D&D Next: Please bring back things like DR, proper immunities etc...

Something I have noticed on these boards and with 4th edition is the idea that most, if not all, of your powers work. Gone are the undead immune to criticals and sneak attack, creatures made of fire being immune to fire, oozes being immune to such things as prone etc...

I can see that some of this was maybe done for simplicity sake but I also see this as being a bit of a lazy design. I don't want D&D Next created with the intent of making all of your powers work against pretty much everything because people like their powers to always work, for some reason it interferes with their fun. Well when things like Lava Dragons aren't immune to fire then that really kills the fun factor for me. I was reading on Sneak Attack in the 4th edition player's guide and it actually left out the description because it didn't want to describe just what a Sneak Attack is so you wouldn't be sitting there thinking, how in the hell did I sneak attack that skeleton?

When I sit down to play D&D, or any game for that matter, I don't always expect my attacks and my decisions to always do what they are supposed to do or even do anything at all. There is nothing worse than ignoring some major obvious things in order for someone's power to work anyway so their fun isn't compromised.

What I find fun is trying to figure out a way to bypass that certain immunity, or that DR, or resistance or whatever. I don't even mind getting tricked into using a daily, when I played 4th edition, on a minion, it's a game and that is part of what the game is all about. I want things like DR, Immunities, Resistances and other things to make a return and actually have monsters that have these things because it makes sense.

PS: Please please please don't come in here and try to spin the biggest BS on the planet why fire would still effect a Lava Dragon etc...

Edit: That's what I get for trying to post with a migraine. I will edit more later.
Something I have noticed on these boards and with 4th edition is the idea that most all of yours work. Gone are the undead immune to criticals and sneak attack, creatures made of fire being immune to fire, oozes being immune to such things as prone etc...


I do remember someone pointing out in the Pathfinder forums that Rogues should be able to Sneak Attack undead (attacking critical joints), and I see no reason why undead in general should be immune to criticals -- although I'd be happy to add in specific types of undead that can, as an immediate interrupt (at-will), turn critical attacks into normal attacks.  Also, while I do see why it breaks your versimilitude for Slaads and Fire Elementals to be *not* immune to fire, I see little reason why they would be outright immune to non-mundane fire (can anyone point out to me an article or book entry that lets you know how much damage mundane fire does?), especially since some real-life firefighting involves using fire to literally take out fires (remember: fire can only keep burning if you have heat, fuel, and air... so if you set a controlled blaze to cut off the out-of-control blaze's fuel or oxygen supply, it eventually dies out).  If that works at the mundane level with lots of planning and large-scale execution, how much more should it work with magical fire vs. magical creatures made of fire?

As for Oozes being prone, while I do understand the logic behind it, I fail to see why we need to have multiple names for the same effect.  It overcomplicates stuff if you ask me.
I don't want D&D Next created with the intent of making all of your powers work against pretty much everything because people like their powers to always work, for some reason it interferes with their fun.

Wait what?

People like their powers to always work.
The fact that people's powers always works interferes with their fun.

O.o

That said, even in 4th edition's PHB 1 you find acknowledgement in the fact that you don't always have access to your powers in the first place depending on how the DM runs the campaign.  As an example written in the PHB, a wizard might not be able to cast spells when his hands are tied.

So yes it's wholly possible even within 4E's rules that you have monsters immune to prone, sneak attack, or what not.

[ Personally I'd look at 4E -- and any RPG system for that matter -- as a framework.  The story is the DM's to run through in the system, with the players as participants in the story (almost always the heroes).  So whatever makes sense in the DM's story, goes.  You just don't have lairs with anti-magic barriers that negate all powers (save for martial powers) by default because it's simply not necessary anymore. ]

Well when things like Lava Dragons aren't immune to fire then that really kills the fun factor for me. I was reading on Sneak Attack in the 4th edition player's guide and it actually left out the description because it didn't want to describe just what a Sneak Attack is so you wouldn't be sitting there thinking, how in the hell did I sneak attack that skeleton?

Story-wise, Lava Dragons are immune to mundane fire, but a caster can always make it super-heat from the inside, or cause magical flames to soak through the protective skin, allowing it unmentionable pain because for the first time in its life it actually experiences tremendous amounts of heat (that it normally ignores through natural adaptation).

As a Rogue, I stab the skeleton at the space between its shoulderblades, possibly causing the entire arm to fall off.  Mechanical effect: I sneak attack the skeleton.  If this explanation could fly in Pathfinder, it could certainly work in 4E as well, right?

Wait, aren't there creatures in real life that aren't necessarily immune to the non-creature hazards their environment has, yet are still able to adapt to those places anyway?  I mean, we do have air-breathing mammals that completely live in water, which would make them susceptible to water-based attacks (drowning) even though they live underwater.  So I wouldn't be surprised if a Lava Dragon couldn't survive being dipped in lava, and only got the name because
1. It lives in volcanoes
2. It looks like lava

PS: Please please please don't come in here and try to spin the biggest BS on the planet why fire would still effect a Lava Dragon etc...


Sorry, just did.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Wait, aren't there creatures in real life that aren't necessarily immune to the non-creature hazards their environment has, yet are still able to adapt to those places anyway?  I mean, we do have air-breathing mammals that completely live in water, which would make them susceptible to water-based attacks (drowning) even though they live underwater.  So I wouldn't be surprised if a Lava Dragon couldn't survive being dipped in lava, and only got the name because
1. It lives in volcanoes
2. It looks like lava



In fact, the volcano dragons of 4th ed do not in any way resist fire, and instead causes tiered fire damage to anyone in their aura anytime they take fire damage.  In effect, each time they take fire damage they burn hotter and brighter, but that means that their HP is being eaten up by that fire fighting their fire.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Wait, aren't there creatures in real life that aren't necessarily immune to the non-creature hazards their environment has, yet are still able to adapt to those places anyway?  I mean, we do have air-breathing mammals that completely live in water, which would make them susceptible to water-based attacks (drowning) even though they live underwater.  So I wouldn't be surprised if a Lava Dragon couldn't survive being dipped in lava, and only got the name because
1. It lives in volcanoes
2. It looks like lava



In fact, the volcano dragons of 4th ed do not in any way resist fire, and instead causes tiered fire damage to anyone in their aura anytime they take fire damage.  In effect, each time they take fire damage they burn hotter and brighter, but that means that their HP is being eaten up by that fire fighting their fire.


Heck, if I as a player found a fire elemental nearby (any edition), remembered how firefighters put out fires by setting brushfires, have the party coordinate in laying an elaborate trap so that the fire elemental's flame would be put out, then the DM says that the fire elemental is completely unharmed, I'd probably just sit out the rest of the session since the elemental would likely have my blades melt anyway, forcing me to find the nearest bucket of water.

