Is ignoring resistances too powerful?

[ChangeSumFlux]

So I’ve done a bit of DMing, and I’m not all that practiced in it, but I do a decent job. I’ve never DMed a game past lvl 6 or so. Recently someone who I play with expressed interest in making a single element sorcerer. I was all for this idea because I like having thematic characters. The downside is that he is really adamant about being able to use effects to ignore resistances towards his damage of choice. In my mind I see this as way too strong of an ability, I know there are things like elemental adept, but it still strikes me as wrong.
My main problem is that I view the game as a balance of pros and cons, and when someone goes with one pure elemental type, that has the pro of being good against some stuff and weak against others. Ignoring resistances creates an imbalance were there are no cons to going with a single elemental type.

I guess I’m wondering what people thought of this topic as this person feels really strongly that there isn’t a problem and I have a different viewpoint.

Also and I understand, I’m the DM, my rule is what is important. I just wanted to figure out if my point of view on this is too harsh.

[Specter]

Nope. Even if the player couldn't ignore resistance, he could still cast another spell that would deal as much damage. Plus, you're in charge of resistances and immunities, so plan accordingly.

[sightlessrealit]

It matters most what damage type he's using. If it's fire/cold/posion than yeah allowing to ignore resistances is fine.

[AvvyR]

Really the player is better off just being a normal Dragon Sorc and taking Elemental Adept. That does pretty much everything you could want a single element caster to do and is entirely within the existing rules.


I disagree that the pro of a single element caster is "it's good against some things." Everything is good against some things. If you were to homebrew a new Sorc archetype that crushingly limits available spell options, the tradeoff needs to be a heck of a lot stronger than nothing.

[AvvyR]

If your concern is that Elemental Adept itself is too powerful to allow, I remind you that:

It's a feat, and therefore uses an ASI. Casters are extremely reliant on their ASI's because it controls DC's. Poor DC's mean wasted spell slots.


Unless you're in a campaign that specifically features enemies resistant to a certain element (The whole thing takes place on a frozen glacier or something), the overwhelming majority of enemies your player faces will be completely unaffected in any way. The resistance bypass won't come up in most fights at all. An ASI is a heavy price to pay for something that will only occasionally come up.

Bypassing resistance has no effect on immunity.

[Kalashak]

I'd just tell them to take Elemental Adept, not let them homebrew anything. It's not a particularly OP feat. Just remind them that being able to ignore resistance doesn't impact immunity at all. I had a player who made that assumption when he took the feat and he was not happy the first time he fought a dragon.

[ChangeSumFlux]

To be a bit more clear on the scenario, this person wants to make a cryomancer themed character. He wanted to change the damage type of spells to frost to fit his theme.
IE: fireball but frost instead of fire.

And the main thing I’m concerned about is that I generally like using resistances to balance fights to emphasize or hinder certain characters in he party in order to balance them better. For example if the fighter became super strong relatively, I’d give more slashing/blunt/etc resistances to make the game more fair for each person.

[sophontteks]

To be a bit more clear on the scenario, this person wants to make a cryomancer themed character. He wanted to change the damage type of spells to frost to fit his theme.
IE: fireball but frost instead of fire.

And the main thing I’m concerned about is that I generally like using resistances to balance fights to emphasize or hinder certain characters in he party in order to balance them better. For example if the fighter became super strong relatively, I’d give more slashing/blunt/etc resistances to make the game more fair for each person.
There are plenty of spells available for him to play with one element successfully. They can live without fireball. They choose to play with one element, they have to accept the consequences of that.

Note,. If this is the scenario, your OP and title is a bit misleading. Ignoring resistances is fine and the options that allow that are balanced. Being able to change the element of any spell to your chosen element is totally op and unbalanced.

[ZenBear]

I say let him do it, and I would even go one step further by allowing him to deal half damage to creatures that are otherwise immune to cold damage. I’m a very generous DM in general, but in this case I know that if the player is to ever come across a situation where they are entirely incapable of contributing to a fight they are not going to be having fun. The point of D&D is to be fun. A dedicated cryomancer is a fun concept I would be fully supportive of, and there are other ways to challenge such a player than throwing monsters at him that he is utterly powerless against.

If I might throw a tangent in the convo...

I have been considering how to make physical damage types more relevant in game (ie slashing, piercing and blunt). I thought perhaps playing with resistance/vulnerability rules could be fun. Slashing is effective against light armor, piercing against medium, blunt against heavy. Whether this would mean vulnerability or overcoming resistance I don’t know, I just think it would be nice if physical damage type actually mattered.

