D&D 5E Vulnerability And Resistance

[Mistwell]

I wasn't meaning to question your maths. I was more trying to get across that to emulate classic D&D door-opening you need the STR bonus to scale at about double its current rate. This also goes some way (not all the way) to dealing with [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s concern.

Do you have a view on whether that would be good or bad?

I think the current system works fine as written. If they want to tweak the DC numbers slightly, that would be fine too. But no I do not think altering the strength bonus to scale at a different rate to deal with the incredibly minor issue of opening a stuck door would be a good idea. Simpler is better. Much, much better. So far the greatest strengths of 5e, to me, is that the rules don't get in the way of playing the game. Each addition of complexity takes away from that strength.

 

[Sadras]

The point I am making is that this is not, by the rules, working. Everything in the room that is not made of thick rock or better is incinerated. Objects taking damage is awkward in the rules. There needs to be additional rules added to make sense. A dagger knocking down a stone wall after <60 rounds is silly. There needs to be some sort of damage threshold or DR to make it more realistic. I suppose you could say it is immune to certain damage types but I think that is not the best approach.

What about fingers, eyeballs, noses and ears - they NOT made of thick rock. The type of conflagration you are describing would incinerate a human. Perhaps we should roll for blindness, deafness and losing of ones fingers. This might sound silly to you but when you want to introduce another mechanic called hardness as opposed to utilising hit points, well that just gets raises a few more issues out the closet that have been hiding - like hardness of armour, the hardness of one's face. We cannot condone hardness on the one hand when it suits us and deny its existence in another situation. There would be no consistency of treatment for damage.
Hit Points works for characters, hit points should work for objects too.

As for the pelting of an adamantine door with a dagger or a cantrip, well I think a blanket Rule of Logic following Rule 0 should be in effect. Its about time Rule 0 got a partner. That is all that needs to get said. More tables for DRs with more chance of errors and subjective debates re the DR figures is definitely not required.

I do not mind hand waving things, however this appears to be a pretty glaring issue and there will be a lot of hand waving with inventive players, and then a lot of head scratching going what were they thinking...

Not that much. In fact it is the players these days in my group that prefer to modify game mechanics towards realism when something threatens to break roleplaying immersion due to a mechanic never being fully explained for all its possible uses/limitations.

 

[Sadrik]

What about fingers, eyeballs, noses and ears - they NOT made of thick rock. The type of conflagration you are describing would incinerate a human. Perhaps we should roll for blindness, deafness and losing of ones fingers. This might sound silly to you but when you want to introduce another mechanic called hardness as opposed to utilising hit points, well that just gets raises a few more issues out the closet that have been hiding - like hardness of armour, the hardness of one's face. We cannot condone hardness on the one hand when it suits us and deny its existence in another situation. There would be no consistency of treatment for damage.
Hit Points works for characters, hit points should work for objects too.

I agree with you, it should work. I would be ok if it did not but it should work. Weapons and spells do damage objects should take damage. There just has to to be some be some mitigating factor in there. Objects should not simply be ablative bags of HP like characters are. Some innate ability to repel damage should be there. Whether it be a save, a DR, a threshold, or something else.

Only in the most harsh games would I consider maiming characters btw.

As for the pelting of an adamantine door with a dagger or a cantrip, well I think a blanket Rule of Logic following Rule 0 should be in effect. Its about time Rule 0 got a partner. That is all that needs to get said. More tables for DRs with more chance of errors and subjective debates re the DR figures is definitely not required.

Not that much. In fact it is the players these days in my group that prefer to modify game mechanics towards realism when something threatens to break roleplaying immersion due to a mechanic never being fully explained for all its possible uses/limitations.

I want a simple game but I also want the world to be internally consistent and making all objects ablative HP bags like creatures does not work and fosters some funny internal logic. To each their own.


If a module comes with armor as DR and that also includes a note about objects and DR this may be the correct way to proceed. Simple game, unrealistic rules with objects being taken down by throwing a dart at an adamantine wall. DR rules module corrects that and adds armor as DR.