Plane of Elemental Fire with no other supporting reason for not needing air or fuel to burn other than "it's magic!" never really made sense to me.  I'll choose Elemental Chaos over the Celestial (pin)Wheel any time of the day.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Gonna start with an aside here: I'm pretty sure threads like this belong in the mechanics forum, not the products one.

Anyway, on topic: Realism is fun and all, sometimes, I guess, but in RPGs realism usually means the DM saying that your ability can't work (and 90% of the time it's not a spell) or your plan is physically impossible or the NPC doesn't believe you or the DC for that is insane or you have to make an opposed check with a penalty and eat an AoO. So I guess my point is actually that realism is often anti-fun, and the cruel thing is that the more the DM thinks he knows about something, the more likely he is to find realistic reasons why your plan auto-fails or whatever.

I'm not saying PCs need to be able to pull off every crazy idea. Sometimes though, in games, it's sort of fun to do something you couldn't do in real life, even if you were really strong and knew some orcs to beat up. And I hate to say it, but usually magic gets a free pass on realism constraints, though I have of course seen plenty of DMs try to explain step by step how a particular magical spell or item works and why it would not produce the desired effect. Still, I'm wary of realism, especially when it means the rogue has to sit in the corner and cry or "get creative" because he didn't get the right feat or item.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

Just to chime in. Oozes have never been immune to being prone. I'm sick of this argument against 4e, as it isn't true in 3.5 or PF, either.

As far as creatures being immune to sneak attack. No. Unless sneak attack is a lot different in 5e, it basically makes combat for a rogue extremely boring. It's like antimagic, but for a rogue. You're left just slowly chipping away while everyone else gets to use everything they have. Not a whole lot of fun. Resistances and immunities are fine, but I like how the 4e Pyromancer can ignore fire resistance. It can easily be flavored as him drawing the fire out of the creature he is attacking, effectively breaking it down.

Bottom line, realism can be fine to a point, but not at the expense of someone's effectiveness at the table. This is fantasy, afterall.
Then summarizing what you guys are saying to the OP is that the reality inside the game must always curves to meet the player wishes.

There should always be a reason to some stupid strategy made up in the table by a player works as he intend.

If the group sorcerer wants to kill a skeleton with Psychic damage everybody at the table have to force their minds to find an explanation to why that worked in the game. Why? Just because you don't wanna break the fun of one player.

Then you can remove the fire from within a Fire elemental using fire! Oh my Faerûnian Pantheon, what have a done to read this? Mundane fire needs air and full. A fire elemental is the fire essence from the fire elemental plane, they are eternal, they do not need air or fuel. You can't just "hit" them with a normal sword, as you can't just hit fire with your normal sword (useless you want to destroy its metal and have a useless breakable metal stick). That's why they were immune to fire damage and non magic weapons in past editions. I'm not trying to curve the reality to meet the stupid gameplay of some players. If a DM puts a Fire elemental after a group of player it's because many requirements have been meet, I.E., 1)The party is near a gateway to the fire elemental plane or some creature summoned that thing from there. 2)The players have to be of the apropried level or they should run for their lives after see some thing as increadible as an Living Fire. 3)They have to be cleaver enough to figure out that if they want to destroy primal essence of fire they will need special resources and not only use any strategy they have in their sheets like:  A Fighter power that push the creature (If the flavor text says you need to physicaly push the creature) will just have a lot of pain trying to push intangible fire with its bare hands.

I really don't like the new school way of having fun. They are too lazy to thing while playing. Well it's really hard to talk and toss dices at the sometime, right?
 
Then summarizing what you guys are saying to the OP is that the reality inside the game must always curves to meet the player wishes.

There should always be a reason to some stupid strategy made up in the table by a player works as he intend.

If the group sorcerer wants to kill a skeleton with Psychic damage everybody at the table have to force their minds to find an explanation to why that worked in the game. Why? Just because you don't wanna break the fun of one player.

Then you can remove the fire from within a Fire elemental using fire! Oh my Faerûnian Pantheon, what have a done to read this? Mundane fire needs air and full. A fire elemental is the fire essence from the fire elemental plane, they are eternal, they do not need air or fuel. You can't just "hit" them with a normal sword, as you can't just hit fire with your normal sword (useless you want to destroy its metal and have a useless breakable metal stick). That's why they were immune to fire damage and no magic weapons in past editions. I'm not trying to curve the reality to meet the stupid gameplay of some players. If a DM puts a Fire elemental after a group of player it's because many requirements have been meet, I.E., 1)The party is near a gateway to the fire elemental plane or some creature summoned that thing from there. 2)The players have to be of the apropried level or they should run for their lives after see some thing as increadible as an Living Fire. 3)The has to be cleaver enough to figure out that if they want to destroy primal essence of fire they will need special resources and not only use any strategy they have in their sheets like:  A Fighter power that push the creature (If the flavor text says you need to physicaly push the creature) will just have a lot of pain trying to push intangible fire with its bare hands.

I really don't like the new school way of having fun. They are too lazy to thing while playing. Well it's really hard to talk and toss dices at the sometime, right?
 



So, using your imagination to make your abilities work is bad. Gotcha. It isn't forcing anyone to do anything. They are also still immune or resistant to fire damage. There is one mage build that can ignore fire resistance, everything else works as normal. The flavor text doesn't really mean much in the push, either. The game actively encourages reflavoring. Flavor text is just one example of what could be happening. It's the rule of cool. Cool > realism. 

I think it is the complete opposite of what you call "lazy". It is actively using your imagination to describe the scenario. Mechanics are just there to support the flavor that you provide. 
Then in 1 minute time, think in a way a Fighter can push a fire elemental. Remember that the thing is almost null of intelligence and entirely fearless (unless when there is harmful cold) and your sword is just mudane.

1 minute, not more. Because I won't stop the game just because a player wants to push fire. 
Then in 1 minute time, think in a way a Fighter can push a fire elemental. Remember that the thing is almost null of intelligence and entirely fearless (unless when there is harmful cold) and your sword is just mudane.

1 minute, not more. Because I won't stop the game just because a player wants to push fire. 



Fire elementals are not incorporeal. So, you push them the same way you push anything else.
In almost 40 years of D&D editions Fire elementals were as incorporeal as mundane fire. If it isn't in the 4e it's really don't matters to me.

And if this one, is an Old style Fire elemental, what will you do?

That said, even in 4th edition's PHB 1 you find acknowledgement in the fact that you don't always have access to your powers in the first place depending on how the DM runs the campaign.  As an example written in the PHB, a wizard might not be able to cast spells when his hands are tied.

