Would houseruling two or more instances of resistance to the same element as immunity be overly unbalanced?Can I use my familiar to cast Warding Bond on myself?Can I cast Warding Bond on myself?Does a Pyromancy Apprentice with the Burn Everything Feat ignore Fire Immunity?Does ignoring a Specific Resistance allow you to ignore Resist All when using that specific type?Does the caster's resistance, vulnerability or immunity affect damage from Warding Bond?Is there a way to bypass resistance/immunity to fire damage?How do Damage Immunity and Vulnerability work together?What happens when a creature with vulnerability to a damage type has resistance to the same type imposed on it, or vice versa?Is there a creature that is resistant or immune to damage from a non-magical source other than bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing?How would I stat a creature to be immune to everything but the Magic Missile spell? (just for fun)Would the Life Transference spell be unbalanced if it ignored resistance and immunity?What happens when two opposing instances of Bend Luck are applied to the same roll by multiple Wild Magic sorcerers?
Calculate the movement required to get from one angle to another angle on a compass
Is it possible for a moon to have a higher surface gravity than the planet it is attached to?
Why are green parties so often opposed to nuclear power?
What does "a flight to quality" mean?
Am I overreacting or seeing things where they don't exist?
Furnace: pipe is leaking when switched to air-conditioning
Resigned after working at company for 2 months. A year later, I would like to apply for a different position at that same company. Is it worth trying?
How can I convince my department that I have the academic freedom to select textbooks and use multiple-choice tests in my courses?
When to bemoan and when to moan
Mirrors on both bars
How does an immortal vampire king hide his vampirism and immortality?
Microtype expansion gets disabled when fontsize is changed! (lualatex)
Twelve Labours - #12 Pluto Pups
Compatibility level of SQL Server
Are soldered electrical connections code-compliant?
How to tell my Mom that I don't care about someone without upsetting her?
How far apart are stars in a binary system?
Where to find the code for the terminal commands?
How can there be a current without a voltage?
Tension in a massless string being pulled at its ends with unequal forces
Bitcoin sent, recipient claiming not received
Advent of Code 2019: Day 1
Most general definition of differentiation
"Applicants for asylum must prove that they have fifteen family members in the Netherlands."
Would houseruling two or more instances of resistance to the same element as immunity be overly unbalanced?
Can I use my familiar to cast Warding Bond on myself?Can I cast Warding Bond on myself?Does a Pyromancy Apprentice with the Burn Everything Feat ignore Fire Immunity?Does ignoring a Specific Resistance allow you to ignore Resist All when using that specific type?Does the caster's resistance, vulnerability or immunity affect damage from Warding Bond?Is there a way to bypass resistance/immunity to fire damage?How do Damage Immunity and Vulnerability work together?What happens when a creature with vulnerability to a damage type has resistance to the same type imposed on it, or vice versa?Is there a creature that is resistant or immune to damage from a non-magical source other than bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing?How would I stat a creature to be immune to everything but the Magic Missile spell? (just for fun)Would the Life Transference spell be unbalanced if it ignored resistance and immunity?What happens when two opposing instances of Bend Luck are applied to the same roll by multiple Wild Magic sorcerers?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
Would it be overly unbalanced if a DM were to houserule that two or more instances of resistance to the same element (such as fire) to be treated as immunity?
dnd-5e balance house-rules damage-resistance immunities
asked Sep 27 at 0:27
Himitsu_no_YamiHimitsu_no_Yami
3,0462 silver badges33 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Would it be overly unbalanced if a DM were to houserule that two or more instances of resistance to the same element (such as fire) to be treated as immunity?
dnd-5e balance house-rules damage-resistance immunities
asked Sep 27 at 0:27
Himitsu_no_YamiHimitsu_no_Yami
3,0462 silver badges33 bronze badges
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
Maybe you can expand the question with explanation why you consider such thing in first place? Do you find resistance abilities too weak to use? Is it for sake of 'realism'? Do you have some specific combo in mind? It might help to answer not just original question, but maybe do a bit of frame challenge and point to better solutions to original problem.
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
Sep 27 at 10:42
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Would it be overly unbalanced if a DM were to houserule that two or more instances of resistance to the same element (such as fire) to be treated as immunity?
dnd-5e balance house-rules damage-resistance immunities
asked Sep 27 at 0:27
Himitsu_no_YamiHimitsu_no_Yami
3,0462 silver badges33 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Would it be overly unbalanced if a DM were to houserule that two or more instances of resistance to the same element (such as fire) to be treated as immunity?
dnd-5e balance house-rules damage-resistance immunities
dnd-5e balance house-rules damage-resistance immunities
asked Sep 27 at 0:27
Himitsu_no_YamiHimitsu_no_Yami
3,0462 silver badges33 bronze badges
asked Sep 27 at 0:27
Himitsu_no_YamiHimitsu_no_Yami
3,0462 silver badges33 bronze badges
asked Sep 27 at 0:27
Himitsu_no_YamiHimitsu_no_Yami
3,0462 silver badges33 bronze badges
asked Sep 27 at 0:27
Himitsu_no_YamiHimitsu_no_Yami
3,0462 silver badges33 bronze badges
asked Sep 27 at 0:27
Himitsu_no_YamiHimitsu_no_Yami
3,0462 silver badges33 bronze badges
3,0462 silver badges33 bronze badges
7
$begingroup$
Maybe you can expand the question with explanation why you consider such thing in first place? Do you find resistance abilities too weak to use? Is it for sake of 'realism'? Do you have some specific combo in mind? It might help to answer not just original question, but maybe do a bit of frame challenge and point to better solutions to original problem.
