Energy Immunity is the DEVIL!

[Jer]

I'd honestly prefer something like ER 5/fire (more like DR, where you need the specific energy type to deal full damage).

Thus a weak devil might have ER 5/acid or electricity; a strong devil might have ER 15/acid.

This is mostly how I'd like to see Energy Resistance dealt with - as a form of Damage Resistance. I think that's a great way to model it - keeping the mechanic consistent with DR makes one less thing to worry about in the midst of combat. I'd also like to get rid of "immunity" altogether if I could, though I'm still not certain that I like the idea of a fire elemental taking damage from a fire spell of ANY caster. I've toyed with doing this in my games for a few years, but I've never had the time to take the plunge to see how much it might impact the Challenge Rating of particular monsters, or if I might need to bump up some Hit Dice to make up for the changes.

 

[billd91]

I certainly wouldn't get rid of immunity. Why shouldn't a fire elemental, a creature composed of fire itself, not be immune to fire?

I'd be more likely to object to any system that has no consequences for PCs being one trick ponies. A variety of energy immunities and resistances in the likely foes they will fight over their careers encourages PCs to have a diversity of weapons in their arsenal. That's a good thing.

What I wouldn't mind seeing is something akin to the various energy attacks in the psionics handbook. Each energy has a different profile (some do more damage, some have a higher save DC, some have side effects) and the spells are more generic. Characters, via feats or talents, pick up different energy types to wield as they improve.

 

[billd91]

IMO, it's a wider problem than that. Accordingly, I would like to briefly turn your attention here:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes2.html

I think Reynolds is doing a bit of strawman arguing with some of his energy immunity comments. Sure, in the 3.5 rules, a fire giant could drink molten metal and survive... if the DM was thick enough to assume that the only consequence would come from the heat. Heck, I could swallow molten mercury and survive the experience based on the temperature of the metal. There would be plenty of other consequences, though.

Same thing with falling through the fire giant falling through the heart of the sun. Oh, the heat might not bother him, but that's not exactly all that would be inflicted on him on his solar journey.

I would, in fact, favor some form of penetrating energy possibilities capable of affecting creatures normally immune rather than increasing damage against everything. Plenty of other games include similar concepts (excellent way to get through high defenses in Hero, for example) so it's not like the idea is alien to gamers.

 

[Merlion]

I think Reynolds is doing a bit of strawman arguing with some of his energy immunity comments. Sure, in the 3.5 rules, a fire giant could drink molten metal and survive... if the DM was thick enough to assume that the only consequence would come from the heat. Heck, I could swallow molten mercury and survive the experience based on the temperature of the metal. There would be plenty of other consequences, though.

Same thing with falling through the fire giant falling through the heart of the sun. Oh, the heat might not bother him, but that's not exactly all that would be inflicted on him on his solar journey.

I would, in fact, favor some form of penetrating energy possibilities capable of affecting creatures normally immune rather than increasing damage against everything. Plenty of other games include similar concepts (excellent way to get through high defenses in Hero, for example) so it's not like the idea is alien to gamers.

I just disagree with it conceptually. If a being is supernaturally immune to fire...especially by virtue of being a fire-being, then fire isnt going to hurt it, period.




Another thing I think would help some of these issues would be having more energy/element spells that are "Energy X" as in you pick the energy when you cast.

 

[buzzard]

Yes! It's like in the movies some monster is immune to gunfire. What!? Throwing nigh super-sonic pieces of lead en masse at something will destroy it, period. It's the one thing you can count on.

Ok, you can throw nigh(? modern long arms all well past 2000 fps, and speed of sound is around 1100) supersonic pieces of lead at an M1 tank all day. I'm pretty sure the "destroy it, period" ain't gonna fly.

buzzard

 

[Treebore]

Ok, you can throw nigh(? modern long arms all well past 2000 fps, and speed of sound is around 1100) supersonic pieces of lead at an M1 tank all day. I'm pretty sure the "destroy it, period" ain't gonna fly.

buzzard

Yep. You need depleted uranium rounds for that.

 

[Nifft]

Ok, you can throw nigh(? modern long arms all well past 2000 fps, and speed of sound is around 1100) supersonic pieces of lead at an M1 tank all day. I'm pretty sure the "destroy it, period" ain't gonna fly.

Well duh. You need a katana to cut up tanks.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'd be more likely to object to any system that has no consequences for PCs being one trick ponies. A variety of energy immunities and resistances in the likely foes they will fight over their careers encourages PCs to have a diversity of weapons in their arsenal. That's a good thing.

I think I take the opposite view to you here. What you describe as PCs being one trick ponies, I'd consider to be 'conceptually themed'

In 3e its pretty tough if you want to be a 'fire mage' or a mage with some other elemental theme, because you'll find lots of opponents you just can't ever touch. So do you abandon your theme or get out that crossbow or what? 3e actually encourages the 'sameness' of making sure that all casters have a way of causing each of the elemental damage types.

I would prefer a system that made it easier for PCs to have distinctly themed characters who were still viable (to some degree) against a whole range of opponents.

Cheers

 

[Merlion]

I think I take the opposite view to you here. What you describe as PCs being one trick ponies, I'd consider to be 'conceptually themed'

In 3e its pretty tough if you want to be a 'fire mage' or a mage with some other elemental theme, because you'll find lots of opponents you just can't ever touch. So do you abandon your theme or get out that crossbow or what? 3e actually encourages the 'sameness' of making sure that all casters have a way of causing each of the elemental damage types.

I would prefer a system that made it easier for PCs to have distinctly themed characters who were still viable (to some degree) against a whole range of opponents.

Cheers

I agree....but I think it should be achieved without violating the theme of the monsters either.

Being a fire mage faced with fire creatures every now and then is an interesting challenge.

Being an overall energy mage faced regularly with Fiends who are immune or resistant to like every attack you have is not so much tho.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Being a fire mage faced with fire creatures every now and then is an interesting challenge.

Being an overall energy mage faced regularly with Fiends who are immune or resistant to like every attack you have is not so much tho.

I agree with you here, for sure.

in 3e I think too many things were given the 'immunity to fire' (etc) trick too often. I can see elementals or other creatures that are actually *constructed* from fire being immune to it, but other stuff like Fire Giants? Fire Resist 30 would be good enough for them.