Ignoring things that ignore the ignoring of...

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

You don't have to know if the enemy has Fire Immunity for your "bypasses Fire Immunity Fire" to be the best attack. It's the best attack all the time if you don't have some ability to bypass some completely other immunity.

Without further knowledge of at least what else is on the character sheet of the character that is making the "Ignore Fire Immunity" attack WE absolutely cannot say that.

The player with a specific character sheet might be able to, so what, that happens in any number of contexts for any number of available attack options.

But we, at a design level, absolutely cannot.

If you are operating under a sufficiently restrictive class system, not something the OP limited itself to bringing in other sources of options creature types and item modifiers, then you might be in a position to come close to saying that at a design level about a specific class. But even if you want to obsess over D&D we can't really say that for certain since we aren't restricted to purely class based abilities.

We CAN very thoroughly build a very narrow edge case of a specific character. Of a pure fire specialist after all selectable options, with no other options other than fire damage, and add Ignore fire immunity to that.

But lets take a moment to note... that if that pure fire specialist genuinely has no other options except fire damage... fire damage is STILL their best option against fire immune targets (even if it does nothing) because, it's a tautology, we had to literally design them to have no other options. Their only option is always their best option by definition bypass or not.

Lets also point out in the moment they have any other attack options this changes. And it doesn't matter whether you are uncertain about other possible immunity or not. Not knowing if the target has lightning immunity as well does not stop your lightning attack from potentially being better, especially if your character is actually just flat out better at lightning attacks, and especially if their is also a known or unknown vulnerability to lightning on your target. And it was deaddm, not me, who brought in "Spectacular" vulnerabilities by damage type as the first and foremost reason to have damage types at all no less. Just because you have a fire attack with ignore fire immunity on a character does not mean you don't have other typed attacks which are flat out better on your sheet, better because of a vulnerability on the target (known or unknown), or better because of other contexts. Because banning Ignore Fire Immunity from game design for being naughty isn't just about the hyper specialists, it effects all your potential characters/classes/options.

Now that edge case of the fire wizard with literally no other option, yes, it's been in the argument since the OP. Technically only by implication, but close enough. And like I have said since the OP. You can give them bypass fire immunity, or not. Because all it will do is either let them use their good option in one more type of encounter match up OR will result in just another no good option encounter match up. Neither of those things is in itself a problem at all, or a design level solvable problem if it were. Both these outcomes will happen in other contexts anyway. Mechanics that result in good and bad contextual match ups are only tools made available to the players that then fall completely out of our hands as designers.

The thing we should worry about with specialists is only if their specialty allows them to get SO good that allowing them to experience "good match up" is itself a disaster. The fire specialist being too good with ignore fire immunity only happens if the fire specialist is ALSO too good when the match up doesn't include targets with Fire Immunity at all. The ability to simply apply damage like you otherwise would isn't and pretty much cannot be in itself the source of that problem.

On the flip side while it's bad to "no good option" a character too much of the time, we cannot actually fix that by only "carefully" giving fire immunity to exactly 10 out of 107 monsters in our monster manual. Nor can we fix that OR hurt that by giving out a fire immunity bypass at an appearance rate in game that we also cannot control.

[deaddmwalking]

NPL,

I think you're embarrassing yourself. I was going to provide a detailed reply, but I honestly believe that anyone reading this thread is going to have no trouble seeing your bullshit for what it is.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

NPL,

I think you're embarrassing yourself. I was going to provide a detailed reply, but I honestly believe that anyone reading this thread is going to have no trouble seeing your bullshit for what it is.

I dunno, I think there may have been "Spectacular" vulnerabilities in all your arguments.

[MGuy]

I'm a bit lost in general. Is this still argument about whether or not it's ok to have ignore X resistance/immunity or have we moved on to arguing the more nebulous idea that an attack that ignores x resistance might or might not be the best attack one can pull out in all/most situations?

