Removing Immunities from the game

[heavyfuel]

What would happen if all immunities were removed from the game? Immunities* with an asterisk would still exist, but they won't make you straight up immune to things.

I was thinking about that for my next campaign. This one rule would actually be a few rules:


1- Immunity to anything that requires a Saving Throw or Check now instead gives a +10 Immunity bonus to that saving throw or check. So elves get +10 against sleep and paladins gain +10 on their Wisdom checks versus Intimidate. Freedom of Movement is the exception, and grants a +20 Immunity bonus against Grapples (still +10 for other effects);

2- If something would make you immune to an effect that doesn't offer a saving throw (such as Freedom of Movement vs Solid Fog), you now get a Will saving throw against the effect as if it did offer one. You still benefit from the +10 Immunity bonus. There's a feat that does something similar against Divine Spells, I drew inspiration from it.

3- If you become Immune during an effect (say, someone casts Protection from Evil on you while you're Dominated), you gain another saving throw with the +10 bonus against the effect;

4- Immunity to a damage type now reduces that damage by 50 points. You're still considered immune for effects such as Searing Spell;

5- Immunity to Critical hits/Precision Damage now grants 75% fortification. Medium fortification reduced to 50%.

I think that about covers every type of immunity.



So, how does the game change?

[HouseRules]

Looks at half-dragon doubling:

Energy (Fire, Cold, Acid, Electric, or Sonic) Resistance 5
Energy (Fire, Cold, Acid, Electric, or Sonic) Resistance 10
Energy (Fire, Cold, Acid, Electric, or Sonic) Resistance 20
Energy (Fire, Cold, Acid, Electric, or Sonic) Immunity

Clearly, Energy Immunity should become Energy Resistance 40.
Do the same for everything else.
Infinity is another name for 40 in many cases of the game.

[Mike Miller]

I like the concept and I think it simplifies things, in a sense. There isn't an urge to find all the ways to become immune to everything. It should be more of an investigation before leaping into a situation so that you can have the best defense for the situation. My two cents, anyway

[Jack_Simth]

You get some oddities. Like [Mind Affecting] spells working on things that are Mindless, and Patterns working on blind things.

[Crake]

This would make preparation mostly pointless. As an example: you're going up against a creature with an aoe death effect, or at will save-or-dies? Guess you still gotta deal with that 5% chance that all your preparation was for naught, since even with a +10 immunity bonus to your check, you'll still fail on a 1. Also makes re-rolls far more useful than anything else.

[weckar]

You get some oddities. Like [Mind Affecting] spells working on things that are Mindless, and Patterns working on blind things.Mostly this, really. Taken a step further that by RAW even inanimate objects have certain... inherent immunities.

[Mato]

1- Immunity to anything that requires a Saving Throw or Check now instead gives a +10 Immunity bonus to that saving throw or check.
2- If something would make you immune to an effect that doesn't offer a saving throw, you now get a Will saving throw against the effect as if it did offer one.
If the good-aligned cleric casts antimagic field & then holy word, does he need to save against his own spells?
Do incorpereal creatures need to make will saves against nonmagical attacks?
If you cast dominate on an inanimate objects, does it use the animated object's statistics?


4- Immunity to a damage type now reduces that damage by 50 points. You're still considered immune for effects such as Searing Spell;If your fire attack would deal more than 100 damage then searing spell is a detrimental effect.

[Biggus]

I'm currently playtesting something very similar in an epic game (there are just way too many immunities available to epic characters, it makes your attack options very limited). Many of the points I was going to make have already been mentioned by other posters, but here's how I work it anyway:

There are two levels of immunity, Immunity Bonus and True Immunity. Most immunities are of the first kind, but some creatures retain complete immunity.

- lack an ability score, sense, appendage or similar (eg blind, deaf, mindless)

- made of the attack form (eg fire elementals are completely immune to fire)

- an avatar, chosen or similar divine being representing the attack form (eg, a god of winter and his highest servants may retain true immunity to cold)

Immunity Bonuses work like this:

- gain a large bonus to saving throws which scales with level (I use a base of 20 for epic games, for nonepic games 10 should work), typically adding on half caster level, class level or character level to the base bonus. The reason for this is that the difference between a really low save and a really high one increases with level. At 1st level, a Cleric with Wis 16 would have a Will save of +5 as compared to +0 for a Fighter with Wis 10, while at 20th level the Cleric probably has at least Wis 28 giving them a +21 Will save compared to the Fighter's +6, meaning that while at at low levels a +10 bonus puts the weakest-save character considerably higher than the strongest, at higher levels it still leaves them several points behind.

- if you have at least one Immunity Bonus in effect, you do not automatically fail your save on a natural 1

- Immunity Bonuses stack with each other, except where the bonus comes from an identical source, such as the same spell cast twice

- you get a saving throw even if the effect doesn't normally allow one. The type of saving throw depends on the type of effect, as normal (so for physical shocks, it's a Fortitude save, for mental effects, a Will save). In situations where a saving throw doesn't make sense, the effect simply doesn't affect you.

EDIT: also, if you have at least one Immunity Bonus in effect, you suffer no partial effects on a successful save

Energy immunity:

- apply a high resistance (I use 100 in epic games, 50 should be OK for nonepic) then halve the remaining damage, if any

Freedom of Movement:

- the trouble with this is that, as you've clearly recognised, the differences between grapple checks for different creatures can be very large. Even a +20 bonus is not enough though, not even if we add on half caster level. For example, a Kraken (CR12) has a grapple bonus of +44, as compared to +6 for a medium-sized 12th-level Wizard with Str 10. If a 12th-level Cleric gives a 20+1/2CL bonus, that's +26, for a total of +32. The Kraken is still almost guaranteed to win. This only gets worse at higher levels: a Kraken advanced to CR20 has a +73 grapple bonus, compared to +10 for a 20th-level Wizard, so even with a +30 bonus from a 20th-level Cleric, the Wizard has zero chance to escape. To get round this, I treat Freedom of Movement as a flat "miss chance" where you have a 50% chance to avoid being grappled initially, and a 50% chance to escape every round, regardless of your relative grapple checks.

Critical hits and sneak attacks:

- fortification works exactly as you describe, but with the proviso that certain creature types (such as oozes and swarms) retain complete immunity, because there is no weak spot to hit

Trackless Step:

- one other type of "immunity" is the Druid's class feature which makes it impossible to track them. Because skills are generally more variable than saves, I make this into a +20+class level increase in the DC to track them

In a similar vein, there's also Antimagic Fields. If you want to make them non-absolute, one way to work it is a caster level check to cast in an AMF, with the field's caster getting a +10 bonus on the check.

These rules seem to be working pretty well; they add a bit of extra complexity but I've found it to be worth it so far.

[noob]

The problem with all that is that often people will with 100% reliability kill or control people that have immunities made for protecting them.
If a wizard can just by screaming fireball hard enough kill a god with regeneration, immunity to fire and immunity to damage and immunity to non lethal damage and immunity to all attacks that are not blunt and within an antimagic field then you end up making the only form of offence and defence be contingencies and celerities.
And thrust me making a wizard that can kill all the people with fire is going to be trivial.

So all the game will exactly "who play first" there will not even be a step where you have to strip of defences your opponent: it is just "I played first because I had more contingent spells and so you died"

I think it is unfair to remove the defence part of dnd entirely and completely.

Also it is now trivial to kill aleaxes while before it was not easy.

[Biggus]

The problem with all that is that often people will with 100% reliability kill or control people that have immunities made for protecting them.
If a wizard can just by screaming fireball hard enough kill a god with regeneration, immunity to fire and immunity to damage and immunity to non lethal damage and immunity to all attacks that are not blunt and within an antimagic field then you end up making the only form of offence and defence be contingencies and celerities.
And thrust me making a wizard that can kill all the people with fire is going to be trivial.

So all the game will exactly "who play first" there will not even be a step where you have to strip of defences your opponent: it is just "I played first because I had more contingent spells and so you died"

I think it is unfair to remove the defence part of dnd entirely and completely.

Also it is now trivial to kill aleaxes while before it was not easy.

I'm struggling to understand most of your points here. How will these changes make it possible to kill or control people with 100% reliability? How is giving a massive defence bonus instead of total immunity removing the defence part totally and completely? And what are aleaxes?

[noob]

I'm struggling to understand most of your points here. How will these changes make it possible to kill or control people with 100% reliability? How is giving a massive defence bonus instead of total immunity removing the defence part totally and completely? And what are aleaxes?