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
Sep 27 at 10:42
add a comment
|
7
$begingroup$
Maybe you can expand the question with explanation why you consider such thing in first place? Do you find resistance abilities too weak to use? Is it for sake of 'realism'? Do you have some specific combo in mind? It might help to answer not just original question, but maybe do a bit of frame challenge and point to better solutions to original problem.
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
Sep 27 at 10:42
7
7
$begingroup$
Maybe you can expand the question with explanation why you consider such thing in first place? Do you find resistance abilities too weak to use? Is it for sake of 'realism'? Do you have some specific combo in mind? It might help to answer not just original question, but maybe do a bit of frame challenge and point to better solutions to original problem.
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
Sep 27 at 10:42
$begingroup$
Maybe you can expand the question with explanation why you consider such thing in first place? Do you find resistance abilities too weak to use? Is it for sake of 'realism'? Do you have some specific combo in mind? It might help to answer not just original question, but maybe do a bit of frame challenge and point to better solutions to original problem.
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
Sep 27 at 10:42
add a comment
|
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It allows for some explosive combat options and methods to gain extreme immunities
For example, a Tiefling gains resistance to fire damage, they could walk into a group of enemies and cast fireball on the ground and then use absorb elements to gain immunity to the damage of the spell and also all fire damage until the start of their next turn.
There are also certain combinations that effectively make a character completely immune to damage. For example, a Bear Totem Barbarian at level 3:
While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. The spirit of the bear makes you tough enough to stand up to any punishment.
They could have the warding bond spell cast on them which states:
While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has resistance to all damage.
This would thus grant them immunity to all damage except psychic for a minute. Alternatively, even without the warding bond they would have resistance to all but psychic and then their rage would also grant them resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing which would take into immunity to those three damage types.
Another problematic combination is a 14th level Abjuration Wizard with Spell Resistance:
[...] Furthermore, you have resistance against the damage of spells.
And then also a 7th level Oath of Ancients Paladin as they have an Aura of Warding:
[...] You and friendly creatures within 10 feet of you have resistance to damage from spells.
This would grant the Abjuration Wizard immunity to the damage from any spell.
It also may make abilities which allow you to ignore a creature's resistance to a damage type less helpful (it would be GM dependant how this rules and features of that kind interact).
answered Sep 27 at 0:43
Medix2Medix2
25.3k2 gold badges93 silver badges203 bronze badges
$endgroup$
9
$begingroup$
My first thought was the invincible barbarian, too. The whole concept is also wildly in favour of the PCs - very few monsters have any way to capitalize on this.
$endgroup$
– Miniman
Sep 27 at 0:55
1
$begingroup$
@Miniman I'm not entirely sure that's true... Most PC class features only grant resistance to a single damage type, whereas monsters often have several base resistances. Monsters can also cast spells, and so can capitalize on those just as PC's can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 27 at 0:58
3
$begingroup$
@Miniman Hopefully you won't be attacked by that evil NPC Barbarian... You might not be able to kill him before your party is all but gone.
$endgroup$
– Alexis Wilke
Sep 27 at 3:01
8
$begingroup$
The bear totem barbarian doesn't even need to stack weird nonsense. Normal rage gives you 'resistance against piercing, bludgeoning and slashing', bear totem rage gives you 'resistance against all damage besides psychic', so a raging bear totem barbarian has resistance against all damage besides psychic AND resistance against slashing, bludgeoning and piercing. Normally this doesn't make any real difference because it doesn't stack, but the bear totem benefit in no way replaces the original rage features, so if you make this house rule, a bear totem barbarian is immune to those types.
$endgroup$
– Theik
Sep 27 at 9:14
5
$begingroup$
@Medix2 fair, but I'd say a level 3 that gains immunity to pretty much all non magical, non elemental damage is pretty extreme as well :P
$endgroup$
– Patrice
Sep 27 at 13:31
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Yes. It is a game-breaking house rule.
Stacking traits are always problematic. The design of 5e allows for stacking traits only sparingly, unless we suffer the same kind of Cleric of Doom problem we had in 3.5e.
Some scholars of the game meta say that every encounter is designed to drain X resources from the party. Spell slots, HP, equipment, potions, long-rest abilities, short-rest abilities (like the fighter's Action Surge).
Immunity to damage breaks that premise. It hurts the game balance. Besides, if we think of resistance as a halving of damage (including the rounding down), one could argue that two resistances would cause a quarter of the damage to go through. And so on.