 

[Sadras]

Objects should not simply be ablative bags of HP like characters are. Some innate ability to repel damage should be there. Whether it be a save, a DR, a threshold, or something else.

Ah, good one! A simple saving throw might do the trick to dispel all the damage.
Perhaps something like this for a Fireball or similar effects:
Clothing/Paper - Vulnerable, Allowed a Saving Throw
Glass - Allowed a Saving Throw
Wood - Resistance, Allowed a Saving Throw
Stone - Resistance, Advantage on Saving Throws
Adamantine - Resistance, Advantage on Saving Throws

The Saving Throw DC is the damage dealt AFTER adjusting for Vulnerability or Resistance, if any.
So an attack by a dagger on an Adamantine Door would require a rediculously low Saving Throw (with Advantage) for success to repel all the damage and even if it failed it would still have to get passed the HP before the door was destroyed. So unlikely to happen.
I'm sure there is a simpler method - this is just something quick and dirty I thought up. And this only deals with Fire Attacks.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think that's a highly unlikely scenario...the type you deal with using simple DM fiat of "your cantrip has no effect". The game is not going to cover every single corner case, nor should it try to do that.

I don't think it's too unlikely, and I don't think it's really a corner case at all. If an object has hit points, the possibility of dealing damage to it is not a corner case. If a group of players encounter an adamantite door, and the most effective solution is "I hit it with my [steel] sword until it breaks," that's a problem with the rules.

That type of DM fiat is the result of looking at the rule and saying "wait, this rule is dumb, I guess I have to come up with my own rule." I'd rather remove that step.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think it's too unlikely, and I don't think it's really a corner case at all. If an object has hit points, the possibility of dealing damage to it is not a corner case.

It already deals with damage to an ordinary item. We're talking about an adamantine door. That's the context of what you quoted. That's not a common issue.

If a group of players encounter an adamantite door, and the most effective solution is "I hit it with my [steel] sword until it breaks," that's a problem with the rules.

It's really not, because it's a rare thing added as dungeon dressed by the DM for a special door. In which case, they can just as easily say "which is immune to ordinary damage".

That type of DM fiat is the result of looking at the rule and saying "wait, this rule is dumb, I guess I have to come up with my own rule." I'd rather remove that step.

No system will deal with all corner cases. Pursuing that end is an endless task that results in complex massive tomes of rules that few want to play. If a DM wants to add a door that is not impacted by ordinary damage, they just do that. They don't need rules for it.

 

[GX.Sigma]

It already deals with damage to an ordinary item. We're talking about an adamantine door. That's the context of what you quoted. That's not a common issue.

An adamantine door taking damage is a very common issue in the context we're talking about (which is the rule that says that adamantine doors have hit points and no damage resistance).

It's really not, because it's a rare thing added as dungeon dressed by the DM for a special door. In which case, they can just as easily say "which is immune to ordinary damage".

But right there in the rules, it says adamantine doors have 120 hit points and no special immunities.

 

[Dausuul]

The "adamantine door" problem is one that all editions of D&D have wrestled with. It's especially troublesome because PCs tend to deal more damage per hit as they gain levels; even if you give it DR 20, a high-level fighter with the right build may be able to batter it down barehanded.

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.

Failing that, there's always the 3E solution of giving DR. It has its flaws, but it mostly works. However, I definitely object to any system in which a 1st-level commoner with a Strength of 8 and a rusty knife can chip his or her way through any obstacle in an hour or so. That's what we have at the moment.

 

[Mistwell]

An adamantine door taking damage is a very common issue in the context we're talking about (which is the rule that says that adamantine doors have hit points and no damage resistance).
But right there in the rules, it says adamantine doors have 120 hit points and no special immunities.

So your dispute is with the description for adamantine doors apparently, not the lack of a DR system in the game?

I am failing to see why this particular corner case warrants a whole additional lair of rules, rather than simply a minor alteration to a single item.

 

[Mistwell]

Failing that, there's always the 3E solution of giving DR. It has its flaws, but it mostly works. However, I definitely object to any system in which a 1st-level commoner with a Strength of 8 and a rusty knife can chip his or her way through any obstacle in an hour or so. That's what we have at the moment.

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.