There is ways to boost dcs to arbitrarily high values and to get arbitrary amounts of damage.
Aleaxes are duplicates of a creature they are sent to assassinate(by gods usually) and they are killable only by the creature they are a duplicate off but since it is an immunity(attacks have no effect) then it can now be killed by other people than its target

[Elkad]

I'm using 20+CL for Freedom of Movement. Yes, there are some things that are going to grapple your wizard anyway. That's what tactical teleportation is for. Or shapechanging into a kraken yourself. Or just staying out of range.
It still makes you immune to paralysis, etc.

Adamantine penetrates hardness 20, not any hardness. You get additional hardness penetration from enhancement bonus squared. So a +5 adamantine sword bypasses 45 points of hardness. Hardness of magic items increases the same way (squared, not 2 points per plus). Hardness is all or nothing. Either your weapon is harder than the target, or the target gets full value.

DR of other sorts is a reduction effect. DR10/magic is only fully overcome by a +4 sword (as is up to DR16/magic). A +3 sword would reduce it by 9 points, leaving DR1

Mountain Hammer maneuver penetrates DR/Hardness 5+IL, Elder is 10+IL, Ancient is 20+IL.

Half-bonus on some precision-immune stuff, like most corporeal undead - the vampire may not need it's liver, but it needs it's tendons and joints. Still aren't getting it vs things without an anatomy, like oozes.


Taking this farther.
Damage type immunities - You could maybe freeze a White Dragon eventually. Liquid CO2 temps (-70f) might do for a young one - an Great Wyrm might endure liquid hydrogen temperatures (20Kelvin). Probably something on the order of half damage and DR10/HD on many "immune" creatures. So you'd need 22 cold damage to do 1pt to a human skeleton, 62 to do a point to a wyrmling white dragon, and 362 to do 1pt to a great wyrm.

Again, some creatures would remain immune. A fire elemental is flat immune to fire, but a Red Dragon or Fire Giant isn't.


If your fire attack would deal more than 100 damage then searing spell is a detrimental effect.
Adjust Searing Spell then. Halves DR? Bypasses DR, leaving half damage? Does full damage instead of half, but DR still applies? One point per die penetrates all resistance?

[Biggus]

There is ways to boost dcs to arbitrarily high values and to get arbitrary amounts of damage.
Aleaxes are duplicates of a creature they are sent to assassinate(by gods usually) and they are killable only by the creature they are a duplicate off but since it is an immunity(attacks have no effect) then it can now be killed by other people than its target

Can you give me some examples of how you boost DCs and damage to arbitrarily high amounts?

What book are Aleaxes in? Google isn't coming up with anything.


I'm using 20+CL for Freedom of Movement. Yes, there are some things that are going to grapple your wizard anyway. That's what tactical teleportation is for. Or shapechanging into a kraken yourself. Or just staying out of range.
It still makes you immune to paralysis, etc.

Adamantine penetrates hardness 20, not any hardness. You get additional hardness penetration from enhancement bonus squared. So a +5 adamantine sword bypasses 45 points of hardness. Hardness of magic items increases the same way (squared, not 2 points per plus). Hardness is all or nothing. Either your weapon is harder than the target, or the target gets full value.


Personally I don't like taking a spell which makes you totally immune to grapple and changing it so that it provides no protection at all against grapple in many cases.

Where are you getting the part about additional hardness penetration being based on enhancement bonus squared from? All I can find is the 2 points per +1 rule in the SRD.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Aleaxes are from BoED. In light of someone else's comment, if immunity took away the "nat 1 auto fails" rule vs attacks you are immune to, would that help? Death Ward would give you +10 on saves vs death and you cannot automatically fail a save vs death" would mean that weaker characters get a huge buff and stronger characters would still get to avoid "5% you lose."

[noob]

Can you give me some examples of how you boost DCs and damage to arbitrarily high amounts?

What book are Aleaxes in? Google isn't coming up with anything.



Personally I don't like taking a spell which makes you totally immune to grapple and changing it so that it provides no protection at all against grapple in many cases.

Where are you getting the part about additional hardness penetration being based on enhancement bonus squared from? All I can find is the 2 points per +1 rule in the SRD.

example on how to boost damage to high value: apply megatons of metamagics and reserves of strength(that can remove the dice in function of cl cap from spells) and a bunch cl increaser(circle magic, masterspellthief and the like) and you can easily get a fireball with a hundred D6 worth of damage(and you throw 2 at once)
If you are in deeper cheeze there is ways to further increase the damage(ex: greater consumptive field shenanigans)

For dc you can max a casting stat (like charisma thanks to the ability of one specific outsider to increase its charisma indefinitely that you can pilfer with a feat and polymorph or constitution with the shambling mound combined with spellcasting tradition or yet you satisfy yourself with a shape with a high stat
Or you can max bonuses from feats(like add the evil and good subtypes to your spell and use reinforced school: evil and the same for good) and you can get arbitrary amounts of feats either with feat items or dark chaos shuffle and locations or your familiar.

There is also probably prcs that can help with dcs or damage from spells (outside of red mage and incantatrixe)

Or you can play a truenamer and merge with a garbler then throw unlimited dcs stuff around as well as deal infinite damage with the right braces.
(and many other cheese)
Then there is spells that can help such as some boost spells(like all the spells that increase cl or yet the spell that allows to make any spell have the good indicator and which boosted the spell and so on) or planar binding which can help with cooperative casting shenanigans.

[Aotrs Commander]

Infinity is another name for 40 in many cases of the game.

You might have been being sarcastic there, but it's a good point to consider - that "infinity" really could just mean "arbitarily high." The functional difference between "infinity" and say "200" or "500" is going to be largely non-existant for the majority of characters.

(My own interpretation is tacitly that - at high enough levels of energy output, nothing is immune... But those levels are sufficiently high as not to be reachably outside MAYBE Plot Instances. Ditto for anything D&D actually calls "infinity" I translate to "excessively high beyond the real comprehension of characters without high-tech sensors and starships, but actually not really infinite.")

[jintoya]

The first thought I had was that things on the elemental planes that would for example:
Swim in acid/lava etc. Would all die, sure adults with high resistances might survive.... But the baby salamander are going to die.
elementals can now be destroyed with the element they are made of.
undead can be killed using death magic.
you can crit ghosts, drown ghosts... This has allot of implications.
on the flip side living creatures are no longer immune to positive energy and can be "life'd to death"
(I'd house rule that all positive energy heals twice the amount of damage it deals to living creatures, inverse is true of negative energy damage on undead, not just heal/harm spells, and I realize a ghost does not breathe, but statistically that's still an immunity)

[Kyutaru]

Mostly the status immunities are where this all comes crashing down. Oozes may be dumber than a doorknob but a sufficiently charismatic rogue can convince one to be its friend by talking to it. Skeletons may not feature vital organs but you can still poison them or get them sick with a magical disease. Plants may be incapable of moving but you can still paralyze one. Golems may have never actually been alive in the first place but you can now resurrect one after breaking it. Air Elementals literally have no back yet now are not immune to flanking.

[noob]

Like "hey that drowned dead did drown again" kind of implication.
Also now everyone can die from holy water and not just evil outsiders and undead.

[Biggus]

example on how to boost damage to high value: apply megatons of metamagics and reserves of strength(that can remove the dice in function of cl cap from spells) and a bunch cl increaser(circle magic, masterspellthief and the like) and you can easily get a fireball with a hundred D6 worth of damage(and you throw 2 at once)
If you are in deeper cheeze there is ways to further increase the damage(ex: greater consumptive field shenanigans)

For dc you can max a casting stat (like charisma thanks to the ability of one specific outsider to increase its charisma indefinitely that you can pilfer with a feat and polymorph or constitution with the shambling mound combined with spellcasting tradition or yet you satisfy yourself with a shape with a high stat
Or you can max bonuses from feats(like add the evil and good subtypes to your spell and use reinforced school: evil and the same for good) and you can get arbitrary amounts of feats either with feat items or dark chaos shuffle and locations or your familiar.

There is also probably prcs that can help with dcs or damage from spells (outside of red mage and incantatrixe)

Or you can play a truenamer and merge with a garbler then throw unlimited dcs stuff around as well as deal infinite damage with the right braces.
(and many other cheese)
Then there is spells that can help such as some boost spells(like all the spells that increase cl or yet the spell that allows to make any spell have the good indicator and which boosted the spell and so on) or planar binding which can help with cooperative casting shenanigans.

Reserves of Strength only increases the maximum CL cap by 3, so that would be 13d6 for a Fireball. Empowered and Maximised that would average 101 damage. You could Twin it, but energy resistance would apply separately to both. What other metamagic feats are there you could use to increase the damage?