So yes it's wholly possible even within 4E's rules that you have monsters immune to prone, sneak attack, or what not.



I'm not saying PCs need to be able to pull off every crazy idea. Sometimes though, in games, it's sort of fun to do something you couldn't do in real life...



Bottom line, realism can be fine to a point, but not at the expense of someone's effectiveness at the table. This is fantasy, afterall.



Then summarizing what you guys are saying to the OP is that the reality inside the game must ---->always<---- curves to meet the player wishes.

There should always be a reason to some stupid strategy made up in the table by a player works as he intend. 



Your summary skills are matched only by your tactful word choice. Bravo!

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

Then in 1 minute time, think in a way a Fighter can push a fire elemental. Remember that the thing is almost null of intelligence and entirely fearless (unless when there is harmful cold) and your sword is just mudane.

1 minute, not more. Because I won't stop the game just because a player wants to push fire. 



And great job proving my actual point - make sure the PCs fight a formless living fire that cannot be intimidated, disarmed, pushed, pulled, critted, sneak attacked, tripped, or anything else that might cross a non-caster's mind. Let's fill a few adventures with epic monsters like this, all of them either formless semi-corporeal blobs of fire/water/air/pure evil or just fricking huge. And all will be either mindless or highly intelligent, but fearless either way because the highy intelligent ones know their place in the universe.

How can we tell this guy is one of the greatest warriors in the world? Well, he just attacked that thing a bunch of times with a big bonus. How can we tell this is one of the greatest wizards in the world? Hmm, looks like he summoned that thing's three older brothers to teach it a lesson in humility. Haha the cleric just sent them all back to their home plane and is shaking his head at the wizard. What a hoot!

Rogue, wake up and find some traps. Explain where you're looking so the DM can decide if you have any real chance to succeed. 

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

In almost 40 years of D&D editions Fire elementals were as incorporeal as mundane fire.



No, they weren't. I'm looking at the 3.5 MM, as well. They are NOT incorporeal. If you hit them with natural weapons, or a melee weapon. You get burned. They still take damage, though. No magical requirements, either. They didn't even have DR, except the large ones.

Air elementals weren't incorporeal, either. 
Look, the bottom line is, all the DR, MR, MI, resistance to damage types, etc was removed in 4th Ed not for the sake of inspiring imagination, but in the name of class homogenization. Every class has almost the same number of dailies, at wills, and encounters, because, for some reason, the designers thought that diversity in how classes play ruined the fun. This goes hand in hand with making all damage type work against all monstersM and getting ride of ability score damage. Some monsters in 4th do have damage resistance end damage vulnerability, but was usually negligible.

So, saying that wanting theses resistances is a lack of imagination I think is often asking other players to do mental gymnastics.  The biggest example is the fact that you can hurt a ghost with a normal weapon. Yeah, it's half damage, but come on! It makes no sense to be able to whack a ghost with a mundane sword. The design philosophy of fourth edition was never let players feel to bad about their character but for those of us who like challenges, who like having to think of ways to overcome challengse beyond choosing between a hand full of power cards, 4th Ed becomes a combination of boring and suffocating as we are forced to pegon-hole our imagination into the mechanics of the power cards since they always work, and generally are the only things that work. It is hard to swallow sometimes.

Now, there is a lot about 4th Ed I like, and only a few things that I don't. The idea that a mundane physical attack can hurt aghost, or a monk can punch an ooz without taking damage, or that an ooz can be knocked prone, or that an ooz can be sneak attacked, that fire elementals can be hurt with fire,  etc, is a pretty big design flaw. But again, the reasoning behind it was all classes all equal, all the time. I would like next to move away from that. If I'm a rouge and undead show up I dontt mind being scared as I can't sneak attack them, and the cleric gets to shine by turning them, and the fighter by hacking them. Later i can shine by sneaking in stealthily behind the evil cultist priest in the middle of his evil ritual and stab him in the back for tons of damage, and that will be my moment, that is my skill as a rouge, its my job. But in fourth ed every ones job is just to play power cards. 

So, I hope they do bring back magic resistance to scare wizards, things without vital organs to scare rouges, incorporeal to scare fighters, etc. these things make more sense than using a fire spell to eat up the oxygen around a magical fire elemental from the plane of fire/elemental chaos to hurt it! And it makes encounters more varied in feel and style, and less of a constant and quickly dulling routine of playing power cards that always work the same and mostly to the same effect. 

(and, just so no one brings up that incorporeal monsters only take half damage, they also get nurfed in HPs,generally getting way fewer HPs as a normal monster of their type and level, to make up for their half damage ability. So, it's pretty lame. A lot of regen monsters are like this as well) 
In almost 40 years of D&D editions Fire elementals were as incorporeal as mundane fire.



No, they weren't. I'm looking at the 3.5 MM, as well. They are NOT incorporeal. If you hit them with natural weapons, or a melee weapon. You get burned. They still take damage, though. No magical requirements, either. They didn't even have DR, except the large ones.

Air elementals weren't incorporeal, either. 



You are correct. In 3.x you could attack fire, air, and I think water elementals. They might have had dr but, still, I don't think a normalswords should have been able to hurt them. 3.x didn't always get it right either, but it wasn't as bad as 4th ed in this regard.
In almost 40 years of D&D editions Fire elementals were as incorporeal as mundane fire.



No, they weren't. I'm looking at the 3.5 MM, as well. They are NOT incorporeal. If you hit them with natural weapons, or a melee weapon. You get burned. They still take damage, though. No magical requirements, either. They didn't even have DR, except the large ones.

Air elementals weren't incorporeal, either. 



You are correct. In 3.x you could attack fire, air, and I think water elementals. They might have had dr but, still, I don't think a normalswords should have been able to hurt them. 3.x didn't always get it right either, but it wasn't as bad as 4th ed in this regard.



So, you think the martial classes should just sit the fight out? 
Look, the bottom line is, all the DR, MR, MI, resistance to damage types, etc was removed in 4th Ed not for the sake of inspiring imagination, but in the name of class homogenization. Every class has almost the same number of dailies, at wills, and encounters, because, for some reason, the designers thought that diversity in how classes play ruined the fun. This goes hand in hand with making all damage type work against all monstersM and getting ride of ability score damage. Some monsters in 4th do have damage resistance end damage vulnerability, but was usually negligible.



Diversity in how classes played was in no way contingent on what powers they got. But, really that's a discussion best left elsewhere.

Instead, think about things mechanically and how they worked for 4th edition. To have what you would refer to as meaningful resistances to damage and types, that reintroduces the concept of the golf-bag fighter. Couple this with the fact that the math functions in such a way that as you level up you need better and better weapons (which if you are forced to indulge because you are not 'magic' means even your default abilities suffer), it would have lead to a horrible situation overall, and I guarantee had it existed, there would be vocal complaints about it.


