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

[bgaesop]

That is not the case. The breath of a dragon is more damaging than a campfire because it is hotter, not because there is more force behind it (otherwise it would deal bludgeoning damage).

The firehose harms a person because of pressure, not because the water is more watery.

Not everything is spelled out completely. Making breath weapons deal bludgeoning doesn't accomplish anything that removing immunities doesn't do better.

Who hasn't seen a picture of a dragon blowing up a building or a fireball blasting a door off its hinges?

 

[FourthBear]

That is not the case. The breath of a dragon is more damaging than a campfire because it is hotter, not because there is more force behind it (otherwise it would deal bludgeoning damage).

Now that I think about it, there's another way to explain dragon breath/fire resistance issues. Perhaps maximum heat of the flames is not reached at the dragon's mouth, but at the desired point of attack. With flames, the hottest point is almost never at the base of the flames. This could be magically exaggerated such that the flames in the mouth are only similar to that of a normal fire, but become much hotter at a distance to the dragon.

 

[The Little Raven]

Poison is not a good example as its not really an "element".

Snakes are not immune to poison, yet their body produces it. According to your "dragons can't breathe fire without being immune" argument, this would be impossible.

Likewise the Bombadier beetles use chemicals and not actual fire. They also don't spit this out of their mouths.

Maybe you missed the part where the combination of chemicals reaches the boiling point. That's heat, buddy. You do know that heat is a big part of what makes fire so dangerous, right? And yeah, they don't spit it out of their mouths... but they still excrete it from their body and suffer from it's effects when it touches anything but the excretion point.

Oh, and fire is a chemical reaction.

Only the electric eel example fits into this discussion (as much as a real world discussion can fit into a D&D one). Now the question is can electric eels shock each other? How much electricity is needed to electrocute one?

Yes, they can be electrocuted. How much depends on the age, size, and all those factors, because 4/5ths of their organs are used to generate electricity. That's probably enough to simulate energy resistance in D&D, but not immunity.

 

[bgaesop]

The human body is not designed to expel this acid or even surround itself with it. If it would you can bet that we would be quite a lot more resistent to this kind of acid than now (when humans could create a "aura of acid" as some dragons can this protective layer would cover the whole body).

So maybe they're resistant to fire enough that they won't hurt themselves, but they aren't immune to it?

Twelve Gods, this is what we've been saying all along!

I can understand not wanting to make elementals resistant instead of immune given that they are made of the substance, that really just comes down to a flavour preference. But dragons I really don't get.

 

[Derren]

So maybe they're resistant to fire enough that they won't hurt themselves, but they aren't immune to it?

Twelve Gods, this is what we've been saying all along!

I can understand not wanting to make elementals resistant instead of immune given that they are made of the substance, that really just comes down to a flavour preference. But dragons I really don't get.

And I still say its silly, especially as the 4E dragons seem to be even more closely linked to their elements than now.
Also look at the mechanical side? Why give dragons high resistantces instead of immunities? Fighting them with that element would still be a very stupid move. So whats the reason besides giving people which are unable to build effective characters (only use one energy type) the illusion of usefulness?
I know that there is a quite large movement going on which wants to remove magic from dragons (and apparently many other monsters) but you likely know by now that I am against this movement. D&D is a magical world so it makes no sense to remove things so that they are more scientific.

 

[The Little Raven]

I know that there is a quite large movement going on which wants to remove magic from dragons (and apparently many other monsters) but you likely know by now that I am against this movement. D&D is a magical world so it makes no sense to remove things so that they are more scientific.

Do you enjoy misframing people's arguments?

It's not removing MAGIC, since breathing fire is pretty damned magical. It's removing class-based spellcaster which was just grafted on in 3e, partly because of the whole "dragon blood sorcerer" thing. It's unlike dragons in 90% of the fiction they appear in, and they honest don't need it.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Oh, I forgot something. According to the dragon combat report dragons can also surround them with a aura of energy (fire in the case of a read dragon), so its not only the mouth which needs to be protected against fire.

I have an electric stove. When I turn it on, it gets quite hot. There are no flames. This does not prevent it from burning someone. Flames are a visual phenomenon and are almost completely unrelated to heat, which is dangerous. Similarly, despite the fact that it produces and emits heat in all directions, the stove will still melt if subjected to sufficient heat.

Everything has a breaking point. There is no such thing as an unstoppable force nor an immovable object. Immunities are the unreasonable concept, not resistances.

 

[The Little Raven]

And if a dragon needs fire resistance in order to create an obviously magical aura of fire, or breathe an obviously magic gout of flame (or lightning), then why doesn't a wizard need fire/electricity/acid/cold resistance when casting burning hands, shocking grasp/lightning bolt, Melf's acid arrow, or cone of cold?

All of these spells originate from your hand, which isn't designed to be shooting out things like that. If magic can explain why a human can do it, then magic damn well explains why a dragon can do it, and arguing otherwise is just silly.

 

[GreatLemur]

Lets ask it that way. If spit would be dangerous to humans, would you still live even though no one did spit upon you? Certainly not as your entire mouth is filled with that stuff.

My stomach is full of hot acid. It's capable of dissolving even tooth enamel, given prolonged exposure. But my stomach has withstood thirty years of it.

 

[Derren]

Oh come on, just look at this argument. How many people tried to explain dragons having resistance to elements with real life scientific examples.

Dragons being immune to fire (or other elements) is the more magical explanation. You can't explain it with science but instead have to say that dragons are so closely tied to this element that it won't harm them or similar explanations.
But many people where not satisfied with that. They would prefer a more scientific explanation (again just look at this thread). Where is the magic in saying "Dragons are flesh and blood creatures and thus can be affected by all elements"?

Maybe saying "removing magic" invokes the wrong images. Let me rephrase that in "changing dragons more into brutes/beasts". That probably fits it better. Many people want to change, imo reduce, dragons into huge predators and nothing more.

Everything has a breaking point. There is no such thing as an unstoppable force nor an immovable object. Immunities are the unreasonable concept, not resistances.

Not when you use magic. But see above...