Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5978007" data-attributes="member: 58197">That's why I proposed having &quot;primary&quot; versus &quot;secondary&quot; effect types. Characters should be able to specialize in &quot;primary&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 5978007, member: 58197"] 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 [I]immunity[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification