Ignoring things that ignore the ignoring of...

[nockermensch]

First, the idea that fire elementals should be immune to fire is a bit weird. I mean, adventurers are made of flesh and bones, and they aren't immune to punches. Even beings made of <thing> should feel something when <thing> moves in a very violent way against them.

So I think most effects that grant immunity to <thing> currently would work better as "First ignore X points of flat damage then half the rest". Also, as a separate concept, some creatures should have a "treat <thing> damage as non-lethal" Special Quality.

So fire elementals could all have "treat fire damage as non-lethal" and "Fire Immunity* X" as racial abilities, with X coming from how hardcore each elemental is. So, small fire elementals need to stay in the kiddie pools at the Elemental Plane of Fire, until they're big enough to go into the roaring infernos where the big boys hang out.


*Terms may apply

[Kaelik]

While you could justify any possible immunity set up:

1) That's not how fire works? Like presumably the reason we have fire damage is to recognize that some effects heat things up, not hit them with force. If you fire a fireball into a fire elemental it's not experiencing being hit with a baseball bat in the stomach, it's experiencing being heated up. You can justify that fire elementals are actually best killed by fire, because you can overload them with heat so they pop in an explosion or whatever, but you arent' hitting them with a force.

2) As always, whether immunity should be total, or ignore X, or Ignore Percent, or whatever else is all perfectly valid mechanically with different trades offs and you should ask what best fits the fluff you are going for and what types of interactions you want to incentivize.

3) I think it's really fucking dumb if Fire Elementals have to avoid certain parts of the Elemental Plane of Fire because it's too hot, which ameliorates towards Fire Elementals should probably have fire immunity. Lots of things have immunity in D&D that could just as easily not, like Devils and Dragons, and such. Those could all very easily have resistance instead of immunity using some mechanics, but I think having fire elementals specifically not be afraid of fire when they live on a plane of fire is pretty reasonable.

[deaddmwalking]

So, small fire elementals need to stay in the kiddie pools at the Elemental Plane of Fire, until they're big enough to go into the roaring infernos where the big boys hang out.

They could just as easily avoid the big boys because big boys can become bigger boys by eating up the little ones. Or maybe little ones want to join the big ones but once they've done so, they're not little ones anymore. Fire Elementals Voltroning into bigger elementals could totally be a thing if you want.

[Foxwarrior]

I have this sneaking suspicion that you didn't understand the post.
It's not the big boys that the little boys fear, but weather.

[deaddmwalking]

I'm agreeing with Kaelik's point #3, but if you want to have kiddie-adventure-zones and epic-adventure-zones (and that's a supportable design goal) you don't have to have the itty-bitty-fire-elementals be afraid of heat to keep them from hanging out on the highway to the Danger Zone.

[JonSetanta]

So I think most effects that grant immunity to <thing> currently would work better as "First ignore X points of flat damage then half the rest". Also, as a separate concept, some creatures should have a "treat <thing> damage as non-lethal" Special Quality.

So fire elementals could all have "treat fire damage as non-lethal" and "Fire Immunity* X" as racial abilities, with X coming from how hardcore each elemental is. So, small fire elementals need to stay in the kiddie pools at the Elemental Plane of Fire, until they're big enough to go into the roaring infernos where the big boys hang out.

I was pondering an idea of "Use CON Score as Fire Resistance" for the lower grade and a flat out Fire Resistance 100 for Immunity but treating it as non-lethal works great too, if you're willing to go with two tracks of HP like when dealing with Troll Regen.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

By what mechanism do you imagine picking DR=Constitution does anything superior to any other ass pulled number, why Constitution specifically?

Then suddenly subdual-troll-regen-hit-point-tracks. Because of COURSE that's the second half of the same thought bubble. What the fuck do you think that will DO? Because it feels like everything you write, completely insane free form mishmash of whatever pops into your head.

If either of these plans do something HOW do they do WHAT and WHY?

[3% Milk]

why are some people so bent out of shape about devils having total fire immunity?

[Kaelik]

why are some people so bent out of shape about devils having total fire immunity?

I don't think a single person has expressed that opinion?

Some people are bent out of shape about anyone having total fire immunity. Other people are bent out of shape by anyone having an immunity that is immune to things that bypass immunity.