[Kaelik]

I'm a bit lost in general. Is this still argument about whether or not it's ok to have ignore X resistance/immunity or have we moved on to arguing the more nebulous idea that an attack that ignores x resistance might or might not be the best attack one can pull out in all/most situations?

For a brief moment we revived the gaming den through sheer burning hate, but then we all got tired and decided it was a stupid waste of time.

We must find a new thing to hate to return us to life.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I'm a bit lost in general. Is this still argument about whether or not it's ok to have ignore X resistance/immunity or have we moved on to arguing the more nebulous idea that an attack that ignores x resistance might or might not be the best attack one can pull out in all/most situations?

It was a "Spectacular" combination of that. The claim was, as far as I followed and interacted with it, that ignore immunity was bad (this time for sure) because ignoring an immunity was always the best possible attack.

Which seems like an odd claim to make considering the sheer range of other attacks potentially available in the wide range of "always".

Those making that claim had the chance repeatedly to narrow it down to "Only for characters that only have one choice of damage type". But didn't. Probably because it is on the face stupid to complain that a character only has one best choice, when you had to narrow them down to only having one choice in the first place in order to achieve that.

[Koumei]

I'm a bit lost in general. Is this still argument about whether or not it's ok to have ignore X resistance/immunity or have we moved on to arguing the more nebulous idea that an attack that ignores x resistance might or might not be the best attack one can pull out in all/most situations?

For a brief moment we revived the gaming den through sheer burning hate, but then we all got tired and decided it was a stupid waste of time.

We must find a new thing to hate to return us to life.

The first post was absolutely just a throwaway thing made while drunk and angry (about PC games, but 40k-related), but I'm happy we got so much "PL is never able to not argue with people" posting out of it, and will accept a medal for saving the Den.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

The first post was absolutely just a throwaway thing made while drunk and angry...

I don't feel at all bad about arguing against something someone put no effort into while drunk and angry. But I have to wonder how that feels for the people that championed the post relentlessly with multiple shifting excuses.

[Koumei]

I actually would walk back some of my initial complaint, in regards to D&D stuff (what with "I deal fire damage" -> "this fire elemental is immune to fire" being the same as "I deal damage in close combat" -> "this thing can fly" basically, and both obviously needing a third step, though there are interesting third steps and there are stupid third steps). But letting that argument become "the only thing people are talking about that isn't a bank bail-out" was way too fascinating to do that.

[Aryxbez]

I feel like PL simply misunderstood a piece of Koumei's argument, hinged on that misunderstanding as part of their argument and went arghle-barghle from there (I say "Arghle-Barghle", as shown by others here, and myself, it is becoming harder and harder to understand what you're arguing exactly). Quoted below is what I think PL's argument is?

So whats the simplest most direct example outside of GW related properties I don't want to know about and totally believe could have gone beyond any and all arbitrary lines too far?...

ONE layer of immunity is fine. ONE bypass of immunity is fine. Especially in the simplest and most direct meanings of those terms. Depending on context you can go further and it is FINE.

I think your Single Layer of Bypass is seen as fine due to the assumption of D&D Meta, where damage of a particular "color" or type doesn't scale to Monster HP. So if a class's niche is dealing [Color] Damage, then it's not hurting the game's meta if they can then bypass that particular Immunity. In the case of Fire Mage, obviously it was a Fighter-Balance class created to be simplistic; something to give to a casual player (Drunk, Young, New, etc.), and still have them contribute to the Combat Minigame.

Moving forward in design however, there are conceptually more interesting ways to do it, like giving the class other methods than just dealing damage.

deaddmwalking His argument on adding [Radiant] Damage, wasn't a BS Descriptor as he initially implied, but adding another one of your game's pre-established Energy Types to the ability to bypass Immunity. So say your game has X Number of Energy Types (Could be 8, could be 5 Captain Planet style, whatever), and Immunity only applies to the specific Energy Type(s) listed. So a Single Energy [Type] Immunity, this case "Fire" Only applies if the damage is fire. So if someone then deals 2 Energy Types in their attack, then in accordance with this system, it bypasses that Immunity. If this system allows multiple comboing of energy types (up to the game's maximum number of types), then there is an argument the meta has created essentially a several step back and forth of an Energy Bypass Arms Race. However despite that, its the idea you're doing more than the same thing to allow that to happen. Perhaps you're pulling out a specific ability (like a spell can cast finite times), a combo (Energy Admixture that costs resources to do, Team Attack with another player??), something that more interesting than a passive that simply just bypasses Immunity: Just Because.