What specific outsider are you talking about?

Do you mean literally infinite damage and DCs with the Truenamer? If so, that's theoretical optimization stuff, not something any DM is going to allow in an actual game.

[noob]

Reserves of Strength only increases the maximum CL cap by 3, so that would be 13d6 for a Fireball. Empowered and Maximised that would average 101 damage. You could Twin it, but energy resistance would apply separately to both. What other metamagic feats are there you could use to increase the damage?

What specific outsider are you talking about?

Do you mean literally infinite damage and DCs with the Truenamer? If so, that's theoretical optimization stuff, not something any DM is going to allow in an actual game.

Reserve of strength can be interpreted differently.
even if you do not then there is still some spells where they forgot to specify a cap like maw of chaos.
as for the outsider I do not know the name but you can probably search a thread about optimizing charisma.

[Elkad]

Personally I don't like taking a spell which makes you totally immune to grapple and changing it so that it provides no protection at all against grapple in many cases.

I don't like spells that just "nope" an entire attack form. Run FoM+Salve of Slipperiness and put points in Escape Artist if you don't want the advanced Kraken to squeeze you. FOM for 40, Salve for 20, Crossclass Escape artist for 10 more, and a 20 dex is +75. Now you are on equal odds with that CR20 Kraken.
A L9 wizard with 16 dex and FoM will be at +32 vs a T-rex at +30. 1 in 4 of getting swallowed. If he casts Grease on himself as well for another +10, he's not likely to even get grabbed. And he'll have a good chance vs the CR12 Kraken.


Where are you getting the part about additional hardness penetration being based on enhancement bonus squared from? All I can find is the 2 points per +1 rule in the SRD.

Thought that was clear, it's more houserule. I got rid of the automatic bypass for adamantine, and made it a base+magic.

[Biggus]

Reserve of strength can be interpreted differently.
even if you do not then there is still some spells where they forgot to specify a cap like maw of chaos.
as for the outsider I do not know the name but you can probably search a thread about optimizing charisma.

OK, rereading Reserves of Strength, I can see that you could interpret it to mean it gives an unlimited damage cap, but I can also see that's clearly not how you're supposed to interpret it. So I'll rephrase my question: are there any ways to get extremely high damage or save DCs without wilful misinterpretations of the rules or similar shenanigans that very few DMs will let fly in an actual game?

Btw, there's a table on p.36 of the DMG which says that the default damage cap for a 9th-level arcane spell is 25 dice, so as far as I know that would apply if no maximum is specified.

[noob]

OK, rereading Reserves of Strength, I can see that you could interpret it to mean it gives an unlimited damage cap, but I can also see that's clearly not how you're supposed to interpret it. So I'll rephrase my question: are there any ways to get extremely high damage or save DCs without wilful misinterpretations of the rules or similar shenanigans that very few DMs will let fly in an actual game?

Btw, there's a table on p.36 of the DMG which says that the default damage cap for a 9th-level arcane spell is 25 dice, so as far as I know that would apply if no maximum is specified.

It might be in researching new spells guidelines so it might apply only when researching a spell.
and with 28d6(polar ray + reserves of strength) maximised and empowered and with Energy Admixture for doubling the main element(explicitly allowed) you reach easily 504 damage in a single spell(and you can probably stack in some more metamagic)

[JNAProductions]

OK, rereading Reserves of Strength, I can see that you could interpret it to mean it gives an unlimited damage cap, but I can also see that's clearly not how you're supposed to interpret it. So I'll rephrase my question: are there any ways to get extremely high damage or save DCs without wilful misinterpretations of the rules or similar shenanigans that very few DMs will let fly in an actual game?

Btw, there's a table on p.36 of the DMG which says that the default damage cap for a 9th-level arcane spell is 25 dice, so as far as I know that would apply if no maximum is specified.

If no max is specified, there is no max. That's pretty clear-cut.

[Biggus]

It might be in researching new spells guidelines so it might apply only when researching a spell.
and with 28d6(polar ray + reserves of strength) maximised and empowered and with Energy Admixture for doubling the main element(explicitly allowed) you reach easily 504 damage in a single spell(and you can probably stack in some more metamagic)

Fair point. I only make it 434, but same difference: even with resistance 100 then halve the remainder that's still 167 damage, enough to one-shot an average 20th-level Wizard unless they've got a lot of temporary HPs or something similar. I've never played in a really high-op game myself, so it's worked fine for me. For general use it probably needs changing, perhaps to taking a quarter damage instead of half after the resistance, although possibly even that might not be enough. It's difficult to design a rule which will work well at all character levels and optimization levels, as the rulebooks themselves show.


If no max is specified, there is no max. That's pretty clear-cut.

Does it actually say that in any of the rulebooks?

Every spell I know of which has a caster-level based maximum number of dice specified follows the table in the DMG, so it makes a lot more sense to default to the values shown there than to assume that some spells can cause infinite damage if you can boost your caster level high enough.

[Mato]

Every spell I know of which has a caster-level based maximum number of dice specified follows the table in the DMG,Interesting anecdote but one you should never use as proof of anything, ever.

For example, scorching ray is an extremely well referenced spell listed in the "blasting" school in the PHB which becomes available 15% of the way into the game that deals up to 12d6 damage which exceeds the suggested 10d cap. And you have just told everyone here that you have no idea it even existed. :smallconfused:


Does it actually say that in any of the rulebooks?Yes. :smallsigh:

It's not about the rules don't say this spell is uncapped, it's the fact that the spell says deal X per CL. In lieu of any extra text, doing anything other than dealing X per CL is not supported by the rules.


and with 28d6(polar ray + reserves of strength) maximised and empowered and with Energy Admixture for doubling the main element(explicitly allowed) you reach easily 504 damage in a single spell(and you can probably stack in some more metamagic)You can't even stack empowered and maximized and admixture on it without cost reduction.

Also polar ray is one of the worst spells in the game to blast people with. For example, you're using a 17th level spell slot to deal 504 damage. If your DM supports RoS on Dalamar's lightning lance then at CL25 it deals up to 65d6 (227.5 avg) per casting using a 4th level slot without metamagic feats.

[noob]

Interesting anecdote but one you should never use as proof of anything, ever.

For example, scorching ray is an extremely well referenced spell listed in the "blasting" school in the PHB which becomes available 15% of the way into the game that deals up to 12d6 damage which exceeds the suggested 10d cap. And you have just told everyone here that you have no idea it even existed. :smallconfused:

Yes. :smallsigh:

It's not about the rules don't say this spell is uncapped, it's the fact that the spell says deal X per CL. In lieu of any extra text, doing anything other than dealing X per CL is not supported by the rules.

You can't even stack empowered and maximized and admixture on it without cost reduction.

Also polar ray is one of the worst spells in the game to blast people with. For example, you're using a 17th level spell slot to deal 504 damage. If your DM supports RoS on Dalamar's lightning lance then at CL25 it deals up to 65d6 (227.5 avg) per casting using a 4th level slot without metamagic feats.
except that dalamar lightning lance deals multiple individual attacks and so will not pierce immunities through sheer damage as easily.

[HouseRules]

Also polar ray is one of the worst spells in the game to blast people with. For example, you're using a 17th level spell slot to deal 504 damage.

Polar Ray is a 17th Level Spell?

[zergling.exe]

Polar Ray is a 17th Level Spell?

Did you look at how much metamagic was applied before you jumped to conclusions?

[goodpeople25]

Polar Ray is a 17th Level Spell?
From the quote and rest of the post I'd say that the poster is reffering to energy admixtured (+4) empowered (+2) maximized (+3) Polar Ray (8th level) being a 17th (4+2+3+8=17) level spell.

Just a guess.

[heavyfuel]

This would make preparation mostly pointless. As an example: you're going up against a creature with an aoe death effect, or at will save-or-dies? Guess you still gotta deal with that 5% chance that all your preparation was for naught, since even with a +10 immunity bonus to your check, you'll still fail on a 1. Also makes re-rolls far more useful than anything else.

No, it wouldn't. Making preparations still gives you a massive edge, but it doesn't completely nullify the encounter. If a creature has an AoE save or die, then getting +10 to to your save is super important. Sure, not as important as being actually immune, but super important nonetheless. Preparation can no longer trivialize an encounter, though it can still make it so much easier. If you have the option of going in unprepared and having to roll a 13+, or going prepared and having to roll a 3+, are you really saying it's useless?


