Magic Resistance

Handling the way magic resistance scales is one of the most common mistakes I make when running medium and high level D&D. Many a mind flayer has unfairly bit the dust because of this. So, here's a better system:

• Divide listed magic resistance by 5 and add 12, so mind flayers become MR 22. Note this on your stat block/map key.
• When a spell is cast at a MR target, the caster rolls 1d20 and adds their level. If they equal or exceed the above number then the spell succeeds. 
• For dæmons, add 13 instead of 12 to the creature's score but also add spell level for their attacker.

Simple and fairly obvious, but there it is.

Other issues that come up with magic resistance are:

Does magic resistance prevent area of effect spells from working? In the general sense I would say no, while an individual monster may be unaffected by a fireball its companions will have to look out for themselves.

The exception is when a spell is specifically directed at a monster. In those cases, if the spell does not affect the target then it is completely cancelled. This would potentially include lightning bolt and fireball, as well as meteor swarm, darkness 10' radius or silence 15' radius, and so on, depending on the intent of the caster.

Does magic resistance dispel magic which is ongoing? This is tricky because the example given in the Monster Manual of shattering a hold portal spell (obviously based on the scene in the Lord of the Rings [the book, not the film]) simply refers to "certain" spells and does not define them.

I suppose like many DMs I've flip-flopped on this over the years but nowadays I would generally say that if a magically resistant creature encounters a permanent spell against which it makes its MR roll, then the spell is negated. So, walls of iron or ice as well as hold portal and wizard lock would be negated as would, somewhat more controversially, a glyph of warding. A wall of force would simply allow the creature to pass through, sealing behind it again, since it is not normally a permanent spell.

Even with this, some spells are not treated this way. Dig moves earth in a permanent way not because of on-going magic but because the earth is now in a different place and simply remains there, for example, so its effect is not subject to magic resistance at all. Also, of course, the magical effect must be directly interacting with the monster in question; a demon can not cure feeblemind nor cancel the resoration of a lost limb on someone else. Find familiar is not subject to magic resistance.

Does magic resistance work against special attacks? If they are listed as spell-like, then yes. Otherwise (eg, ghoul paralysis, most magic weapon effects) no.

Clerical turning? No.

Is a magic circle affected by magic resistance? No. Protection from Good/Evil is, as it is a general spell effect but the various magic circles which protect from specific beings always work against those beings regardless of MR or anything else.

What is "standard" magic resistance? This is just normal saving throws, which magic resistant creatures also get.

What would "none" mean, then? A creature with no magic resistance would get no saves against magic. This is the suggested method for handling Gamma World characters encountering AD&D spells on DMG p114. I used this system for the time my main group went to the Car Wars universe too.

Once the Dice are Out of Their Bag, They Must Draw Blood!

This better be worth it

Here's a classic mistake I made recently while running a game. There was a storm, the ship was in trouble. A PC was on deck and I said "give me a Dex roll". They failed....and I had no idea what I wanted to do with this information. I certainly wasn't going to kill the character by throwing them overboard from a boat with low-level characters who had no way of rescuing them in the middle of a heavy sea and strong winds. The character was simply standing on deck for some reason, so there wasn't even a task to interrupt by falling.

Characters do not need to roll for every task, even when things are difficult. If the result of failing is simply "well, I'll get up and try again" or whatever, then the dice roll is pointless. Just tell the player that they succeed, perhaps adding that it was tricky. Want to climb a tree to see where you are? You climb the tree. Ride a horse out of town? Fine. Even a character who can't actually ride should not be forced to roll until they succeed if all that's going to happen is exactly that.

Dice are about risk and as previously mentioned AD&D deals in resources (much like life), so risk is about wasting those resources and if no resource is at risk the dice should stay in their bag. A "resource" can be time, money, hit points, loyalty, the character's life, a henchman's life, personal reputation and goals, or any number of real or abstract possessions. When those things are on the table then there is a reason to get the dice out because then the result is meaningful to the players and there is some thrill of waiting to see the outcome and the relief of a good result and the adapting to the setback of a bad one. If you as DM can't think of any resource which would be lost by a failed roll or gained by a successful one, just narrate some reasonable outcome and press on.