I don't think anyone specified Devils as the only people they were upset with having either of those qualities.

[3% Milk]

I don't think a single person has expressed that opinion?

it was in the OP and I thought I saw something to that effect in a few other comments.
anyway i am enjoying this discussion, thank you.

[Kaelik]

I don't think a single person has expressed that opinion?

it was in the OP and I thought I saw something to that effect in a few other comments.
anyway i am enjoying this discussion, thank you.

The OP never complained about devils being immune to fire.

[3% Milk]

Baatezu are devils.

[Kaelik]

Baatezu are devils.

Okay, but I don't think asking why they have fire immunity at the end of a paragraph that just said dragons probably shouldn't have fire immunity is getting bent out of shape about them having fire immunity specifically. That goes back to my first post, that people seem to be complaining about it in general.

[deaddmwalking]

Baatezu are devils.

Among some people there is a perception that immunity is given too freely. A red dragon and a fire elemental have the same immunity to fire even though one is a flesh and blood creature and the other is made out of fire. There's no spectrum of fire immunity - once it's given it's given completely. There's certainly a debate about where you draw the line (and whether you bother to do so) and devils are in that discussion. A Gelugon (Ice Devil) has immunity to fire because all devils have immunity to fire, but it probably seems contrary to the laws of physics in D&D settings - generally creatures of ice are more vulnerable to fire, not completely immune.

In a prior post I talked about a scale of increasingly logical 'immunity' and that may serve as a rough guide to how I think about gradations of 'deserving' immunity.

It is a classic arms race, and there's no logical place to end. Giving up because at some point it's too much work/complexity with the understanding that there could reasonably be near infinite gradations of 'immunity' where a Fire Giant is immune to fire, but not super-fire; an Ifreet is immune to super-fire but not super-super-fire; a fire-elemental is immune to super-super-fire, but not super-super-super-fire; and the god of fire is immune to super-super-super-fire (and 5 more pre-emptively in case someone keeps escalating) isn't ELEGANT. Knowing that you're going to put the kibosh on this cycle at some point deserves a reason that is simple and consistent; treating immunity as immunity does that.

From a design perspective (which is the perspective from which we approach most things) an attack which does fire damage is an ability and a defense which provides immunity from fire damage is also an ability. The value of those abilities depend in part on how much utility they provide. If there are no attacks that deal fire damage then an ability that prevents fire damage doesn't actually do anything. On the other hand, if the only type of damage that exists is fire damage, an ability that prevents fire damage effectively prevents all damage, making it invaluable - something that probably shouldn't exist because it breaks the game.

Of course, fire damage isn't the only type of damage and while some attacks deal fire damage, plenty of attacks do other types of damage.

Just like a fire attack or a fire resistance/immunity is an ability, an ability that makes your fire attack overcome resistance/immunity is another ability. By definition it only interacts with creatures that have a resistance/immunity to fire. An ability that ignores someone else's ability complicates the calculations when weighing the value of the ability. If everyone with a fire attack takes 'overcomes fire immunity' as an ability, then fire immunity isn't actually worth anything. It should be obvious that any creature with a powerful fire attack whether that's a red dragon or a wizard with fireball benefits by being able to overcome resistance/immunity. A Mature Adult Red Dragon with a 14d10 breath weapon gets ~77 damage against targets that are vulnerable to fire, so getting the ability to overcome fire resistance/immunity (which are available very commonly) makes it MUCH MORE DANGEROUS than it would be if you could rely on simple spells to protect you.

