D&D 5E Rethinking immunities & resistance

[Uchawi]

I'd much rather see resistance revert to prior editions' "subtract a flat number from the damage" (which lets fire resistant creatures do things like sleep in hot coals, or cook food without utensils etc), and then remove immunity, replacing it instead with "really, really high resistance".

So sure: you CAN hurt that fire elemental with fire. But he's got enough fire resistance to comfortably have a bath in lava, so you're going to have to have a heck of a hot fire to do anything to him.

Ludicrous or plaid fireball ftw!

 

[Grazzt]

I'd much rather see resistance revert to prior editions' "subtract a flat number from the damage" (which lets fire resistant creatures do things like sleep in hot coals, or cook food without utensils etc), and then remove immunity, replacing it instead with "really, really high resistance".

So sure: you CAN hurt that fire elemental with fire. But he's got enough fire resistance to comfortably have a bath in lava, so you're going to have to have a heck of a hot fire to do anything to him.

I believe SKR suggested on his site something along these lines way back in the 3.x days regarding immunities and resistances.

 

[Mistwell]

I've seen a katana cut a golem in half before.

Then you have a vivid fantasy life.

I've seen one cut through an airplane, engine block and all. This is standard convention for impossibly sharp swords, seen in countless shows and video games.

OH, by "seen" you meant, "in fiction". Gotcha. I was confused for a second there.

 

[Lost Soul]

Actual religion and mythology is only tangentially related to the modern fantasy genre, unless you're specifically doing a deconstruction. Standard fantasy logic says that demons live in fire and inflict fire on their enemies, though. You wouldn't attempt to burn a balrog.

Now I'm curious, but when exactly did you start playing? You know that 5E spellcasters are massively benefited by their ability to spam cantrips, right? Most games limit spellcasters on how many spells they can cast, and they have to rely on weapon attacks the rest of the time. If you aren't happy with your ability to cast cantrips whenever you need them, even in just this one encounter out of six in the day, then it doesn't sound like you're being very appreciative of this gift which the designers have generously granted you. Maybe the next edition should remove cantrips entirely.

There are monsters which are immune to physical attacks, which require a special magical item to overcome. If you want a magic super wand of super fire that lets your fire attacks hurt creatures which are otherwise immune to fire, then I could see the parallel there.

[video]https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=samurai+vs+viking+deadliest+warrior&view=detail&mid=CAFA1EF3B7A7EB3B35A6CAFA1EF3B7A7EB3B35A6&FORM=VIRE[/video]

Check out the utter ineffectiveness of a katana against good old chainmail. Field test with trained katana swordsman against chainmail in this video. It occurs at 9:26. I'd have better luck using a fireball against a fire elemental than a katana against chainmail and chainmail is weak armor by D&D stats. No way a katana is cutting through stone not matter what the fan boy fantasy may indicate. Swords cutting through stone or heavy metals is completely ridiculous. A katana is devastating against a monk or a wizard. Completely useless against an armored knight like a paladin or western fighter in chain or plate armor.

 

[Lost Soul]

Well, I have the high ground of the status quo, so I'm not the one that needs to be convincing.

There's a glimmer of an argument in what you say but you're so busy demanding that it's not getting out well.

The status quo has very little meaning. Arcane spells have changed radically over editions. I am not demanding anything. Just asking you think out of the box and truly question the need for resistances and immunities. Sorry but I don't see you making an existing argument as to why they need to remain except for good old tradition.

 

[Lost Soul]

[MENTION=81242]Lost Soul[/MENTION]

So as a DM you would never throw a mob at your players which is e.g. resistant to slashing weapons if your group had none of these with them?

Because that is the same fairness issue as with your firemage.


Imagine a tempest cleric: No fair game for you should the DM ever use a blue dragon against the group?

