D&D 5E Vulnerability And Resistance

[Mistwell]

I do not agree, I do not think that section is right. I think that pretty much everything is destroyed in a room when a fireball goes off.

Why? That's not emulating reality, so why have you added that to your game? A fire that hits for an instant and then goes out doesn't destroy everything. Heck, a fire that rages for hours still leaves things behind. You know how long it takes to burn a wooden table, even in a fire place on top of an already blazing fire? A LONG time. Heavy wood does not burn so quickly or easily.

So, you give it hit points. Like the DM Guidelines say. Might not be perfect, but it's pretty close to reality for that.

I also think DC 10 STR check is too small to break down a door.

An ordinary stuck door? Why? Seems normal. In fact, pretty much in line with every edition D&D.

Also, even an adamantine door with resistance to all damage types. It is too easy to plink away at and destroy. Say with a infinite cantrip. Even with half damage it will still likely do 1 or more damage per round and that means maximally only 120 rounds and you have destroyed an adamantine door with a level 0 plink spell. Problem is no threshold for damage. I think this makes the game more complex, and I think there is a solid reason to not want it in the game, however I think there can be some unreal scenarios of weak things taking out tough stuff.

I think that's a highly unlikely scenario...the type you deal with using simple DM fiat of "your cantrip has no effect". The game is not going to cover every single corner case, nor should it try to do that.

 

[Sadrik]

Why? That's not emulating reality, so why have you added that to your game? A fire that hits for an instant and then goes out doesn't destroy everything. Heck, a fire that rages for hours still leaves things behind. You know how long it takes to burn a wooden table, even in a fire place on top of an already blazing fire? A LONG time. Heavy wood does not burn so quickly or easily.

So, you give it hit points. Like the DM Guidelines say. Might not be perfect, but it's pretty close to reality for that.

The point I am making is that this is not, by the rules, working. Everything in the room that is not made of thick rock or better is incinerated. Objects taking damage is awkward in the rules. There needs to be additional rules added to make sense. A dagger knocking down a stone wall after <60 rounds is silly. There needs to be some sort of damage threshold or DR to make it more realistic. I suppose you could say it is immune to certain damage types but I think that is not the best approach.

An ordinary stuck door? Why? Seems normal. In fact, pretty much in line with every edition D&D.

10 STR 55% chance to break down a normal locked or stuck dungeon door. Ok.

I think that's a highly unlikely scenario...the type you deal with using simple DM fiat of "your cantrip has no effect". The game is not going to cover every single corner case, nor should it try to do that.

I think a player with a pick or a hammer or an axe or a caster with an infinite cantrip is very likely and when adamantine is only a matter of time, and how much you want to spend knocking it down. It has no innate ability to shrug off damage. The problem is all damage is ablative. Again there needs to be a damage threshold or DR.

I do not mind hand waving things, however this appears to be a pretty glaring issue and there will be a lot of hand waving with inventive players, and then a lot of head scratching going what were they thinking...

 

[Mistwell]

Why? That's not emulating reality, so why have you added that to your game? A fire that hits for an instant and then goes out doesn't destroy everything. Heck, a fire that rages for hours still leaves things behind. You know how long it takes to burn a wooden table, even in a fire place on top of an already blazing fire? A LONG time. Heavy wood does not burn so quickly or easily.

The point I am making is that this is not, by the rules, working. Everything in the room that is not made of thick rock or better is incinerated.

I don't know why you quoted my reply to this, ignored it, and then just repeated your claim again. But, my response is still right there, still just as applicable to your repeat of the claim. Things would not be incinerated, and the rules work to emulate reality better than what you'd prefer...and you've yet to explain why what you prefer would be a better rule, given it's not easier nor does it emulate anything I know of.

10 STR 55% chance to break down a normal locked or stuck dungeon door. Ok.

Stuck. The rule is for stuck, and yes a 55% chance for a strength 10 character to unstick a stuck door seems right to me.

I think a player with a pick or a hammer or an axe or a caster with an infinite cantrip is very likely and when adamantine is only a matter of time, and how much you want to spend knocking it down. It has no innate ability to shrug off damage. The problem is all damage is ablative. Again there needs to be a damage threshold or DR.

I do not mind hand waving things, however this appears to be a pretty glaring issue and there will be a lot of hand waving with inventive players, and then a lot of head scratching going what were they thinking...

Again, already replied to this...again, you ignored it and just repeated your claim. OK...so this is a conversation or not?

 

[Philousk]

At first, I agree with the criticism of the lack of DR of differents objects and materials what Sadrik expressed in his remarks. As presented, the game will present sooner or later, inconsistencies like a simple cantrip used to wear to destroy a heavy adamantine gate . Hopefully there will be corrections to this effect soon.

Otherwise, another interesting point about the vulnerability and resistance occurred in a dialogue on a French forum.


My companion pointed out to me that in his opinion that the rules of "spell At Higher Levels" does not really worth it. In his example, he compared a Fireball cast at higher level with Ice Storm spell coming to the conclusion that the gain was not enough to choose Fireball cast with this rule.


