PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Different levels of Resistance/Vulnerability



Greywander
2020-09-19, 07:31 PM
So I know there are some people who find the binary nature of resistance and vulnerability too simple. It's easy to use, but makes it difficult to distinguish between monsters that are just a little resistant or vulnerable vs. a lot resistant or vulnerable. Usually this involved adding an extra trait that causes some kind of effect when they take damage of that type. And those can be interesting, too, but in terms of straight up damage reduction/increase, I think we can do something with a bit more depth.

Resistance and Vulnerability

A creature with resistance to a particular damage type has damage of that type reduced by first a fraction (rounded down), then a flat amount. There are three levels of resistance. The same is true for vulnerability, except that the damage is increased, rather than reduced.

Minor Resistance

A creature with minor resistance will take one tenth less damage of that type, and then have that damage further reduced by 1. An easy way to find one tenth is to simply remove the one's place. For example, one tenth of 127 is 12. If a creature with minor resistance took 127 damage of the type they are resistant to, that damage would first be reduced by one tenth (12 damage), and then by 1, for a final total of 114 damage taken.

Moderate Resistance

A creature with moderate resistance will take one quarter less damage of that type, and then have that damage further reduced by 3. An easy way to find one quarter is to cut the number in half, and then cut it in half again. For example, half of 127 is 63, and half of 63 is 31. Remember to always round down. If a creature with moderate resistance took 127 damage of the type they are resistant to, that damage would first be reduced by on quarter (31 damage), and then by 3, for a final total of 93 damage taken.

Major Resistance

A creature with major resistance will take one half less damage of that type, and then have that damage further reduced by 5. If a creature with major resistance took 127 damage of the type they are resistant to, that damage would be reduced by half (63 damage), and then by 5, for a final total of 59 damage taken.

Minor Vulnerability

A creature with minor vulnerability will take one quarter more damage of that type, and then have that damage further increased by 1. If a creature with minor vulnerability took 127 damage of the type they are vulnerable to, that damage would first be increased by one quarter (31 damage), and then by 1, for a final total of 159 damage taken.

Moderate Vulnerability

A creature with a moderate vulnerability will take one half more damage of that type, and then have that damage further increased by 3. If a creature with moderate vulnerability took 127 damage of the type they are vulnerable to, that damage would first be increased by one half (63 damage), and then by 3, for a final total of 193 damage taken.

Major Vulnerability

A creature with a major vulnerability will take twice as much damage of that type, and then have that damage further increased by 5. If a creature major vulnerability took 127 damage of the type they are vulnerable to, that damage would first be doubled, then increased by 5, for a final total of 259 damage taken.

Why both a fraction and a flat reduction/increase?

These each affect damage rolls differently, with the greatest contrast being seen between damage rolls that are very high versus damage rolls that are very low. If the damage is high, then the flat reduction or increase has a negligible effect, whereas if the damage is low then the fractional reduction or increase becomes negligible compared to the flat reduction or increase. The flat reduction on creatures with resistance helps that creature completely ignore insignificant amounts of damage without being immune to more powerful attacks of the same damage type. Likewise, the flat damage increase against a creature with vulnerability means that creature is in danger even against a much weaker foe. By exploiting the weakness of a powerful monster, it can be brought down even by inexperienced adventurers, and the monster will take greater pains to guard itself against that weakness.

Alternatively, we could split the flat reduction/increase off into a separate trait. Say, "protection" for reduction, and "susceptibility" for increase. These could also come in minor, moderate, and major flavors; alternatively, damage protection might just reduce damage of that type by an amount equal to your CON mod.

Anyway, I think that by splitting resistance and vulnerability into three distinct levels, we can add more depth to the system without making it too much more complex. I think three is also a good number, since it gives us some variety while still keeping things limited to a fairly narrow set of possibilities.

JNAProductions
2020-09-19, 07:37 PM
Not sure we need three levels.

That being said, the "Reduce by a percentage, then a flat amount" is a cool idea. Not sure I would use it for 5th edition, but it definitely has merits.

Greywander
2020-09-19, 09:08 PM
Not sure we need three levels.
5e did a good job of streamlining things, with a lot of entire categories of things being reduced to a single thing, e.g. proficiency, advantage, etc. This makes it simple and easy to play, but also results in a loss of mechanical depth. Now, complexity doesn't equal depth, and I think they did a decent job of simplifying while minimizing the loss of depth. For those of us who would like to see more depth, I think we can add some depth while minimizing the increase in complexity, and a good place to start is with taking one of those "single things" and turning it into three things, e.g. three levels of advantage, three levels of proficiency, three levels of resistance, etc. By turning one into three, you maintain the simplicity of 5e while adding more variety. That's the idea, anyway: maintain the spirit of 5e while adding more depth, a sort of "Advanced 5e", perhaps.