I hope that clarfies PL, if not, I would appreciate if you could keep your post to 500 words (post it in a Word Document to count it up if not sure how)

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I say "Arghle-Barghle"...

So despite waffling yourself you won't allow me to use long sentences or complex mind blowing concepts like "Immunity/bypass immunity is an incredibly efficient and elegant mechanic that is fine and totally usable". OK. I will keep this brief and VERY direct then.

...I think your Single Layer of Bypass is seen as fine due to the assumption of D&D Meta...

Wrong.

... where damage of a particular "color" or type doesn't scale to Monster HP...

Irrelevant. Don't care. Stop arhgle barghling.

So if a class's niche is dealing [Color] Damage, then it's not hurting the game's meta if they can then bypass that particular Immunity.

If you understand you cannot hurt bullshit RPS metas by bypassing them what's your fucking problem?

...class created to be simplistic; something to give to a casual player...

Yeah. And what's bad about that exactly?

Also. That doesn't require or rule out granting an immunity bypass to the class.

...conceptually more interesting...

That's a personal flavor preference.

His argument on adding [Radiant] Damage, wasn't a BS Descriptor as he initially implied

Don't start your concise description of an argument by denying it was what it presented itself as.

your game's pre-established Energy Types to the ability to bypass Immunity.

I point you to the simplified example of the two attacks with two tags both of which bypass fire immunity. Radiant literally acts as Ignore Fire Immunity tag. But that shouldn't be required because even YOU noticed that from the get go Radiance damage was very clearly presented by DeadDM as rebranded Super-Fire damage.

And even then I don't care. If you decide your game needs immunity bypass functions, and you won't use the direct Ignore/Bypass tag, and decide to do it with moar element tags, you have created a system which by definition requires moar element tags, but only achieves the same function as having Ignore/Bypass tags, but in an obfuscated way.

...its the idea you're doing more than the same thing to allow that to happen...

No it wasn't.

The argument was that Ignore X Immunity had inherent and unavoidable slippery slope properties that adding elements did not. As if you cannot stop yourself from adding one more immunity bypass, but you CAN stop yourself from adding one more element to an attack.

Which was both the obvious claim, obviously false and obviously a dishonestly applied double standard.

Perhaps you're pulling out a specific ability (like a spell can cast finite times), a combo (Energy Admixture that costs resources to do, Team Attack with another player??), something that more interesting than a passive that simply just bypasses Immunity: Just Because.

You don't get to argue that Ignore X Immunity is bad because it HAS to be added as an across the board passive while other things don't. Because that limitation does not exist.

I would appreciate if you could keep your post to 500 words (post it in a Word Document to count it up if not sure how)

You use word. Ew. As much as I like a concise post. Yours, at over 400 words (funny how your word count red line is conveniently at the next big round number), was not. I mean I've posted worse and it wasn't DeadDM level verbal diarrhea, but it's nothing to boast about. And it wasn't about an abstract boundary that would be crossed another 50 or so words along.

[Thaluikhain]

"Arghle-Barghle" doesn't look like the correct spelling to me, but I can't think of a better one. Google suggests "Argle-Bargle" which doesn't seem any better.

[Aryxbez]

My goal was to find out what exactly your point of contention is, and I had believed I narrowed it down to those points in your original post of this topic.

You use word. Ew. As much as I like a concise post. Yours, at over 400 words (funny how your word count red line is conveniently at the next big round number), was not. I mean I've posted worse and it wasn't DeadDM level verbal diarrhea, but it's nothing to boast about. And it wasn't about an abstract boundary that would be crossed another 50 or so words along.

