Immunities, Resistances, and High level play.

[Minigiant]

Since D&D Next is unfinished, I was pondering about how high level play might look in this new edition. Then a certain aspect of the game came to mind: immunities.

Perhaps monsters with multiple immunities could be attributed to higher level play. Lower level threats could have resistances (advantage when rolling saving throws) and flat bonuses.

An imp might be resistant to fire and poison and a grig might take half damage from weapons not made of cold iron. A pit fiend cold be immune to fire, poison, cold, and acid. A fey prince might take zero weapon damage unless the weapon it cold iron.

This would raise the importance of the damage types, school, and effects of weapons, spells, and items. Characters would seek to diversify their effects or taking specialties that bypass immunities. An experienced party might spend time seeking out various ways to get pass the immunities they now worry about. It also can work as a might balance push as characters might tie up resources to have weapons, items, and spells in the side as back up plans.

Of course it is not all good like any idea. This might encourage the return of golf bag fighters and postman wizards that carry around tons of back up weapons and scrolls. So like this while others don't.
It also can result in many no win situations. A randomly generated or quickly placed monster might be nearly impossible to kill or harm as the group lacks the appropriate tool. This might force characters to run or die/submit. Again some like it and others don't.

Then there is the all or nothing factor. Some see immunities as limiting in flavor as shut down the ability to have certain stories without having exceptions. Others say it forces the DM to pay close attention to the players' action to avoid no win situations when either the players or DMs prefer there not to be.

So what do you think? Should multiple immunities be an aspect of higher level play?

 

[KidSnide]

Immunities should be a part of high level play, but they should be limited to "change of pace" opponents where the immunity is an unusual characteristics of that type of enemy. They shouldn't be a standard part of most high level opponents. The faerie prince is a good example of a unique opponent, but the average powerful demon shouldn't have that kind of ability.

-KS

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think those kind of absolutes are critical to high-level play. So much of that superhero style is about determining when one character or one tactic is useless and having to figure out alternatives.

I just think it's important that such capabilities be innate to a character/creature. I hate the arms race of Finger of Death v. Death Ward and the like.

 

[Dausuul]

First of all, I think it's worth dividing damage/effect types into "primary" and "secondary" categories. "Primary" is stuff where you can reasonably expect it to work in all but a tiny handful of situations: Weapon damage, fire, etc. "Secondary" is stuff that large classes of monsters are immune to: Poison, knockdown, fear, etc.

The idea is that PCs can specialize in a single primary effect type, without fear of being rendered useless by immunities and high resistances. A fighter specializes in weapon damage. A pyromancer specializes in fire. A "laser cleric," radiant. Once in a blue moon, you maybe encounter a monster that resists your particular shtick, but it should be a very unusual event. Flat-out immunity to these things should be truly extraordinary. (For instance, the only monster I can think of that deserves total immunity to fire is a fire elemental, and that only because it's literally made of the stuff.)

Secondary effect types, you might pick up as a bonus or a backup, but you don't expect them to work on everything. An assassin could be an expert with poisons, but when you're facing a tomb full of undead, you break out some other weapons. A fighter might be skilled at trip attacks, but that doesn't help versus a gelatinous cube or a beholder.

Finally, I really really do not want to see the return of feats and abilities that give you a blanket ability to ignore immunity. For instance, 4E has a feat that lets assassins ignore poison immunity. This should not be. True immunity is an innate trait, not a shield that can be disabled. Undead are immune to poison, not because they have a special protective ability, but because poison works by interfering with life processes and the undead don't have any! Some substances may harm them (holy water, salt, whatever), but they aren't poisons. A dark cleric can't protect her zombies from holy water by casting neutralize poison on them.

 

[KidSnide]

Finally, I really really do not want to see the return of feats and abilities that give you a blanket ability to ignore immunity. For instance, 4E has a feat that lets assassins ignore poison immunity. This should not be. True immunity is an innate trait, not a shield that can be disabled. Undead are immune to poison, not because they have a special protective ability, but because poison works by interfering with life processes and the undead don't have any! Some substances may harm them (holy water, salt, whatever), but they aren't poisons. A dark cleric can't protect her zombies from holy water by casting neutralize poison on them.

Well, this is really about the question of whether characters should be directed towards single types of damage. If your character concept is a total poison master and immunity to poison is a major part of the game, then the game has to decide whether they are going to live with that "flaw" as a major part of the character concept or whether the game is going to rescue the character. Certainly, 3.x rogues became a lot less useful in campaigns dominated by the undead (or constructs/oozes, I suppose). Sorcerers that focus on a particular energy type are in a similar situation.

Personally, I think the right thing to do is to give those characters a way of working around their specialization, so they are less effective, but not totally ineffective. For example, a good rogue feat/ability would be one that traded a die or two of damage for the ability to apply sneak attack to otherwise immune to damage. Or, the assassin example should have a way to trade a couple points of damage for an attack that deals poison and acid damage.