Speaking of, I actually do have an idea for three levels of advantage, and how stacking advantage would work, in such a way that it still eliminates the need to count every little bonus. But I'll save that for another thread.


That being said, the "Reduce by a percentage, then a flat amount" is a cool idea. Not sure I would use it for 5th edition, but it definitely has merits.
It just makes sense to me that someone with resistance would be able to completely ignore tiny amounts of damage. It allows someone to be "immune" to weak damage, but still take damage from a stronger hit. It does have the side effect that one strong attack will do better against resistance while many weak attacks will do better against vulnerability. This makes rogues better at cutting through resistance, while fighters are better at exploiting a vulnerability, which now that I think about it seems kind of backwards.

JNAProductions
2020-09-19, 09:13 PM
5e did a good job of streamlining things, with a lot of entire categories of things being reduced to a single thing, e.g. proficiency, advantage, etc. This makes it simple and easy to play, but also results in a loss of mechanical depth. Now, complexity doesn't equal depth, and I think they did a decent job of simplifying while minimizing the loss of depth. For those of us who would like to see more depth, I think we can add some depth while minimizing the increase in complexity, and a good place to start is with taking one of those "single things" and turning it into three things, e.g. three levels of advantage, three levels of proficiency, three levels of resistance, etc. By turning one into three, you maintain the simplicity of 5e while adding more variety. That's the idea, anyway: maintain the spirit of 5e while adding more depth, a sort of "Advanced 5e", perhaps.

Speaking of, I actually do have an idea for three levels of advantage, and how stacking advantage would work, in such a way that it still eliminates the need to count every little bonus. But I'll save that for another thread.

It just makes sense to me that someone with resistance would be able to completely ignore tiny amounts of damage. It allows someone to be "immune" to weak damage, but still take damage from a stronger hit. It does have the side effect that one strong attack will do better against resistance while many weak attacks will do better against vulnerability. This makes rogues better at cutting through resistance, while fighters are better at exploiting a vulnerability, which now that I think about it seems kind of backwards.

I would probably remove entirely the "Add a flat amount" to vulnerability. I don't think it adds much-just round up and that'll be sufficient.

Greywander
2020-09-19, 10:12 PM
I would probably remove entirely the "Add a flat amount" to vulnerability. I don't think it adds much-just round up and that'll be sufficient.
I think it would be useful e.g. in the case of using a torch against a creature weak to fire, and similar situations. Even a tiny amount of damage gets to add that flat amount, which can save your bacon if you run into an encounter you're ill-prepared for. That said, I don't see it being as useful as resistance giving a flat damage reduction, but I also kind of feel like it should be there just for symmetry purposes. If we split the flat damage reduction off into a separate trait, then this ceases to be an issue.

Kyutaru
2020-09-22, 07:54 AM
Alternatively, we could split the flat reduction/increase off into a separate trait. Say, "protection" for reduction, and "susceptibility" for increase. These could also come in minor, moderate, and major flavors; alternatively, damage protection might just reduce damage of that type by an amount equal to your CON mod.
This I think is ideal. Using an existing stat for any flat durability. I don't think adding 5 dmg protectiong to a 63 damage negation really adds anything besides more calculations for the table. Quick combat is the focus of 5e. If you want resistance to take care of low amounts of damage then I think it should just do as it currently does, halve the damage of strong attacks, or reduce the damage by your Constitution. Whichever is higher. So if something with a 12 CON is protected against fire it can either take 50% fire damage or -12 dmg, whichever is better. This gives that minor immunity you may want and prevents weak fires from affecting the creature at all without having an overpowering flat value late game (or an underwhelming one as in your case). I'm not sure how to do the same for Weakness, considering options.

Yakk
2020-09-22, 12:45 PM
I'd go with 2 steps instead of 3. Also the effects of the "plus 1" "plus 5" are going to be overwealmed by the accounting annoyances.

1/2 and 1/10 and x2 are easy to calculate. So we get:

Resistance: You take 1/2 less damage.
Minor Resistance: You take 1/10 less damage.
Minor Vulnerability: You take 1/2 additional damage.
Vulnerability: You take 2x damage.

...

But really, my problem is the Vulnerability is too big. As a result, next to nothing uses it. Resistance is fine.

So we rotate and get this:

Immune: You take 0 damage of that type.
Resistance: You take 1/2 damage from that damage type.
Vulnerability: You take 1/2 additional damage.
Critical Vulnerability: You take 2x damage.

We can now make a bunch of monsters Vulnerable that where not before. 50% is big, meaty and worth calculating, but not so big that it breaks the monster like 2x does.