Getting through Immunity

[jaappleton]

I really enjoy thematic characters, specifically when it comes to damage types. And I'm not talking about conditions. Immunity to Charm? Is what it is, I suppose. I'm talking about damage.

Lightning Dragon Sorcerer, Tempest Cleric, Storm Sorc... Three ways to be a 'storm mage', so to speak.

And there's others, of course. Fire Dragon and Fiend Warlock have quite an overlap, as well as Light Domain.

And you can take something like Elemental Adept to bypass Resistance to some damage types.

But nothing, to my knowledge, lets you punch through Immunity. Nothing. Which is a shame, because it somewhat penalizes you for being a thematic character. Having your turn come up and wanting to contribute damage only to be rendered useless is a terrible feeling.

Don't get me wrong; it totally makes sense for many creatures to have Immunity. A powerful Fiend should have Immunity to Fire. An ancient Red Dragon. Makes sense, don't get me wrong.

However, I do think that if you've invested the Feat, class feature, whatever in order to get through Resistance, then you should be able to do something regarding creatures which are immune.

I am planning on approaching my DM about this. "If you have the ability to bypass Resistance to a damage type, then you can treat Immunity as Resistance". So you can still contribute something instead of being completely neutered, so to speak.

What is the playgrounds thoughts on the matter?

[nickl_2000]

I'm all for this. I have thought for awhile that Elemental Adept should be Immunity -> Resistance, Resistance -> Normal and treat rolled 1s as 2s.

Frankly it's not that great of a feat to being with and this isn't a broken addition.



I also would extend it to allow you to choose any non-B/S/P damage type (including poison, which needs the help).

[JellyPooga]

Ehh...for me it feels kind of...wrong?

I mean, what's next? Super-Immunity for creatures that are immune to their immunity being downgraded? It's not an arms-race and if you've chosen to specialise so much, then I kinda feel like you should have to lay in the bed you made. Does it feel crappy? Sure, but whose fault is it that you can't contribute? The GM for not fulfilling your power fantasy by never exploiting your very glaring weakness, or yours for not considering the consequences of your choices?

[jaappleton]

Ehh...for me it feels kind of...wrong?

I mean, what's next? Super-Immunity for creatures that are immune to their immunity being downgraded? It's not an arms-race and if you've chosen to specialise so much, then I kinda feel like you should have to lay in the bed you made. Does it feel crappy? Sure, but whose fault is it that you can't contribute? The GM for not fulfilling your power fantasy by never exploiting your very glaring weakness, or yours for not considering the consequences of your choices?

How many players at the table make a “thematic” character? Tempest, Light, and Dragon style Sorcs, really. And it’s really only for elemental damage. Psychic, Force, and Radiant are so seldom resisted that it’s not an issue. Necrotic.... Eh. Even many Undead don’t even resist it.

Really this is an issue for elemental types, and Poison. Poison needing the absolute most help here, IMO.

So for how many people during your campaign would even utilize this? And it’s only for those who already have a feature to bust through Resistance.

[Keltest]

Ehh...for me it feels kind of...wrong?

I mean, what's next? Super-Immunity for creatures that are immune to their immunity being downgraded? It's not an arms-race and if you've chosen to specialise so much, then I kinda feel like you should have to lay in the bed you made. Does it feel crappy? Sure, but whose fault is it that you can't contribute? The GM for not fulfilling your power fantasy by never exploiting your very glaring weakness, or yours for not considering the consequences of your choices?

Agreed. It also feels sort of strange to say that you, a regular human(oid) wizard have so much more control over the element of fire than a literal physical manifestation of the element of fire that you can burn it anyway, even though it is also made of fire and logically could not be burned.

[stoutstien]

I'd rather have a slight increase in the number of damage types that can help give theme builds options. Not all fire spell need to do all fire. More spells need to be designed like destructive wave, flame strike and ice knife with multiple types in a single spell .

[nickl_2000]

Agreed. It also feels sort of strange to say that you, a regular human(oid) wizard have so much more control over the element of fire than a literal physical manifestation of the element of fire that you can burn it anyway, even though it is also made of fire and logically could not be burned.