So, saying that wanting theses resistances is a lack of imagination I think is often asking other players to do mental gymnastics.  The biggest example is the fact that you can hurt a ghost with a normal weapon. Yeah, it's half damage, but come on! It makes no sense to be able to whack a ghost with a mundane sword. The design philosophy of fourth edition was never let players feel to bad about their character but for those of us who like challenges, who like having to think of ways to overcome challengse beyond choosing between a hand full of power cards, 4th Ed becomes a combination of boring and suffocating as we are forced to pegon-hole our imagination into the mechanics of the power cards since they always work, and generally are the only things that work. It is hard to swallow sometimes.

Now, there is a lot about 4th Ed I like, and only a few things that I don't. The idea that a mundane physical attack can hurt aghost, or a monk can punch an ooz without taking damage, or that an ooz can be knocked prone, or that an ooz can be sneak attacked, that fire elementals can be hurt with fire,  etc, is a pretty big design flaw. But again, the reasoning behind it was all classes all equal, all the time. I would like next to move away from that. If I'm a rouge and undead show up I dontt mind being scared as I can't sneak attack them, and the cleric gets to shine by turning them, and the fighter by hacking them. Later i can shine by sneaking in stealthily behind the evil cultist priest in the middle of his evil ritual and stab him in the back for tons of damage, and that will be my moment, that is my skill as a rouge, its my job. But in fourth ed every ones job is just to play power cards. 

So, I hope they do bring back magic resistance to scare wizards, things without vital organs to scare rouges, incorporeal to scare fighters, etc. these things make more sense than using a fire spell to eat up the oxygen around a magical fire elemental from the plane of fire/elemental chaos to hurt it! And it makes encounters more varied in feel and style, and less of a constant and quickly dulling routine of playing power cards that always work the same and mostly to the same effect. 

(and, just so no one brings up that incorporeal monsters only take half damage, they also get nurfed in HPs,generally getting way fewer HPs as a normal monster of their type and level, to make up for their half damage ability. So, it's pretty lame. A lot of regen monsters are like this as well) 


Then there is this second point. Personally, when I recall the numerous times in 3rd Edition where an enemy with a certain resistance popped up and there was someone in the party not fully equipped to compensate for it, that person wasn't exactly having a fun time that combat. I cannot count the number of times a swarm popped up and the melee fighters were reduced to blanks for the duration. Same with skeletons just because your swordmaster character didn't metagame properly to know that the skeleton has DR/Bob.

Instead, try reinventing resistances if you want them. Treat them as vulnerabilities instead. Think of it less that the skeleton is resistant to everything other than bludgeoning, but instead it is really weak to a good solid whack. Swordmaster doesn't feel impotent if he doesn't want to take up a mace, but if he did he'd get a boost.

Insubstantial and things of the like, just reorient the monsters so that they have more hitpoints than a normal monster (which would reflect difficulty in damaging them), but look at that! Certain attack forms are more effective and have increased damage.

Resistances as they were and as you seem to intend them act as penalties, and historically, they would be applied almost solely to non-magical classes. Reorient them as bonuses. Players like doing more, not being reduced because they didn't know the secret handshake.
In my campaign I call it the roll your eyes moment.   After that happens the game is practically over.  The players don't take the world seriously and begin to crack jokes about it or drift off interest wise.

Some of you I suppose can play a game based on make it up as you go.  Others of us will never find such a game interesting or immersive.  We want to at least imagine we are in a fantasy world that has some kind of consistency and plausibility (given we accept the fantasy assumptions).   In some cases, I agree with some of the explanations above but in others I do not.   I've always felt that sneak attack should be called precision strike.

Here is how I'd make both sides happy (I hope)....

Fireball 
Range: 50 feet
Damage: 5d6 + 5 ongoing damage condition
Area of Effect: 3x3 template
Duration: instantaneous. 

Explanation:  A small digit rockets from fingertip to designated target square.  If interrupted along it's path it explodes immediately.  Those in the area effect take fire damage and are on fire.   


The narrativists use the stat block and ignore the explanation.  The simulationists use the explanations and those DMs adjudicate things appropriately based on the contents of the explanation.   So in the fire elemental example, the first DM just allows the damage while the 2nd DM either reduces it or ignores it.   On the flip side, the first DM just adjudicates a cold spell normally while the 2nd DM gives the attacker bonus damage because the fire elemental is vulnerable to cold.

In the Monster Manual - provide resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities in a special block.   


Everyone happy?






 
I'm definitely not advocating for DR based on magical bonus.  I am hoping magical bonuses are gone from swords.  I do think though DR/bludgeoning or DR/silver is ok and flavorful.
Just to chime in. Oozes have never been immune to being prone. I'm sick of this argument against 4e, as it isn't true in 3.5 or PF, either.

As far as creatures being immune to sneak attack. No. Unless sneak attack is a lot different in 5e, it basically makes combat for a rogue extremely boring. It's like antimagic, but for a rogue. You're left just slowly chipping away while everyone else gets to use everything they have. Not a whole lot of fun. Resistances and immunities are fine, but I like how the 4e Pyromancer can ignore fire resistance. It can easily be flavored as him drawing the fire out of the creature he is attacking, effectively breaking it down.

Bottom line, realism can be fine to a point, but not at the expense of someone's effectiveness at the table. This is fantasy, afterall.



Actually they are immune to things like prone and trip in 3.5/Pathfinder. I have already pointed it out from the SRD many moons ago.

Gelatinous Cube    CR 3
XP 800
N Large ooze
Init –5; Senses blindsight 60 ft.; Perception –5
Defense
AC 4, touch 4, flat-footed 4 (–5 Dex, –1 size)
hp 50 (4d8+32)
Fort +9, Ref –4, Will –4
Immune electricity, ooze traits
Offense
Speed 15 ft.
Melee slam +2 (1d6 plus 1d6 acid)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
Special Attacks engulf, paralysis
Statistics
Str 10, Dex 1, Con 26, Int —, Wis 1, Cha 1
Base Atk +3; CMB +4; CMD –1 (can’t be tripped)
SQ transparent
Ecolo gy
Environment any underground
Organization solitary
Treasure incidental

In order for prone to work a creature as to fall on it's back such as from being tripped and since they can't be tripped they can't "fall" on their back.
Just to chime in. Oozes have never been immune to being prone. I'm sick of this argument against 4e, as it isn't true in 3.5 or PF, either.