We aren't limited by the decisions that 3.5 made, but when we use it as a baseline and we look at things from a design perspective, giving an ability that overcomes immunity makes fire attacks better and fire resistance/immunity worse. That impacts the value of those abilities and has consequences for whether creatures are appropriately challenging. If you're starting from scratch there's a real question of whether immunity should be quite so easily available, but even if you change that giving the ability to overcome immunity has ramifications that trend toward the philosophical like 'should I give someone an ability that completely ignores someone else's ability'? Or at least, 'to what degree is that okay'? Characters invest in armor and shields, so a light-saber that resolves all attacks as a touch-attack effectively ignores their investment in protective gear (or innate abilities like dragon-hide AC) - in my opinion you want to balance these abilities so characters organically choose various strategies that are never ALWAYS optimal but are frequently optimal. That means the fire-specialist wizard uses fire attacks most of the time, but sometimes they run into a problem that can't be solved with fire so they have to choose a different option in that moment. If you're going to face a red-dragon, you invest in defenses that protect you against fire to mitigate the danger from one of it's most powerful weapons. The dragon, knowing that fire resistance exists plans to use dispel magic or create a rockfall that just needs 77 points of fire damage to trigger to ensure they're ready for a well-prepared group to invade their lair. These measures and counter-measures are part of the fun of a tactical combat - eliminating the need to evolve these strategies is definitely something that should be considered carefully before you release it into your game world.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

An ability that ignores someone else's ability complicates the calculations when weighing the value of the ability.

OK.

Pop out the "simple" calculation before immunity bypass makes it incalculable then.

Lets see it.

[deaddmwalking]

An ability that ignores someone else's ability complicates the calculations when weighing the value of the ability.

OK.

Pop out the "simple" calculation before immunity bypass makes it incalculable then.

Lets see it.

I didn't say the original calculation is simple, only that immunity bypass makes it more complex. In terms of the challenge that creatures pose designers often create defenses against particular attacks. In 3.x they posit that protection from any element is equally valuable because the number of attacks using each element is roughly similar, but we know they're wrong. While more attacks use fire, fire immunity is fairly common. Sonic resistance is very uncommon, so sonic damage is preferred.

Here's a 5th edition specific article about value of damage types. This article rates fire as the least valuable damage type (below even slashing damage).

Clearly evaluating the relative value of damage types is possible for some definition of 'expected opposition'. A campaign that takes place entirely within the City of Brass may skew the results compared to a more 'standard' campaign, likewise a campaign featuring primarily undead opposition may yield different results.

NPP, you, of all people, are aware that design requires using probabilities to evaluate options. Benchmarks can be established (such as by using the same-game-test) and a package of options can be compared to similar packages and relative value can be assessed. I have no idea what you seek to gain by implying that no assessment is possible.

In the case of Fire damage, specifically, the article I linked to lists Fire as the least valuable damage type. How much more valuable would it be if you had an ability that overcame fire immunity? It makes a 'hit or miss' attack into a 'hit or hit'. I would posit that super-fire would be the most valuable damage type based on the article's analysis. It would become 'the most reliable damage type in the game, bar none' eclipsing magical weapons and still maintaining the superior match-up against the 9 creatures that are vulnerable.

Edit for clarity: The article referenced assesses fire as the worst of 13 types of damage considered, but notes that other damage types that are not considered may be worse. Poison doesn't make the list because it is even worse than fire. I'm not sure how many damage types exist in 5th edition - the 14 (including poison) mentioned may not be the full list.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I didn't say the original calculation is simple, only that immunity bypass makes it more complex.

You implied it was a simple enough calculation at "Immunity X exists". And TOO complex at "Bypass immunity X exists".

But. How often fire damage appears is not set at design level. Even if it was set it can be manipulated, in both directions, by both players and GMs.

Then the same for fire immunity as well.

The thing that makes "bypass immunity X exists" too much of a complication is the identical unpredictability that exists in "immunity X exists" and even in the underlying "typed X damage exists".

The calculation breaks for the same reason 2 steps BEFORE you say it does. You can only multiply by "fuck you we will change this number wildly in play" ONCE before you don't have a workable calculation and multiplying it by that again does nothing to save it (immunity X exists is doing it twice after all) and the third time might as well be free.

Though I do find it ODD that you seem to agree that bypass immunity X is "unpredictable" because you CONSTANTLY STRAWMAN IT AS APPEARING WITH A 100% RATE ONCE ALLOWED IN THE GAME AT ALL.

[deaddmwalking]

NPP,

I know you're arguing in bad faith. You're implying if not outright claiming that you can't anticipate what you'll see in the game as if it is 100% random. That's unequivocally false. While you may not know exactly what encounters you'll face in exactly what order, D&D relies on verisimilitude to function as a game. As a result, characters (and players) expect to find creatures where it makes logical sense for them to exist. Since players have choices, they can influence if not outright control what encounters they will face. Claiming that you can't evaluate expected challenges is a direct attack on objective evaluations of the game - things like the Same Game Test, etc.