[JackPhoenix]

To be a bit more clear on the scenario, this person wants to make a cryomancer themed character. He wanted to change the damage type of spells to frost to fit his theme.
IE: fireball but frost instead of fire.

Yeah... one more reason to tell him no. There are more spells for some elements than for others (fire being an example), but there are also more creatures resistant or immune to fire damage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage) to balance it somehow.


And the main thing I’m concerned about is that I generally like using resistances to balance fights to emphasize or hinder certain characters in he party in order to balance them better. For example if the fighter became super strong relatively, I’d give more slashing/blunt/etc resistances to make the game more fair for each person.

And here's the core of the issue. Stop using monsters to nerf specific characters. It doesn't, actually, make the game more "fair", the opposite, in fact, as the player you're "balancing" the fights against is punished for playing an effective character. It's only natural the player wants to do something about that, and what are you going to do if you allow him to ignore the thing you use to keep him in line?

[Snails]

My main problem is that I view the game as a balance of pros and cons, and when someone goes with one pure elemental type, that has the pro of being good against some stuff and weak against others. Ignoring resistances creates an imbalance were there are no cons to going with a single elemental type.


Typically such is accomplished by giving up an ASI. An ASI is very valuable at lowish levels. At high level, creatures will start appearing with outright immunities, and bypassing resistance will not help there.

Your argument here makes sense if it were a matter of achieving a roughly net zero result for no resources invested, e.g. "I want a +1 per die fire damage rolls for -1 per die to cold and lightning." So I agree with you as a matter of abstract design. But concretely speaking, the player here is talking about using class abilities and character resources exactly as they were intended by the designers.

[sightlessrealit]

Yeah... one more reason to tell him no. There are more spells for some elements than for others (fire being an example), but there are also more creatures resistant or immune to fire damage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage) to balance it somehow.



And here's the core of the issue. Stop using monsters to nerf specific characters. It doesn't, actually, make the game more "fair", the opposite, in fact, as the player you're "balancing" the fights against is punished for playing an effective character. It's only natural the player wants to do something about that, and what are you going to do if you allow him to ignore the thing you use to keep him in line?

Short answer nothing.

Long answer nothing.

[LudicSavant]

So I’ve done a bit of DMing, and I’m not all that practiced in it, but I do a decent job. I’ve never DMed a game past lvl 6 or so. Recently someone who I play with expressed interest in making a single element sorcerer. I was all for this idea because I like having thematic characters. The downside is that he is really adamant about being able to use effects to ignore resistances towards his damage of choice. In my mind I see this as way too strong of an ability, I know there are things like elemental adept, but it still strikes me as wrong.
My main problem is that I view the game as a balance of pros and cons, and when someone goes with one pure elemental type, that has the pro of being good against some stuff and weak against others. Ignoring resistances creates an imbalance were there are no cons to going with a single elemental type.

I guess I’m wondering what people thought of this topic as this person feels really strongly that there isn’t a problem and I have a different viewpoint.

Also and I understand, I’m the DM, my rule is what is important. I just wanted to figure out if my point of view on this is too harsh.

Extant abilities in the game that ignore resistances such as the aforementioned Elemental Adept are not without their pros and cons.

Con 1) You are taking Elemental Adept instead of another feat or ASI. Essentially "Take -2 to a stat" or "lose (insert feat)'s benefit" is one of the cons of taking Elemental Adept.
Con 2) Focusing your spells known on a single element narrows your spell selection, and there are benefits to a diverse spell pool other than merely changing damage type (such as changing AoE shape and various other properties).

[mephnick]

The whole "this # of creatures are resistant to this" is such a petty balancing factor it basically doesn't matter at any given table. Let him use ice fireball or acid lightningbolt or necrotic guiding bolt if it fits his concept. Who gives a ****?

[ChangeSumFlux]

So I talked a bit more with the person. I had a misunderstanding. He was going to make a pure fire sorcerer, but just wanted to change the theme to frost.
Maybe just keep all resistances as damage types as they are but flavor him that when he casts fire spells they come across in a frost effect?
I’m trying to work with him but I struggle with telling what is balanced sometimes.

[MrStabby]

Why are resistances part of the rules? Why are some monsters resistant to some damage types? What is the intent? Is it possible that some monsters are there to give other players a chance to shine? Some monsters are resistant to slashing damage from non-magical weapons - do we just want to rule that that element of a monster should never come up and is just wasted ink?