As far as creatures being immune to sneak attack. No. Unless sneak attack is a lot different in 5e, it basically makes combat for a rogue extremely boring. It's like antimagic, but for a rogue. You're left just slowly chipping away while everyone else gets to use everything they have. Not a whole lot of fun. Resistances and immunities are fine, but I like how the 4e Pyromancer can ignore fire resistance. It can easily be flavored as him drawing the fire out of the creature he is attacking, effectively breaking it down.

Bottom line, realism can be fine to a point, but not at the expense of someone's effectiveness at the table. This is fantasy, afterall.



Actually they are immune to things like prone and trip in 3.5/Pathfinder. I have already pointed it out from the SRD many moons ago.

Gelatinous Cube    CR 3
XP 800
N Large ooze
Init –5; Senses blindsight 60 ft.; Perception –5
Defense
AC 4, touch 4, flat-footed 4 (–5 Dex, –1 size)
hp 50 (4d8+32)
Fort +9, Ref –4, Will –4
Immune electricity, ooze traits
Offense
Speed 15 ft.
Melee slam +2 (1d6 plus 1d6 acid)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
Special Attacks engulf, paralysis
Statistics
Str 10, Dex 1, Con 26, Int —, Wis 1, Cha 1
Base Atk +3; CMB +4; CMD –1 (can’t be tripped)
SQ transparent
Ecolo gy
Environment any underground
Organization solitary
Treasure incidental

In order for prone to work a creature as to fall on it's back such as from being tripped and since they can't be tripped they can't "fall" on their back.



Can't be tripped does not mean immune to prone. Trip is just one way to make something prone. That's like saying can't be bullrushed means immune to forced movement. If a spell were to knock it prone, or any other means, it would work. Trip specifically can not make it prone.

They aren't immune to trip in 3.5, either.  
In my campaign I call it the roll your eyes moment.   After that happens the game is practically over.  The players don't take the world seriously and begin to crack jokes about it or drift off interest wise.

Some of you I suppose can play a game based on make it up as you go.  Others of us will never find such a game interesting or immersive.  We want to at least imagine we are in a fantasy world that has some kind of consistency and plausibility (given we accept the fantasy assumptions).   In some cases, I agree with some of the explanations above but in others I do not.   I've always felt that sneak attack should be called precision strike.

Here is how I'd make both sides happy (I hope)....

Fireball 
Range: 50 feet
Damage: 5d6 + 5 ongoing damage condition
Area of Effect: 3x3 template
Duration: instantaneous. 

Explanation:  A small digit rockets from fingertip to designated target square.  If interrupted along it's path it explodes immediately.  Those in the area effect take fire damage and are on fire.   


The narrativists use the stat block and ignore the explanation.  The simulationists use the explanations and those DMs adjudicate things appropriately based on the contents of the explanation.   So in the fire elemental example, the first DM just allows the damage while the 2nd DM either reduces it or ignores it.   On the flip side, the first DM just adjudicates a cold spell normally while the 2nd DM gives the attacker bonus damage because the fire elemental is vulnerable to cold.

In the Monster Manual - provide resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities in a special block.   


Everyone happy?






 



I could actually see a Fireball doing half damage to creatures that are immune to fire if the spell actually had concussion. I have always imagined Fireball as a bomb going off along with fire.

I could actually see a Fireball doing half damage to creatures that are immune to fire if the spell actually had concussion. I have always imagined Fireball as a bomb going off along with fire.



Thats why I said the DM would adjudicate based on the spell description.  I'm not even unsympathetic to the idea that extreme fire can do some damage to a fire resistant creature.  Of course!  it's just not as good as against a normal creature.

Do you like the concept?  I got it from the 1e PHB.  :-).   I think even the narrativists can like it.   
You can add more and varied DRs, conditions, etc. in 4E, but I don't want the complexity of 3.5 brought back to the game, including D&D next.

It should be very easy to lay out the DRs, monster abilities and related items from previous editions, but take the 4E approach to build up from common elements so you don't have a bunch of DR and related special rules scattered all over the place that conflict with each other.

One thing I am already dreading is bringing back alignments, and alignment based DR, or other effects to D&D next. That concept should be an optional rule set.
In principle it's possible to have creatures that are immune to certain conditions. However the specific examples the specific examples I've seen in this thread aren't good examples. As has been mentioned here and in other threads:

- Prone is just an abstract condition representing a certain state of vulnerability. Oozes that are prone are just in a discombobulated state (or as I like to say, discom-blob-ulated).

- Sneak attack against undead makes sense if you just consider it the ability to hit areas more precisely and an attack that is more likely to actually be a killing blow.  Just because it's a skeleton doesn't mean you can't slice its spine in with a well placed shot for instance.

- Psychic damage against undead and other instinctive creatures works fine. Their senses can be corrupted, fooled and blinded just like any other creature. Even if a creature doesn't experience pain it still can be mentally disrupted so it has trouble defending itself, which is exactly what hit points reflect. Likewise enough psychic damage can permanently disassociate the mental or spirtual essence of a creature from its ability to control its body or shut down its version of a nervous system, rendering it effectively dead.


So all of those examples are very easily explained in the game world and there's no particular reason to modify how game mechanics affect them. If you really want to modify the creatures that's fine, you can houserule anything you like, but it's not a "flaw" in the game system that needs to be corrected, it just means you have a different homebrew vision of how these creatures ought to work.  
In almost 40 years of D&D editions Fire elementals were as incorporeal as mundane fire.



No, they weren't. I'm looking at the 3.5 MM, as well. They are NOT incorporeal. If you hit them with natural weapons, or a melee weapon. You get burned. They still take damage, though. No magical requirements, either. They didn't even have DR, except the large ones.

Air elementals weren't incorporeal, either. 



You are correct. In 3.x you could attack fire, air, and I think water elementals. They might have had dr but, still, I don't think a normalswords should have been able to hurt them. 3.x didn't always get it right either, but it wasn't as bad as 4th ed in this regard.



So, you think the martial classes should just sit the fight out? 



No, they just need a mgic weapon

You can add more and varied DRs, conditions, etc. in 4E, but I don't want the complexity of 3.5 brought back to the game, including D&D next.

It should be very easy to lay out the DRs, monster abilities and related items from previous editions, but take the 4E approach to build up from common elements so you don't have a bunch of DR and related special rules scattered all over the place that conflict with each other.

One thing I am already dreading is bringing back alignments, and alignment based DR, or other effects to D&D next. That concept should be an optional rule set.



The simliest way would be in ore 3rd editions that would just say "can only be hurt by magic weaponor and silver weapons" pretty simple there but pretty brutal. 3.0 tried to ease this a bit with the "DR 10/+2" and that is still pretty simple. The thing was that almost always the party had the right level of magic enhancement so 3.5 went to "DR 10/magic." still pretty simple. I think this format works just fine and easily allows for variation based on monster, and it is as simple as 4ths "fire resistance 5, cold vulnerability 5." Non of the editions were that complicated. 