That, however is not fun and not simple. Creating such combos is neither fun, nor fair in the game. Especially when one can, at the 3rd level plus one magic item, become invulnerable with the help of a friendly Cleric.
Barbarian 3 (Bear totem): [...] While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. [...]
Ring of Psychic Resistance (requires attunement): You have resistance to psychic damage while wearing this ring.
2nd level cleric spell: Warding Bond: While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has resistance to all damage.
P.S. It seems a cleric cannot use Warding Bond on themselves.
Note that WB does not require concentration so you can rage. As long as you make an attack and does not end rage, this character is immune to any damage if that house rule is in effect.
So, yes. It is a game-breaking house rule.
edited Sep 28 at 8:43
V2Blast♦
36.8k5 gold badges137 silver badges227 bronze badges
answered Sep 27 at 12:22
MindwinMindwin
20.5k3 gold badges57 silver badges159 bronze badges
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Aren't warding bond + the ring enough to give the immunity to psychic damage, allowing a level 6 character to be immune to all damage types ?
$endgroup$
– Nahyn - support Monica Cellio
Sep 27 at 14:00
$begingroup$
Indeed. @nahynoklauq
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Sep 27 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
Whether you can cast warding bond on yourself is not clear: "Can I cast Warding Bond on myself?" states "no" quoting only unofficial Crawford while "Can I use my familiar to cast Warding Bond on myself?" states that you can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 28 at 21:40
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In 1e, we had such immunity, but nearly only to elements such as fire, water, electricity... Not to all types of resistance. Also, races in 1e did not have any kind of resistance in comparison to the Tieflings or Dragonborn in 5e. Well... Elves were resistant to "charm" type of spells. But most resistance powers were more bonuses to saving throws which was not giving you that much.
I think that the 5e rules of disallowing cumulative resistance in most cases is for that simple reason: it would make the characters and monsters way too powerful. To a minimum, you could accept accumulation by dividing the damage by a power of 2. So one instance of resistance to the damage type causes the creature to take 1/2 damage, two resistances cause 1/4 damage, three resistances cause 1/8 damage, etc. There are already some cases where 5e allows 1/4th the damage (on a successful save when you have resistance).
answered Sep 27 at 3:14
Alexis WilkeAlexis Wilke
5,7148 gold badges32 silver badges72 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f156860%2fwould-houseruling-two-or-more-instances-of-resistance-to-the-same-element-as-imm%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It allows for some explosive combat options and methods to gain extreme immunities
For example, a Tiefling gains resistance to fire damage, they could walk into a group of enemies and cast fireball on the ground and then use absorb elements to gain immunity to the damage of the spell and also all fire damage until the start of their next turn.
There are also certain combinations that effectively make a character completely immune to damage. For example, a Bear Totem Barbarian at level 3:
While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. The spirit of the bear makes you tough enough to stand up to any punishment.
They could have the warding bond spell cast on them which states:
While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has resistance to all damage.
This would thus grant them immunity to all damage except psychic for a minute. Alternatively, even without the warding bond they would have resistance to all but psychic and then their rage would also grant them resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing which would take into immunity to those three damage types.
Another problematic combination is a 14th level Abjuration Wizard with Spell Resistance:
[...] Furthermore, you have resistance against the damage of spells.
And then also a 7th level Oath of Ancients Paladin as they have an Aura of Warding:
[...] You and friendly creatures within 10 feet of you have resistance to damage from spells.
This would grant the Abjuration Wizard immunity to the damage from any spell.
It also may make abilities which allow you to ignore a creature's resistance to a damage type less helpful (it would be GM dependant how this rules and features of that kind interact).
answered Sep 27 at 0:43
Medix2Medix2
25.3k2 gold badges93 silver badges203 bronze badges
$endgroup$
9
$begingroup$
My first thought was the invincible barbarian, too. The whole concept is also wildly in favour of the PCs - very few monsters have any way to capitalize on this.
$endgroup$
– Miniman
Sep 27 at 0:55
1
$begingroup$
@Miniman I'm not entirely sure that's true... Most PC class features only grant resistance to a single damage type, whereas monsters often have several base resistances. Monsters can also cast spells, and so can capitalize on those just as PC's can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 27 at 0:58
3
$begingroup$
@Miniman Hopefully you won't be attacked by that evil NPC Barbarian... You might not be able to kill him before your party is all but gone.
$endgroup$
– Alexis Wilke
Sep 27 at 3:01
8
$begingroup$
The bear totem barbarian doesn't even need to stack weird nonsense. Normal rage gives you 'resistance against piercing, bludgeoning and slashing', bear totem rage gives you 'resistance against all damage besides psychic', so a raging bear totem barbarian has resistance against all damage besides psychic AND resistance against slashing, bludgeoning and piercing. Normally this doesn't make any real difference because it doesn't stack, but the bear totem benefit in no way replaces the original rage features, so if you make this house rule, a bear totem barbarian is immune to those types.
