Comments on: Resistance is Futile (Or Perhaps Not)

By: 1001 Bobs » The Third Week of March in the Year 2009

1001 Bobs » The Third Week of March in the Year 2009 — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:34:39 +0000

[...] its ability to deal different types of damage. Its an interesting take to address the issues with resistances that Mike Mearls weighed in on in [...]

By: justin

justin — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:03:23 +0000

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.

By: Dave Turner

Dave Turner — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:01:23 +0000

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.

By: rob

rob — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:58:12 +0000

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.

By: justin

justin — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:07:13 +0000

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.