Microsoft Word was meant as an example in case you needed one. I suppose I should fall into the trap of inquiring the problem with Microsoft Word as a program? Anyway, my prior post was 479 words, yours right now is 399-579 words (Without/With Quotes) for example.

I point you to the simplified example of the two attacks with two tags both of which bypass fire immunity. Radiant literally acts as Ignore Fire Immunity tag. But that shouldn't be required because even YOU noticed that from the get go Radiance damage was very clearly presented by DeadDM as rebranded Super-Fire damage.

It is fulfilling that role mechanically, but if [Radiant] is an actual damage type with its own elemental interactions, then your spell now benefits from both [Fire] & [Radiant] interactions. Like he pointed out, it would also now be effective against Undead (Radiant being a popular thematic weakness for Undead).

Yeah. And what's bad about that exactly?

Moving forward in design however, there are conceptually more interesting ways to do it, like giving the class other methods than just dealing damage.

You don't get to argue that Ignore X Immunity is bad because it HAS to be added as an across the board passive while other things don't. Because that limitation does not exist.

In how its been used, it has been used as a Passive, it is possible I missed a Immunity Bypass that costed a resource, but in most cases it's just something you get.

[Thaluikhain]

Random thought, but if you are using Radiant Fire damage to attack Fire immune things, I assume that that's adding a few drops of Radiance to the Fire so it bypasses the immunity.

But you could also have a bucket full of a mixture of Fire and Radiance you want to throw at someone. If it's a 50/50 mix, you've got the Radiant half to do half damage to things immune to Fire (and the other way around). While that looks fiddlier (and runs the risk of ending up with a mix of Radiant, Cold, Fire, Cat, Dog, Sheep, Horse, Gorilla, Emu and doing 7/9s damage because a monster was immune to Cold and Gorillas), is there any other pros and cons to doing it that way?

[Kaelik]

Random thought, but if you are using Radiant Fire damage to attack Fire immune things, I assume that that's adding a few drops of Radiance to the Fire so it bypasses the immunity.

But you could also have a bucket full of a mixture of Fire and Radiance you want to throw at someone. If it's a 50/50 mix, you've got the Radiant half to do half damage to things immune to Fire (and the other way around). While that looks fiddlier (and runs the risk of ending up with a mix of Radiant, Cold, Fire, Cat, Dog, Sheep, Horse, Gorilla, Emu and doing 7/9s damage because a monster was immune to Cold and Gorillas), is there any other pros and cons to doing it that way?

One of the main disadvantages is the way Resistance works. If you do for example, Flame Strik, a half Holy and Half Fire effect, then a lot of things with Resist X fire end up taking the exact same amount of damage as if you had just cast Fireball.

If your game isn't 3.5 D&D, so it doesn't have reistances, only immunities (very weird) or differently written resistances, then it is a perfectly legitimate way to do it.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Random thought, ... a 50/50 mix... half damage...

It's mostly just shuffling cosmetics. Any complex system probably wants to include some sort of "what do?" answer to the question of dual+ damage type tags on an attack. And there isn't much wrong with that, and it's more intuitive at least.

The thing is DeadDMs Radiance answer to that was specifically one that existed explicitly to replace the need for an Ignore X Immunity tag.

And the 50/50 answer... does not exist for that purpose. You can do the 50/50 thing AND still have basically the same mechanical window to include an Ignore X Immunity tag. So it would fail by DeadDMs standards.

Of course... the whole Radiance methodology where lacking even one immunity to one damage type on an attack bypasses all other immunity is in fact open to "What if you had all the relevant immunity on the target and you tagged the attack with even one relevant Ignore X Immunity tag?"

But that requires thinking out the consequences of a mechanical proposal and it's potential applications with a tiny amount of depth and any sort of consideration of anything beyond one very specific implementation of a fan version of one edition of D&D specifically. So that was never going to be considered without someone accusing me of argle-bargle now with those extra H's.

