Upper_Krust said:
All your equipment would melt/burn within the 1st round. So would any treasure the efreeti captured.
Which doesn't seem to prove anything, as it should already be a similar effect for the Plane of Fire. If fire damage deals 1/2 damage to objects (before being subjected to hardness), then the Plane of Fire, which deals 3d10 points of damage, would eventually melt any magic weapon with less than a +5 enhancement bonus. And yet, we see efreet from the Plane of Fire with equipment of that caliber.
I think that Warlock (the movie with Julian Sands) has a good example of trying to destroy an artifact (some pages from a grimoire) wherein they just kept regenerating. Personally I like the idea of being able to sunder an artifact into pieces without it being totally destroyed, although you still need to be able to damage the thing in the first place. The one ring may have had DR 40, Regeneration 40 for instance.
I don't think the One Ring would have been quite as impressive if it had been pulling itself back together T-1000-style, but that's just me.
So you are saying at the moment players are trying to get low amounts of damage are you?
I'm saying they don't need more encouragement, which is what the proposed changes would do.
Players are always looking for an advantage, but when you allow that advantage to totally negate a percentage of the game you set a dangerous precedent wherein the challenges you set can be overcome with little or no risk whatsoever.
Any DM who makes it so that PC immunities destroy risk in the game isn't doing their job right. Likewise, having the monsters have immunities increases the risk.
It means that such attacks are still poignant at high levels. Zeus thunderbolts still have a purpose.
Such attacks can still be poignant at higher levels, it just requires creativity. A PC with electricity immunity from a magic item can just have that item
disjoined, and there you go. Likewise, Zeus throwing lightning shouldn't be the end-all of his powers and abilities. And if you really feel that strongly about it, give him an immunity-breaker. That's why a lot of divine powers have a clause that they don't protect against deities with a higher DvR.
It means that epic level diviners, enchanters, illusionists, necromancers and transmuters are not totally hamstrung. It means sneak attack still has a point.
You seem to be working off the assumption that these characters will be fighting nothing but gods. Even the epic-level monsters in your own Bestiary (to say nothing of the ELH and
Legends of Avadnu) are in the category of being powerful without being divine, and so are still vulnerable to some or all of those effects.
The point here is that all enemies aren't immune to everything all the time; the challenges are still there, just more challenging, which is the point of the game.
Surely things are more epic (and dangerous) because of it!
You're saying things are more epic, and more dangerous, when you can use fire damage against a living, evil sun? I disagree.
Exactly and in closing off a boundary you close off the threat of all associations with it - spells, monsters, items. Therefore immunities remove options from the hands of the DM. At immortal level you have so many immunities that the game will either reach a bottleneck or becomes an endless spiral of trumping.
Hence why D&D is a game about heroes, not gods. But that aside, you can still threaten deities that have all those immunities (to say nothing of why there are also effects that penetrate immunities...a villain with one of those will be surprising and memorable for the players, which is great fun).
It is the steady accruement of immunities that will inevitably paint you into a corner.
Again, I disagree.
A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.
But there is a lesson in that which endures.
Virtually every epic monster has its special abilities negated - becoming little more than a combat monkey.
This is a gross overstatement. One character overcoming (partially) an immunity hardly strips an epic monster of all of its special abilities.
What about MegaMegaFlames though? 
Like I said, common sense.
I don't see a point to having the temptation in the first place.
So you're saying that good role-players can't resist templation? LOL
I find it incredible that my initial light-hearted comment has lead to such an acerbic avenue of discourse. 
I'd hardly characterize the discourse as acerbic. My putting you in your place was done with the utmost respect.
His problem was with absolutes in general, 'not just' immunities.
Regarding immunities specifically, my above statement stands.
Is your solution to present an infinitely long list of reversals that, in and of themselves, add nothing?
If you think I'm presenting it, you need to re-read my above statements. I'm saying that the real problem of SKR's discourse on immunities (within the larger context of absolutes) isn't that immunities ruin gameplay so much as it is a rant against said "infinitely long list of reversals." A good DM can put a stop to that easily enough.
Instead of MegaFlames, Mega Flames Immunity, MegaMegaFlames, MegaMegaFlames Immunity (none of which add anything and are all self-referential) its better to simply increase fire damage and fire resistance.
Which leads to the problems I outlined above, when all of that (the changes, the problems, etc.) could be avoided by the DM exercising a small measure of authority...or even the player realizing that engaging in that ultimately hurts his character more than any monster (as the wasted feat slots will not be worth the expenditure).
Too coloquial an example, the gist of what you were trying to say was clearly lost upon me it seems.
Hey, if you live somewhere without an overpopulation of SUVs, be happy.
Courage is acting in the face of fear.
So is foolishness.
Surely thats exactly the answer!
I say, surely it is not.
...and how have you adapted to the fact that absolutes are illogical?
By pointing out that it's not a fact.
