Good things in 4e

[Username17]

Ah. No. The 4e power format is fucking terribad. Everything about it is clumsy, overly wordy, and simultaneously stilted and incoherent. 3e abilities are less words and less lines and have more description. It's really really bad. Easily the worst ability description system ever used in an edition of D&D.

One thing I will say is that splitting up monster classes by "role" in 4e made a lot more sense than what 3e tried to do. There is absolutely no reason for a Succubus to be the same class as a Blue Slaad. The first is a seductive schemer that casts spells, and the second is a giant frog monster that rips things in half with its clawed hands. Making one a leader and the other a brute or whatever makes a lot more sense. It's easier to use, it gives information that is more useful, and it's just better in every single way. Having all the schemer and fighter monsters that happen to have tentacles be the same class was fucking retarded.

-Username17

[RobG]

There is absolutely no reason for a Succubus to be the same class as a Blue Slaad.

It would make a good sitcom.

That said, separating Elves, giving actual racial abilities (small as they were), padding first level and choosing from 2 save stats were all highlights to be before I stopped playing 4e the day after it came out.

I also liked the 'points of light' default setting type, but I like wandering monsters.

[ishy]

Talking about weird things in 4e, can anyone explain to me why energy resistance works like it does? Specifically mixed energy resistance. That you only substract dmg from your lowest resistance.
Lets say you have some kind of fire & cold attack, I'd expect the dmg to be half cold and half fire, but a fire immune creature in 4e would still take full dmg from the attack.

Or a lightning / cold attack that does 100 dmg and you have 10 lightning resistance and 35 cold. Then you can only substract the 10 lightning resistance for a dmg total of 90 taken.

And since most monsters are build with only few resistances, it basically makes energy resistance worthless if you can mix it with another energy type (which is not that hard to do).

And yes I know most monsters have way too much hp and deal too little dmg.

[Username17]

Talking about weird things in 4e, can anyone explain to me why energy resistance works like it does? Specifically mixed energy resistance. That you only substract dmg from your lowest resistance.

Most things good and bad about 4e represent an over reaction to some fact about 3e. In 3e, they presented attacks that did half one kind of damage and half another kind of damage as a feature (Flamestrike, Meteor Swarm, Frost Burst, Ice Storm, and so on). They did that because under the resistance rules from AD&D (where you subtracted damage per die or negated damage entirely), it was. Problem was: under 3e Energy Resistance rules, all those things were shit. Because Energy Resistance was now a straight number subtracted from incoming damage, split damage sources just got damage deducted twice. Even if the other half was ultima damage like a Flame Strike, the bonus was effectively fuck-all, because enemies subtracted the same amount of incoming damage if the attack was part fire or all fire.

So in 4e the pendulum swung back, and rather than come up with a new paradigm for resistance in which flame strike could be useful, they simply announced that split damage sources ignored the higher Energy Resistance entirely. Because fuck you, that's why.

-Username17

[souran]

Except its no more an FU than 3E was and in play it actually works better.

In 3E if you had dual damage resistance you totally screwed over the incomming attack. Even a single resistance of a multi-typed attack basically made the attack worthless.

4E as Frank points out does the opposite. If you have an attack with 2 damage sources you get a BENEFIT instead of a PENALTY.

Further its not as if the resisitance paradigm was central of D&D cosmology, its not as though the resistance paradigm doesn't make sense. Its not as if this resistance paradigm is hard to apply.

Its exactly the sort of rule that if you could make it simpler/faster/better than 3E you should. And they did. If you could make it simpler/faster/better than 5E you should. Seriously, changing how resistance works is only going to piss off completely mentally unhinged grognards who think D&D should be whatever Shadzar comes up with.

[Seerow]

I agree with Souran on this one. The way 4e handled energy resists for multiple damage type attacks was better. Multiple damage types sounds like and is generally presented as something that is a distinct benefit, but in the past it was generally handled as more of a penalty.

