Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5977761" data-attributes="member: 58197">First of all, I think it's worth dividing damage/effect types into &quot;primary&quot; and &quot;secondary&quot; categories. &quot;Primary&quot; is stuff where you can reasonably expect it to work in all but a tiny handful of situations: Weapon damage, fire, etc. &quot;Secondary&quot; 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 &quot;laser cleric,&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 5977761, member: 58197"] 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 [i]neutralize poison[/i] on them. [/QUOTE]

Verification