Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6843492" data-attributes="member: 22424">Huh. I didn't believe this when you first posted it, especially as the Basic rules don't have the example of the shield. However, I checked the DMG and you are indeed correct.(Though I'd still rule otherwise. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )It's only resistance, not immunity, so the fighter is not out of the fight. Sure, it sucks doing half damage, but that's still better than nothing.Besides, if the party want the fighter to be fully effective, they have a solution easily available to them: have the fighter attune to the mace. If they choose not to do that, then they're also choosing not to let him be fully effective.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 6843492, member: 22424"] Huh. I didn't believe this when you first posted it, especially as the Basic rules don't have the example of the shield. However, I checked the DMG and you are indeed correct. (Though I'd still rule otherwise. :) ) It's only resistance, not immunity, so the fighter is [i]not[/i] out of the fight. Sure, it sucks doing half damage, but that's still better than nothing. Besides, if the party want the fighter to be fully effective, they have a solution easily available to them: have the fighter attune to the mace. If they choose not to do that, then they're also choosing not to let him be fully effective. [/QUOTE]

Verification