Resistance is Futile (Or Perhaps Not)

For Valentines Day, Mike Mearls wrote a love letter to resistances which reads more like a harsh breakup than a declaration of love. Mike’s got some serious objections to the role of resistances which I paraphrase as follows:

1. They’re boring.
2. They unbalance the utility of energy types
3. They undermine theme

I differ a bit on #1 but I am sympathetic to these concerns. However, they lead me to reach some very different conclusions, many of which are reflected in the hopefully-near-final draft of the Witch Doctor that I’ve handed off for editing. But before I get to that, let’s give these concerns a closer look.

1. They’re Boring

Ok, Mike doesn’t come right out and say this, but it’s pretty much implicit in his solution. He proposes more dynamic response, so that when you hit a fire creature with fire, something happens. Maybe it makes an attack or gains an action point or something else, but there’s a reaction.

This is an appealing thought, but as a DM I don’t view it as boring so much as it’s easy to keep track of and easy to speak to mechanically. One off abilities like that are things I might give a named boss, but if they’re too ubiquitous, you encounter a problem that already exists in 4e with vulnerability. Specifically, there’s a cool feat that keys off creatures that are vulnerable to cold, but it falls flat in practice because so few creatures are vulnerable to cold. There are several of creature who are penalized when they’re hit with cold (they’re slowed, for example) but they aren’t actually vulnerable to cold, so the feat does not apply. It’s a frustrating arrangement, but it highlights the problem with these one-offs. The creatures are definitely more colorful and interesting than they would be if they just took more damage, but it’s that much harder to tie that into the rest of the game.*

2. They Unbalance the Utility of Energy Types

He’s totally right about this one. While this was much more prevalent in 3e, it’s still an issue in 4e. Even setting aside non-elemental keywords like Charm and Fear, it’s a more useful to have An Acid weapon than a Fire one (though a Radiant one may be best of all) , and it’s more useful to have resistance to Fire or Necrotic than it is to Acid. It’s simple math – more creatures are resistant to fire, so it is pound for pound less useful. Similarly, fewer creatures are immune to Acid than are immune to Fire.

This is a problem that will never go away. Even if resistances are changed to something else, it will still remain because some elements will see more use than others, both universally and in the specific.

3. They Undermine Theme

Again, totally right. If you’re an arctic wizard, then it would make thematic sense that you have lots of ice spells. Unfortunately, since everything you’re going to run into is also arctic, they’re all pretty much immune to your spells, so the mechanically correct choice is for you to stock up on Fire spells. That’s kind of lame.

However, this is a problem that is intrinsic to the elemental keywords, and which will not be solved by changing resistances to something more dynamic. If you’re and arctic wizard and you know that your spells will not damage your arctic neighbors but will also make them more awesome, then your practical choice is once again weighted towards fire.

You’ll notice that 2 and 3 have the same underlying problem – that they’re really problems with the concept of elemental pairings than they are about the specific failings of resistance. That overlap means that they have the same solution – to make the elements more useful in their own right.

And this is where we come around to one of my frustrations with 4e as it stands. The current swath of elemental-oriented feats are pretty lame in just about every way. The pairings, stat requirements and overwhelming sameness of them all form a potent combination of things that are only so useful, often impossible to get, and flipping the bird to Wizards, who really need more & better feat options.

Now, there is a reasonable explanation for this lameness. The last thing anyone wants in 4e is a set of stacking elemental effects that result in a wizard who gets 5 or 6 improvements for a specific keyword that all stack in an abusive fashion. I dig that concern, but I think the PHB is far too conservative in its handling of these feats. That’s a subjective interpretation, but the rub is that I think a character choosing to specialize in an element should get at least as much benefit as a martial character gets out of his weapon choice.

For comparison, weapon choice offers an array of mechanical extras (including the non GSL ones in Adventurer’s Vault) and is the root of a number of feat choices. Consider the synergy between weapon focus and proficiency in an exotic weapon: with those two feats (or 1, if your a dwarf) you really shape how you are going to fight. It does not seem unreasonable to expect that the choice of element could have a similar effect.  The paragon level feats are a nice nod in this direction, but they are ultimately a little thin on the ground.

It’s this line of thinking that has shaped the feat section of the Witch Doctor, and lead it to include a number of feats that will probably be of no use to Witch Doctors. The goal with them is to model after weapon feats, so that elementally inclined characters have some more choices available to them that are in line with the benefits that martial characters have. I am, I admit, genuinely excited to see them reach the light of day.