As a counter argument, PCs are not regular. PCs are meant to be exemplary. *Shrugs* it's a houserule though, go with your own mind cannon.

[ShinyRocks]

I'm in two minds on this. Like, one character I want to play is a fire genasi Phoenix Sorcerer. Double fiery blood line, family obsessed with their proud heritage etc. Would almost certainly take Elemental Adept. And if you're that in control of fire (or whatever other element), then yes, you should be able to burst through immunity. Maybe.

On the other hand, it's not difficult to give yourself some other option for the occasions your standard tactic doesn't work. Take chromatic orb or magic missiles and upcast as needed, for a top-of-the-head example. There's specialising and there's hamstringing yourself.

Of course, if you're at session zero saying 'I want to be a fire genasi Phoenix Sorcerer' and the DM is thinking 'my campaign is going to be nothing but fiends and red dragons', they owe it to you to say so upfront.

[Grey Watcher]

I have mixed feelings about overcoming immunity. If the target is, say, a Red Dragon, then "my fire burns hot enough to burn even a dragon" feels like an appropriately epic moment for a character who's invested in doing so. On the other hand, if the target is a Fire Elemental then it just seems silly to me that you can burn fire itself.

[Keltest]

I would also add that with this way of thinking, suddenly overcoming resistance/immunity becomes a feat tax to enable you to keep contributing at all instead of a cool plus to your build to help you out in some situations.

[jaappleton]

An argument I'd like to make in favor of this:

This is for player characters. Heroes. Not joe schmo, the blacksmith villager of the starting town. This isn't fire coming from a torch.

This is fire crafted by magic, by an extraordinary person.

[stoutstien]

An argument I'd like to make in favor of this:

This is for player characters. Heroes. Not joe schmo, the blacksmith villager of the starting town. This isn't fire coming from a torch.

This is fire crafted by magic, by an extraordinary person.

The NPCs that have type immunities probably are also no Joe scmo so this reasoning isn't that sound.

[jaappleton]

The NPCs that have type immunities probably are also no Joe scmo so this reasoning isn't that sound.

PCs are more special than the monsters.

Monsters don't typically get feats. :smalltongue:

[JellyPooga]

PCs are more special than the monsters.

I disagree with this sentiment. NPCs are often powerful and/or unique beyond the capability and ken of Player Characters. In fact, I'd be more likely to place [damage] Immunity busting abilities in the hands of an NPC than those of PCs:

- The mad fire mage channeling the elemental plane of fire such that his own flesh burns with its unending flame. (totallynotrippingoffIgnusfromPS:T)
- The Daemonic Stygian Dragon that breathes infernal hellrime so cold it burns your very soul.
- The Uber-Ooze, destroyer of worlds, whose acidic substance eats through everything it touches.

This is not the realm of PC abilities.

[jaappleton]

I disagree with this sentiment. NPCs are often powerful and/or unique beyond the capability and ken of Player Characters. In fact, I'd be more likely to place [damage] Immunity busting abilities in the hands of an NPC than those of PCs:

- The mad fire mage channeling the elemental plane of fire such that his own flesh burns with its unending flame. (totallynotrippingoffIgnusfromPS:T)
- The Daemonic Stygian Dragon that breathes infernal hellrime so cold it burns your very soul.
- The Uber-Ooze, destroyer of worlds, whose acidic substance eats through everything it touches.

This is not the realm of PC abilities.

I didn't state PCs are more powerful.

I said they're more special. Which I truly believe. Its what the players are playing. They should be empowered to take on those special monsters. Jim the lv14 Wizard, specializing in Fire magic, should be able to do SOMETHING with his fire against the pit fiend. SOMETHING. Full damage? No. But it should be able to do SOMETHING. Player characters are more special than anything with a monster stat block, because its the players.

It doesn't matter if the NPC isn't having fun. They aren't real. Players are. It matters that the PCs and DM are having fun. And any player whose PC is rendered ineffective isn't having fun.

That's not to say to NEVER lock down a PC. Hold Person, or Charm, etc. Yes, you need those moments of feeling a bit helpless in order to make the truly heroic moments count that much more. You need the lows to appreciate the highs.

