Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 2594347" data-attributes="member: 8461">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 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.I'm saying they don't need more encouragement, which is what the proposed changes would do.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.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.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.You're saying things are more epic, and more dangerous, when you can use fire damage against a living, evil sun? I disagree.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).Again, I disagree.But there is a lesson in that which endures.This is a gross overstatement. One character overcoming (partially) an immunity hardly strips an epic monster of all of its special abilities.Like I said, common sense.So you're saying that good role-players can't resist templation? LOL  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I'd hardly characterize the discourse as acerbic. My putting you in your place was done with the utmost respect.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Regarding immunities specifically, my above statement stands.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.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).Hey, if you live somewhere without an overpopulation of SUVs, be happy.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> So is foolishness.I say, surely it is not.By pointing out that it's not a fact.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification