D&D 5E Rethinking immunities & resistance

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't know what you expect to gain by allowing fire wizards to burn fire elementals to death, other than generating a story that doesn't follow genre conventions and making players doubt everything they thought they knew about how elements work.

 

[Lost Soul]

This idea sounds like it would work for a player who is into participation trophies. Sorry but all tools are not fit for purpose and that is how it should be.

So then you would be fine with monsters having broad immunity to sneak attack a la third edition? Would it also be ok for martial characters to run into monsters with immunity to normal weapons fairly regularly?

 

[Lost Soul]

I don't know what you expect to gain by allowing fire wizards to burn fire elementals to death, other than generating a story that doesn't follow genre conventions and making players doubt everything they thought they knew about how elements work.

Fire is often used to fight fire by depriving it of oxygen. In 4rth edition they had the pyromancer and storm sorcerer who could breach their respective immunities. How is that more ridiculous than a sword of sharpness chopping through solid blocks of stone?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Fire is often used to fight fire by depriving it of oxygen. In 4rth edition they had the pyromancer and storm sorcerer who could breach their respective immunities. How is that more ridiculous than a sword of sharpness chopping through solid blocks of stone?

An impossibly-sharp sword makes sense to cut through a mundanely-hard stone. That's standard convention for sharp swords in any genre.

Fire isn't used to fight fire by smothering it; it's used to fight fire through oxygen-deprivation, as you say. It doesn't make any sense that you could hurt the fire by increasing the heat against it, and it makes even less sense when you're talking about magical fire that doesn't necessarily need oxygen to burn in the first place. That such things may have existed in 4E is only one more mark against 4E, which had long since discarded internal consistency or genre consistency for the sake of game balance.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So then you would be fine with monsters having broad immunity to sneak attack a la third edition? Would it also be ok for martial characters to run into monsters with immunity to normal weapons fairly regularly?

What creatures are immune to sneak attack in 5e?

And the number of creatures immune to non-magical weapons is pretty slim, and mostly higher level -- and almost all of those have a secondary weakness like silver or adamantium. So either the party has access to magic weapons (or spells to make weapons magic) or access to the secondary weakness. It's up to the DM to foreshadow these kinds of creatures if the party doesn't already have the necessary equipment to handle them.

 

[Ganymede81]

I really don't see how having a player roll his handful of damage dice twice is more elegant than simply halving the damage.

 

[Lost Soul]

What creatures are immune to sneak attack in 5e?

And the number of creatures immune to non-magical weapons is pretty slim, and mostly higher level -- and almost all of those have a secondary weakness like silver or adamantium. So either the party has access to magic weapons (or spells to make weapons magic) or access to the secondary weakness. It's up to the DM to foreshadow these kinds of creatures if the party doesn't already have the necessary equipment to handle them.

In 3E undead, golems, oozes & elementals were all immune to sneak attack. You are saying you would be ok if those immunities were carried over to 5E? There is a reason they weren't and that is the designers felt that it really ruined the fun for rogues. Rogues could still attack and do weapon damage but most players complained that they were losing too much of their characters. Why should casters be treated any differently?

 

[Lost Soul]

An impossibly-sharp sword makes sense to cut through a mundanely-hard stone. That's standard convention for sharp swords in any genre.

Fire isn't used to fight fire by smothering it; it's used to fight fire through oxygen-deprivation, as you say. It doesn't make any sense that you could hurt the fire by increasing the heat against it, and it makes even less sense when you're talking about magical fire that doesn't necessarily need oxygen to burn in the first place. That such things may have existed in 4E is only one more mark against 4E, which had long since discarded internal consistency or genre consistency for the sake of game balance.

A stone yes. A thick stone wall. Absolutely not. Same principal applies for not using your super sharp steak knife on a stick of butter. The butter is too thick and will cause your steak knife to bind.

Magical fire should be more dangerous than normal fire. A fireball is magical fire and burns extremely hot! I can easily see how it could overheat a fire elemental and cause it to burn out. Any fire can be burnt out and fire elementals cannot cross water and water elementals cannot cross fire. If that reasoning exists than the oxygen deprivation has to work on some level. If you house rule that fire elementals function fine whether in the depths of the ocean or the plane of elemental water that is your game but my argument had little to do with elemental immunities and more with devils and demons.

Also, how the heck do you sneak attack or damage a creature composed of fire with a metal blade? If a metal blade can effect a creature composed of fire than it is has to be a plasma creature instead of a pure fire creature and the fireball could definitely be hot enough to disprupt the plasma field holding the fire creature together.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A stone yes. A thick stone wall. Absolutely not. Same principal applies for not using your super sharp steak knife on a stick of butter. The butter is too thick and will cause your steak knife to bind.

I've seen a katana cut a golem in half before. I've seen one cut through an airplane, engine block and all. This is standard convention for impossibly sharp swords, seen in countless shows and video games.

The only time I've ever seen a fire elemental that was remotely susceptible to fire magic, it was in World of Warcraft, and there was significant critical backlash about how ridiculous it was (which was subsequently ignored, as those players moved on to other games). The normal, expected effect of heating up a fire elemental is nothing; or, depending on the game, it might be healed. Regardless of what rationalization you try to apply here, it simply doesn't conform to the standard fantasy logic that everyone expects, and in deviating from that it hurts immersion as players have to second guess what they always thought they knew.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it, if you really care more about game balance and you don't want your pyromancers to end up not contributing for an encounter, but be sure that you know your audience before you include such changes at your table.

 

[Eubani]

So then you would be fine with monsters having broad immunity to sneak attack a la third edition? Would it also be ok for martial characters to run into monsters with immunity to normal weapons fairly regularly?

It's ok for resistances and immunities to appear where and when it makes sense for them to, such creatures appear mostly based on story and location.