Resistances are a great way to ensure all players at a table get a chance to shine; they are a great tool and should be used as such. The important thing is that they let people have their time in the spotlight, not stop them from having their time. If a player is never effective then that is no fun for them. If there will be sufficient resistant enemies in the campaign then probably bring it up earlier rather than later so the player can make an informed choice.

Changing damage types of spells is generally fine for a theme as long as you avoid doing this to fire or poison spells - fire especially. Fire is kind of an all or nothing element - more likely to be subject to resistance/immunity but generally more damage than other spells of a similar level to compensate. PC wants an ice version of vitriolic sphere? Fine. Want an ice version of fireball or scorching ray? Nope.

[sophontteks]

So I talked a bit more with the person. I had a misunderstanding. He was going to make a pure fire sorcerer, but just wanted to change the theme to frost.
Maybe just keep all resistances as damage types as they are but flavor him that when he casts fire spells they come across in a frost effect?
I’m trying to work with him but I struggle with telling what is balanced sometimes.
If he wants to change the theme he should pick spells that use cold damage. You can try homebrewing some additional spells for him. I would give them a flavor more related to cold damage and let fireballs be fireballs.

[Telwar]

So I talked a bit more with the person. I had a misunderstanding. He was going to make a pure fire sorcerer, but just wanted to change the theme to frost.
Maybe just keep all resistances as damage types as they are but flavor him that when he casts fire spells they come across in a frost effect?
I’m trying to work with him but I struggle with telling what is balanced sometimes.

...like, the spells *looks* like they'd be doing cold damage, but they do fire damage? So the fireball, instead of hitting everything in its radius with red-colored damage, the damage looks blue, but is really red? is bluish-white, but still does fire damage?

That's...weird, but nothing wrong with that.

[Hawkstar]

Honestly? I don't think resistance is even a good mechanic in the first place. It's not a "balance" feature - the only rule it runs on is 'what is cool/what do I think makes sense"

Mathematically and balance wise, immunity and resistance can be completely removed from the game without issue.

Also - the one thing Pathfinder has over D&D 5e is the sorceress bloodlines that allow free elemental substitution

[Drascin]

There are plenty of spells available for him to play with one element successfully. They can live without fireball. They choose to play with one element, they have to accept the consequences of that.

Honestly, depending on element chosen there rather are not. Plus honestly there is literally no reason why the fire spell is a ball and the ice spell is a cone except "it was this way in old editions". If the player wants an Iceball or a Cone of Fire, let him bloody well have them. He's already gimping himself by focusing on elemental spells and being single element when D&D extremely benefits the "no coherent theme, just pick the best spells per spell level" builds. A lot of elemental spells are exceedingly redundant with one another as is.

[Exocist]

Speaking of, I compiled a list of spells of "each element" a while back (A friend of mine was trying to homebrew an elementalist sorcerer/wizard like the Wu Jen in older editions), so, by limiting yourself to spells with only the ice/cold/water theme, I can tell you that you're limited to these spells:

Ice Knife (1st)
Snilloc’s Snowball Swarm (2nd)
Sleet Storm (3rd)
Tidal Wave (3rd)
Wall of Water (3rd)
Water Breathing (3rd)
Control Water (4th)
Ice Storm (4th)
Watery Sphere (4th)
Cone of Cold (5th)
Investiture of Ice (6th)
Otiluke’s Freezing Sphere (6th)
Wall of Ice (6th)

13 Wizard spells... in the entire game... are themed for Ice/Cold/Water, none of them above 6th level. If you add on "Chromatic" spells (and the Hold person/monster spells which are like bloodbending I guess), you get the following:

Chromatic Orb (1st)
Absorb Elements (1st)
Dragon's Breath (2nd)
Hold Person (2nd)
Conjure Minor Elementals (4th)
Elemental Bane (4th)
Conjure Elemental (5th)
Hold Monster (5th)
Prismatic Spray (7th)
Illusory Dragon (8th) - Not a sorcerer spell
Prismatic Wall (9th)

11 more spells added, totaling 24, but how many good spells are there?