$endgroup$
– Theik
Sep 27 at 9:14
5
$begingroup$
@Medix2 fair, but I'd say a level 3 that gains immunity to pretty much all non magical, non elemental damage is pretty extreme as well :P
$endgroup$
– Patrice
Sep 27 at 13:31
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
It allows for some explosive combat options and methods to gain extreme immunities
For example, a Tiefling gains resistance to fire damage, they could walk into a group of enemies and cast fireball on the ground and then use absorb elements to gain immunity to the damage of the spell and also all fire damage until the start of their next turn.
There are also certain combinations that effectively make a character completely immune to damage. For example, a Bear Totem Barbarian at level 3:
While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. The spirit of the bear makes you tough enough to stand up to any punishment.
They could have the warding bond spell cast on them which states:
While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has resistance to all damage.
This would thus grant them immunity to all damage except psychic for a minute. Alternatively, even without the warding bond they would have resistance to all but psychic and then their rage would also grant them resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing which would take into immunity to those three damage types.
Another problematic combination is a 14th level Abjuration Wizard with Spell Resistance:
[...] Furthermore, you have resistance against the damage of spells.
And then also a 7th level Oath of Ancients Paladin as they have an Aura of Warding:
[...] You and friendly creatures within 10 feet of you have resistance to damage from spells.
This would grant the Abjuration Wizard immunity to the damage from any spell.
It also may make abilities which allow you to ignore a creature's resistance to a damage type less helpful (it would be GM dependant how this rules and features of that kind interact).
answered Sep 27 at 0:43
Medix2Medix2
25.3k2 gold badges93 silver badges203 bronze badges
$endgroup$
9
$begingroup$
My first thought was the invincible barbarian, too. The whole concept is also wildly in favour of the PCs - very few monsters have any way to capitalize on this.
$endgroup$
– Miniman
Sep 27 at 0:55
1
$begingroup$
@Miniman I'm not entirely sure that's true... Most PC class features only grant resistance to a single damage type, whereas monsters often have several base resistances. Monsters can also cast spells, and so can capitalize on those just as PC's can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 27 at 0:58
3
$begingroup$
@Miniman Hopefully you won't be attacked by that evil NPC Barbarian... You might not be able to kill him before your party is all but gone.
$endgroup$
– Alexis Wilke
Sep 27 at 3:01
8
$begingroup$
The bear totem barbarian doesn't even need to stack weird nonsense. Normal rage gives you 'resistance against piercing, bludgeoning and slashing', bear totem rage gives you 'resistance against all damage besides psychic', so a raging bear totem barbarian has resistance against all damage besides psychic AND resistance against slashing, bludgeoning and piercing. Normally this doesn't make any real difference because it doesn't stack, but the bear totem benefit in no way replaces the original rage features, so if you make this house rule, a bear totem barbarian is immune to those types.
$endgroup$
– Theik
Sep 27 at 9:14
5
$begingroup$
@Medix2 fair, but I'd say a level 3 that gains immunity to pretty much all non magical, non elemental damage is pretty extreme as well :P
$endgroup$
– Patrice
Sep 27 at 13:31
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
It allows for some explosive combat options and methods to gain extreme immunities
For example, a Tiefling gains resistance to fire damage, they could walk into a group of enemies and cast fireball on the ground and then use absorb elements to gain immunity to the damage of the spell and also all fire damage until the start of their next turn.
There are also certain combinations that effectively make a character completely immune to damage. For example, a Bear Totem Barbarian at level 3:
While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. The spirit of the bear makes you tough enough to stand up to any punishment.
They could have the warding bond spell cast on them which states:
While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has resistance to all damage.
This would thus grant them immunity to all damage except psychic for a minute. Alternatively, even without the warding bond they would have resistance to all but psychic and then their rage would also grant them resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing which would take into immunity to those three damage types.
Another problematic combination is a 14th level Abjuration Wizard with Spell Resistance:
[...] Furthermore, you have resistance against the damage of spells.
And then also a 7th level Oath of Ancients Paladin as they have an Aura of Warding:
[...] You and friendly creatures within 10 feet of you have resistance to damage from spells.
This would grant the Abjuration Wizard immunity to the damage from any spell.
It also may make abilities which allow you to ignore a creature's resistance to a damage type less helpful (it would be GM dependant how this rules and features of that kind interact).
answered Sep 27 at 0:43
Medix2Medix2
25.3k2 gold badges93 silver badges203 bronze badges
$endgroup$
It allows for some explosive combat options and methods to gain extreme immunities
For example, a Tiefling gains resistance to fire damage, they could walk into a group of enemies and cast fireball on the ground and then use absorb elements to gain immunity to the damage of the spell and also all fire damage until the start of their next turn.
There are also certain combinations that effectively make a character completely immune to damage. For example, a Bear Totem Barbarian at level 3:
While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. The spirit of the bear makes you tough enough to stand up to any punishment.
They could have the warding bond spell cast on them which states:
While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has resistance to all damage.