That is different because the majority of the tempest cleric's abilities have nothing to do with lightning. I may be wrong but Blue Dragons are not immune to thunder damage so tempest clerics can use thunderwave and similar powers against them. I do have an issue if you planescape to the Nine Hells and cannot do anything as a fire mage. That is dumb. Same reason why rogue sneak attack immunities were removed from undead, elementals, constructs and other creatures that had blanket immunity to them in 3E. Its just not fun to severely gimp a character through out an adventure consisting of many of these creatures. For example, Ravenloft was a terrible adventure for rogues in 3E. Its also the reason I never threw monsters that needed +1 or better weapons to hit against fighters who didn't have magic weapons in the pre-3E days because its just not fun to take any character completely out of an encounter without giving them any meaningful chance to do something.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Check out the utter ineffectiveness of a katana against good old chainmail. Field test with trained katana swordsman against chainmail in this video. It occurs at 9:26. I'd have better luck using a fireball against a fire elemental than a katana against chainmail and chainmail is weak armor by D&D stats. No way a katana is cutting through stone not matter what the fan boy fantasy may indicate. Swords cutting through stone or heavy metals is completely ridiculous. A katana is devastating against a monk or a wizard. Completely useless against an armored knight like a paladin or western fighter in chain or plate armor.

Sure, a real katana is a lousy weapon to use against real metal armor. This is fantasy, though, and a magical blade of sharpness can cut through anything. It's part of the genre, right alongside demons and fire elementals and giant dragons who live in magma. What isn't part of the genre is burning a fire elemental to death.

That is different because the majority of the tempest cleric's abilities have nothing to do with lightning. I may be wrong but Blue Dragons are not immune to thunder damage so tempest clerics can use thunderwave and similar powers against them. I do have an issue if you planescape to the Nine Hells and cannot do anything as a fire mage. That is dumb.

What kind of wizard would be so phenomenally stupid as to not know any other damaging spells? If you choose to play your spellcaster such that they can't do anything against a fire elemental, then they deserve to die for being such an utter idiot.

 

[Barolo]

The status quo has very little meaning. Arcane spells have changed radically over editions. I am not demanding anything. Just asking you think out of the box and truly question the need for resistances and immunities. Sorry but I don't see you making an existing argument as to why they need to remain except for good old tradition.

I really don't get what are you trying to argue over this thread. Like... at all. I mean, there is no such class in D&D that is completely tied to a single elemental attack to contribute in the combat pillar. No elemental-benders, or pyromancers or such. Even if all you want to play is a elemental-themed dragon sorcerer (which they really are not), you should already be choosing at least half of your spells as non-blasting just not to feel too bored doing the same thing over and over again (and also so to not gimp yourself too much, as damage-dealing is a very subpar activity for a full caster).

Non-caster martial weapon-users, on the other hand (such as champions or rogues), are pretty much "married" to physical damage. And while some odd monsters have resistance/immunity to one or two types of weapon damage, most that have resistance/immunity actually resist all three types. And then, for these classes, there is no in-class workaround. They either found magic weapons or have to count on their spellcasting friends' goodwill to enchant their weapons. And then, there are those other monsters against which having different damage types is a real boon (like fire to trolls and treants, or radiant to vampires)

To address your point in a more straightforward way, having resistances, immunities or vulnerabilities in the game can be interesting or lame. The problem is not really in the mechanics, but in the way they are deployed by the DM. To face an unknown enemy that you had absolutely no opportunity in game to gather intel, and have the final battle be a big gotcha as you throw your most powerful spell just to find out the monster is completely immune seems like a work of a really jerk or incompetent DM. But to face an enemy that you could have learned something while exploring that lost library in the dungeon, or by interacting with the scared townsfolk who survived its previous attack, and getting properly ready for the final confrontation is awesome. And being able to ignore its resistances/immunities just by playing the system, as opposed to playing the game, would somewhat undermine this awesomeness. And finally, if the heroes had solid opportunities to figure out an enemy's strengths and weaknesses beforehand while exploring/social-interacting, but blew these opportunities, and now the fight is looking bad for them, good thing. Because the other pillars can (and really should) be that relevant.