While a campaign might be set in the City of Brass or on the Plane of Ravenloft and we would expect the encounters to skew in a particular direction, it's my experience that most players are aware of the themes of a campaign BEFORE it begins, so they can develop a character that makes sense for that game world. Even though not every campaign features the same creatures in the same frequency, there are sufficient guidelines and published adventures to make it abundantly clear that anticipating challenges on a design level is not only POSSIBLE, it should be EXPECTED.

Once 'bypass x immunity exists' is released into the game, characters that rely on 'x' damage are going to be keen to obtain it. I'm not saying that EVERYONE WILL ALWAYS HAVE IT and that's why it's a problem. It's in fact just because ONE PC HAS IT that I think there is a problem. If I haven't made it clear, my PERSONAL objection is related to the logic of the game. When a dragon swims through a molten lake of lava before attacking the party, I don't think that the PC's first thought is 'maybe we should burn it'. After a creature swims through a lake of lava, it's obvious that radiant heat (fire) doesn't hurt it. It's not clear if cold would (if it is hot enough cold damage can be reduced in compliance with real-world physics), nor sonic, or any other damage type. Knowing that it is 100% immune to fire but knowing that you have an ability that ignores immunity directs it back to 'it's clear that fire doesn't work, but let's burn it anyway'.



You may think that finding a different damage source (like lightning) to avoid a resistance is exactly the same as ignoring the resistance, but I don't. If bypassing resistance is easy, people that rely on that damage will be keen to obtain that bypass. Ignore x immunity becomes a silver bullet - you don't know what else they're resistant to, but whether they have resistance to your attack or not, if you know you ignore that resistance you know that your attack is AT LEAST at normal effectiveness. All those parts of the game about identifying weaknesses, observing the game world for clues, etc, are reduced in importance. That doesn't meet my personal preferences.

And if it meets yours, well, it still throws all of the creatures that 'paid' for a resistance into whether they were 'overcharged' and whether they should be given other advantages to compensate for the fact that the resistance they have provides no benefit (at least as far as a Pyromancer PC is concerned).

Of course, I would object to monsters having fire attacks that overcome resistance, too. That's not fair to PCs that invest in spells like Resist Fire. That'd be some whack bullshit if a DM tried to tell me that the Red Dragon's fire breath completely ignored my Fire Resistance because 'he has super-fire'. Or don't you agree?

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

as if it is 100% random.

And again, that's you being smooth brain again.

100% unpredictable at a design level is not 100% random. In fact, at a design level if it WERE 100% random then it would be almost as predictable as anything CAN be. It's instead unpredictable BECAUSE it is influenced by players, strongly, for varied reasons, in all directions at all points. It's unpredictable, because it's 100% arbitrary.

And it isn't an attack on your holy frank doctrine of the same game test. Because it isn't an attack on objective valuation, it is a defense of it. It is trying to explain to fucking morons like you that the way you are evaluating fire immunity bypass AND fire immunity itself is SUBJECTIVE. And you need to properly redraw your line between subjective and objective valuation somewhere that actually functions.

Rather than where you currently draw it. That makes werewolves and silver weapons interactions into wrong bad impossibility.

You may think that finding a different damage source (like lightning) to avoid a resistance is exactly the same as ignoring the resistance,

No there is ONE very important difference that you are either deliberately ignoring in a totally slimey dishonest way, or just too stupid to realize.

Using lightning doesn't cost you any extra character build resource, but the bypass fire does. This is important because this is part of the valuation of fire immunity that you don't seem to understand and also because this is part of the thing where you are insultingly wrong about your CONTINUED INSISTENCE THAT BYPASS X APPEARS AT A 100% RATE ONCE IN GAME.

You don't just get bypass X for free at the same moment and same level you get X damage. But hey, phases of game play, character advancement, the complexities of trade offs involved all go over your head. Mostly because if you admitted that bypass X might cost ANY character build resource you might have to admit that it has such incredibly precarious value as an ability that it is hard to come up with ANY price that isn't too high to pay for it, or for X immunity in the first place.

