D&D 5E Rethinking immunities & resistance

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

I am saying that, yes. I mean, I haven't said it yet in this thread, but I very much agree with the sentiment. It just makes sense that a character who specializes in exploiting weak spots would have some trouble when fighting a monster that doesn't have any weak spots. That's the price you pay for specializing.

Notably, both immunity to sneak attack and immunity to spells* (as per old golem design) were removed in 4E, when they started taking their design cues from MMOs. Under this design paradigm, characters were meant to be balanced over the course of each encounter (rather than averaging over the course of the day or the adventure), and balance was elevated to a primary concern. By all rights, given that 5E has shifted the design balance back to three pillars and the adventuring day (and away from just combat encounters), these concessions to balance should no longer be necessary. Alas, it is not so easy to put the genie back into the bottle.

Really, spell immunity is what this thread should be about, except they've already removed that from every monster in this edition aside from the Helmed Horror. If your wizard or sorcerer encounters a fire elemental that's immune to your fire spells, then it really shouldn't be a big deal, since you can just cast a different spell.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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?

Ah, I get where you're coming from now. The needless confrontational approach disguised your thrust. You'd have been better off just saying that you think that many creatures being fire immune is similar to how many creatures were immune to sneak attack in 3e, instead of putting those words in my mouth and then arguing at me about them.

It's not a bad point. I think that casters have a number of tricks up their sleeve that allow ways to be effective without blasting fire at fire, but if your DM is constantly putting fire immune creatures in front of your fire focused caster, I can understand the frustration. As a general case, I think your point is weak with regard to the existence of energy-type immune creatures primarily because that this only really hurts narrowly focused casters and that's a clear player choice, not a system one. The comparison to sneak attack is initially interesting, but then you look at the fact that rogues can't sneak attack with a greatsword, and creatures that are resistant to b/p/s (even magic b/p/s) still hamper the rogues.

Long story short, you're not making a very sympathetic argument for the removal of energy-type immunity, either logically or rhetorically. The best way to address the issue of the narrowly focused caster is a different option they can invest in that will reduce the impact of immunity, like the feat modifications already presented here that allow a caster with the feat to step immunity/resistance down a notch.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I missed this, but ditto. Further, the common appearance of immune to you creatures is a function of your DM, not the game.

 

[jasper]

Lost Soul 1. Down with immunities and resistance. Just roll twice .
Clatter of dice…. Um 5 , 2, 5, 1, . Clatter of dice. 6, 1,1, 2,. That’s 23
Clatter of dice 4, 6, 7. Anyone see where my red and green went.
DM. On the floor again. And that 7 is really a 1. How many times have you been told to bring enough dice to the table. And readable dice.
Lost Soul. You can buy dice if you want. I don’t have the money.
Rolling twice amount of dice and hoping everyone remembers the totals. Neither simple, clean, nor elegant.
Lost Soul 2. Eliminate Immunity. The Devils in the MM are base on multiple lore including bad B movies and bad horror books. Dante only gift to d&d was the name of “nine layers of hell”. And I have seen few articles linking the two which will not erase other lore. Immunity means your go to spell has just flown the coop. Now I bet you are scared of what the monster will do to your pc.
…Fire is often used to fight fire by depriving it of oxygen…… What is this Oxygen? Fire, air, water, earth elemental? MOM MOM MOM Lost Soul is trying to get science on my D&D!
In 3E… We AIN’T Playing 3E, 3.5E, 4E, AD&D1. AD&D2, Basic D&D, we are playing 5E.
You posts read like you are upset that your one shot flavor spell caster is not doing uber damage against a sub type of monsters.

 

[Lost Soul]

I am saying that, yes. I mean, I haven't said it yet in this thread, but I very much agree with the sentiment. It just makes sense that a character who specializes in exploiting weak spots would have some trouble when fighting a monster that doesn't have any weak spots. That's the price you pay for specializing.

Notably, both immunity to sneak attack and immunity to spells* (as per old golem design) were removed in 4E, when they started taking their design cues from MMOs. Under this design paradigm, characters were meant to be balanced over the course of each encounter (rather than averaging over the course of the day or the adventure), and balance was elevated to a primary concern. By all rights, given that 5E has shifted the design balance back to three pillars and the adventuring day (and away from just combat encounters), these concessions to balance should no longer be necessary. Alas, it is not so easy to put the genie back into the bottle.

Really, spell immunity is what this thread should be about, except they've already removed that from every monster in this edition aside from the Helmed Horror. If your wizard or sorcerer encounters a fire elemental that's immune to your fire spells, then it really shouldn't be a big deal, since you can just cast a different spell.

Spell immunity is what this thread is about. I don't see why fire immunity or electrical immunity in the case of demons should stand. Its an archaic throw back which was somewhat justified when basic & 1rst Edition D&D allowed for 20D6 fireballs. Yeah I wouldn't want a group of monsters one shot due to a high damage roll so resistance to magical damage makes sense. It makes a whole heck of a lot less sense when a fireball does 8D6 which by far the weakest of any edition except 4rth and even then it probably is weaker than fourth if you a wizard done right with average damage rolls.

 

[Lost Soul]

Ah, I get where you're coming from now. The needless confrontational approach disguised your thrust. You'd have been better off just saying that you think that many creatures being fire immune is similar to how many creatures were immune to sneak attack in 3e, instead of putting those words in my mouth and then arguing at me about them.