In the case of the ship in the storm, "You're tossed around by the rough seas for about half an hour at which point you hear a horrendous cracking sound as the main mast splits about half way up" (as the damage from the storm accumulated) would have been much better and, if you don't rush it, might even give a player a chance to ask about the mast and whether anyone should be doing anything about the fact that the sails were still unfurled.

It's easy to slip into a habit with dice but always remember that there are resources at the table too: fun, momentum, and play time being key ones. Don't waste them with pointless dice rolling.

Die or Save

The well known phrase or saying "save or die" is an example of how something can creep into the language and become accepted and widely used and yet express exactly the opposite of the real situation (the common use of "crunch" for rules and "fluff" for the important stuff is another example).

There is no "Save or Die" mechanic in OD&D or AD&D.

Not the DM's Fault

What actually happens is that the character is in a situation where they face certain death (or whatever) - a dragon breathes on them or a giant scorpion stinger hits them. At this point, all seems lost. BUT! They get a chance to somehow avoid or at least mitigate the effects.

This is a classic situation in the fantasy that forms the roots of the game - the villain casts a dire spell and is astounded as the hero resists it; or the supposed poison only incapacitates the victim or is shrugged off.

Saving throws and hit points represent that particular type of author's favour that allows the central characters to get out of "impossible" scrapes or survive against massive odds. As the characters rise in level they become more and more central and gain more favour. Thus, there is no direct connection between a character's ability scores and their saves (other than some flat bonuses) - Frodo saves well because he's important in a metagame sense rather than by dint of high ability scores or other in-game reasons.

The phrase "Save or Die" is really part of the mythos of the legendary Killer DM (much spoke of; seldom encountered) in early gaming fostered by those who have "contemporary design sensibilities". The two go together because a DM who wants to can arbitrarily declare anything a "sudden death" situation - falling down the stairs; eating mushrooms; climbing a wall. S/he can put poisonous snakes in the beds of the inn or giant spiders in the PC's coach. Of course s/he can!

The fact that AD&D doesn't have a rule that says they shouldn't doesn't change the fact that the players can up and leave because the DM is a moron. There's no rule against being a killer DM but there's no rule to say that anyone has to put up with it either.

But the problem with putting rules in to control such a DM is that you end up with rules that limit all DMs while the bad ones will just find other ways to be annoying (there's an infinite supply).

The saving throw mechanic is part of a players' ability to make a judgement - if I do this I have a chance to make it. The alternatives should be obvious and top of the list is "run away" or at least "don't do that". The player knows that the touch of a ghoul paralyses or that a medusa's gaze will turn them to stone or that a room full of gigantic cobwebs might mean poisonous spiders and that might mean poisonous bites. It only becomes "Save or Die" when the DM (and not the player) eliminates the choice of facing the danger.

Of course, the players don't know what's around the corner much of the time but that's just another way of saying "we're not scouting very well". Whether you're in a "funhouse" dungeon or a more logically balanced scenario the party that allows their fate to be determined by random rolls without trying to minimise the number of those crucial rolls is responsible for throwing away the charatcers, not the DM. Calling the act of repeatedly and blindly putting your head in the lion's mouth "save or die" is to put the cause and effect the wrong way around.

Later editions of the game gradually moved away from true exploring towards a bland conveyor belt of combat. The game system took on responsibility for producing encounters which the character party could face with a set level of danger. The players no longer had to worry about making sure that they were not walking into a deathtrap - instead, deathtraps were made illegal. Ultimately we end up with fourth edition which is simply a sort of chess on steroids battle system, with even the roleplaying reduced to a bunch of dice rolls in the "Skill Challenge" system. I'm not sure where the "challenge" is in that, unless it's to avoid RSI from the dice rolling.

Satire

It's a testament to the standards of players out there today that this attempt has failed both strategically (the game was a flop) and tactically (many players who do play 4e have hacked this sort of rubbish out of it). Players - yes, even youngsters of the "entitlement generation" as many Grognards refer to them - actually don't want their minotaur delivered in a box for free XP, even the ones that like tactical skirmish games. Which is probably a good thing for imaginative DM's everywhere who want to invent actual challenges for their players to try overcoming; there still is an audience for that sort of play.