I'm currently playtesting something very similar in an epic game [snip]

Freedom of Movement:

- the trouble with this is that, as you've clearly recognised, the differences between grapple checks for different creatures can be very large. Even a +20 bonus is not enough though, not even if we add on half caster level. For example, a Kraken (CR12) has a grapple bonus of +44, as compared to +6 for a medium-sized 12th-level Wizard with Str 10. If a 12th-level Cleric gives a 20+1/2CL bonus, that's +26, for a total of +32. The Kraken is still almost guaranteed to win. This only gets worse at higher levels: a Kraken advanced to CR20 has a +73 grapple bonus, compared to +10 for a 20th-level Wizard, so even with a +30 bonus from a 20th-level Cleric, the Wizard has zero chance to escape. To get round this, I treat Freedom of Movement as a flat "miss chance" where you have a 50% chance to avoid being grappled initially, and a 50% chance to escape every round, regardless of your relative grapple checks.

[snap]



Personally I don't like taking a spell which makes you totally immune to grapple and changing it so that it provides no protection at all against grapple in many cases.

All excellent points. Thanks for your suggestions. How's playtesting going?

However, I don't really agree with FoM. Most monsters who have some tactics in grappling will still want to fight the rest of the party, so they will grapple with one appendage, and they will take -20 themselves on the grapple check as per Improved Grab rules.

The kraken might have +44 on its statblock, but in reality it probably only has +24. FoM granting +20 now either makes anyone pretty much immune to grappling or it forces the kraken to focus solely on one creature at time, giving the rest of the team a massive action economy advantage.


The problem with all that is that often people will with 100% reliability kill or control people that have immunities made for protecting them.
If a wizard can just by screaming fireball hard enough kill a god with regeneration, immunity to fire and immunity to damage and immunity to non lethal damage and immunity to all attacks that are not blunt and within an antimagic field then you end up making the only form of offence and defence be contingencies and celerities.
And thrust me making a wizard that can kill all the people with fire is going to be trivial.

I don't play at such levels of rocket tag, nor do I think the Enchanter wants to play "Try to dispel for 4 rounds before I can actually play my character".

[Crake]

No, it wouldn't. Making preparations still gives you a massive edge, but it doesn't completely nullify the encounter. If a creature has an AoE save or die, then getting +10 to to your save is super important. Sure, not as important as being actually immune, but super important nonetheless. Preparation can no longer trivialize an encounter, though it can still make it so much easier. If you have the option of going in unprepared and having to roll a 13+, or going prepared and having to roll a 3+, are you really saying it's useless?

Personally, having a 5% chance to just completely die regardless of what preparation you do just sounds horrible to me. It's one of the reasons why i hate pathfinder so much, because that's how they handle mind blank, it doesn't give you immunity to mind-affecting, it just gives you +8 on saves vs mind affecting, and no matter how good my will save is, I have a 5% chance to just completely get screwed over by say, dominate or something.

[Mato]

except that dalamar lightning lance deals multiple individual attacks and so will not pierce immunities through sheer damage as easily.Noob: Oh yeah, at least my 17th level spell deals cold damage.
Yes, I'm glad you brought up resistance and immunity. 23% of Dalamar's damage is unresistable but just about everything printed in Frostburn & Libris Mortis is going to love you casting polar ray on it. :smallwink:

Still, you're right in the regard it's just not as good as casting admixtured venomfire on a legal target that also happens to be wearing a collar of venom. I could have used an example that'll roll tens of thousands of dice before it's duration expires using a 7th level slot. But that spell is a little OP.

[heavyfuel]

Personally, having a 5% chance to just completely die regardless of what preparation you do just sounds horrible to me. It's one of the reasons why i hate pathfinder so much, because that's how they handle mind blank, it doesn't give you immunity to mind-affecting, it just gives you +8 on saves vs mind affecting, and no matter how good my will save is, I have a 5% chance to just completely get screwed over by say, dominate or something.

I assume that, by the time you're facing creatures with aoe SoD, death isn't really that big of a hurdle. There are at least a few of spells that can bring you back for the combat (Revenance, limited wish, wish, miracle) and plenty more to bring you back later . And like you said before, re-rolls still exist, you can prepare by having a few up your sleeve.

Pathfinder's example is especially egregious because it grants a +8 resistance bonus. So it's effectively just +3 by the time you get the spell... However, failing is the part I want to bring back because it doesn't make a bunch of strategies easily counterable.

Being a Rogue at high levels is horrible since EVERYONE important will have full crit immune. Same goes for enchanters, grapplers, and many other concepts.

[Crake]

I assume that, by the time you're facing creatures with aoe SoD, death isn't really that big of a hurdle. There are at least a few of spells that can bring you back for the combat (Revenance, limited wish, wish, miracle) and plenty more to bring you back later . And like you said before, re-rolls still exist, you can prepare by having a few up your sleeve.

Pathfinder's example is especially egregious because it grants a +8 resistance bonus. So it's effectively just +3 by the time you get the spell... However, failing is the part I want to bring back because it doesn't make a bunch of strategies easily counterable.

Being a Rogue at high levels is horrible since EVERYONE important will have full crit immune. Same goes for enchanters, grapplers, and many other concepts.

While death may not be big hurdle, it still sucks when you have to sit out of a fight because literally a single dice roll decided to come up unfavourably for you, and of the in-combat resurrections you mentioned, only wish and miracle can actually bring you back from a death effect.

As an aside though bodaks are CR8 and have an AoE SoD death effect before you can even bring people back from the dead, let alone people who died via a death effect.

As for bringing abilites back online that were negated by immunities, it's worth noting that rogues do have options to pierce crit immunity, dispels and disjunctions do exist (despite how much people don't like to break their future gear), and heavy fortitification is expensive, if NPCs are investing in that, they're not investing in another immunity that you can exploit, and the same can be said for enchanting. Grappling as a player is rarely negated by the enemies having freedom of movement in my experience, and more from the enemies just gaining enormous grapple checks.

Personally, I'm much more of a fan of rock-paper-scissors gameplay than "everything can beat anything if you get lucky" gameplay, especially from a player's perspective, where eventually bad luck is gonna get you.

[Mr Adventurer]

Changes in the OP make spellcasters more powerful, since there are no longer any hard counters to the effects they can throw out. They also wonk the CR ratings of monsters, because monsters with those effects are suddenly much less dangerous.

[noob]

Noob: Oh yeah, at least my 17th level spell deals cold damage.
Yes, I'm glad you brought up resistance and immunity. 23% of Dalamar's damage is unresistable but just about everything printed in Frostburn & Libris Mortis is going to love you casting polar ray on it. :smallwink:

Still, you're right in the regard it's just not as good as casting admixtured venomfire on a legal target that also happens to be wearing a collar of venom. I could have used an example that'll roll tens of thousands of dice before it's duration expires using a 7th level slot. But that spell is a little OP.


You create a crackling lance of lightning that you can hurl at your foes. You must succeed at a ranged touch attack roll to hit. The lance deals 3d6 points of damage from the impact of the strike, plus 1d6 electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6). The impact damage is not subject to being reduced by protection from the elements (electricity), spark shield, and similar magic or effects, but the target is entitled a Fortitude save to halve the electricity damage.
let us look at the rule "immunity is reducing of 50 all incoming damage and you can stack immunities for more reduction"
let us cast that spell with a whole bunch of metamagics at someone with a paltry 3 immunities to damage: a solar that have the spell giving undead traits as well as each elemental immunity with the abjuration spells for that + the versions that immunise and reflect damages as divine damage.
with your lances you would deal 234 lightning damage per lance + 27 blunt damage per lance.
the 27 blunt damage of each lance is cancelled and the 234 lightning damage is reduced to a 84 lightning damage so you deal a total 336 lightning damage.
With 5 immunities to damage the solar would take 0.
the problem with multihitting is that it is much more reduced when a resistance is applied.

Also of course if you can not apply all the metamagics you ever to each spell then you are playing weirdly.

There is probably much better spells than those such as any spell with no dice cap(like venomfire which is in the book of broken content that contains anything from manyfanged daggers to sarrukhs) since cl shenanigans exists.

Now the question is: which spell can you sneak in without the gm noticing?
A core spell(it is literally the only thing that makes polar ray a choice that is taken instead of any of the spell with no cl cap) or a spell from a setting or yet venomfire?

[Biggus]

Interesting anecdote but one you should never use as proof of anything, ever.

If you'd included the rest of that line, I said it makes more sense to use the values on the table than to allow some spells to scale infinitely, which it does. If it doesn't actually say anywhere in the rulebooks "if a spell has no damage maximum specified, it does not have a maximum" it's up to the DM to make a judgement call in those cases.


