D&D 5E Is it just me or does it look like we are getting the "must have feats" once again?

[Dausuul]

I believe you that you've mentioned previously you were speaking sticking to what we know from the playtest document. In the post I was replying to however, there was no such explanation.

Yes, I neglected to put that disclaimer in every single post in the whole conversation. I tell you what. Pretend I changed my sig to say, "All references to playtest material are for lack of any better data, and with the understanding that things may change in the final rules." That's in every post I ever make from now until all three core books have been released. Okay?

I do think that penetrating immunity is a bad idea - because it just makes no sense you can do something to make something immune to fire, suddenly harmed by fire. If they were to change anything, it should not be to make things less immune to things they are immune to. That's just purely gamist and doesn't make sense to me.

I agree, if there is a compelling in-fiction reason for fire immunity in the first place.

The problem with 5E's approach to immunity and resistance (and the reason I suspect we won't see immunities scaled back much in the final rules) is that there is no longer a simple way to say, "This monster is immune to ordinary fire, but can still be hurt by intense or magical fire." In previous editions, you could do that with something like fire resist 10. With 5E resistance, though, even normal 1d6-per-round fire will hurt and eventually kill a fire-resistant creature. So when you have creatures like devils, fire giants, and red dragons--all of which tend to inhabit fiery environments, but could plausibly be hurt by super-intense fire--you have to make them immune to explain why they aren't dead.

IMO, there needs to be a way to distinguish between "basically immune" and "really truly totally immune." If we see immunity in the final rules to the same extent as in the playtest, I will probably implement this distinction by house rule in my game: Anything that lets you bypass resistance, also lets you bypass "basic immunity." So EA will let you deal fire damage to a devil, but not to a fire elemental. If there's a poison equivalent, it will work on green dragons but not undead. Et cetera.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There might be arguments for either approach, but one of them is not very solid. It's totally gamist.

There are at least two entirely conceptual arguments I can think of:

1) A fire elementalist conjures and controls fire to make his attacks by burning targets with fire, therefore, when he throws fire at a creature /made of fire/, it does nothing, because fire doesn't burn fire - if anything, he might heal the elemental. (This one's actually a tad simplistic: for instance, people are made of flesh and bone, but if you drop a cow on a person, it'll /hurt/.)

2) A fire elementalists conjures and /controls/ fire to make his attacks, usually by burning things with fire. But, when he attacks a fire elemental, he can use his mastery of the element to do horrible damage to the creature's substance, directly - if not take it over completely and control it like a puppet. (One potential argument against this /is/ gamist, though: letting a mage just seize control of monsters as potent as elementals could be overpowered.)

 

[Dausuul]

There might be arguments for either approach, but one of them is not very solid. It's totally gamist.

What? It's not gamist at all. The argument is that the pyromancer is the Master of Fire. A fire elemental is Made of Fire. Therefore, the pyromancer should be able to make the fire elemental sit up and beg.

This is a problem that Mike Mearls identified in an interview a while ago: The way resistance and immunity work in D&D, themed casters tend to be weak against the very things they should be strongest against. Fire mages are weak against fire monsters. Cold mages are weak against cold monsters. Necromancers are weak against undead (most necromantic attack spells involve necrotic damage, fear, or life-drain attacks).

Perhaps the solution is not simply to grant "bypasses immunity" to the pyromancer's damage spells, but to add something like this to EA:

"Permanently add hold person to your list of prepared spells. However, instead of being limited to humanoids, it is limited to creatures with immunity to the chosen element."

(This is just off the top of my head and would need some work to balance.) This way, fire immunity remains unbroken, but pyromancers gain the power to deal effectively with foes that have affinity for fire.

 

[Chocolategravy]

There are at least two entirely conceptual arguments I can think of: 1) A fire elementalist conjures and controls fire to make his attacks by burning targets with fire, therefore, when he throws fire at a creature /made of fire/, it does nothing, because fire doesn't burn fire - if anything, he might heal the elemental. (This one's actually a tad simplistic: for instance, people are made of flesh and bone, but if you drop a cow on a person, it'll /hurt/.)

Dropped cows do bludgeoning damage, exploding cows to piercing damage, mad cows cause disease. Not many cows do flesh damage.