Ways to handle dual types more fairly would involve more math and bog the game down whenever it came up. Imagine if it was instead you subtract the average of the resist against both. So a guy with cold resist 20 and Fire resist 5 reduces the damage of a cold/fire attack by 12 or 13. It's doable, and yes it isn't that much math. But instead of a 1 step subtraction, you now have addition, division, then subtraction. The second may make a little more sense, but the first is much easier to resolve and has its own logic to it (the attack is designed with both elements in such a way that it will favor whichever one is resisted less), so why not?

[RobG]

It seemed completely obvious to me that the half-divine damage on Flamestrike was so that you still did some damage if the thing was immune to fire. Its the first thing I thought when I read the spell. Its a feature unless you're running into a bunch of stuff with Divine Resistance. Ive never run into any.

[Doom]

Well, something really needed to be done. I mean, a cliche good cleric is likely going to be fighting devils, if not demons, so it's pretty goofy that his enemies can laugh off flame strike, since it's all fiery and stuff.

[hogarth]

It seemed completely obvious to me that the half-divine damage on Flamestrike was so that you still did some damage if the thing was immune to fire. Its the first thing I thought when I read the spell. Its a feature unless you're running into a bunch of stuff with Divine Resistance. Ive never run into any.

You're both right.

A half-cold, half-fire version of fireball is:
(a) better than a regular fireball against a creature that's immune to fire
(b) neither better nor worse against a creature with a small resistance to fire
(c) worse against a creature with a small resistance to fire and cold

[ModelCitizen]

It seemed completely obvious to me that the half-divine damage on Flamestrike was so that you still did some damage if the thing was immune to fire. Its the first thing I thought when I read the spell. Its a feature unless you're running into a bunch of stuff with Divine Resistance. Ive never run into any.

Can't exist, AFAIK. Damage "directly from divine power" is untyped damage.

When you see two actual damage types in 3e it's almost always a weapon enchant. For flaming/frost/shock 3e's rule make a shitload more sense than 4e's. Your flaming greataxe shouldn't do bonus damage to fire elementals, and Seerow's division and rounding issue never comes up.

[Seerow]

It seemed completely obvious to me that the half-divine damage on Flamestrike was so that you still did some damage if the thing was immune to fire. Its the first thing I thought when I read the spell. Its a feature unless you're running into a bunch of stuff with Divine Resistance. Ive never run into any.

Can't exist, AFAIK. Damage "directly from divine power" is untyped damage.

When you see two actual damage types in 3e it's almost always a weapon enchant. For flaming/frost/shock 3e's rule make a shitload more sense than 4e's. Your flaming greataxe shouldn't do bonus damage to fire elementals, and Seerow's division and rounding issue never comes up.

When the damage is x damage of one type and x damage of a different type, instead of worrying about averaging elemental resists, you're instead worrying about separating damage rolls. Instead of being able to just roll a handful of dice and count, and give your number, you have to track each type separately, ie "Okay I do 50 slashing damage, 10 fire damage, 5 cold damage" as opposed to "I deal 65 fire/cold damage". It's still something that slows the game down just in a different way, and maybe not as bad. On top of that, when the enemy has resistance to both, the effect may as well not exist. (ie say you have a fire/cold spell that hits for 30 damage, against fire resist and cold resist 10. With resists applying to half the damage separately each, you end up dealing like 10 damage. With resists overlapping a la 4e, you still deal 20. Since the multi type damage is supposed to be a benefit to the spell, I think that's the way it should be)

[virgil]

So in 4e the pendulum swung back, and rather than come up with a new paradigm for resistance in which flame strike could be useful, they simply announced that split damage sources ignored the higher Energy Resistance entirely. Because fuck you, that's why.

That's how it works in WoW, no fooling.

[Seerow]

So in 4e the pendulum swung back, and rather than come up with a new paradigm for resistance in which flame strike could be useful, they simply announced that split damage sources ignored the higher Energy Resistance entirely. Because fuck you, that's why.

That's how it works in WoW, no fooling.

