Mearls talks about how he hates resistances

[Sir Brennen]

Doh, that doesn't work.

Instead of doing 40 points of ice damage being reduced by Resistance 15 to 25 points, you'd do 20 points of ice damage and 20 points of regular untyped damage which would be reduced to 5 points of ice damage and 20 points of regular damage. For a total of 25 damage, which is exactly as before.

Not exactly. It took you more math to get there.

I think some people are using the wrong starting point for the hypothetical Ice Mage. It's not so much about an Ice Mage in the North, because that's a very specific type of campaign. It's about handling an Ice Mage from the North in a regular campaign. Tweaking how resistances work at the North Pole aren't going to do diddly-squat for him 90% of the time in a standard game. Of course, he'll also run into Cold resistant creatures less often, until the upper tiers when creatures with multiple resistances are the norm.

It's about the problem of themed wizards in general, not campaign locations.

I think Fire Mages are a trope less latitude specific, so perhaps the discussion should focus on them.

Personally, I also like resistances. People talk about simple... resistances are simple already. Changing them to a Defense Bonus also seems simple, but it doesn't solve the problem of themed casters, and potentially pushes encounters with such creatures further into grindspace than the original resistance would.

Irda Ranger's idea of Elemental Mastery as a feature of Arcane classes is interesting, but I'm not crazy about having this built-in sameness for all arcane classes. Plus, it encourages such classes to specialize rather than it just be an option. And what if I wanted to have a themed cleric of a Fire god, which uses the Divine power source?

For the themed caster problem, I think feats are the answer, complimented with Paragon Paths, and they're components already built into the game. RangerWickett's proposal way back on page 1 is a bit overpowered, compared to an existing heroic tier feat like Astral Fire (+1 damage for fire/radiant powers). But what about a [keyword] mastery feat which lowers a target's resistance to your powers by 1 for every power you have with that keyword? Another feat which give Resist [keyword] equal to 1 + 1/2 the number of powers you have with that keyword? Lots of other possibilities as well.

 

[WhatGravitas]

mastery feat which lowers a target's resistance to your powers by 1 for every power you have with that keyword? Another feat which give Resist [keyword] equal to 1 + 1/2 the number of powers you have with that keyword? Lots of other possibilities as well.

Well, that's a bit like the problem with wholesale immunities - it's sort of an arms race of counter effects. First you have resistance. Then you have resistance-trumping feats, then resistance-trumping resistance... and so on.

Furthermore, with the introduction methods to circumvent resistances, it's basically "there are no resistances", because they are ignored anyway. Unless you account for that and make them much higher. But then, you're back to the start.

To avoid that arms race, one probably has to do away with the idea of absolute resistances (i.e. a single number). The resistance bonus to defence would work along that like, so would changing resistance to percentages in general (but that's cumbersome in play).

Furthermore, I think the drive behind the elimination of resistances is less to make themed casters more viable, but rather that the absolute effect of resistances is bad - in a way, they're a bit like wholesale immunities on a smaller scale.

The idea behind resistances - a resilience to certain energy types is certainly a flavourful one. But the idea of "resist 5" isn't really catching it.

EDIT: One could also compare that to the discussion of armour gives DR vs. AC - similar underlying ideas - the difference is just that it's less widespread, as only themed casters have a certain damage type as their "weapon".

Cheers, LT.

 

[NMcCoy]

It works against things that are immune like red dragons, salamanders, and devils are to fire. That's damage you otherwise couldn't have done. Same for damage amounts lower than the creature's level of resistance.

Not my my understanding of the rules. Immune works differently than resistance - immunity means the monster is entirely unaffected by a power with that keyword. Something that is immune to poison ignores a wizard's Lightning Serpent, for example.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Well, that's a bit like the problem with wholesale immunities - it's sort of an arms race of counter effects. First you have resistance. Then you have resistance-trumping feats, then resistance-trumping resistance... and so on.

I don't see that. We're talking about giving players the ability to reduce (not even necessarily trump) one type of resistance, based on a theme. And I don't see how this leads to an "arms-race", as a "resistance-trumping resistance" does not exist.

Furthermore, with the introduction methods to circumvent resistances, it's basically "there are no resistances", because they are ignored anyway. Unless you account for that and make them much higher. But then, you're back to the start.

Again, this is not intended to circumvent all resistances, just to give a character the ability to reduce one which they have a special focus in.

 

[Mercule]

It's not dodging it. The resistance works like armor. His resilience "deflect" the effects of acid. The acid might hit him, it might smolder a little, but nothing bad happens, because he is pretty resistant to it.
Just like a blow with a sword hits the character, but the armor deflects the attack, lessening its damage to a negligible amount.

While I recognize that D&D is, and always has been, a fairly abstract game -- and I think that's a good thing -- there is a limit to how many times and how far you can abstract things before it becomes meaningless. IMO, converting resistances to defense bonuses crosses that line.

 

[Scribble]

While I recognize that D&D is, and always has been, a fairly abstract game -- and I think that's a good thing -- there is a limit to how many times and how far you can abstract things before it becomes meaningless. IMO, converting resistances to defense bonuses crosses that line.

Just shows what they say about opinions is true... Because it seems more like it steps back from that line to me.

Really I think it should be all of one or all of the other.

IE is resistances = damage reduction Armor should also = damage reduction.

I've been fine all this time with armor = a bonus to defense, so I'm equally fine with resistances = a bonus to defense. In fact I think it does seem a lot smoother.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I can't believe anyone would suggest actually fireballing a fire elemental.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I can't believe anyone would suggest actually fireballing a fire elemental.

I think some things do need to be immune to certain kinds of energy - fire elementals being a great example. I don't see the need for a Red Dragon to be immune, or even have more than small amount of resistance.

The problem to me, in 3E at least (not terribly familiar with 4E) is that there are too many things that have resistance/immunity. It's lazy design - "somethings from a cold area? OK, it gets immunity to cold damage." In Frostburn there are creatures that are described as being afraid of other creatures, but are in fact immune to everything that creature does. Fights between them must be like being gnawed to death by toothless kittens.

I'd like to see immunities and resistances handed out extremely sparingly.

 

[xechnao]

I am not sure if this has anything to do with the discussion but I want to say that I personally find lame having to calculate things like elemental defenses and offenses and stuff like that. Same about tracking hit-locations for example (it does not matter to me how exactly I am anatomically impaired - what matters is that I am impaired- adding further micro-managing ends up adding nothing but time draining calculations. So having to micro-manage these things just does not do it for me. I prefer thinking about problems such as choice of allegiances to make in some kind of conflict, having to choose if we kill the mad sorcerer or try to control him and stuff like that.

So the simpler they are and the less effects these things have on the game the better for me. If mike mearls is in favor of simplifying calculations on these kind of stuff then I am with him.

 

[catsclaw227]

I'd argue it's the familiar 4E solution of stomping flavour when it does something inconvenient mechanically. It's the main reason I saved to disbelieve in the 4E illusion, something I've never had a problem with in any version of the game before.

What does this mean? You believe that 4e is not a real game, so therefore an illusion that you can "disbelieve"?

Dude, I thought we were trying to get past making statements intended to incite edition wars.

"familiar 4E solution of stomping flavour"? Ha! That is really funny. Not funny in a haha way, but funny in a "here we go again..." way.