This would thus grant them immunity to all damage except psychic for a minute. Alternatively, even without the warding bond they would have resistance to all but psychic and then their rage would also grant them resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing which would take into immunity to those three damage types.
Another problematic combination is a 14th level Abjuration Wizard with Spell Resistance:
[...] Furthermore, you have resistance against the damage of spells.
And then also a 7th level Oath of Ancients Paladin as they have an Aura of Warding:
[...] You and friendly creatures within 10 feet of you have resistance to damage from spells.
This would grant the Abjuration Wizard immunity to the damage from any spell.
It also may make abilities which allow you to ignore a creature's resistance to a damage type less helpful (it would be GM dependant how this rules and features of that kind interact).
answered Sep 27 at 0:43
Medix2Medix2
25.3k2 gold badges93 silver badges203 bronze badges
edited Sep 27 at 13:02
answered Sep 27 at 0:43
Medix2Medix2
25.3k2 gold badges93 silver badges203 bronze badges
answered Sep 27 at 0:43
Medix2Medix2
25.3k2 gold badges93 silver badges203 bronze badges
answered Sep 27 at 0:43
Medix2Medix2
25.3k2 gold badges93 silver badges203 bronze badges
25.3k2 gold badges93 silver badges203 bronze badges
9
$begingroup$
My first thought was the invincible barbarian, too. The whole concept is also wildly in favour of the PCs - very few monsters have any way to capitalize on this.
$endgroup$
– Miniman
Sep 27 at 0:55
1
$begingroup$
@Miniman I'm not entirely sure that's true... Most PC class features only grant resistance to a single damage type, whereas monsters often have several base resistances. Monsters can also cast spells, and so can capitalize on those just as PC's can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 27 at 0:58
3
$begingroup$
@Miniman Hopefully you won't be attacked by that evil NPC Barbarian... You might not be able to kill him before your party is all but gone.
$endgroup$
– Alexis Wilke
Sep 27 at 3:01
8
$begingroup$
The bear totem barbarian doesn't even need to stack weird nonsense. Normal rage gives you 'resistance against piercing, bludgeoning and slashing', bear totem rage gives you 'resistance against all damage besides psychic', so a raging bear totem barbarian has resistance against all damage besides psychic AND resistance against slashing, bludgeoning and piercing. Normally this doesn't make any real difference because it doesn't stack, but the bear totem benefit in no way replaces the original rage features, so if you make this house rule, a bear totem barbarian is immune to those types.
$endgroup$
– Theik
Sep 27 at 9:14
5
$begingroup$
@Medix2 fair, but I'd say a level 3 that gains immunity to pretty much all non magical, non elemental damage is pretty extreme as well :P
$endgroup$
– Patrice
Sep 27 at 13:31
|
show 4 more comments
9
$begingroup$
My first thought was the invincible barbarian, too. The whole concept is also wildly in favour of the PCs - very few monsters have any way to capitalize on this.
$endgroup$
– Miniman
Sep 27 at 0:55
1
$begingroup$
@Miniman I'm not entirely sure that's true... Most PC class features only grant resistance to a single damage type, whereas monsters often have several base resistances. Monsters can also cast spells, and so can capitalize on those just as PC's can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 27 at 0:58
3
$begingroup$
@Miniman Hopefully you won't be attacked by that evil NPC Barbarian... You might not be able to kill him before your party is all but gone.
$endgroup$
– Alexis Wilke
Sep 27 at 3:01
8
$begingroup$
The bear totem barbarian doesn't even need to stack weird nonsense. Normal rage gives you 'resistance against piercing, bludgeoning and slashing', bear totem rage gives you 'resistance against all damage besides psychic', so a raging bear totem barbarian has resistance against all damage besides psychic AND resistance against slashing, bludgeoning and piercing. Normally this doesn't make any real difference because it doesn't stack, but the bear totem benefit in no way replaces the original rage features, so if you make this house rule, a bear totem barbarian is immune to those types.
$endgroup$
– Theik
Sep 27 at 9:14
5
$begingroup$
@Medix2 fair, but I'd say a level 3 that gains immunity to pretty much all non magical, non elemental damage is pretty extreme as well :P
$endgroup$
– Patrice
Sep 27 at 13:31
9
9
$begingroup$
My first thought was the invincible barbarian, too. The whole concept is also wildly in favour of the PCs - very few monsters have any way to capitalize on this.
$endgroup$
– Miniman
Sep 27 at 0:55
$begingroup$
My first thought was the invincible barbarian, too. The whole concept is also wildly in favour of the PCs - very few monsters have any way to capitalize on this.
$endgroup$
– Miniman
Sep 27 at 0:55
1
1
$begingroup$
@Miniman I'm not entirely sure that's true... Most PC class features only grant resistance to a single damage type, whereas monsters often have several base resistances. Monsters can also cast spells, and so can capitalize on those just as PC's can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 27 at 0:58
$begingroup$
@Miniman I'm not entirely sure that's true... Most PC class features only grant resistance to a single damage type, whereas monsters often have several base resistances. Monsters can also cast spells, and so can capitalize on those just as PC's can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 27 at 0:58
3
3
$begingroup$
@Miniman Hopefully you won't be attacked by that evil NPC Barbarian... You might not be able to kill him before your party is all but gone.