* - There is a subtle point in Mike’s solution that also bears mentioning: It speeds up fights. 4e has occasional problems with enemies that take too long to die. Resistance increases their staying power which exacerbates the issue. However, I think that’s a separate concern, and it is perhaps no coincidence that it’s a problem we’ve been working on solutions for.

One other point in defense of Mike’s idea (because, shockingly, the man knows what he’s talking about) is that you could remove the mechanical disconnect with a unified nomenclature.  That means  vulnerability  could include other descriptors than just a numeric.  Thus, ‘vulnerable cold 5′ could become “vulnerable cold: Slowed (save ends)” Or “vulnerable fire: immobilized until the end of next turn”, so that everything still keys off the word “Vulnerable” and you can now tie other mechanics into it ( the colon is optional, but I admit I just kind of like it).  It might also work to use “vulnerable cold 0″ but that seems a little awkward.

This requires only a very small hack to work, but because it changes the core rules, it’s kind of a dead end to offer up as an option.  Since there’s no way to meaningful contribute it to the body of rules, it would wither on the vine. Still, I encourage people to adopt the notation – maybe it will enter common use and prove my cynicism wrong.

That still only solves problem #1, but I mention it to illustrate that Mike’s solution and mine can easily work in parallel with just a few tweaks.

1. justin, February 20, 2009:

   Your vulnerability fix is so hot that I ran to my copy of the GSL to see if you are wrong about implementation. I think you are … sort of. Private e-mail forthcoming.

   As to point #2, I don’t even think this is limited to resistances. Your melee fighter is largely screwed if the DM throws a lot of flying creatures at you. That’s an obvious example. This has always been the case. Even moreso in 3e, e.g., ranger’s favored enemy, rogue’s sneak attack, etc. Perhaps the fixes on these other iterations, leaving resistances as the last big one, highlights the issue.

   However, all this really does is highlight the value of an engaged, thoughtful DM, who takes a few extra minutes to ensure a balanced interaction with all of the PCs capabilities.

   Finally, the thematic issue can be mitigated by simply stripping out the keywords on the powers and replacing them with something generic, e.g., force. Thus, your ice wizard can still blast the yeti with his Frigid Fist of Issinr because it deals force damage instead of cold damage. He’s still pulling off ice effects, but the damage is caused by something other than the coldness. The thematic issue is also something of a corner case for highly themed campaigns.

2. rob, February 20, 2009:

   I just realized I flipped from talking about resistance to talking about vulnerabilities in the footnote, but I hope it’s clear the idea is equally applicable to both.

3. Dave Turner, February 22, 2009:

   The counterpoint regarding melee characters and flying foes is a good one. It’s a similar sort of mismatch, but perhaps not as inelegant as resistances might appear to be. As Justin points out, it does come down to a DM creating a mix of encounters that reward and challenge the choices made in character creation. It’s fair for a DM to throw in some flying monsters or resistant ones into the mix every once in a while. It pushes players out of their ruts and gets them thinking a bit.

4. justin, February 23, 2009:

   That’s an excellent point, Dave. Selective screwage, for lack of a more refined term, can be a lot of fun. Basically, the DM, every once in a blue moon, hoses one of the PCs for an encounter. Some caveats: First, this shouldn’t be a major encounter. You don’t want to build up to the climax with the BBEG and tie one of the character’s hands behind his back. In the big battles, let the PCs shine. Second, it shouldn’t be a complete screwage. Paralyzing a PC for an entire character is just lame. Now, instead, of having to think creatively, he just twiddles his thumbs for an hour. Third, it shouldn’t be the same character every time, and fourth, it shouldn’t be a frequent occurrence. These should be obvious.

   Why do this at all? Exactly as Dave says: Because it challenges the player to find new ways to be useful and often breaks him from a rut of repetitive play. Wait, my rogue doesn’t get his sneak attack damage? Hmmm, maybe I’ll try to do something with that barrel over there.

   Coincidentally, I was thinking about this issue while I was working on the Codex Venenorum. In the 3e version of Poisoncraft, I had a poison called Close Call that, if the target failed its Fort save, stripped him of his evasion and sneak attack abilities. Yeah, a rogue screw-job. As I was updated for 4e, I both refined and expanded this idea. The 4e version just prevents the rogue from using his sneak attack ability. But I also developed versions for screwing the other classes, e.g., losing the ability to mark, levy a warlock’s curse, channel divinity, etc.