I really don't see the harm in letting Jim's fire actually singe the pit fiend. Should it roast 'em? No. But the pit fiend should feel something.

[JellyPooga]

I didn't state PCs are more powerful.

Giving PCs the option to have Immunity breaking abilities and not NPCs (because they're not special enough) is absolutely stating that PCs should be/are more powerful.


They should be empowered to take on those special monsters.

No. What makes PCs special is that they struggle to take on such monsters and yet succeed. Empowerment shouldn't come through being served a silver platter; cheat codes make challenges less fun.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Can't remember if I saw this in UA or somebody's homebrew, but using 1 SP to change damage type to another energy type as a Metamagic Option is basically what our group was contemplating for a house rule. This seems reasonable and covers the Sorcerers who are the most limited in spells; Clerics have a more diverse list anyway. Maybe thematically it doesn't fit with the OP, but mechanically it works. Obviously at low levels using one of only two Metamagic options is a heavy cost, but if you were a Fire Dragon Sorc playing Decent into Avernus (not sure why you'd do this) it would probably be worthwhile.

[jaappleton]

Can't remember if I saw this in UA or somebody's homebrew, but using 1 SP to change damage type to another energy type as a Metamagic Option is basically what our group was contemplating for a house rule. This seems reasonable and covers the Sorcerers who are the most limited in spells; Clerics have a more diverse list anyway. Maybe thematically it doesn't fit with the OP, but mechanically it works. Obviously at low levels using one of only two Metamagic options is a heavy cost, but if you were a Fire Dragon Sorc playing Decent into Avernus (not sure why you'd do this) it would probably be worthwhile.

That was an ability from the Class Variant UA introduced last November.

[Keltest]

Pretty much definitionally, high level monsters like dragons or bigger elementals are equally or more special than the PCs. Thats why you need PCs to deal with them in the first place.

[MrStabby]

Agreed. It also feels sort of strange to say that you, a regular human(oid) wizard have so much more control over the element of fire than a literal physical manifestation of the element of fire that you can burn it anyway, even though it is also made of fire and logically could not be burned.

Yeah, this seems to be my main objection as well.



I'd rather have a slight increase in the number of damage types that can help give theme builds options. Not all fire spell need to do all fire. More spells need to be designed like destructive wave, flame strike and ice knife with multiple types in a single spell .

I think that a few more ways to capture a theme is also good. I love tempest Cleric's ability to work on two thematically linked elements, likewise with light clerics. I like that water themed spells can do cold damage or bludgeoning damage. Even a cold theme has things like sleet storm that dont really care about immunities.

I would like more spells like sleet storm that are tied to a theme whilst circumventing resistance. Imagine a fire version of stinking cloud that is chokeing smoke for example. Some can be fluffed but it's more content I would like to see.

[MaxWilson]

I really enjoy thematic characters, specifically when it comes to damage types. And I'm not talking about conditions. Immunity to Charm? Is what it is, I suppose. I'm talking about damage.

Lightning Dragon Sorcerer, Tempest Cleric, Storm Sorc... Three ways to be a 'storm mage', so to speak.

And there's others, of course. Fire Dragon and Fiend Warlock have quite an overlap, as well as Light Domain.

And you can take something like Elemental Adept to bypass Resistance to some damage types.

But nothing, to my knowledge, lets you punch through Immunity. Nothing. Which is a shame, because it somewhat penalizes you for being a thematic character. Having your turn come up and wanting to contribute damage only to be rendered useless is a terrible feeling.

Don't get me wrong; it totally makes sense for many creatures to have Immunity. A powerful Fiend should have Immunity to Fire. An ancient Red Dragon. Makes sense, don't get me wrong.

However, I do think that if you've invested the Feat, class feature, whatever in order to get through Resistance, then you should be able to do something regarding creatures which are immune.

I am planning on approaching my DM about this. "If you have the ability to bypass Resistance to a damage type, then you can treat Immunity as Resistance". So you can still contribute something instead of being completely neutered, so to speak.

What is the playgrounds thoughts on the matter?

I rather dislike it. "Here's a poison so poisonous it can poison a teacup!" just doesn't work for me. Some things just aren't susceptible to certain threats.