 

[Lost Soul]

Sure, a real katana is a lousy weapon to use against real metal armor. This is fantasy, though, and a magical blade of sharpness can cut through anything. It's part of the genre, right alongside demons and fire elementals and giant dragons who live in magma. What isn't part of the genre is burning a fire elemental to death.
What kind of wizard would be so phenomenally stupid as to not know any other damaging spells? If you choose to play your spellcaster such that they can't do anything against a fire elemental, then they deserve to die for being such an utter idiot.

Sorry Saelorn you can't have it both ways. Fire resistance and immunity only applied to devils & Fire Giants prior to 3E and it was a weak argument then. Red Dragons and Fire Elementals had no immunity to fire. II know because I still play the gold box games and fire damage works quite well against them. Katanas are garbage swords against regular metal armor. Super sharp swords DO NOT cut through metal armor and saying its fantasy does not cut it. Its just the same as saying magical fire does not work against creatures that are immune to normal fires. If there is a limit to what spell magic can effect than the exact same limitation should apply when you enchant that same magic on to a blade.

 

[Lost Soul]

I really don't get what are you trying to argue over this thread. Like... at all. I mean, there is no such class in D&D that is completely tied to a single elemental attack to contribute in the combat pillar. No elemental-benders, or pyromancers or such. Even if all you want to play is a elemental-themed dragon sorcerer (which they really are not), you should already be choosing at least half of your spells as non-blasting just not to feel too bored doing the same thing over and over again (and also so to not gimp yourself too much, as damage-dealing is a very subpar activity for a full caster).

Non-caster martial weapon-users, on the other hand (such as champions or rogues), are pretty much "married" to physical damage. And while some odd monsters have resistance/immunity to one or two types of weapon damage, most that have resistance/immunity actually resist all three types. And then, for these classes, there is no in-class workaround. They either found magic weapons or have to count on their spellcasting friends' goodwill to enchant their weapons. And then, there are those other monsters against which having different damage types is a real boon (like fire to trolls and treants, or radiant to vampires)

To address your point in a more straightforward way, having resistances, immunities or vulnerabilities in the game can be interesting or lame. The problem is not really in the mechanics, but in the way they are deployed by the DM. To face an unknown enemy that you had absolutely no opportunity in game to gather intel, and have the final battle be a big gotcha as you throw your most powerful spell just to find out the monster is completely immune seems like a work of a really jerk or incompetent DM. But to face an enemy that you could have learned something while exploring that lost library in the dungeon, or by interacting with the scared townsfolk who survived its previous attack, and getting properly ready for the final confrontation is awesome. And being able to ignore its resistances/immunities just by playing the system, as opposed to playing the game, would somewhat undermine this awesomeness. And finally, if the heroes had solid opportunities to figure out an enemy's strengths and weaknesses beforehand while exploring/social-interacting, but blew these opportunities, and now the fight is looking bad for them, good thing. Because the other pillars can (and really should) be that relevant.

Immunities are lame. Resistances are not. If you actually played a dragon sorcerer you would understand my point of contention. You only get 15 spells known as a sorcerer over the entire career of your class. By level 10 you get 11 which is 3/4 of your entire career. You get an additional 4 spells known and that is it. If I play a fire sorcerer it makes sense for me to take at least a third if not more fire spells so I would reasonable take anywhere from 5 to 10 fire spells to ensure that I get the most of my class features. If I took 1 fire spell per spell level I only get 6 other spells. Its crazy to think that I have enough spells to compensate for that huge loss by having immunity thrown at me with only 15 spells known. I don't have the versatility to have a better spell list. Its a big loss and I totally blame poor playtesting for this decision. If I had a much better spell selection/preparation like the cleric and bard or a chance of getting more spells a la the wizard then I wouldn't be complaining for immunity. Look at the other caster who has extremely poor spell selection, the warlock. WOTC gave him great compensation by giving him a cantrip that basically cuts through any resistance and does decent damage. I shouldn't have to be so gimped as a sorcerer. That is why I am trying to speak to people about immunities being an issue.