For example, scorching ray is an extremely well referenced spell listed in the "blasting" school in the PHB which becomes available 15% of the way into the game that deals up to 12d6 damage which exceeds the suggested 10d cap. And you have just told everyone here that you have no idea it even existed. :smallconfused:

Scorching Ray gives you extra rays as your caster level increases, by "caster-level based maximum number of dice" I meant spells which do one dice per caster level damage capped at a certain point (this was in reference to Maw of Chaos which noob mentioned).



All excellent points. Thanks for your suggestions. How's playtesting going?

:smallsmile: Working pretty well so far thanks, still needing to be tweaked occasionally as unexpected situations come up. Just the "Immunity Bonuses mean you don't automatically fail on a natural 1" and "built-in immunities like blindness retain total immunity" rules deal with most of the objections to this kind of system.


However, I don't really agree with FoM. Most monsters who have some tactics in grappling will still want to fight the rest of the party, so they will grapple with one appendage, and they will take -20 themselves on the grapple check as per Improved Grab rules.

The kraken might have +44 on its statblock, but in reality it probably only has +24. FoM granting +20 now either makes anyone pretty much immune to grappling or it forces the kraken to focus solely on one creature at time, giving the rest of the team a massive action economy advantage.


Fair point about the -20 on the grapple check. Whether this solves the problem depends on what level you're planning on playing up to. With the CR20 advanced Kraken I mentioned, even taking a -20 leaves it with a +53 grapple check against the Wizard's +40 with FoM (assuming you use my scaling by level rule: if you use a flat +20 the Wizard only has +30 and still auto-loses).

At epic it gets even worse: I recently ran an encounter with a Kraken advanced to 60HD (CR26) which has a grapple bonus of +92. Even taking a -20 penalty, the Wizard with BAB +13 and a +33 FoM bonus auto-loses.

If you don't like the flat 50% escape chance idea, Elkad's suggestion of using a 20+CL bonus should probably work OK at nonepic levels.



Being a Rogue at high levels is horrible since EVERYONE important will have full crit immune. Same goes for enchanters, grapplers, and many other concepts.

Yeah, this is one of the main reasons I decided to remove most total immunities at epic level. Eventually Rogues, Enchanters, Evokers, Illusionists, grapplers etc become completely useless. While the immunity bonus system has some difficulties of its own I find it much preferable to that.

[noob]

If you'd included the rest of that line, I said it makes more sense to use the values on the table than to allow some spells to scale infinitely, which it does. If it doesn't actually say anywhere in the rulebooks "if a spell has no damage maximum specified, it does not have a maximum" it's up to the DM to make a judgement call in those cases.



Scorching Ray gives you extra rays as your caster level increases, by "caster-level based maximum number of dice" I meant spells which do one dice per caster level damage capped at a certain point (this was in reference to Maw of Chaos which noob mentioned).



:smallsmile: Working pretty well so far thanks, still needing to be tweaked occasionally as unexpected situations come up. Just the "Immunity Bonuses mean you don't automatically fail on a natural 1" and "built-in immunities like blindness retain total immunity" rules deal with most of the objections to this kind of system.



Fair point about the -20 on the grapple check. Whether this solves the problem depends on what level you're planning on playing up to. With the CR20 advanced Kraken I mentioned, even taking a -20 leaves it with a +53 grapple check against the Wizard's +40 with FoM (assuming you use my scaling by level rule: if you use a flat +20 the Wizard only has +30 and still auto-loses).

At epic it gets even worse: I recently ran an encounter with a Kraken advanced to 60HD (CR26) which has a grapple bonus of +92. Even taking a -20 penalty, the Wizard with BAB +13 and a +33 FoM bonus auto-loses.

If you don't like the flat 50% escape chance idea, Elkad's suggestion of using a 20+CL bonus should probably work OK at nonepic levels.



Yeah, this is one of the main reasons I decided to remove most total immunities at epic level. Eventually Rogues, Enchanters, Evokers, Illusionists, grapplers etc become completely useless. While the immunity bonus system has some difficulties of its own I find it much preferable to that.

the guy who is an enchanter is also generally an illusionist and a beguiler and beguilers have something nice: they can pilfer enchantment spells and illusion spells from the sorcerer/wizard list and grab ice assassin and other cool things and possibly take levels in shadowcraft mage and use arcane disciple for surreal(as in more than 100% real) miracle spam in epic and so are not locked.
The evoker is however a quite annoying character because either the evoker kill the target in one round or it might as well have not been in the fight.
Grapplers are not helped by your system unless they are level 20 fullcasters that use nested celerities for grappling sheanighans.
Rogues does usually mix a lot of tricks like non lethal cold damage and so on and if your rogue does not have enough tricks then maybe it is time you start using more contingencies and disjunctions because by the level everybody is invulnerable to everything a rogue can do then rogues have enough wbl for becoming fullcasters through items.

[heavyfuel]

Changes in the OP make spellcasters more powerful, since there are no longer any hard counters to the effects they can throw out. They also wonk the CR ratings of monsters, because monsters with those effects are suddenly much less dangerous.

Perhaps. I haven't playtested it yet, but I feel like it would make them more vulnerable as well. Now you don't have the wizard walking around being immune to nearly everything all day long.

As for CR... Meh. Not like it was ever balanced to begin with.


:smallsmile: Working pretty well so far thanks, still needing to be tweaked occasionally as unexpected situations come up. Just the "Immunity Bonuses mean you don't automatically fail on a natural 1" and "built-in immunities like blindness retain total immunity" rules deal with most of the objections to this kind of system.



Fair point about the -20 on the grapple check. Whether this solves the problem depends on what level you're planning on playing up to. With the CR20 advanced Kraken I mentioned, even taking a -20 leaves it with a +53 grapple check against the Wizard's +40 with FoM (assuming you use my scaling by level rule: if you use a flat +20 the Wizard only has +30 and still auto-loses).

At epic it gets even worse: I recently ran an encounter with a Kraken advanced to 60HD (CR26) which has a grapple bonus of +92. Even taking a -20 penalty, the Wizard with BAB +13 and a +33 FoM bonus auto-loses.

If you don't like the flat 50% escape chance idea, Elkad's suggestion of using a 20+CL bonus should probably work OK at nonepic levels.

I'm thinking of allowing for Immunity bonuses to allow success on a Nat 1, but I'm still not convinced. I have to sleep on it for a few more nights before deciding.

As for grappling, I was honestly using Big T as a benchmark. +83 grapple mod. I don't think any other creature they will fight will have a higher grapple check than this. So, +83 is effectively +43 when we add FoM and Improved Grab. A Level 20 Barb can easily have at least 35 to grapple (20 BAB, 11 Str, 4 Size). That still makes the creature dangerous, though it is possible to escape. A Rogue can have even higher Escape Artist.

Yes, Wizards are somewhat screwed, but that's the price they pay for allowing the beast to get close to them in the first place. However, a bunch of spells and magic items still allow you to escape grapples. So even if you can't beat a grapple check, there are still work-arounds.

And all of this is fighting a "worst case scenario" monster. Even something like an Ancient Red Dragon, with higher CR than Big T, only has +60 to grapple.

Like you said, it doesn't work well in Epic levels, but for the high-ish pre-epic levels I intend to set this next campaign in, it's probably fine.

[noob]

Perhaps. I haven't playtested it yet, but I feel like it would make them more vulnerable as well. Now you don't have the wizard walking around being immune to nearly everything all day long.

As for CR... Meh. Not like it was ever balanced to begin with.



I'm thinking of allowing for Immunity bonuses to allow success on a Nat 1, but I'm still not convinced. I have to sleep on it for a few more nights before deciding.

As for grappling, I was honestly using Big T as a benchmark. +83 grapple mod. I don't think any other creature they will fight will have a higher grapple check than this. So, +83 is effectively +43 when we add FoM and Improved Grab. A Level 20 Barb can easily have at least 35 to grapple (20 BAB, 11 Str, 4 Size). That still makes the creature dangerous, though it is possible to escape. A Rogue can have even higher Escape Artist.

Yes, Wizards are somewhat screwed, but that's the price they pay for allowing the beast to get close to them in the first place. However, a bunch of spells and magic items still allow you to escape grapples. So even if you can't beat a grapple check, there are still work-arounds.

And all of this is fighting a "worst case scenario" monster. Even something like an Ancient Red Dragon, with higher CR than Big T, only has +60 to grapple.

Like you said, it doesn't work well in Epic levels, but for the high-ish pre-epic levels I intend to set this next campaign in, it's probably fine.

did you ever meet the colossal monstrous scorpion?