On the other hand, immunity is arguably overused. I could see an argument that Ancient Red Dragons ought to be massively resistant to fire, but that a fire hotter than the core of the sun ought to still be able to burn them (for example) even if it shouldn't be able to burn a Sun Elemental. If you wrote this up as a feat or something but left in a clause saying explicitly "you turn immunity to XYZ into resistance, but it doesn't work if the DM determines that XYZ is utterly hopeless against that creature type" I'd be fine with it, and would use that clause sparingly. Golems, zombies and skeletons would still be immune to poison but I'd let you poison demons and green dragons--anything living.

[JellyPooga]

I would like more spells like sleet storm that are tied to a theme whilst circumventing resistance. Imagine a fire version of stinking cloud that is chokeing smoke for example. Some can be fluffed but it's more content I would like to see.

I absolutely condone this kind of thinking and would be all over more of these kind of multi-purpose spells. "Sure you're immune to fire, but are you immune to suffocation from the intense heat/smoke?" Much better than "You think you're immune to fire? Well not against my uLtImAtE Powah!".

[Kyutaru]

Lots of games have immunity to something and it doesn't usually matter. The expectation of mages is that they diversify their portfolio. If not elementally then with other utility that they can provide when the enemy cannot be damaged by them. If we drop this in favor of equal measure for all, where does it end?

Rogues are facing creatures without vital organs but still getting sneak attacks, sneaking up on things that are blind and sense movement or track by scent, and disarming traps that have no moving parts or are magically triggered.

Wizards are mind-controlling things without a brain, inflicting FEAR on something that has never experienced the sensation, or making the animated construct feel so exhausted that it falls asleep.

Clerics can heal anything with holy magic, yes even zombies, because you can't be too dead or unholy to benefit from a good old health curing spell.

Bards can convince anything to hand over its loot. Even the pool of slime that doesn't speak a language. Or have ears. Or loot.

Frankly if the character possesses such an Achilles heel then the character would be aware of it and have learned how to use his magic creatively to get around such instances. Not by bypassing immunity but by employing those spells in other ways. There are tons of television shows and anime with superhuman monsters that are flat out immune to someone's special abilities and yet the characters will come up with other ways of utilizing those skills to fight them anyway. When you have a party helping you it's even easier.

Sometimes, even when you've been used to playing the carry, you have to know when you're countered and take a step back and play support for this battle.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

There are some ways to grant the creature vulnerability like:

Channel Divinity: Path to the Grave
Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to mark another creature’s life force for termination.

As an action, you choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you, cursing it until the end of your next turn. The next time you or an ally of yours hits the cursed creature with an attack, the creature has vulnerability to all of that attack’s damage, and then the curse ends.

Something tells me that there are one or two more ways but I can't remember them.

[MrStabby]

I absolutely condone this kind of thinking and would be all over more of these kind of multi-purpose spells. "Sure you're immune to fire, but are you immune to suffocation from the intense heat/smoke?" Much better than "You think you're immune to fire? Well not against my uLtImAtE Powah!".

The trouble with this is sometimes the spells are on the wrong list. A great example is heat metal - if you want to play a fire themed sorcerer it seems apt and a spell that has an effect even without the damage. Just not on the list.

Now as a DM I can waive that and allow anything thematic, it doesnt mean I get to play the game that way myself.though.

Also, I tend to play with optimisers; they tend to prefer tight but exploit constraints so they can really push up against them.

[Emongnome777]

What if it’s fluffed that instead of downgrading immunity, the feat grants the caster the ability to turn half of the element damage from a spell into pure energy (or whatever wording) that can’t be resisted? Makes damaging a fire elemental with a fireball spell easier to swallow.

[MrStabby]

There are some ways to grant the creature vulnerability like:


Something tells me that there are one or two more ways but I can't remember them.

I think it doesnt remove immunity though... so double the damage then multiply by zero.

[MaxWilson]

There are some ways to grant the creature vulnerability like:

Something tells me that there are one or two more ways but I can't remember them.

Granting vulnerability does not remove immunity. Vulnerability + resistance does damage slightly worse than neither (due to rounding), and vulnerability + immunity makes damage pointless: it's the same as immunity.