How many dual type damage attacks are there in WoW? I can't think of any offhand except the Mage's frostfire bolt. Even elemental shamans typically only deal one type of damage at a time. Also WoW hasn't included shit for elemental resistances on gear in several years, and all monsters have identical resistances.

I really doubt that they did that particular change because of WoW.

[Josh_Kablack]

When you see two actual damage types in 3e it's almost always a weapon enchant.

Flamestrike
Energy Admixture
Rainbow Blast
etc

[ModelCitizen]

@Josh_Kablack: Flamestrike is half typed / half untyped, I covered that in the post your quoted. It's never going to be double-jeapordied by energy resistance.

When the damage is x damage of one type and x damage of a different type, instead of worrying about averaging elemental resists, you're instead worrying about separating damage rolls. Instead of being able to just roll a handful of dice and count, and give your number, you have to track each type separately, ie "Okay I do 50 slashing damage, 10 fire damage, 5 cold damage" as opposed to "I deal 65 fire/cold damage". It's still something that slows the game down just in a different way, and maybe not as bad.

Again: that basically only matters for weapon enchants. We're talking about 1d6 damage. The only time you actually have to roll separately is if the creature has Resist 5.

Your objection is based on an edge case I've seen happen maybe once or twice (and only that once or twice because of a game where two of the PCs were lesser tieflings). I don't believe it meaningfully adds to resolution time, but if you care about 30 extra seconds over the course of the campaign you should account for time spent explaining to someone why their fire resistance doesn't block extra damage from flaming weapons like it should.

[Swordslinger]

I liked the 4E way better, it was easier to run in play and made multiple damage types a benefit instead of a hindrance like they were in 3E.

[RobbyPants]

When you see two actual damage types in 3e it's almost always a weapon enchant. For flaming/frost/shock 3e's rule make a shitload more sense than 4e's.

@Josh_Kablack: Flamestrike is half typed / half untyped, I covered that in the post your quoted. It's never going to be double-jeapordied by energy resistance.

In addition to the other two Josh posted that you ignored:

Born of Three Thunders
Lord of the Uttercold (or whatever it's actually called)
Ice Storm
Meteor Swarm

All of these deal multiple typed damages.

[ModelCitizen]

All of these deal multiple typed damages.

Ok, you've got one spell that deals 2d6 bludgeoning in addition to fire damage, and one that splits bludgeoning and cold damage. Physical damage from spells isn't subject to DR. For the purpose of Souran's complaint they might as well be untyped.

Lord of the Uttercold combines cold and negative energy. That particular weird combination exists so you can heal (some) undead with your cold spells, as is explicitly described in the feat description. That wouldn't be possible with 4e's dual-type mechanic.

Thus far all you guys have to support Souran's weird complaint about resistance double-jeapordy is a couple of non-core feats. Born of Three Thunders and Energy Admixture. Yes, those aren't very good. Yes, their mechanics are slightly misleading. But they're also rare corner cases. The common case for dual-typed damage in 3e is a weapon enchant (or equivalent +elemental damage monster ability) and that's where 3e's mechanic works better than 4e's.

[Username17]

Ok, you've got one spell that deals 2d6 bludgeoning in addition to fire damage, and one that splits bludgeoning and cold damage. Physical damage from spells isn't subject to DR. For the purpose of Souran's complaint they might as well be untyped.

That is literally what it says, but the actual writers of the game did not think it worked that way.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

Ok, you've got one spell that deals 2d6 bludgeoning in addition to fire damage, and one that splits bludgeoning and cold damage. Physical damage from spells isn't subject to DR. For the purpose of Souran's complaint they might as well be untyped.

Sorry. In your post, you said damage types. Yeah, if you're looking at just energy resistance, then the only one in that list that would work is the Uttercold one (assuming the rare case that someone has negative energy resistance from an SC spell or something).

The common case for dual-typed damage in 3e is a weapon enchant (or equivalent +elemental damage monster ability) and that's where 3e's mechanic works better than 4e's.

I guess they're all rare, really. I so seldom see Flaming Frost swords that I wouldn't call them "common", but I guess it's more common than some of those spells/feats.