[Sashi]

In the most abstract sense PL is right that all else being equal there's functionally no difference between having fire immunity vs super fire that bypasses immunity and having fire immunity vs radiant fire that bypasses fire immunity. In both cases there's an ability that shuts down X, then another ability that bypasses the ability to shut down X. But in another, much more real, sense that abstract argument is bullshit because it can also be mapped onto a situation where "immunity" is "an AC so high it's off the RNG" and "immunity bypass" is "a bonus to my attack roll". So it's basically an argument that if you're okay with having a bonus to attack rolls you should also be okay with fire immunity bypass.

To explain why PL is wrong I'm going to take the arrogant step of defining immunity. Specifically I'm going to say "immunity" is the ability to nope out of a subsystem. This way a horse archer isn't "immune" to melee attacks, they're just making effective use of the tactical positioning subsystem.

From this it follows that the maximum number of immunity layers allowable is [i]exactly one[/i] because once there is an "ignore immunity" function, then immunity isn't opting out of a subsystem, it's just participating in the dueling immunity vs bypass subsystem and needs to be considered as such. If the new subsystem is implemented well, it probably won't even feel like layers of immunity and bypass. Done poorly, you basically just recreate the system you were opting out of (armor vs armor pierce vs mega armor vs mega pierce). Done exceptionally poorly, you begin to parisitize other subsystems (like DnD's tendency to overload the feat system with patch feats).

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

To explain why PL is wrong I'm going to take the arrogant step of defining immunity. Specifically I'm going to say "immunity" is the ability to nope out of a subsystem. This way a horse archer isn't "immune" to melee attacks, they're just making effective use of the tactical positioning subsystem.

That's a very lame attempt at a semantic no true Scottsman argument.

I think, ultimately your primary problem actually is in the first few words of your post. I'm not right in an abstract sense about things that bypass immunity being immunity bypass things.

I am right about that in a practical sense, and also generally, but for your "argument" it matters most for practicality. I'm right about what these things DO.

Trying to redefine the meaning of immunity to a very abstract meaning that you can simply no true scottsman anything you like into or out of is not helpful in ANY practical understanding of what these game mechanics DO. Or how they do it.

NOTHING about you denying the plain English meaning of the word immunity and redefining to include what is honestly, not a very high effort attempt at reinventing language until it makes an incorrect claim correct changes the actual practical outcomes.

If the horse archer trumps melee, melee COULD have an option that trumps horse archer. You refusing to call it immunity or bypass does not change the functional interactions.

And you think that THAT doesn't "feel" like immunity? That was your GOOD example? You tell that to whoever was on the losing end of the horse archer/melee immunity interaction?

Just as an aside, did you even consider which was both more valuable to have on a character, and which might have more impact on a game system when comparing Fire Immunity and Melee "nuh ah it's only Immunity if I don't get to redefine the meaning of words"? Did you even think about it?

I mean pro tip, there is no absolutely right answer because we can't know for sure how many of these interactions pop up in game, but I tell you what which one have you seen more complaints about? On that basis, however often they turned up, which one do you think people noticed?

Done exceptionally poorly, you begin to parisitize other subsystems (like DnD's tendency to overload the feat system with patch feats).

And this. Oh boy this. AGAIN.

Nothing. NOTHING about having an immunity/bypass tag on something somewhere anywhere means you even HAVE a system like feats or not and even if you had feats AND that mechanic NOTHING about that mechanic FORCES you to "overload the feat system".

And NOTHING about your alternative rules out having and overloading a feat system with it. Indeed. If you want to create immunities and bypasses you refuse to call immunities and bypasses by having complex interactions with additional subsystems... THAT'S EVEN MORE STUFF TO OVERLOAD FEAT SYSTEMS WITH YOU FUCKING NINGBAT.

Now if you wonder why I have such little respect for your position, and the way you represent it, and the way similar positions have been represented all thread it's moments like this, moments like when Aryxbez just now declared that Immunity/Bypass HAD to be delivered by across the board passives (and alternatives... just didn't).