[Kyutaru]

I absolutely condone this kind of thinking and would be all over more of these kind of multi-purpose spells. "Sure you're immune to fire, but are you immune to suffocation from the intense heat/smoke?" Much better than "You think you're immune to fire? Well not against my uLtImAtE Powah!".
Indeed. If we start allowing burritos to get so hot that even gods can't eat it then there's no point to the entire damage type system. Just chuck it out, throw it away, no more damage types. Fire/Lightning/Cold whatever, it's all Magic now. And bludgeoning/piercing/slashing is just Physical. Everything just does Physical or Magic damage like some rudimentary tabletop war game. Function over flavor.

[MaxWilson]

The trouble with this is sometimes the spells are on the wrong list. A great example is heat metal - if you want to play a fire themed sorcerer it seems apt and a spell that has an effect even without the damage. Just not on the list.

Nitpick: Heat Metal doesn't work without the damage.

If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes the damage from it, the creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or drop the object if it can. If it doesn't drop the object, it has disadvantage on Attack rolls and Ability Checks until the start of your next turn.

No damage = no dropping or disadvantage.

[Sparky McDibben]

But nothing, to my knowledge, lets you punch through Immunity. Nothing. Which is a shame, because it somewhat penalizes you for being a thematic character. Having your turn come up and wanting to contribute damage only to be rendered useless is a terrible feeling.

I am planning on approaching my DM about this. "If you have the ability to bypass Resistance to a damage type, then you can treat Immunity as Resistance". So you can still contribute something instead of being completely neutered, so to speak.

I like this. To me, it's the difference between, "I cast fireball," and, "I summon the true fires or Samadhi, which scorches reality itself!"

Just say your fire doesn't damage their body, it attacks their entire being (similar to aggravated damage from old White Wolf).

And if I'm DMing and I rule that this creature's immunity can't be bypassed, well, there you go.



Monsters don't typically get feats.

They do in my games. Hobgoblin phalanx with Sentinel is FUN as a DM.

[Joe the Rat]

Allied damage types is my preferred take on dealing with immunities. Thunder and Lightning, and Poison and Acid being the most mundane.

But if you start talking about fires that burn reality itself, you're moving into the Trinity: Force, Necrotic, and Radiant. Supernatural or fundamental energies. Pick one that ties into your theme, and this is your "God Slayer" energy option. I came to this from the Utterdark of 3.5 - Cold mixed with Necrotic.

Currently, you can pick the right element options for other spells, and you are good to go. Light Clerics are all over this (Cleric Radiant, add Fire spells). Standard Warlock can make a passable Utterdark/Fimbulwinter with the Cold and Necrotic spell options.

If you don't want to dip into other spell flavors, a feat or feature that lets you go halvsies on elements would fit the bill as well. You need multiple resistances and immunities to be safe from the effects, otherwise you only reduce a portion of the damage. A Soulfire-infused Fireball would still burn the dragon for half. The other way you could take it is to Dual Type, requiring both damage types to be rested/immune to avoid damage.

As a balance point, the trait ought to be fixed - you pick one damage type to be affected, and one damage type that applies.

[jaappleton]

Allied damage types is my preferred take on dealing with immunities. Thunder and Lightning, and Poison and Acid being the most mundane.

But if you start talking about fires that burn reality itself, you're moving into the Trinity: Force, Necrotic, and Radiant. Supernatural or fundamental energies. Pick one that ties into your theme, and this is your "God Slayer" energy option. I came to this from the Utterdark of 3.5 - Cold mixed with Necrotic.

Currently, you can pick the right element options for other spells, and you are good to go. Light Clerics are all over this (Cleric Radiant, add Fire spells). Standard Warlock can make a passable Utterdark/Fimbulwinter with the Cold and Necrotic spell options.

If you don't want to dip into other spell flavors, a feat or feature that lets you go halvsies on elements would fit the bill as well. You need multiple resistances and immunities to be safe from the effects, otherwise you only reduce a portion of the damage. A Soulfire-infused Fireball would still burn the dragon for half. The other way you could take it is to Dual Type, requiring both damage types to be rested/immune to avoid damage.