2) A fire elementalists conjures and /controls/ fire to make his attacks, usually by burning things with fire. But, when he attacks a fire elemental, he can use his mastery of the element to do horrible damage to the creature's substance, directly - if not take it over completely and control it like a puppet. (One potential argument against this /is/ gamist, though: letting a mage just seize control of monsters as potent as elementals could be overpowered.)

Also fire spells have very little to do with control and a lot to do with instant 'splosions!

 

[Mistwell]

There are at least two entirely conceptual arguments I can think of:

1) A fire elementalist conjures and controls fire to make his attacks by burning targets with fire, therefore, when he throws fire at a creature /made of fire/, it does nothing, because fire doesn't burn fire - if anything, he might heal the elemental. (This one's actually a tad simplistic: for instance, people are made of flesh and bone, but if you drop a cow on a person, it'll /hurt/.)

2) A fire elementalists conjures and /controls/ fire to make his attacks, usually by burning things with fire. But, when he attacks a fire elemental, he can use his mastery of the element to do horrible damage to the creature's substance, directly - if not take it over completely and control it like a puppet. (One potential argument against this /is/ gamist, though: letting a mage just seize control of monsters as potent as elementals could be overpowered.)

How about Elemental Adepts can make a turn attempt against creatures immune to their chosen element?

 

[TwoSix]

What? It's not gamist at all. The argument is that the pyromancer is the Master of Fire. A fire elemental is Made of Fire. Therefore, the pyromancer should be able to make the fire elemental sit up and beg.

2) A fire elementalists conjures and /controls/ fire to make his attacks, usually by burning things with fire. But, when he attacks a fire elemental, he can use his mastery of the element to do horrible damage to the creature's substance, directly - if not take it over completely and control it like a puppet. (One potential argument against this /is/ gamist, though: letting a mage just seize control of monsters as potent as elementals could be overpowered.)

These are exactly the concepts I was thinking of. Is the pyromancer a master of fire magic, or is she a master of fire?

 

[TwoSix]

How about Elemental Adepts can make a turn attempt against creatures immune to their chosen element?

I like this. Honestly, there's enough stuff that should be in the toolbox of a elemental caster that it feels more subclass worthy, rather than just a single feat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Dropped cows do bludgeoning damage, exploding cows to piercing damage, mad cows cause disease. Not many cows do flesh damage. Also fire spells have very little to do with control and a lot to do with instant 'splosions!

Sure, fireball, is a 'splosion. Plenty of classic fire-based spells - affect normal fires, pyrotechnics, flame arrow, fire shield, fire charm, wall of fire, even delayed blast fireball - imply some serious control. But we're not talking about a standard-issue Vancian wizard reciting rote spell-grenades, but some not-wholly-defined "Elemental Adept" with a special talent for such magic.

 

[Lanefan]

How about Elemental Adepts can make a turn attempt against creatures immune to their chosen element?

Or a control attempt, sticking with the theme of elementalists controlling their chosen element?

===================

On a broader point, it's discussions like this - particularly when they enter the realm of whether something is optimized enough - that make me despise feats and so forth; and the "gotta be the best" mentality their existence tends to produce among players.

There's nothing wrong with playing a suboptimal character; and if you-as-player are at one of those tables where the other players are complaining that your weaknesses are hurting the party's machine-like effectiveness you have my sympathy.

Lanefan

 

[KarinsDad]

What? It's not gamist at all. The argument is that the pyromancer is the Master of Fire. A fire elemental is Made of Fire. Therefore, the pyromancer should be able to make the fire elemental sit up and beg.

So, the master of air should be able to control all breathing creatures?

The master of water should be able to control all humanoids (since their bodies are 90% water)?

The master of lightning should be able to control all thinking creatures (since thought uses electricity)?

One can come up with whatever rationale one wants, it doesn't make it balanced or less gamist.


I have no problem with a pyromancer having some special abilities against fire creatures, I just think that immune should mean immune. Not immune except when...

Immunity should be rarely used, but when used, it should be total and completely immune to that type of damage. IMO. Anything else reeks of metagaming.


Exception based design should not mean that the game designers should try to find an exception to nearly every rule and give those exceptions to the players.