 
In principle it's possible to have creatures that are immune to certain conditions. However the specific examples the specific examples I've seen in this thread aren't good examples. As has been mentioned here and in other threads:

- Prone is just an abstract condition representing a certain state of vulnerability. Oozes that are prone are just in a discombobulated state (or as I like to say, discom-blob-ulated).

- Sneak attack against undead makes sense if you just consider it the ability to hit areas more precisely and an attack that is more likely to actually be a killing blow.  Just because it's a skeleton doesn't mean you can't slice its spine in with a well placed shot for instance.

- Psychic damage against undead and other instinctive creatures works fine. Their senses can be corrupted, fooled and blinded just like any other creature. Even if a creature doesn't experience pain it still can be mentally disrupted so it has trouble defending itself, which is exactly what hit points reflect. Likewise enough psychic damage can permanently disassociate the mental or spirtual essence of a creature from its ability to control its body or shut down its version of a nervous system, rendering it effectively dead.


So all of those examples are very easily explained in the game world and there's no particular reason to modify how game mechanics affect them. If you really want to modify the creatures that's fine, you can houserule anything you like, but it's not a "flaw" in the game system that needs to be corrected, it just means you have a different homebrew vision of how these creatures ought to work.  



These can, kind of work (I have some issues with them but I could live with them). But i have not Heard a good explanation for how a fighter can "kill" a ghost or elemental, or even a demon with a mundane sword. Same for swarms. If you have thousands oftiny spiders crawling all over you attacking with a sword is pointless. In 3.x when we came across swarms, we threw lanterns andalchemical flasks at them and/or ran like mad men. They made the dungeon scary because we knew that some things  you just had to run from. 

In forth Ed, eh swarm who cares, wizard has daily burst, he will kill it or, eh just half damage from my sword, I'll action point, or, here is the kicker, the rouge can flak the swarm and SNEAK ATTACK IT! That's right, sneak attack the thousandsfind tiny swarming instincts that are crawling all over you, your friend, and he floor. and if you want to give me a good laugh, you can tell me "well, once you kill enough of the tiny spiders, with 3 or 4 sword sings, they disperse" why would they do that? Have you ever been attacked by a swarm of fire ants? I have, and stomping on the or swatting them is pointless!! The only thing to do was hose yourself off with a garden hose or go jump inthe shower. So don't tell me that even ten swats with anything is going to drive away a swarm. You need water or fire or something else, but not a sword.
In almost 40 years of D&D editions Fire elementals were as incorporeal as mundane fire.



No, they weren't. I'm looking at the 3.5 MM, as well. They are NOT incorporeal. If you hit them with natural weapons, or a melee weapon. You get burned. They still take damage, though. No magical requirements, either. They didn't even have DR, except the large ones.

Air elementals weren't incorporeal, either. 



You are correct. In 3.x you could attack fire, air, and I think water elementals. They might have had dr but, still, I don't think a normalswords should have been able to hurt them. 3.x didn't always get it right either, but it wasn't as bad as 4th ed in this regard.



So, you think the martial classes should just sit the fight out? 



No, they just need a mgic weapon




So, if they don't have one, they're screwed is what I'm saying. There's a reason this went away. There's no reason for that to be there. Either you throw the thing at them at level 1 when they have no magic items, or you throw it at them at an appopriate level when they do. If you use the appropriate level encounter, they're going to have magic weapons. It makes the vulnerability redundant.
In almost 40 years of D&D editions Fire elementals were as incorporeal as mundane fire.



No, they weren't. I'm looking at the 3.5 MM, as well. They are NOT incorporeal. If you hit them with natural weapons, or a melee weapon. You get burned. They still take damage, though. No magical requirements, either. They didn't even have DR, except the large ones.

Air elementals weren't incorporeal, either. 



You are correct. In 3.x you could attack fire, air, and I think water elementals. They might have had dr but, still, I don't think a normalswords should have been able to hurt them. 3.x didn't always get it right either, but it wasn't as bad as 4th ed in this regard.



So, you think the martial classes should just sit the fight out? 



No, they just need a mgic weapon




So, if they don't have one, they're screwed is what I'm saying. There's a reason this went away. There's no reason for that to be there. Either you throw the thing at them at level 1 when they have no magic items, or you throw it at them at an appopriate level when they do. If you use the appropriate level encounter, they're going to have magic weapons. It makes the vulnerability redundant.



Depends on what monster and what system were talking about. You can still fight if it's just damage reduction were talking about, if it's a ghost or incorporeal thing the mundane items should be non effective. It's not a difficult concept. Also, it's why at level one spells like magicweapon were good. The Mage would cast it on the fighter and now the fighter could fight what ever it is it needs the magic for. If the party can't deal with it, then they run away and live to fight another day. 
In almost 40 years of D&D editions Fire elementals were as incorporeal as mundane fire.



No, they weren't. I'm looking at the 3.5 MM, as well. They are NOT incorporeal. If you hit them with natural weapons, or a melee weapon. You get burned. They still take damage, though. No magical requirements, either. They didn't even have DR, except the large ones.

Air elementals weren't incorporeal, either. 



You are correct. In 3.x you could attack fire, air, and I think water elementals. They might have had dr but, still, I don't think a normalswords should have been able to hurt them. 3.x didn't always get it right either, but it wasn't as bad as 4th ed in this regard.



So, you think the martial classes should just sit the fight out? 



No, they just need a mgic weapon




So, if they don't have one, they're screwed is what I'm saying. There's a reason this went away. There's no reason for that to be there. Either you throw the thing at them at level 1 when they have no magic items, or you throw it at them at an appopriate level when they do. If you use the appropriate level encounter, they're going to have magic weapons. It makes the vulnerability redundant.



Depends on what monster and what system were talking about. You can still fight if it's just damage reduction were talking about, if it's a ghost or incorporeal thing the mundane items should be non effective. It's not a difficult concept. Also, it's why at level one spells like magicweapon were good. The Mage would cast it on the fighter and now the fighter could fight what ever it is it needs the magic for. If the party can't deal with it, then they run away and live to fight another day. 



Oh here we go now! I'm sure we are about to get a spell caster comment but last time I checked was was a team game. 
In almost 40 years of D&D editions Fire elementals were as incorporeal as mundane fire.



No, they weren't. I'm looking at the 3.5 MM, as well. They are NOT incorporeal. If you hit them with natural weapons, or a melee weapon. You get burned. They still take damage, though. No magical requirements, either. They didn't even have DR, except the large ones.

Air elementals weren't incorporeal, either. 