As a balance point, the trait ought to be fixed - you pick one damage type to be affected, and one damage type that applies.

I'd be fine with the whole tandem damage type if the class features associated with it, which would require a little homebrew. But this whole scenario calls for that anyways.

Cold and Bludgeoning. Fire and... uh... something. Radiant? Thunder and Lightning. Poison and Acid. Necrotic and... uhh... something...

But what about racial or subclass abilities which aren't spells? Lets take a Grung Mercy Monk as an example. So the Grung skin excretes poison. Can that be Acid? The noxious aura emitted by a Mercy monk at lv6, can that be acid, call it an airborn effect that burns your lungs or something?

Acid is much, much less resisted than Poison. If you're resistant to Lightning, you're likely not resistant to Thunder. Etc. So would you allow people to swap the damage type to its corresponding partner (Lightning to Thunder? Fire to Radiant? Etc?) or are the spells now treated similar to something like Flame Strike, where its half and half?

[Wizard_Lizard]

Radiant damage can be nicely reflavoured as holy fire, also I’ve used psychic damage as a sort of magic mind fire thing before.

[Kyutaru]

So if we remove the three physical types we're left with acid, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, poison, psychic, radiant, and thunder.

Lightning + Thunder
Poison + Acid
Cold + Necrotic
Fire + Radiant
Psychic + Force

Every element has a major and minor player. What's more they fit into a sort of traditional elemental scheme with Air, Earth, Water, Fire, and Mental energies. This also not the only way to group them but the one that seems to make the most sense. Enemies that are immune to both damage types are just super immune to your element.

[Snails]

I am planning on approaching my DM about this. "If you have the ability to bypass Resistance to a damage type, then you can treat Immunity as Resistance". So you can still contribute something instead of being completely neutered, so to speak.

What is the playgrounds thoughts on the matter?

Yes, it would not be too powerful to allow a specialist to do half damage to someone with Immunity. Making it a feat would work -- it might even be a little bit weak for a feat.
No, do not call it "Immunity as Resistance", because I would not allow Elemental Adept to apply.

To my mind, sometimes forcing a PC or two out of their comfort zone is one of the fundamental tricks of good encounter design. It is not acceptable to spam fire at fire beings and always be 100% effective. It is acceptable that you are not forced to eschew favored tactics and can slug it out, at the cost of doing 50% damage.

[JellyPooga]

Yes, it would not be too powerful to allow a specialist to do half damage to someone with Immunity. Making it a feat would work -- it might even be a little bit weak for a feat.
No, do not call it "Immunity as Resistance", because I would not allow Elemental Adept to apply.

It does occur to me that given the presence of the Elemental Adept feat, that there is design space for an Elemental Mastery feat too. Now I realise that feat chains are largely frowned upon, but they aren't without some kind of precedent; e.g. armour feats.

With that in mind, a feat that added a rider effect to elemental damage spells independent of the damage itself would be far more palatable (and interesting) than breaking damage Immunity. e.g. adding a slow effect to spells that deal cold damage.

I'm also inclined to explore the idea of paired damage types. In 3ed there was a metamagic feat or series of them called Admixture feats (or something like that), which basically added minor effects of other elements when casting spells of a certain type (e.g. adding poison damage to cloud effect spells was one of them, I think; you'll forgive me for not remembering the details too accurately!). Other folks have been pairing the damage types, but here's my takes;

- Lightning & Fire (burny burny)
- Force & Thunder (concussive impacts)
- Poison & Necrotic (corruption)
- Acid & Radiant (abundance - note: acids and alkalis in traditional chemistry/alchemy were often described as "living" (e.g. quicklime) and their effects on things as being as excess of vital qualities causing damage in much the same way I envision Radiant damage to function).
- Cold & Psychic (err...this one's a bit of a stretch and I fully admit it's because they're the "ones left over", but...cold calculation? :smallconfused: Mental processes, logic, reasoning and even emotional states associated with cerebral types have long been associated with the cold.)

[MrCharlie]

I'm sure this has been said, but it would make more sense to allow someone to translate damage types than to ignore immunity to a damage type. "My fire burns so bright part of it is light damage" works better than "I have discovered how to burn fire itself."