[Kyutaru]

Perhaps. I haven't playtested it yet, but I feel like it would make them more vulnerable as well. Now you don't have the wizard walking around being immune to nearly everything all day long.

What? What about the non-immunity immunities? We had a contest recently where a barbarian dueled a wizard and the melee never stood a chance. How is moving at the speed of sound or flying high in the clouds not the equivalent of "immune to melee"?

Then there's ghosts and miss chance that force ignores. Or falling from a great height that featherfall ignores. Or being plane shifted that plane shift undoes. Like there are so many ways for casters to fight back that are technically not immunity related even though being on another plane entirely makes you immune to attacks.

[HouseRules]

From the quote and rest of the post I'd say that the poster is reffering to energy admixtured (+4) empowered (+2) maximized (+3) Polar Ray (8th level) being a 17th (4+2+3+8=17) level spell.

Just a guess.

So it's
"Actual Spell Level" 8
"Effective Spell Level" 17

Metamagic reducers could reduce the "Effective Spell Level" to +1 per Metamagic:
Energy Admixture (+4) -> +1 (3 feat tax)
Empowered (+2) -> +1 (1 feat tax)
Maximized (+3) -> +1 (2 feat tax)

Spell School Tier
Divination (when combined with another school, casters are always prepared for every fight)
Transmutation & Conjuration (Save or Die, Save or Suck, Just Suck, Just Die Spells)
Evocation (broken on its own, because AOE trumps Mundane)
Abjuration (designed to "counter magic", but not really since magic could bypass it easily)
Illusion (easily to be immune to this) & Enchantment (easy to negate mind-affecting)
Necromancy (easily counter this)
Divination (when alone, the school does not have useful spells, it activates "Railroad")

[Mr Adventurer]

As for CR... Meh. Not like it was ever balanced to begin with.


Well if you're going to be dismissive, feel free to read my sentence without the abbreviation "CR" in there at all. The point - the actual point - stands.

[heavyfuel]

did you ever meet the colossal monstrous scorpion?

Uhhh, yes? It has +58 to grapple at CR 12. With FoM and Improved Grab it effectively has only +18, unless it decides to spend all of its effort holding down a single party member. +18 is hardly difficult to beat, especially for a creature whose shtick is grabbing and poisoning.

Or are you talking about something other than its grapple mod?


What? What about the non-immunity immunities? We had a contest recently where a barbarian dueled a wizard and the melee never stood a chance. How is moving at the speed of sound or flying high in the clouds not the equivalent of "immune to melee"?

Then there's ghosts and miss chance that force ignores. Or falling from a great height that featherfall ignores. Or being plane shifted that plane shift undoes. Like there are so many ways for casters to fight back that are technically not immunity related even though being on another plane entirely makes you immune to attacks.

That is, definitely one of the many disadvantages of melee, but it's hardly the same as being immune to it. There are ways around it. Sure, put Tier 1 vs a Tier 4 in a vacuum, and the Tier 1 wins every time. But the game isn't played in a vacuum.

Miss chance is good, but I don't think there's any way to get more than 50% without cheese (which is of course banned), so Blind Fight and similar things make it much more manageable. Again, hardly an immunity.

As for featherfall, I'd say it falls under "immunity to a damage type", falling damage, in this case. So yeah, Feather Fall reduces falling damage by 50. The spell can only hold you so much.

[heavyfuel]

Well if you're going to be dismissive, feel free to read my sentence without the abbreviation "CR" in there at all. The point - the actual point - stands.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be dismissive. I just really though you were talking about actual CR instead of "difficulty".

While yes, some monsters will become easier to deal due to them having their immunities stripped, some will be harder to deal with since no immunity is available. I feel like overall it should even out.

[noob]

Uhhh, yes? It has +58 to grapple at CR 12. With FoM and Improved Grab it effectively has only +18, unless it decides to spend all of its effort holding down a single party member. +18 is hardly difficult to beat, especially for a creature whose shtick is grabbing and poisoning.

Or are you talking about something other than its grapple mod?

the combination of being CR 12 and of not being obligated to use improved grab means you can possibly put multiples and keep nearly all the party grappled freedom of movement or not.

[heavyfuel]

the combination of being CR 12 and of not being obligated to use improved grab means you can possibly put multiples and keep nearly all the party grappled freedom of movement or not.

If it doesn't use improved grab rules but instead the usual grapple rules, it can grapple one single character with +38 bonus. However, doing that has so many downsides, notably, losing any action economy it once had. A 4x1 fight now becomes a 3x0 fight with a timer. It becomes a battle of killing the scorpion before it kills your friend, and I'm pretty sure 3 guys can kill it rather quickly (like, 3 rounds tops)

[noob]

If it doesn't use improved grab rules but instead the usual grapple rules, it can grapple one single character with +38 bonus. However, doing that has so many downsides, notably, losing any action economy it once had. A 4x1 fight now becomes a 3x0 fight with a timer. It becomes a battle of killing the scorpion before it kills your friend, and I'm pretty sure 3 guys can kill it rather quickly (like, 3 rounds tops)

did you forget to read the part of the post where I wrote "multiples"

[heavyfuel]

did you forget to read the part of the post where I wrote "multiples"

I didn't really understand that part. Did you mean like fighting more than one at a time? I guess that would be a problem with beats other than the always solitary mindless giant scorpion. But yeah, fighting multiple somewhat intelligent grapplers could complicate things a bit, but these are situations where the DM has to dosage the fights. Plenty of CR appropriate fights can end with a TPK even with immunities in play.

[Blackhawk748]

Scorching Ray gives you extra rays as your caster level increases, by "caster-level based maximum number of dice" I meant spells which do one dice per caster level damage capped at a certain point (this was in reference to Maw of Chaos which noob mentioned).

Wings of Flurry has no listed cap and will do tons and tons of damage.

[Biggus]

I'm thinking of allowing for Immunity bonuses to allow success on a Nat 1, but I'm still not convinced. I have to sleep on it for a few more nights before deciding.


If you don't want to just allow success on a natural 1, maybe use the open-ended rolls variant where you reroll at -20 instead of it being an automatic failure? Or just allow all natural 1's to be rerolled if you have an immunity bonus (but make them keep the second roll, even if it's another 1)?

I think the system needs something of this kind, because a 1 in 20 chance of automatic failure weakens immunity dramatically, as other posters have pointed out.


Wings of Flurry has no listed cap and will do tons and tons of damage.

Yes, there are other spells with no listed cap. What I was saying was that for spells which do one dice per caster level damage and do have caps listed, as far as I know they all follow the formula shown in the DMG.

[Mato]

Yes, there are other spells with no listed cap. What I was saying was that for spells which do one dice per caster level damage and do have caps listed, as far as I know they all follow the formula shown in the DMG.As a 3rd level area divine spell a cleric's lightning bolt should be capped at 5 dice, not 10d6, according to the DMG. :smallsmile:

[Particle_Man]

I am glad that someone is taking action to cut the overpowered soulborn down to size.

[Biggus]

As a 3rd level area divine spell a cleric's lightning bolt should be capped at 5 dice, not 10d6, according to the DMG. :smallsmile:

Do you mean if they cast it as a domain spell?

[heavyfuel]

If you don't want to just allow success on a natural 1, maybe use the open-ended rolls variant where you reroll at -20 instead of it being an automatic failure? Or just allow all natural 1's to be rerolled if you have an immunity bonus (but make them keep the second roll, even if it's another 1)?

I think the system needs something of this kind, because a 1 in 20 chance of automatic failure weakens immunity dramatically, as other posters have pointed out.

After pondering on it, I'm pretty sure I'll allow characters with Immunity bonuses to reroll 1s as Immediate actions but without the added +10 bonus. It's still dangerous, it still comes at a cost in the form of action spenditure, but it does allow for some safety in immunities


I am glad that someone is taking action to cut the overpowered soulborn down to size.

I'm not at all familiar with the Soulborn (or any of the Incarnum classes for that matter). Can you elaborate?

[Biggus]

After pondering on it, I'm pretty sure I'll allow characters with Immunity bonuses to reroll 1s as Immediate actions but without the added +10 bonus. It's still dangerous, it still comes at a cost in the form of action spenditure, but it does allow for some safety in immunities


Interesting idea, let us know how it works out.

[Particle_Man]

I'm not at all familiar with the Soulborn (or any of the Incarnum classes for that matter). Can you elaborate?