$endgroup$
– Alexis Wilke
Sep 27 at 3:01
$begingroup$
@Miniman Hopefully you won't be attacked by that evil NPC Barbarian... You might not be able to kill him before your party is all but gone.
$endgroup$
– Alexis Wilke
Sep 27 at 3:01
8
8
$begingroup$
The bear totem barbarian doesn't even need to stack weird nonsense. Normal rage gives you 'resistance against piercing, bludgeoning and slashing', bear totem rage gives you 'resistance against all damage besides psychic', so a raging bear totem barbarian has resistance against all damage besides psychic AND resistance against slashing, bludgeoning and piercing. Normally this doesn't make any real difference because it doesn't stack, but the bear totem benefit in no way replaces the original rage features, so if you make this house rule, a bear totem barbarian is immune to those types.
$endgroup$
– Theik
Sep 27 at 9:14
$begingroup$
The bear totem barbarian doesn't even need to stack weird nonsense. Normal rage gives you 'resistance against piercing, bludgeoning and slashing', bear totem rage gives you 'resistance against all damage besides psychic', so a raging bear totem barbarian has resistance against all damage besides psychic AND resistance against slashing, bludgeoning and piercing. Normally this doesn't make any real difference because it doesn't stack, but the bear totem benefit in no way replaces the original rage features, so if you make this house rule, a bear totem barbarian is immune to those types.
$endgroup$
– Theik
Sep 27 at 9:14
5
5
$begingroup$
@Medix2 fair, but I'd say a level 3 that gains immunity to pretty much all non magical, non elemental damage is pretty extreme as well :P
$endgroup$
– Patrice
Sep 27 at 13:31
$begingroup$
@Medix2 fair, but I'd say a level 3 that gains immunity to pretty much all non magical, non elemental damage is pretty extreme as well :P
$endgroup$
– Patrice
Sep 27 at 13:31
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Yes. It is a game-breaking house rule.
Stacking traits are always problematic. The design of 5e allows for stacking traits only sparingly, unless we suffer the same kind of Cleric of Doom problem we had in 3.5e.
Some scholars of the game meta say that every encounter is designed to drain X resources from the party. Spell slots, HP, equipment, potions, long-rest abilities, short-rest abilities (like the fighter's Action Surge).
Immunity to damage breaks that premise. It hurts the game balance. Besides, if we think of resistance as a halving of damage (including the rounding down), one could argue that two resistances would cause a quarter of the damage to go through. And so on.
That, however is not fun and not simple. Creating such combos is neither fun, nor fair in the game. Especially when one can, at the 3rd level plus one magic item, become invulnerable with the help of a friendly Cleric.
Barbarian 3 (Bear totem): [...] While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. [...]
Ring of Psychic Resistance (requires attunement): You have resistance to psychic damage while wearing this ring.
2nd level cleric spell: Warding Bond: While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has resistance to all damage.
P.S. It seems a cleric cannot use Warding Bond on themselves.
Note that WB does not require concentration so you can rage. As long as you make an attack and does not end rage, this character is immune to any damage if that house rule is in effect.
So, yes. It is a game-breaking house rule.
edited Sep 28 at 8:43
V2Blast♦
36.8k5 gold badges137 silver badges227 bronze badges
answered Sep 27 at 12:22
MindwinMindwin
20.5k3 gold badges57 silver badges159 bronze badges
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Aren't warding bond + the ring enough to give the immunity to psychic damage, allowing a level 6 character to be immune to all damage types ?
$endgroup$
– Nahyn - support Monica Cellio
Sep 27 at 14:00
$begingroup$
Indeed. @nahynoklauq
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Sep 27 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
Whether you can cast warding bond on yourself is not clear: "Can I cast Warding Bond on myself?" states "no" quoting only unofficial Crawford while "Can I use my familiar to cast Warding Bond on myself?" states that you can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 28 at 21:40
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Yes. It is a game-breaking house rule.
Stacking traits are always problematic. The design of 5e allows for stacking traits only sparingly, unless we suffer the same kind of Cleric of Doom problem we had in 3.5e.
Some scholars of the game meta say that every encounter is designed to drain X resources from the party. Spell slots, HP, equipment, potions, long-rest abilities, short-rest abilities (like the fighter's Action Surge).
Immunity to damage breaks that premise. It hurts the game balance. Besides, if we think of resistance as a halving of damage (including the rounding down), one could argue that two resistances would cause a quarter of the damage to go through. And so on.
That, however is not fun and not simple. Creating such combos is neither fun, nor fair in the game. Especially when one can, at the 3rd level plus one magic item, become invulnerable with the help of a friendly Cleric.
Barbarian 3 (Bear totem): [...] While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. [...]
Ring of Psychic Resistance (requires attunement): You have resistance to psychic damage while wearing this ring.
