Large red dragon mini with only 5 fire resist...

[TwinBahamut]

If you remember, I wasn't the one who started this argument about humans being immune to water/carbon.
But still when no amount of water can harm humans by contact with its skin, why can't the same be true for fire and red dragons or fire elementals?

You are not understanding the point of the argument. The goal of that whole argument is to show that a fire-breathing dragon having something other than total immunity is plausible, not to prove the impossibility of total immunity. I don't need to prove what you ask in order to prove my actual point.

Please, before continuing with this argument make a build of such a wizard in your mind.
It is nearly impossible to make a wizard or sorcerer whos only effective option in combat are fire spells because there simply aren't enough of those spells.

(@Mourn, hows your build coming along?)

The "best" chance for such a build would be a 5th level wizard whos only combat spells are burning hands, scorching flame and fireball and otherwise has only non combat spells in his spellbook. (Note, that just selecting only fire spells for this day does not count as he can change those spells easily after rest. To be really useless the spellbook must not contain any useful combat spell except fire ones).
And while this build would be rather useless against fire creatures (by now using a crossbow is a bad idea) imo this build is very unrealistic. And when you try this with any other energy type or level you won't succeed. Especially without splatbooks there simply are not enough non combat spells and attack spells of a single energy type to fill the whole spellbook (just spells for leveling) with them.
A wizard will always have a buff/debuf or battlefield control spell he could use in combat when his main attack spells don't work.

I am talking about 4E here, not 3E, so a 3E build will not be well suited for this discussion. It is hard to make a build with a system we don't know fully, but in the Wizards and Wizard Implements article on the WotC website, it describes how each of the new Wizard traditions is built around very specific things. One mentioned is the Hidden Flame tradition, in which wizards "wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves." As such, wizards in 4E can be something very close to Fire-Specialist wizard, whose fire spells are much stronger than any other spell they can cast. Also, there are some hints that wizards will no longer be able to choose spells per day, so each spell choice will be much more important, much like how it is for a sorcerer. As such, I think it is entirely plausible to have a wizard who has chosen almost nothing but fire-elemental attack spells in 4E.

Immunities are stylish, resistances are not (see the mentioned dragon entry)

Just repeating your argument is not a very good way to defend it when it is challenged... I can't even think of a way to continue this line of discussion now...

And I think that anything which keeps D&D lore consistent is better for worldbuilding than something which moves the game away from its roots.
Thats also why I think Mounrs "as long as it does not affect the encounter" argument very silly as that is the most inconsistent thing that can happen.

We have nothing but pure disagreement here, at the level of basic postulates. No further meaningful discussion can be made regarding these points, I suppose. Either someone would agree with one our beliefs or not.

 

[frankthedm]

]

I think resist 5 is low for a dragon, but of course we're viewing it all out of context. We don't really know how old that dragon's supposed to be...

Low enough to start this thread. I was surprised TBH. Age wise. it is the youngest in the MM IIRC.

I think that immunities have got to go for normal, flesh-based monsters and maybe for all monsters. Even elementals could be modeled better on resistance. Like the other players said, it might just be that too hot of a fire overpowers weaker elementals, while tougher ones laugh it off.

That I agree with. And yes that is very anime...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEu8hvekSA4 {warning, dubbing is bad]

 

[pemerton]

WotC will have to do a complete rewrite of the draconomicon physiology for the new edition.

<snip fantasy biology>

W&M makes it very clear that the designers are trying to move away from realworld physics and chemistry, to have a greater degree of the fantastic and magical infusing the setting.

As a result, I don't think the game will explain dragon breath as being a larger and more dangerous version of the heat-spraying beatle.

I quite like this approach, although it does raise mechanical questions, like the effect of Dispel Magic spells: these may have to become expressly Dispel Spell or Dispel Magic Item, so that they don't affect more diffuse/inherent magic like that which holds a dragon aloft.

I also suspect (based on old design-&-development columns) that anti-magic will be gone.

 

[pemerton]

Roleplaying its not about kicking in the door, kill things and take loot. Its about the decision of the players and the consequences. And if one of those decisions is to knowingly make a character which is completely useless in a specific situation then so be it. Then the player has to cope with the consequences of building the character this way.

<snip>

In my my entire time I have never seen a character which was completely useless just because the enemies were immune to a energy type. Imo you need to actually work hard to make a character this bad and when indeed a player makes such a character on purpose I call this weakness "roleplaying potential".

If the character build rules for the game would allow players to build energy-wielding character that are too strong, unless from time to time they become completely nerfed by immunities, then the character build rules are flawed.

Conversely, if the energy-wielding characters are not too strong, then when they get nerfed by immunities then they are (temporarily) too weak (or, at best, at the weaker end of balanced).

I suspect that on the whole the second is true in D&D (it's a bit like Rogues and sneak attack, as has been done to death on other threads).

So the question becomes, is there a good reasons from tradition or verisimilitude or other game play considerations to keep immunities in it, even at the cost of the occasional nerf? It's not clear to me that there is - it depends on whether energy-wielding characters are able to have a good suite of combat abilities to use that does not involve wielding their energy. And in D&D they probably don't.

Btw, wrt tradition:

Immunities are stylish, resistances are not

<snip>

anything which keeps D&D lore consistent is better for worldbuilding than something which moves the game away from its roots.

Then you should approve of 4e: it is going back to 1st ed AD&D roots, in which red dragons did not have fire immunity, but only -1 per die of damage. (Fire Giants and I think Hell Hounds did have full immunity, however - and people wonder why 1st ed sometimes gets bad press!)

 

[mach1.9pants]

W&M makes it very clear that the designers are trying to move away from realworld physics and chemistry, to have a greater degree of the fantastic and magical infusing the setting.

Ohh, still waiting for it from USofA. We get rubbish support of RPGs in bookshops here
I only mentioned as a point of interest, as I've got the book.

I quite like this approach, although it does raise mechanical questions, like the effect of Dispel Magic spells: these may have to become expressly Dispel Spell or Dispel Magic Item, so that they don't affect more diffuse/inherent magic like that which holds a dragon aloft.

Agreed, magic for the breath weapon and flight and stuff actually makes more sense than quasi-science. I've never liked anti magic or (the massive blanket effects of) dispel magic. I hope you're right about their demise/nerf/modification

 

[pemerton]

Ohh, still waiting for it from USofA. We get rubbish support of RPGs in bookshops here

You're in NZ? I'm in Australia (Melbourne). I picked it up on Saturday (19th) but I don't know how long it had been in the shop for.