They are weaker versions of paladins. Full bab and d10 hp. The incarnum abilities (instead of the spells a paladin gets) come far too late for them to be relevant. The one thing they get is at level 2 is an immunity (varying according to their alignment). So your rules takes away the one thing they had going for them and leaves a sub-par class even more sub-par than before. Although since you are unfamiliar with incarnum I doubt this is relevant to your campaign.

[heavyfuel]

Although since you are unfamiliar with incarnum I doubt this is relevant to your campaign.

Indeed. I sincerely doubt any player will want to play one.

So, disregarding the existence of the class, what are your thoughts on this houserule?

[Particle_Man]

In general, I like the idea of immunity in some cases. It adds a mythic quality to the game to have some characters and creatures being immune to fire, etc. It can also force players to get creative - as the oots comic showed when Sigdi’s crew faced a half-fiend troll.

[Biggus]

In general, I like the idea of immunity in some cases. It adds a mythic quality to the game to have some characters and creatures being immune to fire, etc. It can also force players to get creative - as the oots comic showed when Sigdi’s crew faced a half-fiend troll.

I get what you mean about the mythic quality, but for me that's kind of lost when immunities are as common as they are in 3.5. Low-level characters and low-CR monsters have access to immunites which no force in the world (except maybe the gods, depending on the DM) can penetrate: that makes them feel kind of mundane, something that just comes up with the rations, as it were. I have no problem with artifacts conferring total immunity, or even very high-level spells, or with certain rare and terrible monsters having it, because that feels like something mythic. For me, total and utter immunity should be the exception, not the rule.

[Particle_Man]

And sometimes there are things already in the game that bypass immunities anyhow. Like creatures and characters can be immune to fire, but not *this* particular hellfire. Or a creature can be immune to something but I believe a spellthief can negate it for a while, etc.

Sometimes rpg games seem, when old enough, to gather various iterations of "I hit you, you're dead!" "No I'm not, I have a super-force field you can't penetrate!" "Well I have a super weapon that penetrates any force field!" "Well I have a super duper force field that stops that weapon!" "Well I have . . . " etc. :smallbiggrin:

[Biggus]

And sometimes there are things already in the game that bypass immunities anyhow. Like creatures and characters can be immune to fire, but not *this* particular hellfire. Or a creature can be immune to something but I believe a spellthief can negate it for a while, etc.

Sometimes rpg games seem, when old enough, to gather various iterations of "I hit you, you're dead!" "No I'm not, I have a super-force field you can't penetrate!" "Well I have a super weapon that penetrates any force field!" "Well I have a super duper force field that stops that weapon!" "Well I have . . . " etc. :smallbiggrin:

This is true, it's a large part of what put me off some of the later 3.5 books in fact.

[heavyfuel]

It can also force players to get creative - as the oots comic showed when Sigdi’s crew faced a half-fiend troll.

Dunno. If a particular course of action only has a 1 in 20 chance of success (or less if I allow rerolls due to immunity), I don't think many players would be keen on trying it. They might risk it, but getting creative is still probably the best course of action.

Also, did they really face a half-fiend troll? I recall it being a regular troll, but I could be wrong (also, I haven't read the latest book in case it's information found there)

[Particle_Man]

Dunno. If a particular course of action only has a 1 in 20 chance of success (or less if I allow rerolls due to immunity), I don't think many players would be keen on trying it. They might risk it, but getting creative is still probably the best course of action.

Also, did they really face a half-fiend troll? I recall it being a regular troll, but I could be wrong (also, I haven't read the latest book in case it's information found there)

It was half-fiend. The point was that fire, the go-to strategy for dwarf patrols dealing with trolls, would be completely useless against this guy.

[Endarire]

Pathfinder removed certain immunities from the game with mixed results.

I generally like the immunities since they provide protection against something, often with an associated cost. The [Cold] and [Fire] subtypes provide immunity to their respective energy damages, but with 50% more damage taken by the opposite. Freedom of movement is handy, but at what point can you keep it up all the time?

Remember, dispelling exists and is expected in many/most scenarios in this game at some point.

[Biggus]

Freedom of movement is handy, but at what point can you keep it up all the time?

The point at which you can afford a ring of FoM?

[noob]

The point at which you can afford a ring of FoM?

It is one of my favourite core items.

[heavyfuel]

Pathfinder removed certain immunities from the game with mixed results.

(snip) Freedom of movement is handy, but at what point can you keep it up all the time?


The point at which you can afford a ring of FoM?

Yup. Super underpriced as well. From the Custom Magic Item rules it should cost 4*7*2000*1.5 = 84'000. Instead, it costs less than half that amount.

Also, @Endarire, could you elaborate on the mixed results?

[upho]

What would happen if all immunities were removed from the game??I implemented similar changes to my PF based games about six years ago and definitely intend to keep them, so I've by now seen far more of them than the default rules in play. And I think the changes have definitely made the game better, without introducing problematic side-effects, at the cost of a relatively small amount of work.

But I also think one of the reasons for my positive experiences is that PF is relatively amenable to these changes, the related values having lower standard deviations and very few extreme outliers in comparison to 3.5. Most notably, without very significant niche investments, there are thankfully exceedingly few related values in PF which can be raised so high related relationships go from "impossible" to "auto-success" or vice versa simply because of the changes. So the only mechanics which required more elaborate custom changes were some of those related to demoralization, stealth, trip and grapple, and mostly because those are flawed and prone to result in wonky situations also when used as written.

By that, I don't mean to suggest that implementing similar changes in 3.5 would be impossible or not worthwhile, just that I'd expect it to require quite a bit more work and far more numerous new specific exceptions to the general changes. But on the other hand, the total benefit would probably also be greater in 3.5, since the greater number of related issues would also have to be addressed (such as the relative ease with which PCs can attain many extremely high related values).

I made a short list of objectives and minimum requirements for these changes and made sure they met them, which should be useful also for 3.5:

Must significantly reduce the risk of a creature ending up having a foregone binary mechanical relationship to all other creatures in some respect (like "Scary Mary's default Intimidate bonus is high enough to automatically beat the DC of any and all opponents she can be expected to face", or "opponents immune to fear, emotion or mind-affecting effects are nevertheless per default unaffected by Scary Mary's Intimidate attempts").
Must not render the benefits of a related ability or option useless or significantly less worth the investment (like the Black Seraph Annihilation (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/feats/black-seraph-annihilation-combat/) feat or the antipally's aura of cowardice (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/alternate-classes/antipaladin/#TOC-Aura-of-Cowardice-Su-)).
Should not result in mechanics more difficult for players to understand, require more bookkeeping or take longer time to resolve.
Should require as few and as simple rules item changes as possible.

I'd be happy to post specifics if anyone's interested, but as mention I believe they unfortunately wouldn't be of much help in 3.5.


A few suggestions on some of the changes listed in the OP:


1- Immunity to anything that requires a Saving Throw or Check now instead gives a +10 Immunity bonus to that saving throw or check. So elves get +10 against sleep and paladins gain +10 on their Wisdom checks versus Intimidate. Freedom of Movement is the exception, and grants a +20 Immunity bonus against Grapples (still +10 for other effects);Unless you're looking to intentionally change the relative effectiveness of related abilities, I suggest you use a different bonus for most checks DC values than for saves, especially those opposing skill based checks, and also consider allowing related saves to ignore the auto-fail of a natural 1. For example, a +10 bonus to demoralize DC typically won't have nearly the same impact a +10 bonus to saves against fear has, since it's typically both easier and far less costly to boost Intimidate than to boost spell DC.

And speaking of, I also suggest you decide on the bonus for at least these kinds of immunities first and foremost by looking at the related value ranges of PCs. Personally, I'm of the opinion that an immune creature should actually remain de facto immune against a PC of a level equal to the creature's CR unless they've made significant investments specifically to boost the DC or check in question, and that only the most specialized PCs should have a good chance of success.


4- Immunity to a damage type now reduces that damage by 50 points. You're still considered immune for effects such as Searing Spell;Again, I recommend you consider giving different bonuses depending on whether they're DR or ER, using the same method as described above. This may not be as important as I believe to be in PF (it's been ages since I last played 3.5 and my memory is a bit rusty), but still.

[heavyfuel]

*snip*

Nice write up. Thank you!

A question: How do you feel about rerolls and natural 1s auto failing? That seems seems to be a major point of contention among some of the forum members.

I might have more questions in the future :smallbiggrin:

[HouseRules]

Nice write up. Thank you!

A question: How do you feel about rerolls and natural 1s auto failing? That seems seems to be a major point of contention among some of the forum members.