If it were me, we have
1) Absorb Elements is good, but not at the level you get it.
2) Hold Person is good
3) Nothing here
4) Watery Sphere is good
5) Cone of Cold is decent blasting, Hold Monster is good
6) Wall of Ice is passable - it's a bad wall but still
7) Prismatic spray is our only option
8) Literally no options
9) Prismatic Wall is alright I guess

However, I feel this type of person wants to play a blast so :/

[hymer]

The downside is that he is really adamant about being able to use effects to ignore resistances towards his damage of choice. In my mind I see this as way too strong of an ability, I know there are things like elemental adept, but it still strikes me as wrong.
While I generally agree with what people have been saying, it seems the dynamic I see in this quote has been glossed over. The player insists on getting something, and you feel you don't like it. Don't get run over with this. If your game allows feats, just let the player pick up Elemental Adept, and don't allow any homebrew into your game that you aren't comfortable with.

Ideally, a player would trust the DM implicitly, and not think twice about making a single-energy caster. And the DM would be worthy of that trust.

[2D6GREATAXE]

I'd just tell them to take Elemental Adept, not let them homebrew anything. It's not a particularly OP feat. Just remind them that being able to ignore resistance doesn't impact immunity at all. I had a player who made that assumption when he took the feat and he was not happy the first time he fought a dragon.

+1 this was my thought

[Isaire]

If I had to caution anything, it isn't that ignoring resistances would unbalance combat (though I would go the elemental adept route, and maybe you can find some way for him to downgrade enemy immunity to just resistance later) - it is, however, a spells known tax to make sure you have varied spells to deal with different encounters. If the sorcerer, the class most effected by spells known limitations, can ignore resistances, he can safely pick fewer damaging spells to do more other things with his spell choices.
Some people would see this as a desirable outcome, of course - just something to bear in mind.

[Socratov]

Ok how is this issue still coming up?

damage is not OP, damage types are not OP and resistance/immunity is not a balancing factor for hp damage.

You know what god-wizards have in common? Not feeling the need to take damage spells, if that is all you can do, throwing cantrips might be better. Elsewise, mindcontrolling, terrain controlling, buffing, summoning and debuffing are what makes wizards (and sorcerers) so damn great. Hell, the reason bards can be the powerhouses they are is because they get access to just about every mindcontrol spell existing in the game, even those warlock ones. Once I had a oneshot where my bard betrayed the party and gave the rest of the party a run for their money breaking free from mindcontrol into attacking their own en trying to hit their enemy but failing due to vicious mockery.

If your player wants to play a X-themed damage mage and mainly want to swing around for damage let him and pray he doesn't want to actually ply a caster using its int-score for real. Let him have this and balance encounters through tactics and terrain. Much more effective and much more conductive to forcing the group to earn their victories and get their fun toys.

[Specter]

There are more fire spells in early levels, but ice catches up later (freezing sphere, wall of ice, etc.)

[JungleChicken]

For the price of the Elemental Adept feat i see nothing wrong with or OP about this.

I once played a Dwarven Forge Cleric that took elemental Adept for fire because it was just way too thematic for his character NOT to have it.

[Legendairy]

The whole "this # of creatures are resistant to this" is such a petty balancing factor it basically doesn't matter at any given table. Let him use ice fireball or acid lightningbolt or necrotic guiding bolt if it fits his concept. Who gives a ****?

Mephnick is my hero here!

Also the resistance to damage type ratio means little to nothing depending on your campaign.

Let it be fun! Let him refluff the stuff, he will be inneffective against some things, sure, welcome to dnd, melee characters who can’t fly don’t always do well in fights against flying creatures. Sometimes it happens, but when they cross into the fire Salamander nest he will feel like a mini-god.....the trade offs.

And he/she will have a character he/she wants to play in and had a part in customizing more than the usual.

[Hawkstar]

Honestly? I wish Dragon Sorcerers functioned more like Pathfinder's Genie or Elemental bloodline sorcerers. Instead of bonuses to spells with their dragon's element, a free substitution of their spells to their dragon bloodline's element.

[LudicSavant]

Ok how is this issue still coming up?

damage is not OP, damage types are not OP and resistance/immunity is not a balancing factor for hp damage.

You know what god-wizards have in common? Not feeling the need to take damage spells, if that is all you can do, throwing cantrips might be better. Elsewise, mindcontrolling, terrain controlling, buffing, summoning and debuffing are what makes wizards (and sorcerers) so damn great. Hell, the reason bards can be the powerhouses they are is because they get access to just about every mindcontrol spell existing in the game, even those warlock ones. Once I had a oneshot where my bard betrayed the party and gave the rest of the party a run for their money breaking free from mindcontrol into attacking their own en trying to hit their enemy but failing due to vicious mockery.