Time and fucking time again the deep thinkers on this thread think up an additional unrelated bad design decision and then present it as an OUTCOME of immunity bypass. You, without any excuse or sane reason, attribute it to the thing you don't like and pretend it couldn't possible effect the thing you do like.

And you should not be that stupid that you cannot recognize you are doing that. You surely would have if you had thought for a second "Hey, I like this thing, BUT despite my positive feelings could it result in the same or even worse outcome I just accused the thing I dislike of?

It is OBVIOUS that overloading your feat system is bad. And it is OBVIOUS that absolutely any mechanic at all once inserted into a feat system teetering on the edge can do it. And it should have been OBVIOUS to you the more complex the mechanic the more separate things it needs to inserts the worse.

I see you present something that obviously dumb and to me it looks like intellectual dishonesty. If not dishonesty, then total intellectual bankruptcy.

You understand that at least right? You understand WHY that statement makes you look stupid and dishonest? You understand why that claim and ones like it only discredit the rest of what you have to say on this?

[Sashi]

Giving a concrete and specific testable definition of something is the exact opposite of "no true Scotsman". "A Scotsman is someone who has lived in Scotland for a significant portion of their life and self-identifies as Scottish" vs "no true Scotsman enjoys jazz". Meanwhile you're here with some nonsense like "as citizens of the world I believe you will find we are all Scotsmen"

By my definition a 200kg barbell isn't "immune to being picked up by toddlers" it's just heavy. Neither does a powerlifter "bypass" that immunity by "not being a toddler".

Similarly, the sword in the stone isn't "immune to being pulled out of the stone" it's just participating in the "are you the king of England?" subsystem.

Like what the fuck is your concrete testable definition of "immunity" that works to make "running away from someone" the same thing as "being immune to melee"? Am I immune to being punched right now because there's nobody within 10' of me? Do I lose my immunity when someone gets close?

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Similarly, the sword in the stone isn't "immune to being pulled out of the stone" it's just participating in the "are you the king of England?" subsystem.

That's insane.

Now. Address the bit where you tried to smear immunity bypass mechanics with breaking feat systems for no reason and tell us WHY you felt you had to say that.

[Foxwarrior]

By my definition a 200kg barbell isn't "immune to being picked up by toddlers" it's just heavy.

So if you had a protection system with ranks, like you have rank 1 fire protection that made you take no damage from fires of rank 1 or less, but full damage from rank 2 or greater, and so on, and then the game only ever has rank 1 fire, would this mean that a character with rank 1 fire protection isn't immune to fire?

[MGuy]

Similarly, the sword in the stone isn't "immune to being pulled out of the stone" it's just participating in the "are you the king of England?" subsystem.

That's insane.

Now. Address the bit where you tried to smear immunity bypass mechanics with breaking feat systems for no reason and tell us WHY you felt you had to say that.

They didn't. They held up DnD as an example of doing something poorly. Specifically the parasite bit mentioned. That was not a declaration that all iterations of that methodology is the same or whatever hyperbole you're deciding to used in their post.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

They didn't.

They didn't didn't. And let them explain themselves. Don't put words in their mouth.

Especially when those words take the statement I was critical of that was the conclusion of their point on "why Ignore X Immunity is wrong" and turn those words into a total non-sequitur only a babbling moron would end such a point with.

It's LESS charitable than my interpretation of the post.

If your defense of his point was "He just meant doing bad rules is bad as a totally unrelated statement! (in the same paragraph in the follow up sentence on the same point in the same post)" then you are engaging in a form of hyperbole (or maybe a sort of reverse hyperbole) designed to hold no one to account for anything they say.

[Foxwarrior]

Reverse hyperbole would be hypobole right

[MGuy]

It's not a defense. It is reading what was written in the exchange and pointing out that you are lying about what was said. A thing that's occuring seemingly because you didn't believe they didn't mean the thing you imagined in your head. It's the kind of thing that makes you unpleasant to talk to.