You are correct. In 3.x you could attack fire, air, and I think water elementals. They might have had dr but, still, I don't think a normalswords should have been able to hurt them. 3.x didn't always get it right either, but it wasn't as bad as 4th ed in this regard.



So, you think the martial classes should just sit the fight out? 



No, they just need a mgic weapon




So, if they don't have one, they're screwed is what I'm saying. There's a reason this went away. There's no reason for that to be there. Either you throw the thing at them at level 1 when they have no magic items, or you throw it at them at an appopriate level when they do. If you use the appropriate level encounter, they're going to have magic weapons. It makes the vulnerability redundant.



Depends on what monster and what system were talking about. You can still fight if it's just damage reduction were talking about, if it's a ghost or incorporeal thing the mundane items should be non effective. It's not a difficult concept. Also, it's why at level one spells like magicweapon were good. The Mage would cast it on the fighter and now the fighter could fight what ever it is it needs the magic for. If the party can't deal with it, then they run away and live to fight another day. 



Oh here we go now! I'm sure we are about to get a spell caster comment but last time I checked was was a team game. 



How is it nt team work for the Mage to infuse the fighters sword with magic, so that the fighter can go kill hack up the monster? Aren't they both working together?
In almost 40 years of D&D editions Fire elementals were as incorporeal as mundane fire.



No, they weren't. I'm looking at the 3.5 MM, as well. They are NOT incorporeal. If you hit them with natural weapons, or a melee weapon. You get burned. They still take damage, though. No magical requirements, either. They didn't even have DR, except the large ones.

Air elementals weren't incorporeal, either. 



You are correct. In 3.x you could attack fire, air, and I think water elementals. They might have had dr but, still, I don't think a normalswords should have been able to hurt them. 3.x didn't always get it right either, but it wasn't as bad as 4th ed in this regard.



So, you think the martial classes should just sit the fight out? 



No, they just need a mgic weapon




So, if they don't have one, they're screwed is what I'm saying. There's a reason this went away. There's no reason for that to be there. Either you throw the thing at them at level 1 when they have no magic items, or you throw it at them at an appopriate level when they do. If you use the appropriate level encounter, they're going to have magic weapons. It makes the vulnerability redundant.



Depends on what monster and what system were talking about. You can still fight if it's just damage reduction were talking about, if it's a ghost or incorporeal thing the mundane items should be non effective. It's not a difficult concept. Also, it's why at level one spells like magicweapon were good. The Mage would cast it on the fighter and now the fighter could fight what ever it is it needs the magic for. If the party can't deal with it, then they run away and live to fight another day. 



Oh here we go now! I'm sure we are about to get a spell caster comment but last time I checked was was a team game. 



How is it nt team work for the Mage to infuse the fighters sword with magic, so that the fighter can go kill hack up the monster? Aren't they both working together?



What if noone is playing a mage at all to "let" the fighter be effective against the creature? 
If its something like a shadow and it's impossible to hurt it, and you don't have a cleric to help either, or any other options you beat a hasty retreat. That's right, runaway. Dosnt sound so great but our greatest a Action heros do it, and it makes for spicing up the dungeon because the danger is real. So yes, run away, andthen see if you can buy a potion of magic weapon to douse your blade in, or get the local priest to cast the enchantment before you go out again (I think there is a version that lasted one hour per level). 

If none of that seems an option, maybe think about a way to avoid the monster.if that seems impossible, than you look your dm in the eye, and say "well, with no way to deal with the threat, we're not going back there" and think of another solution or go adventure somewhere else untill you have the means to deal with that monster. 

I know some people want to be able to kill everything the come across right away, the first time they see it, but I think it gets old if every monster can be defeated with your stack of power cards, regardless otithe type or origin of the monster. Dungeons are no longer scary if you know for sure you can deal with everything in the dungeon with just your at will, encounter, and daily powers. 
If its something like a shadow and it's impossible to hurt it, and you don't have a cleric to help either, or any other options you beat a hasty retreat. That's right, runaway. Dosnt sound so great but our greatest a Action heros do it, and it makes for spicing up the dungeon because the danger is real. So yes, run away, andthen see if you can buy a potion of magic weapon to douse your blade in, or get the local priest to cast the enchantment before you go out again (I think there is a version that lasted one hour per level). 

If none of that seems an option, maybe think about a way to avoid the monster.if that seems impossible, than you look your dm in the eye, and say "well, with no way to deal with the threat, we're not going back there" and think of another solution or go adventure somewhere else untill you have the means to deal with that monster. 

I know some people want to be able to kill everything the come across right away, the first time they see it, but I think it gets old if every monster can be defeated with your stack of power cards, regardless otithe type or origin of the monster. Dungeons are no longer scary if you know for sure you can deal with everything in the dungeon with just your at will, encounter, and daily powers. 



So, the fight is lost before it starts because the caster didn't cast a spell on you. No thanks. I like my fighters to be worthwhile with their own abilities. The fighter shouldn't need a potion or a spell to be useful.

Every encounter should be winnable. Nothing is ever guaranteed, regardless of edition. That's why you have the encounter. Throwing something at the party that you know will run them over is just bad DM'ing.
In almost 40 years of D&D editions Fire elementals were as incorporeal as mundane fire.



No, they weren't. I'm looking at the 3.5 MM, as well. They are NOT incorporeal. If you hit them with natural weapons, or a melee weapon. You get burned. They still take damage, though. No magical requirements, either. They didn't even have DR, except the large ones.

Air elementals weren't incorporeal, either. 



You are correct. In 3.x you could attack fire, air, and I think water elementals. They might have had dr but, still, I don't think a normalswords should have been able to hurt them. 3.x didn't always get it right either, but it wasn't as bad as 4th ed in this regard.



So, you think the martial classes should just sit the fight out? 



No, they just need a mgic weapon




So, if they don't have one, they're screwed is what I'm saying. There's a reason this went away. There's no reason for that to be there. Either you throw the thing at them at level 1 when they have no magic items, or you throw it at them at an appopriate level when they do. If you use the appropriate level encounter, they're going to have magic weapons. It makes the vulnerability redundant.



Depends on what monster and what system were talking about. You can still fight if it's just damage reduction were talking about, if it's a ghost or incorporeal thing the mundane items should be non effective. It's not a difficult concept. Also, it's why at level one spells like magicweapon were good. The Mage would cast it on the fighter and now the fighter could fight what ever it is it needs the magic for. If the party can't deal with it, then they run away and live to fight another day. 



Oh here we go now! I'm sure we are about to get a spell caster comment but last time I checked was was a team game. 



How is it nt team work for the Mage to infuse the fighters sword with magic, so that the fighter can go kill hack up the monster? Aren't they both working together?