It's not a bad point. I think that casters have a number of tricks up their sleeve that allow ways to be effective without blasting fire at fire, but if your DM is constantly putting fire immune creatures in front of your fire focused caster, I can understand the frustration. As a general case, I think your point is weak with regard to the existence of energy-type immune creatures primarily because that this only really hurts narrowly focused casters and that's a clear player choice, not a system one. The comparison to sneak attack is initially interesting, but then you look at the fact that rogues can't sneak attack with a greatsword, and creatures that are resistant to b/p/s (even magic b/p/s) still hamper the rogues.

Long story short, you're not making a very sympathetic argument for the removal of energy-type immunity, either logically or rhetorically. The best way to address the issue of the narrowly focused caster is a different option they can invest in that will reduce the impact of immunity, like the feat modifications already presented here that allow a caster with the feat to step immunity/resistance down a notch.

I am not hear to make a sympathetic argument as most of the boards are very biased in favor of martial characters. What I am trying to do is make you think of damage in a consistent manner. If you feel that it is not a stretch for a magic sword to damage a creature composed completely of fire when metal swords would do absolutely NO damage to a fire in real life it should not be a stretch to consider that MAGICAL fire could damage a fire based creature and that devils who would suffer horrible burns from MAGICAL fire. Fire should not be an optimal or even ok choice to use on these creatures but it should still be a choice. I am fine with resistance but I feel immunities are completely biased and I should not have to sacrifice my spell versatility to take enough damage spells to work in every single combat at every single spell level.

 

[Lost Soul]

Lost Soul 1. Down with immunities and resistance. Just roll twice .
Clatter of dice…. Um 5 , 2, 5, 1, . Clatter of dice. 6, 1,1, 2,. That’s 23
Clatter of dice 4, 6, 7. Anyone see where my red and green went.
DM. On the floor again. And that 7 is really a 1. How many times have you been told to bring enough dice to the table. And readable dice.
Lost Soul. You can buy dice if you want. I don’t have the money.
Rolling twice amount of dice and hoping everyone remembers the totals. Neither simple, clean, nor elegant.
Lost Soul 2. Eliminate Immunity. The Devils in the MM are base on multiple lore including bad B movies and bad horror books. Dante only gift to d&d was the name of “nine layers of hell”. And I have seen few articles linking the two which will not erase other lore. Immunity means your go to spell has just flown the coop. Now I bet you are scared of what the monster will do to your pc.
…Fire is often used to fight fire by depriving it of oxygen…… What is this Oxygen? Fire, air, water, earth elemental? MOM MOM MOM Lost Soul is trying to get science on my D&D!
In 3E… We AIN’T Playing 3E, 3.5E, 4E, AD&D1. AD&D2, Basic D&D, we are playing 5E.
You posts read like you are upset that your one shot flavor spell caster is not doing uber damage against a sub type of monsters.

Wow Jasper, way to troll. You have no issue with a sword damaging fire but using FIRE to fight FIRE is one bridge too far! Besides you probably would run to your momma and cry instead of making a logical argument.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I am not hear to make a sympathetic argument as most of the boards are very biased in favor of martial characters. What I am trying to do is make you think of damage in a consistent manner. If you feel that it is not a stretch for a magic sword to damage a creature composed completely of fire when metal swords would do absolutely NO damage to a fire in real life it should not be a stretch to consider that MAGICAL fire could damage a fire based creature and that devils who would suffer horrible burns from MAGICAL fire.

I can only tell you what I've seen. In most cases, when encountering a monster made of living fire, the heroes need to think outside the box. Most resort to fighting fire with water. In video games, swords tend to work as well as anything else. Shadowrun says that you can't shoot a fire elemental, but any melee weapon (or unarmed combat) works well because it channels your living willpower, and that's the closest I've seen to an explanation for it. Fighting fire with fire has never been a thing in fantasy, though, as far as I can tell. That's just the accepted physics of magical fire monsters.

Fire should not be an optimal or even ok choice to use on these creatures but it should still be a choice. I am fine with resistance but I feel immunities are completely biased and I should not have to sacrifice my spell versatility to take enough damage spells to work in every single combat at every single spell level.

This isn't Pokemon GO where you can only know two attacks, and immunities are demoted to resistances since you would otherwise have no options. If a pyromancer encounters a fire elemental, then all you need is one spell or cantrip that isn't fire-based, and you're back to participating in the fight. If you aren't even willing to prepare a single option to deal with the inevitability of fighting a fire elemental, then you're being silly, just as much as a barbarian is silly for not owning a single ranged weapon.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am not hear to make a sympathetic argument as most of the boards are very biased in favor of martial characters. What I am trying to do is make you think of damage in a consistent manner. If you feel that it is not a stretch for a magic sword to damage a creature composed completely of fire when metal swords would do absolutely NO damage to a fire in real life it should not be a stretch to consider that MAGICAL fire could damage a fire based creature and that devils who would suffer horrible burns from MAGICAL fire. Fire should not be an optimal or even ok choice to use on these creatures but it should still be a choice. I am fine with resistance but I feel immunities are completely biased and I should not have to sacrifice my spell versatility to take enough damage spells to work in every single combat at every single spell level.

Your arguing for a lore change with a narrow mechanical benefit to a narrowly focused caster. It's not persuasive.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'd much rather see resistance revert to prior editions' "subtract a flat number from the damage" (which lets fire resistant creatures do things like sleep in hot coals, or cook food without utensils etc), and then remove immunity, replacing it instead with "really, really high resistance".

So sure: you CAN hurt that fire elemental with fire. But he's got enough fire resistance to comfortably have a bath in lava, so you're going to have to have a heck of a hot fire to do anything to him.