Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4002136" data-attributes="member: 32536">Ugh, please don't bring the "videogames are a bad influence" thing into this discussion, especially when you are not even making sense... I can name many videogames which are at the complete opposite of the spectrum from "100% effective all of the time". In fact, pretty much every videogame RPG I have ever seen is much more about "the enemy will be healed by 3 out of 4 elements rather than hurt, has no weaknesses, and all of our special effect spells are completely useless!" instead of "100% effective all the time".Just because you dislike a mentality does not mean it comes from videogames.Anyways... back to the main discussion.Considering you made this comment in response to my post, I will claim that you either ignoring other people's arguments or just not reading them or making an effort to understand them.The part of my post you quoted and responded to was just a few random musings based on the arguments others have made in this thread. I agree with the basic argument that is being made, that "creatures in the real world can only tolerate any particular substance or temperature within certain physical boundaries and limits, so it is a plausible explanation for dragons not being totally immune to an energy type". I don't think you have made any kind of satisfactory rebuttal to that argument, but I don't think you will make any more of one than you already have, so I will ignore it for now.Also in the post you quoted, I made an entirely new argument which can be summed up as "In many works of fiction, a creature can be harmed by its own breath weapon or equivalent. As such, it is perfectly fine if a dragon can be killed by its own breath weapon, so giving it total immunity is not necessary." I consider this argument to the main point of my last post, compared to the random musings that you happened to quote.Please clarify how my (unquoted) argument falls under either of the so called "only arguments" you claimed to see in this thread. I can't possibly see how it does. As such, your claim that we are just reusing two arguments in this thread is defeated by the very post you quoted at the time you made the claim.Anyways, if you want a "mechanical" reason, then you need to be much more clear about what you exactly mean. At the very least, I think you should provide a "mechanical" reason to give creatures immunities in the first place, and let us offer a rebuttal.However, to go with you request, I think I will just claim "giving whole categories of creatures an immunity to a whole category of effect can very easily result in whole adventures and campaigns in which a PC can not contribute to a battle, which is not fun". For example, a Wizard of the Hidden Flame discipline under the new rules is presumably designed to be a great fire mage, and I bet it would be logical for him to take a lot of fire-based powers (which he presumably can't just switch around on a whim). If the campaign he was playing in suddenly took a turn towards a long series of adventures fighting against a kingdom of Fire Giants, it would be bad for the Wizard of they were all immune to fire. His main abilities would be completely useless for weeks of gameplay.</blockquote>

Verification