D&D 5E Vulnerability And Resistance

[Dausuul]

D&D isn't going to perfectly simulate the world for NPCs. It's rules strictly for adventurers, and that's it. You don't need to deal with all this stuff in the rules. That is how you get too many rules for what's supposed to be a relatively easy-to-learn role playing game.

Fine. Substitute "1st-level wizard" for "1st-level commoner." The problem is the same. It's not just adamantine doors--the wizard can dig out of, or into, a prison cell; can dig through a castle or a dungeon wall; you name it.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The rules for these are:

Resistance. If a target has resistance to a type of damage, that damage is halved against the target.

Vulnerability. If a target has vulnerability to a type of damage, that damage is doubled against the target.

I see plenty of monsters with them. What do people thing of how this part of the system is working?

I like it. It's far better IMO than damage reduction. It's simple, easy and intuitive. It also a carrot rather than a stick. A player has an incentive to use the right kind of attack or weapon against a certain monster, but he's not totally useless if he doesn't. Too often with damage reduction characters could have their damage lowered to zero. At least with resistance they get to do half damage.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I do not agree, I do not think that section is right. I think that pretty much everything is destroyed in a room when a fireball goes off. I also think DC 10 STR check is too small to break down a door.

Also, even an adamantine door with resistance to all damage types. It is too easy to plink away at and destroy. Say with a infinite cantrip. Even with half damage it will still likely do 1 or more damage per round and that means maximally only 120 rounds and you have destroyed an adamantine door with a level 0 plink spell. Problem is no threshold for damage. I think this makes the game more complex, and I think there is a solid reason to not want it in the game, however I think there can be some unreal scenarios of weak things taking out tough stuff.

I have no problem with objects (and only objects) having damage reduction (i.e. hardness). I think they should. It's when monsters have DR that I don't like it.

 

[Sadrik]

D&D isn't going to perfectly simulate the world for NPCs. It's rules strictly for adventurers, and that's it. You don't need to deal with all this stuff in the rules. That is how you get too many rules for what's supposed to be a relatively easy-to-learn role playing game.

I agree with you, closet case rules is not such a good thing. When you open the door too wide on them you wind up with a bucket of closet case rules that overall make the game more complex.

I would like to see the game take this football and deal with it in a very good way rather than make this a closet case bring it into the game own it. It is a fundamental concern about damaging things (including some creatures). Some things should not take damage very easily and simply shrug it off. I will not dictate how the designers do that but there are many way it can be done. Resistance and immunity only go so far in these cases. I can envision creatures with traits that provide damage protection too.

At least they took out intoxicated DR1d6.

 

[Philousk]

There are not that Adamantine as special materials and requires special treatment when it is damaged: Iron Cold, Mithral, Alchemical silver and so on ...


This leads me to think that there will sooner or later more details to come. In fact, it is as Asmodeus: Archdevils , Where are the others?

D&D isn't going to perfectly simulate the world for NPCs. It's rules strictly for adventurers, and that's it. You don't need to deal with all this stuff in the rules. That is how you get too many rules for what's supposed to be a relatively easy-to-learn role playing game.

To this point, I do not totally agree with you, DDnext is supposed to have three approaches to be able to play: Set basic, standard and advanced game play to suit all playing styles, both light and complex. In this case, the designers could spread the GM into three sections and this rule may be found in either the standard or advanced section.

 

[TheTurboTornado]

I attacked my 2nd level party with a couple of Wights last night. As they only had one magic sword amongst them (and a wizard), the resistance to non-magical damage was frequent. It really worked well to demonstrate resistance. I had fun describing how their desiccated, sinewy flesh pushed back against their weapons when hit...except when the magic sword struck, which sank deep without resistance.

That was exactly how I taught my players what magical weapons do, exept with a grick instead of wights. Even the thick flesh description.

 

[Sunseeker]

I quite like it and I try to include it on my custom monsters. I particularly like the idea that powerful creatures have some particular weakness that the players can take advantage of. I like the simplicity of the feature but I do agree that there's a certain amount of granularity it is missing. Fortunately, sticking 5, 20 or a million on the end of it to make it "Vulnerable Radiant 20" or "Resistance Fire 15" is not complicated in the slightest and can easily be added when needed.

 

[Beleriphon]

My solution would be to have a "fortified" trait for objects. Fortified objects are things like stone or metal doors and walls, and are immune to all forms of damage except "siege" damage. Weapons of Huge size and natural attacks from Huge creatures are considered siege damage by default; other attacks may be given the siege trait on a case-by-case basis (e.g., dragonfire, disintegrate spells, et cetera). It's simple to apply and easy to understand, and it solves the problem nicely. It also provides DMs with some interesting options for combat; for instance, a stone golem that's fortified would force the party to come up with some creative solutions.

That's not a bad way to do it. There is a precedent for extra or specific damage to objects. The Tarrasque for example does double damage to objects, like walls, or castles, or towns.

 

[Illithidbix]

Uh I think this is a Necro thread from deep into the playtest. (September 2013)

A lot of problems were *dealt with* by the Damage Threshold Mechanic from page 247 of the DMG.

Personally I mostly prefer to keep objects and enviromental as narrative description, to avoid DerpPhysics.

 

[Horwath]

I like vulnerability(double damage) and immunity(no damage) for creatures.

but resistance(50%) is just too binary for my taste. Sure, keep it for some stuff, but I liked fixed resistance/DR/hardness more.
yes it's simpler but I would like to see resistance back, but not in high values to make stuff useless, maybe max 10 to certain stuff.