2nd level cleric spell: Warding Bond: While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has resistance to all damage.
P.S. It seems a cleric cannot use Warding Bond on themselves.
Note that WB does not require concentration so you can rage. As long as you make an attack and does not end rage, this character is immune to any damage if that house rule is in effect.
So, yes. It is a game-breaking house rule.
edited Sep 28 at 8:43
V2Blast♦
36.8k5 gold badges137 silver badges227 bronze badges
answered Sep 27 at 12:22
MindwinMindwin
20.5k3 gold badges57 silver badges159 bronze badges
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Aren't warding bond + the ring enough to give the immunity to psychic damage, allowing a level 6 character to be immune to all damage types ?
$endgroup$
– Nahyn - support Monica Cellio
Sep 27 at 14:00
$begingroup$
Indeed. @nahynoklauq
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Sep 27 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
Whether you can cast warding bond on yourself is not clear: "Can I cast Warding Bond on myself?" states "no" quoting only unofficial Crawford while "Can I use my familiar to cast Warding Bond on myself?" states that you can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 28 at 21:40
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Yes. It is a game-breaking house rule.
Stacking traits are always problematic. The design of 5e allows for stacking traits only sparingly, unless we suffer the same kind of Cleric of Doom problem we had in 3.5e.
Some scholars of the game meta say that every encounter is designed to drain X resources from the party. Spell slots, HP, equipment, potions, long-rest abilities, short-rest abilities (like the fighter's Action Surge).
Immunity to damage breaks that premise. It hurts the game balance. Besides, if we think of resistance as a halving of damage (including the rounding down), one could argue that two resistances would cause a quarter of the damage to go through. And so on.
That, however is not fun and not simple. Creating such combos is neither fun, nor fair in the game. Especially when one can, at the 3rd level plus one magic item, become invulnerable with the help of a friendly Cleric.
Barbarian 3 (Bear totem): [...] While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. [...]
Ring of Psychic Resistance (requires attunement): You have resistance to psychic damage while wearing this ring.
2nd level cleric spell: Warding Bond: While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has resistance to all damage.
P.S. It seems a cleric cannot use Warding Bond on themselves.
Note that WB does not require concentration so you can rage. As long as you make an attack and does not end rage, this character is immune to any damage if that house rule is in effect.
So, yes. It is a game-breaking house rule.
edited Sep 28 at 8:43
V2Blast♦
36.8k5 gold badges137 silver badges227 bronze badges
answered Sep 27 at 12:22
MindwinMindwin
20.5k3 gold badges57 silver badges159 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Yes. It is a game-breaking house rule.
Stacking traits are always problematic. The design of 5e allows for stacking traits only sparingly, unless we suffer the same kind of Cleric of Doom problem we had in 3.5e.
Some scholars of the game meta say that every encounter is designed to drain X resources from the party. Spell slots, HP, equipment, potions, long-rest abilities, short-rest abilities (like the fighter's Action Surge).
Immunity to damage breaks that premise. It hurts the game balance. Besides, if we think of resistance as a halving of damage (including the rounding down), one could argue that two resistances would cause a quarter of the damage to go through. And so on.
That, however is not fun and not simple. Creating such combos is neither fun, nor fair in the game. Especially when one can, at the 3rd level plus one magic item, become invulnerable with the help of a friendly Cleric.
Barbarian 3 (Bear totem): [...] While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. [...]
Ring of Psychic Resistance (requires attunement): You have resistance to psychic damage while wearing this ring.
2nd level cleric spell: Warding Bond: While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has resistance to all damage.
P.S. It seems a cleric cannot use Warding Bond on themselves.
Note that WB does not require concentration so you can rage. As long as you make an attack and does not end rage, this character is immune to any damage if that house rule is in effect.
So, yes. It is a game-breaking house rule.
edited Sep 28 at 8:43
V2Blast♦
36.8k5 gold badges137 silver badges227 bronze badges
answered Sep 27 at 12:22
MindwinMindwin
20.5k3 gold badges57 silver badges159 bronze badges
edited Sep 28 at 8:43
V2Blast♦
36.8k5 gold badges137 silver badges227 bronze badges
edited Sep 28 at 8:43
V2Blast♦
36.8k5 gold badges137 silver badges227 bronze badges
edited Sep 28 at 8:43
V2Blast♦
36.8k5 gold badges137 silver badges227 bronze badges
36.8k5 gold badges137 silver badges227 bronze badges
answered Sep 27 at 12:22
MindwinMindwin
20.5k3 gold badges57 silver badges159 bronze badges
answered Sep 27 at 12:22
MindwinMindwin
20.5k3 gold badges57 silver badges159 bronze badges
answered Sep 27 at 12:22
MindwinMindwin
20.5k3 gold badges57 silver badges159 bronze badges
20.5k3 gold badges57 silver badges159 bronze badges
5
$begingroup$
Aren't warding bond + the ring enough to give the immunity to psychic damage, allowing a level 6 character to be immune to all damage types ?