If bypassing resistance is easy, people that rely on that damage will be keen to obtain that bypass. Ignore x immunity becomes a silver bullet - you don't know what else they're resistant to

Oh look. ONCE AGAIN. "If I EVER give them the ability to EVER bypass X they will ALWAYS have it for free and always use it in all situations!" Fucking STRAWMAN. Stop it. Calm the fuck down and get a grip. This, this shows the dishonesty and stupidity in your arguments.

I also like that it brings up silver bullets. A thing which in it's literal implementation, you are arguing against. Because again. EXACTLY your claims apply to silver and magical weapons and every other immunity/defense bypass EVER you fucking moron.

[deaddmwalking]

If you weren't the one who said 'give pyromancers bypass fire resistance' than I apologize.

Then you seem actively dismissive of giving a single element specialist a SINGLE layer of immunity bypass.

ONE SINGLE LAYER OF BYPASS.

You start drawing the line there.

Fuck off.

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.

Never mind, that was you. Apology withdrawn.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

You know that "but you said X" is not a defense of you being criticized for presenting a strawman that goes "But if X... THEN 100% STRAWMAN DISASTER!".

The critique is that your conclusion is a dishonest strawman. You don't get to defend yourself by saying "but you said part of my premise!".

And it interacts even less with everything else you are yet again bitching out on addressing there.

[Sashi]

Rather than where you currently draw it. That makes werewolves and silver weapons interactions into wrong bad impossibility.
...

I also like that it brings up silver bullets. A thing which in it's literal implementation, you are arguing against. Because again. EXACTLY your claims apply to silver and magical weapons and every other immunity/defense bypass EVER you fucking moron.

A werewolf with the ability "can only be damaged by silver weapons" is a perfectly possible way to implement Werewolf immunity and vulnerability. Iwould argue it's better than giving werewolves "immune to all damage" and silver bullets the ability "ignore werewolf's damage immunity".

In fact, material vulnerability is a perfect example of how you keep violating your own self-contained rule argument. If the monster manual 3 adds an entirely new class of creature with silver vulnerability what do you do? Under my formulation you just write "Night Hags can only be damaged by silver weapons". But if we're doing immunity plus ignore immunity we have "Night Hags are immune to all damage" plus "errata: silver bullets have the ability 'ignore night hag damage immunity'". We can even do nifty things like add moontear crystal weapons in DMG2 with the ability "counts as silver for the purpose of damaging creatures vulnerable to silver" and then not have to worry about MM4 remembering to errata moontear crystal weapons as being able to damage Yeth Hounds.

It's almost as if an immunity that lists it's own exceptions is objectively more self contained than a blanket immunity plus an ignore immunity ability.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

A werewolf with the ability "can only be damaged by silver weapons" is a perfectly possible way to implement Werewolf immunity and vulnerability. I would argue it's better than giving werewolves "immune to all damage" and silver bullets the ability "ignore werewolf's damage immunity".

Those are not two different things.

That is very basic. If you don't understand that, what are you doing here?

you keep violating your own self-contained rule argument.

That isn't my argument. It came from someone else.

[gatorized]

First, the idea that fire elementals should be immune to fire is a bit weird. I mean, adventurers are made of flesh and bones, and they aren't immune to punches. Even beings made of <thing> should feel something when <thing> moves in a very violent way against them.

This seems like a non-sequitur. Of course we're not immune to punches; we're not made of punches. Presumably a punch elemental would be immune to punches. Also, we're not magical creatures from another plane of existence that function on an entirely different set of physical laws. Or magical laws.

Can you burn a fire with fire?

[Sashi]

D&D style fire elementals just require a completely different set of (meta)physics than real life, which is fine because we can also have shadow, force, and fear elementals. It's definitely most important for elementals to have abilities that are evocative of their substance than to simply be immune. Even better if they can have strengths and weaknesses related to their "element" because I totally want to see a drunken master fight a punch elemental and defeat it by shattering its glass jaw.

Fire elementals could gain temp HP from fire attacks (consuming "fuel") but also explode into smaller elementals if temp HP is greater than max HP (fire spreading). Pyromancers could "kill" fire elementals by hitting them with AoE fire attacks until they split into harmless fire sprites.