I told him he was probably right in most situations, but it was also a matter of circumstances. For example, during a confrontation between Pc vs white dragon, the choice of Fireball cast at higher level proves to be much higher due to the fact of his vulnerability to fire damage.


I also added that the effectiveness of a spell is not always measured in total or potential damage that can be issued. In this line of thought, I also said that we should not forget the other pillars of game other than the fighting : exploration and interaction.

For example on the exploration aspect, the following situation may occur:


Adventurers escorted a long caravan of refugees in pitiful state. The elf ranger with his vision finely sharp, notes , to the west in the sky background, approaching dangerously them a cloud of Rocs bringing with them darkness and despair; promise of an unstoppable killing at least avoid their predatory views all these people ... Well, a Fog Cloud spell cast as a spell using a slot of three levels higher (thus increasing its air effect) to cover the hundred refugees massaging them as much as possible, could be ultimately providential and widely argued a spell consuming a level 4 slot!

 

[TwoSix]

Stuck. The rule is for stuck, and yes a 55% chance for a strength 10 character to unstick a stuck door seems right to me.

The only problem with this is that, in general, tests of Strength make little sense with the wide variability of a d20 check. If the Str 18 character can't open the stuck door, the Str 8 guy shouldn't have a chance at all. I virtually never use Strength checks in my games as a roll. If you need to open the door, you need a Str 16.

 

[TwoSix]

At first, I agree with the criticism of the lack of DR of differents objects and materials what Sadrik expressed in his remarks. As presented, the game will present sooner or later, inconsistencies like a simple cantrip used to wear to destroy a heavy adamantine gate . Hopefully there will be corrections to this effect soon.

I would just add a note that adamantine doors are immune to all energy damage and all weapons not made of adamantine. Make it a property of adamantine doors only and not adamantine in general to prevent abuse.

 

[pemerton]

An ordinary stuck door? Why? Seems normal. In fact, pretty much in line with every edition D&D.

10 STR 55% chance to break down a normal locked or stuck dungeon door. Ok.

In classic D&D, a STR 10 character can force open a stuck door 1/3 of the time, and a STR 18 character 5/6 of the time.

Trying to approximate this within a d20 framework and an ability cap of 20 suggests DC 14 (so 35% chance for the STR 10 character) with +1 to the check per point of STR above 10 (so 85% chance for a STR 20 character). Which could equally be presented as DC 24, add STR stat to the roll.

The only problem with this is that, in general, tests of Strength make little sense with the wide variability of a d20 check. If the Str 18 character can't open the stuck door, the Str 8 guy shouldn't have a chance at all. I virtually never use Strength checks in my games as a roll. If you need to open the door, you need a Str 16.

I agree this is an issue, though D&D has always made it a possibility even when open door checks were on a d6.

Mechanically, it works way better than numeric resistance/vulnerability. Resisted players are still able to do something and vulnerability doesn't cause skyrocketing damage with multiple smaller attacks, which became an issue in 4e.

Won't double damage raise some of the same issues, though? It's just that you get the skyrocketing damage whether your pacel out your attacks or concentrate them in one.

Or is your point that double damage reduces the disparity between single and multiple attacks, and thus enhances balance across fighting styles? If so, then I agree.

 

[Mistwell]

In classic D&D, a STR 10 character can force open a stuck door 1/3 of the time, and a STR 18 character 5/6 of the time.

Trying to approximate this within a d20 framework and an ability cap of 20 suggests DC 14 (so 35% chance for the STR 10 character)

Yes, I know (I'm using old school door checks in my current game). Which is why I said it's "pretty much in line with" prior editions. I don't view a roughly 14 vs a 10 to be a big deal...particularly not when he's calling for an entirely different rule to deal with a DC being slightly off. They're fixing some math for the next playtest so maybe it will be adjusted, but really, we're not talking about something outside the ballpark here. It's just a stuck door - a roughly 50-50 chance to open it on your first try makes sense.

 

[Kinak]

Won't double damage raise some of the same issues, though? It's just that you get the skyrocketing damage whether your pacel out your attacks or concentrate them in one.

Or is your point that double damage reduces the disparity between single and multiple attacks, and thus enhances balance across fighting styles? If so, then I agree.

Yeah, my concern is more with the unintentional ramping up of damage. It's hard to miss doubling being a substantial effect.

Adding damage per source also rewards players directly for adding as many sources of damage as possible, slowing play. If we can't keep it balanced, I'd much rather reward behavior that keeps the table moving along.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[pemerton]

Yes, I know (I'm using old school door checks in my current game). Which is why I said it's "pretty much in line with" prior editions.

I wasn't meaning to question your maths. I was more trying to get across that to emulate classic D&D door-opening you need the STR bonus to scale at about double its current rate. This also goes some way (not all the way) to dealing with [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s concern.

Do you have a view on whether that would be good or bad?