Would This Be Too Much?

[Andrew D. Gable]

I've been mulling over a house rule, and I'm not sure if it would be too much... I was mulling over giving dragons, instead of resistance like they have now, spell immunity. In a way, I'd have lesser tarrasques running around. On the other, it's helped by the fact that IMC dragons are quite rare and plus, the spell immunity makes sense as they were anti-mage weapons. What y'all think?

 

[caudor]

Jeez, it kinda hard to say (it's your custom brew) but my instinct tells me it might be a little much. A well-played standard rules Dragon is a pretty mean adversary.

Of course, if it fits you campaign I'd say go for it.

I'm just biased toward the standard rules, that's all. The logic behind your modification is sound to me.

 

[Gargoyle]

I've been mulling over a house rule, and I'm not sure if it would be too much... I was mulling over giving dragons, instead of resistance like they have now, spell immunity. In a way, I'd have lesser tarrasques running around. On the other, it's helped by the fact that IMC dragons are quite rare and plus, the spell immunity makes sense as they were anti-mage weapons. What y'all think?

I would consider just increasing the SR a bit if you think it's too low. Spells are all a wizard or sorcerer really has, and taking that away completely seems unfair to me. If you do give immunity, be sure to give those players something to do, like a mental puzzle or something...perhaps these dragons love a challenging debate or riddle contest. But really, I'd stick with just increasing SR.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Well, spell immunity isn't so bad for things like golems because you can spring lots of nasty environmental stuff on them. Make them fall into pits and what not.

Dragons, on the other hand, are very large flying creatures which makes it very difficult to pull off similar tricks.

If you made them a little more vulnerable to control winds I would guess it would be fine.

Too high a spell resistance is going to be just as nasty of a problem unless you got wizards with loads of spell penetration style feats hanging around.

If you really wanted to make them wizard killers than give them lots of detect, dispel, and anti-magic abilities. The limited but aggressive nature of these makes it a lot clearer that they are specifically out for magic-users, but sends wizards into defensive battles as opposed to just fleeing, hiding, or pouting in frustration.

 

[DerianCypher]

it depends... do you have any casters in your party and do you plan on sending them against a dragon?

If so, I'd highly suggest not doing so.

Dragon battles tend to take a long time if done right, and having a dragons immune to spells would mean that said caster gets to sit and watch.

Personally, I would get incredibly frustrated and would not be having any fun at all if this happened to me.

DC

 

[Gossamerblade]

Yeah, spell immunity for dragons would be too much.

(DM: A red dragon comes flying over the ridge......

Wizard and Sorcerer PCs: We'll just go sit down over there 'til the fighters whack it to death....)

Yes, I realize there are more imaginative game-playing opportunities here, but really, the mages have to have *some* chance of affecting dragons with spells.