[souran]

All of these deal multiple typed damages.

Ok, you've got one spell that deals 2d6 bludgeoning in addition to fire damage, and one that splits bludgeoning and cold damage. Physical damage from spells isn't subject to DR. For the purpose of Souran's complaint they might as well be untyped.

Actually, here you have just identified another issue. 4E damge types don't get a secret pass if they originate in a magical source. So 3E rule has multiple layers of bullshit complexty that don't do fuck all ofr the game.

Lord of the Uttercold combines cold and negative energy. That particular weird combination exists so you can heal (some) undead with your cold spells, as is explicitly described in the feat description. That wouldn't be possible with 4e's dual-type mechanic.

How would it not be possible. 4E has feats just like 3E, you could write the feat such that it does the exact same thing.

Thus far all you guys have to support Souran's weird complaint about resistance double-jeapordy is a couple of non-core feats. Born of Three Thunders and Energy Admixture. Yes, those aren't very good. Yes, their mechanics are slightly misleading. But they're also rare corner cases. The common case for dual-typed damage in 3e is a weapon enchant (or equivalent +elemental damage monster ability) and that's where 3e's mechanic works better than 4e's.

Multiple things here:

1) I don't have a complaint, I just think that the elemental/damage resistance system is so "essential" to the game that its not an area that changing it is bad.

2) Your entire "this is not common" is bogus anyway. It clearly happens enough to be worth considering. 3E has rules for numerous edge cases, including one that you pointed out in your own post that physical magic damage bypasses DR/Resistance

The "normal" case for 3E and 4E is identical (sands the actual game values) in 3E and 4E if you have a resistance you reduce incomming damage from that source by the fixed amount. The only place the rules are different is edge cases.

The 4E rule for edge cases is both simpler ("apply lowest of available resistance to each attack"), and is computationally faster than the 3E version, where you must first determine the fraction of the damage from each source (which may be dice in the case of a weapon with an elemental property or a fraction in the case of a spell such as flamestrike) apply the resistances seperately, and then total the final damage. This is compounded by the fact that many spells that deal elemental damage are often Save for Half damage type spells.

I could see a person aruging that 3E's mechanic is more "real" or some such thing than 4E but there is no way I can see a person saying it works "better" than 4e.

4E is a cut and dry do X. Further, in 4E it is guanteed that a multiple damage type spell will always be advantageous over a single damage type spell. In 3E this is NOT TRUE as there are cases where it is not.

For all of this though, if in 5E they have elemental damage resistance do something TOTALLY DIFFERENT I really wouldn't care as long as it was workable.

[ModelCitizen]

That is literally what it says, but the actual writers of the game did not think it worked that way.

-Username17

Whichever writer fielded the FAQ question about it did.

The FAQ[/url]]
How do spells like Evard’s black tentacles and ice storm
affect a creature with damage reduction overcome by magic
and bludgeoning? Do the tentacles and hailstones deal
magical bludgeoning damage?
Any damage dealt by a spell or other magical effect is
unaffected by damage reduction.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Damage resistance is not the same thing as energy resistance which is not the same thing as hardness.

[Kaelik]

Actually, that's the perfect mother fucking example of double counting. Hardness.

Hardness applies to fucking everything, including untyped shit. So flamestrike creates a fucked up issue where it's not even clear whether it should do 7 fire damage and 7 untyped damage or no damage at all to a hardness 15 creature where you rolled 29 damage.

But yes, the real problem with flamestrike and other double counting in 3e is that it is billed as a benefit, but really isn't one. When you cast flamestrike on something with FR 10, it's exactly as powerful as casting fireball, and that's stupid. Half Divine damage should help against things with fire resist, not just things with fire immunity.

[RobG]

I had a great point about resists being a perfect example of the fundamental diffrences between the 2 systems. 3e started with things that made sense and then tried to make them playable. 4e tried to make itself playable and often didnt care if things made sense.

That WAS my point until ModCitiz posts the FAQ responce to the magical bludgeoning damage question that makes no sense.