Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8584366" data-attributes="member: 6790260">That...would seem to be even less representation than the MMs. Based on what sources are available to me (which are reasonably comprehensive), as far as I can tell there are less than two dozen monsters in all of 5e that have only partial physical resistances (that is, they resist at least one of those three types, and do not resist at least one of the other two)--and that's counting unique named creatures that are just copying the base form (e.g. there's apparently a flaming skull NPC of some kind, that inherits those characteristics).To be represented in all of one class seems even less relevant than it would otherwise be. You'd have gotten better results from citing the fact that a large number of spells do at least one of those types of damage. Meaning...spellcasters are now more deeply-invested in the physical damage types than melee characters are. Yet another case of &quot;if you want to do it right, be a spellcaster,&quot; le sigh.The bigger problem, of course, is that attuning a magic item only to get resistance to one damage type is a huge waste. Like, you've shown that the limit is present, but because of that limit, almost no one is going to seek out that benefit. There are dramatically better benefits than &quot;maybe taking less damage some of the time.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8584366, member: 6790260"] That...would seem to be even less representation than the MMs. Based on what sources are available to me (which are reasonably comprehensive), as far as I can tell there are less than two dozen monsters in all of 5e that have only partial physical resistances (that is, they resist at least one of those three types, and do not resist at least one of the other two)--and that's counting unique named creatures that are just copying the base form (e.g. there's apparently a flaming skull NPC of some kind, that inherits those characteristics). To be represented in all of [I]one[/I] class seems even less relevant than it would otherwise be. You'd have gotten better results from citing the fact that a large number of [I]spells[/I] do at least one of those types of damage. Meaning...spellcasters are now more deeply-invested in the [I]physical[/I] damage types than melee characters are. Yet another case of "if you want to do it right, be a spellcaster," le sigh. The bigger problem, of course, is that attuning a magic item only to get resistance to one damage type is [I]a huge waste[/I]. Like, you've shown that the limit is present, but because of that limit, almost no one is going to seek out that benefit. There are [I]dramatically[/I] better benefits than "maybe taking less damage some of the time." [/QUOTE]

Verification