I might have more questions in the future :smallbiggrin:

You would usually want someone with Good Save, but 10 Ability Score, and no other bonus source to fail on a roll of 1.
This usually means the bonus needs to be +20, not +10.
However, you also need to have a reasonable ranking of the different bonuses.
Some bonus are clearly better than others.

For the damage, as I post earlier, should be reduce to 40, not 50, because they follow the doubling pattern of: 5, 10, 20, Immune = 40.
As suggested, giving the correct DR and ER is always good, and it seems to be somewhat implied.

I would also consider convert instant death the reversal of immunity spells to have it symmetric.

[heavyfuel]

You would usually want someone with Good Save, but 10 Ability Score, and no other bonus source to fail on a roll of 1.
This usually means the bonus needs to be +20, not +10.
However, you also need to have a reasonable ranking of the different bonuses.
Some bonus are clearly better than others.

For the damage, as I post earlier, should be reduce to 40, not 50, because they follow the doubling pattern of: 5, 10, 20, Immune = 40.
As suggested, giving the correct DR and ER is always good, and it seems to be somewhat implied.

I would also consider convert instant death the reversal of immunity spells to have it symmetric.

Do you mean "only fail on a roll of 1"? Cuz I'm gonna disagree with you there.

The 40 points = Immunity argument isn't really the point here. I just chose 50 because it's something easy to remember and to calculate. Yeah, it can be 40 for all I care.

I'm not sure what you mean in regards to your last paragraph.

[Biggus]

Unless you're looking to intentionally change the relative effectiveness of related abilities, I suggest you use a different bonus for most checks DC values than for saves, especially those opposing skill based checks, and also consider allowing related saves to ignore the auto-fail of a natural 1. For example, a +10 bonus to demoralize DC typically won't have nearly the same impact a +10 bonus to saves against fear has, since it's typically both easier and far less costly to boost Intimidate than to boost spell DC.


Agreed, skill and grapple immunities need to scale at +1 per level because those checks can increase at +1 per level without limit, while save DCs scale more slowly, so +1 per 2 levels works for save-based immunities.



For the damage, as I post earlier, should be reduce to 40, not 50, because they follow the doubling pattern of: 5, 10, 20, Immune = 40.


I'm a bit puzzled why you consider the half-dragon's progression to be the definitive expression of how energy resistance increases. Those aren't the only resistance levels available; some creatures or items have energy resistance 15 or 30, for example.

Also, in practice 40 is too low to be called immunity in any real sense: noob showed earlier in the thread that even without really stinky cheese, my version of resistance 100 and halve what's left is still not enough in a high-level high-op game. Even in a mid-level mid-op game, it's easy to do well over 40 damage: a 10th-level Wizard casting Greater Fireburst using the Sudden Maximise feat can do 100 fire damage, for example.

[heavyfuel]

Unless you're looking to intentionally change the relative effectiveness of related abilities, I suggest you use a different bonus for most checks DC values than for saves, especially those opposing skill based checks, and also consider allowing related saves to ignore the auto-fail of a natural 1. For example, a +10 bonus to demoralize DC typically won't have nearly the same impact a +10 bonus to saves against fear has, since it's typically both easier and far less costly to boost Intimidate than to boost spell DC.

Agreed, skill and grapple immunities need to scale at +1 per level because those checks can increase at +1 per level without limit, while save DCs scale more slowly, so +1 per 2 levels works for save-based immunities.

But a character's defenses also increase, so it evens out. I'll give you that it's pretty easy to raise Intimidate to the point where +10 doesn't matter, so we might make it like Grapple and make the immunity grant +20 instead of +10, but I don't see why this should be the case for other things.

Immunity to Paralysis for example will scale with your Will save, so FoM itself doesn't need to scale.

Being immune to something is still a big buff, but it doesn't mean you can ignore other defenses simple because you are immune.

[Biggus]

But a character's defenses also increase, so it evens out. I'll give you that it's pretty easy to raise Intimidate to the point where +10 doesn't matter, so we might make it like Grapple and make the immunity grant +20 instead of +10, but I don't see why this should be the case for other things.

Immunity to Paralysis for example will scale with your Will save, so FoM itself doesn't need to scale.

Being immune to something is still a big buff, but it doesn't mean you can ignore other defenses simple because you are immune.

The difference between a very high score and a very low score for skills, saves etc is much bigger at high levels than at low levels. For saves for example, as I showed earlier in the thread, the difference is about 10 points greater at level 20 than it is at level 1 (and that's ignoring save bonuses from spells and magic items: if you include those, the difference could be 20 or more).

[upho]

Nice write up. Thank you!

A question: How do you feel about rerolls and natural 1s auto failing? That seems seems to be a major point of contention among some of the forum members.Honestly? Well, the first thing that jumped to my mind when I read this was the old platitude "whatever you feel works best for your group". Which made me feel slightly embarrassed and nauseous... :smallfrown:

Slightly more seriously, my "new immunity" rules remove natural 1 auto-failure in order to better retain the verisimilitude and flavor of especially inherently immune creatures. I was actually very hesitant about this at first, since I really didn't want to risk bogging down the rules with additional special exceptions, but so far this thankfully hasn't been problematic at all, likely because the bonus is such a big and specific thing anyways, so the exception is easy to remember. Rerolls are unaffected.

Speaking of, playability is the far most common primary weakness of the otherwise good 3.5/PF homebrew and houserule designs I've seen. So if anything, my general advice is that you carefully consider the impact a new a mechanic has on playability before introducing it, and try to keep things like additional die rolls, bookkeeping or highly situational exceptions at a minimum.


I might have more questions in the future :smallbiggrin:I'll be happy to help if I can!

[upho]

I'm a bit puzzled why you consider the half-dragon's progression to be the definitive expression of how energy resistance increases. Those aren't the only resistance levels available; some creatures or items have energy resistance 15 or 30, for example.

Also, in practice 40 is too low to be called immunity in any real sense: noob showed earlier in the thread that even without really stinky cheese, my version of resistance 100 and halve what's left is still not enough in a high-level high-op game. Even in a mid-level mid-op game, it's easy to do well over 40 damage: a 10th-level Wizard casting Greater Fireburst using the Sudden Maximise feat can do 100 fire damage, for example.Yeah, the dragon ER progression would make for a poor guideline. And regardless, I really believe example PC values like these are instead what most the bonus values must be based on to ensure they have the intended impact. For example, I based most of my PF bonuses on the monster design target values at CR 6, 11 and 16, opposed by the approximate values of what would be considered reasonably typical PCs in my games; one "competent" PC and one "super-specialized" PC at levels 6, 11 and 16.

It's also worth noting that finding out suitable damage immunity bonuses (DR/ER) will most likely demand a bit more work, since simply looking at how individual attacks are affected will only give you half the story when it comes to a bonus value's approximate net impact on combat outcomes. So I recommend you also look at how the bonus impacts the average number of rounds an opponent will survive against a few different types of PCs. (I personally also decided on having two very differently sized ER bonuses, the larger one exclusively for beings actually made of the related element.)


But a character's defenses also increase, so it evens out. I'll give you that it's pretty easy to raise Intimidate to the point where +10 doesn't matter, so we might make it like Grapple and make the immunity grant +20 instead of +10, but I don't see why this should be the case for other things.

Immunity to Paralysis for example will scale with your Will save, so FoM itself doesn't need to scale.

Being immune to something is still a big buff, but it doesn't mean you can ignore other defenses simple because you are immune.As Biggus noted, the scaling of these things aren't uniform. In addition, the expected scaling of baseline values, like max skill ranks per level, won't be nearly enough to give you a sufficient picture of how quickly a highly specialized PC's bonus scales IME. To illustrate, here are the approximate Intimidate bonuses I'd expect in my PF games at levels 1, 6, 11 and 16 from three different PCs with max ranks - "dabbler", "competent" and "super-specialized" - followed by the actual average (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E2-s8weiulPoBQjdI05LBzOUToyoZIdSsLKxHAvf8F8/edit?usp=sharing) DC of 3,000+ opponents in books and adventures published by Paizo:

Sneaky Pete dabbler (rogue focused on sneaky rogue stuff)
Intimidate 1st +5 -- 6th +10 -- 11th +15 -- 16th +22

Social Sonny competent (bard support & party face)
Intimidate 1st +9 -- 6th +15 -- 11th +24 -- 16th +34

Scary Mary super-specialized (bloodrager combat demoralizer)
Intimidate 1st +10 -- 6th +21 -- 11th +32 -- 16th +46

Average Enemy
Intimidate DC CR 1 3 -- CR 6 19 -- CR 11 26 -- CR 16 35

IIRC, the ranges of skill bonuses can often be expected to be higher than this in 3.5.