If your player wants to play a X-themed damage mage and mainly want to swing around for damage let him and pray he doesn't want to actually ply a caster using its int-score for real. Let him have this and balance encounters through tactics and terrain. Much more effective and much more conductive to forcing the group to earn their victories and get their fun toys.

This guy has the right of it. Direct damage is not the stuff you have to worry about when it comes to spellcaster power.

[MrStabby]

This guy has the right of it. Direct damage is not the stuff you have to worry about when it comes to spellcaster power.

A typical spellcaster's power comes from the ability to pick the right effect for the right moment. Sometimes that is actually damage; death is a powerful debuff.

This is particularly true when damage spells are at their most efficient - say level 5 when fireball becomes available. Fireball is a sufficiently good spell for clearing out lots of small enemies (with a good range and shape and doesn't even need line of sight to each one) that it doesn't need a buff by being made more effective against lots of enemies. As spell levels get higher then sure, direct damage tends to be less effective - but it isn't like spellcasters are short changed on versatility anyway, no need to give them more.

I would say you have got it a little backwards - being a dedicated blaster is a weak way to build a caster, being a character that can pull out lots of different effects is much more powerful, and a caster that has damage as one of those options is more powerful still than one without. It isn't that damage spells are always weak, it is just that a character that relies on them and nothing else is relatively weak.

[LudicSavant]

A typical spellcaster's power comes from the ability to pick the right effect for the right moment. Sometimes that is actually damage; death is a powerful debuff.

This is particularly true when damage spells are at their most efficient - say level 5 when fireball becomes available. Fireball is a sufficiently good spell for clearing out lots of small enemies (with a good range and shape and doesn't even need line of sight to each one) that it doesn't need a buff by being made more effective against lots of enemies. As spell levels get higher then sure, direct damage tends to be less effective - but it isn't like spellcasters are short changed on versatility anyway, no need to give them more.

I would say you have got it a little backwards - being a dedicated blaster is a weak way to build a caster, being a character that can pull out lots of different effects is much more powerful, and a caster that has damage as one of those options is more powerful still than one without. It isn't that damage spells are always weak, it is just that a character that relies on them and nothing else is relatively weak.

"If your spellcaster's gonna be overpowered, it's not gonna be just because they could pierce fire resistance with fireball" and "damage spells are always weak" are not logically equivalent positions. I would appreciate it if you didn't straw man me.

If you think that"being a dedicated blaster is a weak way to build a caster, being a character that can pull out lots of different effects is much more powerful, and a caster that has damage as one of those options is more powerful still than one without. It isn't that damage spells are always weak, it is just that a character that relies on them and nothing else is relatively weak" somehow disagrees with my position, you are the one who has it a little backwards.

[MrStabby]

"Spamming direct damage spells piercing resistance isn't going to make you broken" and "damage spells are always weak" are not logically equivalent positions. I would appreciate it if you didn't straw man me.



At no point did I say anyone had ever said damage spells were "always weak". Somewhat hypocritical to claim someone is making a strawman argument in the same post where you write this.

In fact what you may not have noticed from my post is that it in fact mentioned specific cases where they are powerful: i.e. crowds of low level enemies, generally lower levels of spell being available.

Is a class like a wizard sufficiently weak that it is better balanced if you allow it to cast spells of the most commonly resisted element as if they were of the type of a less commonly resisted one? I think that all casters are doing just fine in this regard. Will it break anything? No, but setting such a low standard for changes as this is too low a bar. A better question would be would it improve the game for more players than it makes it worse for. I believe not.

[LudicSavant]

At no point did I say anyone had ever said damage spells were "always weak". Somewhat hypocritical to claim someone is making a strawman argument in the same post where you write this.


I would say you have got it a little backwards - being a dedicated blaster is a weak way to build a caster, being a character that can pull out lots of different effects is much more powerful, and a caster that has damage as one of those options is more powerful still than one without. It isn't that damage spells are always weak, it is just that a character that relies on them and nothing else is relatively weak.

Okay then, what did you mean was "a little backwards" if not any of the things you expressed disagreement with following the dash? Because literally any of those things would be a straw man argument if attributed to me.


being a dedicated blaster is a weak way to build a caster, being a character that can pull out lots of different effects is much more powerful, and a caster that has damage as one of those options is more powerful still than one without. It isn't that damage spells are always weak, it is just that a character that relies on them and nothing else is relatively weak.

I agree with this whole statement. So what was "backwards"?