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="Derren" data-source="post: 4002210" data-attributes="member: 2518">I still want to hear an explanation how water hurts a human (no ingestion, no drowning. Just pure contact as this is how most energy spells work). as energy in the real world works completely different than in D&D I guess you won't find a example for it.Anyway, "air in the bloodstream" and similar things is not a valid argument in my opinion as it works on a complete different way than energy spell (messing up ones body functions).And I consider such real world mythology examples not valid. By now D&D has its own mythology and in that dragons can't hurt themselves with their breath weapon and fireballing fire elementals is a very bad idea.As I said, giving players who build bad PCs the illusion of usefulness. It doesn't matter if you do no damage at all or a small fraction of your normal damage. When you balance the game you have to assume that the players do full damage, especially as energy resistance is so easy to bypass.I am against this trend of "every build, no matter how bad, must be viable". When a player builds a wizard which only uses one energy type (which is quite hard to do), fully knowing that there are fire immune creatures out there, then he deserves to suck when he encounters them.Fire immunity is simply more stylish, traditional and (don't really know how to say this) better for world building as damaging fire creatures with fire (or fire creatures burning themselves) is very silly.And imo those things weight more than giving players with bad build the illusion that they actually contribute to the combat when in reality they would be more useful when they would use other abilities they have. That way they will never learn how to be effective combatants.</blockquote>

Verification