I'd link base elemental damage with one more exotic damage type-Acid and poison, Fire and Radiant, Cold and...necrotic?, lightning and thunder, bludgeoning and force, maybe a few others (although that encompasses the vast majority of spells), and let you freely translate between those damage types if you had a feat, while treating it like the original damage type for feat and class features. You could more generally let damage types translate, but some creatures have thematically linked resistances/immunities and I feel like this should matter; no matter how hot your fireball burns, a creature immune to both heat and light simply does not care, and never will. A red dragon, on the other hand, might still care about the scourging light.


It does occur to me that given the presence of the Elemental Adept feat, that there is design space for an Elemental Mastery feat too. Now I realise that feat chains are largely frowned upon, but they aren't without some kind of precedent; e.g. armour feats.

With that in mind, a feat that added a rider effect to elemental damage spells independent of the damage itself would be far more palatable (and interesting) than breaking damage Immunity. e.g. adding a slow effect to spells that deal cold damage.

I'm also inclined to explore the idea of paired damage types. In 3ed there was a metamagic feat or series of them called Admixture feats (or something like that), which basically added minor effects of other elements when casting spells of a certain type (e.g. adding poison damage to cloud effect spells was one of them, I think; you'll forgive me for not remembering the details too accurately!). Other folks have been pairing the damage types, but here's my takes;

- Lightning & Fire (burny burny)
- Force & Thunder (concussive impacts)
- Poison & Necrotic (corruption)
- Acid & Radiant (abundance - note: acids and alkalis in traditional chemistry/alchemy were often described as "living" (e.g. quicklime) and their effects on things as being as excess of vital qualities causing damage in much the same way I envision Radiant damage to function).
- Cold & Psychic (err...this one's a bit of a stretch and I fully admit it's because they're the "ones left over", but...cold calculation? :smallconfused: Mental processes, logic, reasoning and even emotional states associated with cerebral types have long been associated with the cold.)
Oh, to briefly engage with this (which I did not see when I replied), I feel like acid and poison or necrotic fit better-speaking from experience, the truly interesting acids like HF both dissolve things that are traditionally not dissoluble, but also cause vast tissue necrosis through the effects of the separated anions-the F- ion is a real monster, and would not care if you were made of rock, metal, flesh, or some more exotic element-if it's physical you would react, and suffer.

In general I think you can group more damage types into super-groups, with lightning, fire, thunder, and radiant all related, and cold, necrotic, poison, and acid related. The real odd-man-out is Cold damage, which seems linked to necrotic in my mind, loosely, and nothing else-fire is it's opposite but it has few other links.

[Kyutaru]

In general I think you can group more damage types into super-groups, with lightning, fire, thunder, and radiant all related, and cold, necrotic, poison, and acid related. The real odd-man-out is Cold damage, which seems linked to necrotic in my mind, loosely, and nothing else-fire is it's opposite but it has few other links.
This works too actually. You can see it as time magic or the duality of growth and decay.

Lightning, Fire, Thunder, and Radiant are the Bloom. Things move fast, consume fast, spread fast, and explode. As verdant as nature blossoms so too do the flames of Growth spread like wildfire. Gotta go Fast!

Cold, Necrotic, Poison, and Acid are the Gloom. Things slow down, crawl to a stop, fall apart, and get sick. As inevitable as death encroaching so too does the frost of Decay wither all living things. Winter is Coming.

[Sigreid]

All I can say is if I'm the DM, I'm not going for a bypass of immunity. That's what immunity means. Besides that, the reason for creatures to have immunity from a game perspective is really to force you to think outside your box.

This isn't to say that as a player, if my character is a 100% fire using mage and the DM want's to run, Descent into Avernous for example, wouldn't nope out of that adventure with that character.

[JellyPooga]

Oh, to briefly engage with this (which I did not see when I replied), I feel like acid and poison or necrotic fit better-speaking from experience, the truly interesting acids like HF both dissolve things that are traditionally not dissoluble, but also cause vast tissue necrosis through the effects of the separated anions-the F- ion is a real monster, and would not care if you were made of rock, metal, flesh, or some more exotic element-if it's physical you would react, and suffer.