What if noone is playing a mage at all to "let" the fighter be effective against the creature? 



Im not sure if maybe you forgot but the game does have a DM who's job it is to Taylor the types of encounters to best fit the party make up. 

In almost 40 years of D&D editions Fire elementals were as incorporeal as mundane fire.



No, they weren't. I'm looking at the 3.5 MM, as well. They are NOT incorporeal. If you hit them with natural weapons, or a melee weapon. You get burned. They still take damage, though. No magical requirements, either. They didn't even have DR, except the large ones.

Air elementals weren't incorporeal, either. 



You are correct. In 3.x you could attack fire, air, and I think water elementals. They might have had dr but, still, I don't think a normalswords should have been able to hurt them. 3.x didn't always get it right either, but it wasn't as bad as 4th ed in this regard.



So, you think the martial classes should just sit the fight out? 



No, they just need a mgic weapon




So, if they don't have one, they're screwed is what I'm saying. There's a reason this went away. There's no reason for that to be there. Either you throw the thing at them at level 1 when they have no magic items, or you throw it at them at an appopriate level when they do. If you use the appropriate level encounter, they're going to have magic weapons. It makes the vulnerability redundant.



Depends on what monster and what system were talking about. You can still fight if it's just damage reduction were talking about, if it's a ghost or incorporeal thing the mundane items should be non effective. It's not a difficult concept. Also, it's why at level one spells like magicweapon were good. The Mage would cast it on the fighter and now the fighter could fight what ever it is it needs the magic for. If the party can't deal with it, then they run away and live to fight another day. 



Oh here we go now! I'm sure we are about to get a spell caster comment but last time I checked was was a team game. 



How is it nt team work for the Mage to infuse the fighters sword with magic, so that the fighter can go kill hack up the monster? Aren't they both working together?



What if noone is playing a mage at all to "let" the fighter be effective against the creature? 



Im not sure if maybe you forgot but the game does have a DM who's job it is to Taylor the types of encounters to best fit the party make up. 




and having one fight be unwinnable or having one class completely shut out because of the lack of another class is horrible design. You can't throw monster x at the party because they lack class y. The party should be able to deal with it regardless of composition.

You're asking for the DM's job to become a second job again, and needing high levels of system mastery to not accidentally throw something at them that they can't handle because of some oversight like this.
Something I have noticed on these boards and with 4th edition is the idea that most all of yours work. Gone are the undead immune to criticals and sneak attack, creatures made of fire being immune to fire, oozes being immune to such things as prone etc...


I do remember someone pointing out in the Pathfinder forums that Rogues should be able to Sneak Attack undead (attacking critical joints), and I see no reason why undead in general should be immune to criticals -- although I'd be happy to add in specific types of undead that can, as an immediate interrupt (at-will), turn critical attacks into normal attacks.  Also, while I do see why it breaks your versimilitude for Slaads and Fire Elementals to be *not* immune to fire, I see little reason why they would be outright immune to non-mundane fire (can anyone point out to me an article or book entry that lets you know how much damage mundane fire does?), especially since some real-life firefighting involves using fire to literally take out fires (remember: fire can only keep burning if you have heat, fuel, and air... so if you set a controlled blaze to cut off the out-of-control blaze's fuel or oxygen supply, it eventually dies out).  If that works at the mundane level with lots of planning and large-scale execution, how much more should it work with magical fire vs. magical creatures made of fire?

As for Oozes being prone, while I do understand the logic behind it, I fail to see why we need to have multiple names for the same effect.  It overcomplicates stuff if you ask me.
I don't want D&D Next created with the intent of making all of your powers work against pretty much everything because people like their powers to always work, for some reason it interferes with their fun.

Wait what?

People like their powers to always work.
The fact that people's powers always works interferes with their fun.

O.o

That said, even in 4th edition's PHB 1 you find acknowledgement in the fact that you don't always have access to your powers in the first place depending on how the DM runs the campaign.  As an example written in the PHB, a wizard might not be able to cast spells when his hands are tied.

So yes it's wholly possible even within 4E's rules that you have monsters immune to prone, sneak attack, or what not.

[ Personally I'd look at 4E -- and any RPG system for that matter -- as a framework.  The story is the DM's to run through in the system, with the players as participants in the story (almost always the heroes).  So whatever makes sense in the DM's story, goes.  You just don't have lairs with anti-magic barriers that negate all powers (save for martial powers) by default because it's simply not necessary anymore. ]

Well when things like Lava Dragons aren't immune to fire then that really kills the fun factor for me. I was reading on Sneak Attack in the 4th edition player's guide and it actually left out the description because it didn't want to describe just what a Sneak Attack is so you wouldn't be sitting there thinking, how in the hell did I sneak attack that skeleton?

Story-wise, Lava Dragons are immune to mundane fire, but a caster can always make it super-heat from the inside, or cause magical flames to soak through the protective skin, allowing it unmentionable pain because for the first time in its life it actually experiences tremendous amounts of heat (that it normally ignores through natural adaptation).

As a Rogue, I stab the skeleton at the space between its shoulderblades, possibly causing the entire arm to fall off.  Mechanical effect: I sneak attack the skeleton.  If this explanation could fly in Pathfinder, it could certainly work in 4E as well, right?

Wait, aren't there creatures in real life that aren't necessarily immune to the non-creature hazards their environment has, yet are still able to adapt to those places anyway?  I mean, we do have air-breathing mammals that completely live in water, which would make them susceptible to water-based attacks (drowning) even though they live underwater.  So I wouldn't be surprised if a Lava Dragon couldn't survive being dipped in lava, and only got the name because
1. It lives in volcanoes
2. It looks like lava

PS: Please please please don't come in here and try to spin the biggest BS on the planet why fire would still effect a Lava Dragon etc...


Sorry, just did.

That's actually not that different from 2e where a number of creatures (fire giants being one of them) were immune to normal fire, but not to magical fire (some were resistant to magical fire but I think some were not).

Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Ok, this is absurd. I mean, if you face a ghost or a shadow you should be able to hit it anyway just because, in the hypothesis you lack the equipment or a spellcaster, you are doomed to lose the fight? I see nosense in this. And i never understood why an air, fire or water elemental should be hurt by normal damage, just like incorproreal monsters! Hell with balance, and welcome the logic and the flavour!
Ok, this is absurd. I mean, if you face a ghost or a shadow you should be able to hit it anyway just because, in the hypothesis you lack the equipment or a spellcaster, you are doomed to lose the fight? I see nosense in this. And i never understood why an air, fire or water elemental should be hurt by normal damage, just like incorproreal monsters! Hell with balance, and welcome the logic and the flavour!



To put it as politely as I can, screw that.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.