The alternative (a part of 4e and D&DN) is to focus more on resistances than immunities. I think it would be a good idea for the rogue's sneak attack to do "precision" damage, and then seed the world with creatures that are resistant or vulnerable to that kind of damage. (Maybe a vampire is generally resistant to precision damage, but vulnerable to precision damage with an otherwise non-magical and less effective stake?)

-KS

 

[keterys]

Less resistance. A lot less immunity. I'm okay with it in hyper-specific circumstances.

No Mind Blank, Death Ward, Energy Immunity, etc.

Similarly, relative safety in playing a cold mage without finding out that skeletons, wraiths, half the oozes, etc are immune to cold, and almost everything born off the prime being resistant.

 

[tlantl]

I really hope this version of the game doesn't force players to carry around four or five different versions of their favorite weapon just to be effective against the different creatures they will likely run into.

I don't mind creatures being immune to some spells or effects, or being resistant to certain attacks, but massive damage reductions to everything except for the one type of metal or enchanted silk cloth of windigo dispelling is frustrating for players and frustrating for me as a DM designing adventures and giving treasure.

I really dislike the immunities the elf and dwarf are given in the play test materials. Traditionally these are resistances not immunities.

At one time the gnome and halfling had the same resistances to toxic substances as the dwarf. Why are they not given this immunity?

 

[Dausuul]

Well, this is really about the question of whether characters should be directed towards single types of damage. If your character concept is a total poison master and immunity to poison is a major part of the game, then the game has to decide whether they are going to live with that "flaw" as a major part of the character concept or whether the game is going to rescue the character. Certainly, 3.x rogues became a lot less useful in campaigns dominated by the undead (or constructs/oozes, I suppose). Sorcerers that focus on a particular energy type are in a similar situation.

That's why I proposed having "primary" versus "secondary" effect types. Characters should be able to specialize in "primary" effects and not have to worry about immunities 99% of the time. (And I am okay with feats and abilities that let you bypass resistance; just not flat-out immunity.)

Take fire, that perennial blaster-caster favorite. How many creatures are there that really need true fire immunity? Resistance, okay, but anything made of flesh should burn if you make it hot enough; a red dragon or a fire giant may be able to shrug off ordinary flame, but plunge them into lava and it's another story. Iron golems and animate statues can be melted. The only creature I can think of that has a strong case for immunity to fire is a fire elemental.

As for sneak attack and the like, that's just weapon damage. If you can kill something with a sword, you can kill it with a sword, and some hits are always going to be more effective than others. There really is no reason to throw around sneak attack immunity like 3E does.

On the other hand, some effects just should not affect large classes of creatures, and poison is a good example. In cases like that, I think the thing to do is strongly discourage specializing in poison to the exclusion of all else. The assassin class may get awesome poison abilities, but you should also have a sturdy weapon-damage attack for the enemies that just don't care what you smear on your arrowheads.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Similarly, relative safety in playing a cold mage without finding out that skeletons, wraiths, half the oozes, etc are immune to cold, and almost everything born off the prime being resistant.

I'd actually beg to differ here. I'm not sure what edition you're playing that "cold mage" is suggested as a viable option; most spellcasters get a broad array of different elemental attacks they can choose, and choosing the appropriate one is a part of the challenge of playing a caster.

I'm okay with fairly broad resistances WHEN they are thematically appropriate. The OP's fey prince example sounded great; the pit fiend example, though, sounded off to me. Fire, sure, but why is he immune to cold, poison, and acid?

That said, immunities to the most basic damage types (weapon, divine/"radiant," force/magic missile) should be very rare and specialized. Having werewolves that are resistant to non-silver weapons might be a good opportunity to vary up the game; having them immune, however, is just annoying.

Temporary resistances and immunities to specific elements should be a possibility too, with good abjuration spells; weapon resistance or immunity, however, should be restricted to monsters.

One more point: I forget what 4e did, but I hope they don't do the 3e thing where any magic weapon is automatically considered silver AND cold iron AND every other specialty metal for immunity/resistance purposes. I don't care how badass my +3 maul of destruction is, if it ain't cold iron, it shouldn't hurt the fey prince.

 

[pemerton]

An imp might be resistant to fire and poison and a grig might take half damage from weapons not made of cold iron. A pit fiend cold be immune to fire, poison, cold, and acid. A fey prince might take zero weapon damage unless the weapon it cold iron.

This would raise the importance of the damage types, school, and effects of weapons, spells, and items.

<snip>

Of course it is not all good like any idea. This might encourage the return of golf bag fighters

One way to do that is to focus on vulnerabilities rather than immunities. So anyone can hit the fey prince, but a hit from the right sort of material does extra damage, or negates regeneration, or whatever exactly might be. This makes diverse damage types, effects etc matter without incentivising the golf bag.