Whilst in general I agree as someone with a modern understanding of physical properties, my pairings are based both off of theme and a more classical understanding of science; the scientists of the 14th century had small understanding, if any, of what an ion was, let alone the difference between an acid and an alkali (which often function very similarly to the lay observer) or the how and why of their effects. With that in mind and the more mystical properties/connections attributed to such things in alchemy (as opposed to chemistry or physics), as well as the presence of innately magical damage types of Radiant, Necrotic, Force and Psychic, you can see where my pairings start lining up.


In general I think you can group more damage types into super-groups, with lightning, fire, thunder, and radiant all related, and cold, necrotic, poison, and acid related. The real odd-man-out is Cold damage, which seems linked to necrotic in my mind, loosely, and nothing else-fire is it's opposite but it has few other links.

The real odd-one-out, I think, is Psychic damage. It's so alien that it just doesn't fit any other element as a neat pair. For me, the two main groups are "physical" (Fire, Acid [earth], Cold [water], Thunder [air]) and "magical" (Radiant, Necrotic, Force and Psychic), which leaves two outliers (Lightning and Poison), which you can sort of slot into the two main groups, with Poison being the physical manifestation of Necrotic damage and Lightning being the magical manifestation of Fire.

[Kyutaru]

The real odd-one-out, I think, is Psychic damage. It's so alien that it just doesn't fit any other element as a neat pair. For me, the two main groups are "physical" (Fire, Acid [earth], Cold [water], Thunder [air]) and "magical" (Radiant, Necrotic, Force and Psychic), which leaves two outliers (Lightning and Poison), which you can sort of slot into the two main groups, with Poison being the physical manifestation of Necrotic damage and Lightning being the magical manifestation of Fire.
If you go this route you can even conclude that there is no such thing as magical fire. All spells that use a physical element deal physical mundane elemental damage that anyone with a torch or bottle of acid can replicate. Some creatures might be immune to physical harm and require magical intervention while many others may be magic resistant and still capable of being corporeally destroyed.

I'd do stuff like Ghosts can't be harmed by physical elements, rendering fireballs, ice blasts, acid flasks, poison, and sonic damage useless against them. But they're vulnerable to some of the magical elements like light and force and even psychic disruption. Lightning is so hot that it's basically plasma and electrocutes even ghosts.

Meanwhile Trolls would be mostly impervious to magical damage due to regenerative properties that can restore whatever harm they suffer. Yet physical destruction of the cells through burning and freezing and infecting and melting and disrupting them will render their regeneration ineffective. Naturally weapon attacks don't apply to this as they merely cut and bash.

[Segev]

My suggestion is to use the game tools already present and fluff them appropriately. Your fire sorcerer has one or two cold spells because he is so good at fire manipulation that he can suck the elemental fire out of others. This is also how he protects from fire damage.

The ice witch can make her ice do lacerations or can suck the cold out of things to make ice, doing slashing or fire damage (with the appropriate spell). Maybe her fireball streaks backwards along the bead’s path and leaves a bead of ice in her hand, and it was a mint leaf and aloe extract instead of sulfur and bat guano that served as her material component.

The storm mage already has both lightning and thunder damage, but has excuse for cold from sleet, if he wishes. And his fireball could be an explosion at the end of a visual lightning bolt.

The fire mage might even pick up some sort of radiant damage from somewhere. That still looks like fire, if you want.

[JellyPooga]

My suggestion is to use the game tools already present and fluff them appropriately. Your fire sorcerer has one or two cold spells because he is so good at fire manipulation that he can suck the elemental fire out of others. This is also how he protects from fire damage.

The ice witch can make her ice do lacerations or can suck the cold out of things to make ice, doing slashing or fire damage (with the appropriate spell). Maybe her fireball streaks backwards along the bead’s path and leaves a bead of ice in her hand, and it was a mint leaf and aloe extract instead of sulfur and bat guano that served as her material component.

The storm mage already has both lightning and thunder damage, but has excuse for cold from sleet, if he wishes. And his fireball could be an explosion at the end of a visual lightning bolt.

The fire mage might even pick up some sort of radiant damage from somewhere. That still looks like fire, if you want.

+1 this post.