers with magical effects that permit characters to make a saving throw to resist it. Examples include an ancient dragon's Frightful Presence, a troglodyte's Stench, and a mummy's Dreadful Glare. There are other examples, but these three are at the top of my mind as they have come up in recent games.
For some reason, 5e's designers felt these monsters should basically only get one shot at this because they inserted the following limitation: "A target that succeeds on the [initial] saving throw is immune to the [effect] for the next 24 hours" (or one hour in the case of stinky troglodytes.)
In AD&D, a dragon's fear effect activates each time the dragon "flies overhead or charges," and had save modifiers based on the dragon's age. A troglodyte's stench is constantly secreted "[w]hen aroused for battle" (i.e., make a saving throw each round). And the mummy?: "The mere sight of a mummy...will cause such fear and revulsion in any creature, that unless a saving (sic) versus magic is successful, the victim will be paralyzed with fright for 1-4 melee rounds." That is, avert your gaze each round to avoid being paralyzed.
I'm assuming the 5e limitation is there to curb excess dice rolling and give PCs greater survivability, but it strips these monsters of huge tactical advantages that make them unique and dangerous. To bridge the gap between the two approaches, I have adopted the following rule when one of these types of effects is in play:
- A target that succeeds on the initial saving throw has advantage on subsequent saving throws to resist the same effect for the next # hours.
No comments:
Post a Comment