D&D 5E Happy with Play Test 2 Direction BUT..

[Balesir]

Why not?

As the DM, if the players figure out a way to bypass immunity, then why not allow them to take advantage of that? That's precisely the point of keeping immunities that the original poster you responded to was making. The DM or each monster entry (exception based design?) can simply say, "Yes, good idea. That would work."

So, the original (dumb) rule applies unless you think up an excuse your GM happens to like? I can't see how that's anything but several times worse than the starting position, to be honest.

 

[P1NBACK]

So, the original (dumb) rule applies unless you think up an excuse your GM happens to like? I can't see how that's anything but several times worse than the starting position, to be honest.

I love the hyperbolic on ENworld. Reminds me why I love this place so much.

The original example the guy used is a exceptional type of construct (clockwork) and you guys have problems with making an exception to the standard construct rule? Hilarious.

This place is a joke. I'm out.

 

[the Jester]

I love the hyperbolic on ENworld. Reminds me why I love this place so much.

The original example the guy used is a exceptional type of construct (clockwork) and you guys have problems with making an exception to the standard construct rule? Hilarious.

This place is a joke. I'm out.

Clockwork monsters aren't all that exceptional (clockwork horrors, clockwork swordsmen, nimblewrights, clockroaches, etc). All of them explicitly have the standard construct immunities, including immunity to precision damage.

I'm sorry that you are leaving the discussion, but the whole point of discussion is to talk about things that we may not all agree on. And Balesir's comment is pretty well valid; you do seem to be making an argument that the general rules for constructs should give way to creative player action. And there's nothing wrong with that perspective; but it's very true that many dms don't swing that way, so the topic is worth discussion.

 

[ren1999]

I disagree on the first two.

Immunities force creativity and remove math. The undead are immune to charm. I can't just throw charm and hope it works because that's exactly what I do in every other fight. That's boring.

Ah, well that is a good example where a charm spell won't work on a non-intelligent being anyway. It also, might be argued that skeletons are immune to piercing only weapons. So, there should be some degree of immunity in the game. Just not complete immunity.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I love the hyperbolic on ENworld. Reminds me why I love this place so much.

The original example the guy used is a exceptional type of construct (clockwork) and you guys have problems with making an exception to the standard construct rule? Hilarious.

This place is a joke. I'm out.

I used clockwork because it is simply the case that shows the rules to be the most ridiculous. The only constructed object precision damage shouldn't help against is a perfectly smooth sphere - I went on to say why such rules shouldn't apply to golems (the arms fall off statues). And decapitation doesn't hurt a lich.

There is a case for precision damage not hurting entirely amorphous blobs. But constructs and undead aren't generally. The entire rule against precision damage is absurd - clockwork is just the single most absurd case.

 

[ren1999]

The first is who is acting.
The wizard isn't aiming a fireball at all the lizardmen. He's just trying to get it in a single square. It's the lizardfolk that are avoiding the fire. Or trying to resist the enchantment. They're the active party.

The second is speed.
This is something 4e demonstrated. When making an AoE spell you need to roll a die for each monster hit. If the DM rolls it they just have to announce success and failure, but if the player rolls they have to convey all the results across the table, and do all the math. And it all has to be done before the next player goes.

The third is avoidance.
If a creature has special powers that negate conditions (the typical solo beast, but also PCs with more resources) they typically need to make a roll or modify the roll. It's easier if they're rolling to avoid. That way they're not demanding a reroll. It sucks to have the DM make you reroll a successful hit, but it's less painful if they reroll a save. Likewise, if you're rolling a save a fail you feel more active when you get to roll again or spend resources to modify your roll.

That is an excellent argument. So casters should sometimes roll if the spell relies on their aim. Targets should roll a DC if they are trying to avoid or reduce damage from a spell. Some spells should let the caster roll to hit, other spells should make the targets roll a DC to avoid.

 

[Wiseblood]

ren1999 and Neonchameleon

Immunities should be rare or narrow in focus and must be carefully considered.
Assigning it as a facet of creature type is bad Juju in my book. Immunity should be the exception not the rule.

The immunity to precision damage always felt wrong. Like it was pasted on to boost power level instead of a sensible decision. If monsters are not conceived for a given level of character they would be able to fit better into the fantasy.

 

[objectsession]

sorry if i'm missing something obvious. i haven't playtested, only read/skimmed the packet. but for (1), can you give an example of bad immunity? i looked through the bestiary, and only saw things that made sense to me, like mindless creatures can't be charmed and oozes can't be prone. is that what you (the OP) is talking about, or are there worse examples?

for (2), don't spells have attack rolls in 5e? like searing light? (again, just skimming the playtest packet, so maybe i'm missing something.)

 

[P1NBACK]

I'm sorry that you are leaving the discussion, but the whole point of discussion is to talk about things that we may not all agree on. And Balesir's comment is pretty well valid; you do seem to be making an argument that the general rules for constructs should give way to creative player action. And there's nothing wrong with that perspective; but it's very true that many dms don't swing that way, so the topic is worth discussion.

Man, it's cool. There's a majority here that seems to think they are some kind of brilliant know-it-alls and this place seems to have devolved into that. I guess it's the signs of a coming new edition. that.

Anyways, the argument doesn't hold much because "precision damage" itself is a bogus term that is meaningless in the context of the original Backstab that Thieves had.

If newer editions want to redefine Backstab to "precision damage" then that's a meaningless distinction between older editions where it meant something far different. So, constructs being immune to "Backstab" vs. "Precision Damage" is a whole context thing. To try and claim one is a "bad rule" because the other rule changed, then you're missing the forest for the trees.

This is why this forum is so . It's a bunch of edition warriors trying to vie against each other, instead of looking at the actual meat of the discussion, which is what I was trying to do.

Instead, we have a bunch of s deriding a whole style of play or whole games because it's not in the context of THEIR preferred playstyle. all that.

Like I said, I'm finding ENWorld to be a cesspool lately, so it's whatev. I'll find my game discussion on G+ and other places where the conversation isn't black and white potshots at everyone else's style of play.

Thanks for the reasonable comment.

Mod Note: As if anyone here needed to be reminded - Rule #1 of EN World is "Keep it civil." Foul language is not civil. We have filters to catch it, but they aren't there to allow you to use nasty language with impunity. Please, folks, keep it clean. ~Umbran

 

[ren1999]

for (2), don't spells have attack rolls in 5e? like searing light? (again, just skimming the playtest packet, so maybe i'm missing something.)

The latest play tests do have attack rolls. I'm fairly happy about that. I'm specifically talking about Dwarves being totally immune to all poisons and Elves being totally immune to all charms. Ehhh, but I not adamant about any of this. Just nitpicking.