$endgroup$
– Nahyn - support Monica Cellio
Sep 27 at 14:00
$begingroup$
Indeed. @nahynoklauq
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Sep 27 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
Whether you can cast warding bond on yourself is not clear: "Can I cast Warding Bond on myself?" states "no" quoting only unofficial Crawford while "Can I use my familiar to cast Warding Bond on myself?" states that you can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 28 at 21:40
add a comment
|
5
$begingroup$
Aren't warding bond + the ring enough to give the immunity to psychic damage, allowing a level 6 character to be immune to all damage types ?
$endgroup$
– Nahyn - support Monica Cellio
Sep 27 at 14:00
$begingroup$
Indeed. @nahynoklauq
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Sep 27 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
Whether you can cast warding bond on yourself is not clear: "Can I cast Warding Bond on myself?" states "no" quoting only unofficial Crawford while "Can I use my familiar to cast Warding Bond on myself?" states that you can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 28 at 21:40
5
5
$begingroup$
Aren't warding bond + the ring enough to give the immunity to psychic damage, allowing a level 6 character to be immune to all damage types ?
$endgroup$
– Nahyn - support Monica Cellio
Sep 27 at 14:00
$begingroup$
Aren't warding bond + the ring enough to give the immunity to psychic damage, allowing a level 6 character to be immune to all damage types ?
$endgroup$
– Nahyn - support Monica Cellio
Sep 27 at 14:00
$begingroup$
Indeed. @nahynoklauq
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Sep 27 at 17:34
$begingroup$
Indeed. @nahynoklauq
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Sep 27 at 17:34
1
1
$begingroup$
Whether you can cast warding bond on yourself is not clear: "Can I cast Warding Bond on myself?" states "no" quoting only unofficial Crawford while "Can I use my familiar to cast Warding Bond on myself?" states that you can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 28 at 21:40
$begingroup$
Whether you can cast warding bond on yourself is not clear: "Can I cast Warding Bond on myself?" states "no" quoting only unofficial Crawford while "Can I use my familiar to cast Warding Bond on myself?" states that you can
$endgroup$
– Medix2
Sep 28 at 21:40
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In 1e, we had such immunity, but nearly only to elements such as fire, water, electricity... Not to all types of resistance. Also, races in 1e did not have any kind of resistance in comparison to the Tieflings or Dragonborn in 5e. Well... Elves were resistant to "charm" type of spells. But most resistance powers were more bonuses to saving throws which was not giving you that much.
I think that the 5e rules of disallowing cumulative resistance in most cases is for that simple reason: it would make the characters and monsters way too powerful. To a minimum, you could accept accumulation by dividing the damage by a power of 2. So one instance of resistance to the damage type causes the creature to take 1/2 damage, two resistances cause 1/4 damage, three resistances cause 1/8 damage, etc. There are already some cases where 5e allows 1/4th the damage (on a successful save when you have resistance).
answered Sep 27 at 3:14
Alexis WilkeAlexis Wilke
5,7148 gold badges32 silver badges72 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In 1e, we had such immunity, but nearly only to elements such as fire, water, electricity... Not to all types of resistance. Also, races in 1e did not have any kind of resistance in comparison to the Tieflings or Dragonborn in 5e. Well... Elves were resistant to "charm" type of spells. But most resistance powers were more bonuses to saving throws which was not giving you that much.
I think that the 5e rules of disallowing cumulative resistance in most cases is for that simple reason: it would make the characters and monsters way too powerful. To a minimum, you could accept accumulation by dividing the damage by a power of 2. So one instance of resistance to the damage type causes the creature to take 1/2 damage, two resistances cause 1/4 damage, three resistances cause 1/8 damage, etc. There are already some cases where 5e allows 1/4th the damage (on a successful save when you have resistance).
answered Sep 27 at 3:14
Alexis WilkeAlexis Wilke
5,7148 gold badges32 silver badges72 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In 1e, we had such immunity, but nearly only to elements such as fire, water, electricity... Not to all types of resistance. Also, races in 1e did not have any kind of resistance in comparison to the Tieflings or Dragonborn in 5e. Well... Elves were resistant to "charm" type of spells. But most resistance powers were more bonuses to saving throws which was not giving you that much.
I think that the 5e rules of disallowing cumulative resistance in most cases is for that simple reason: it would make the characters and monsters way too powerful. To a minimum, you could accept accumulation by dividing the damage by a power of 2. So one instance of resistance to the damage type causes the creature to take 1/2 damage, two resistances cause 1/4 damage, three resistances cause 1/8 damage, etc. There are already some cases where 5e allows 1/4th the damage (on a successful save when you have resistance).
answered Sep 27 at 3:14
Alexis WilkeAlexis Wilke
5,7148 gold badges32 silver badges72 bronze badges
$endgroup$
In 1e, we had such immunity, but nearly only to elements such as fire, water, electricity... Not to all types of resistance. Also, races in 1e did not have any kind of resistance in comparison to the Tieflings or Dragonborn in 5e. Well... Elves were resistant to "charm" type of spells. But most resistance powers were more bonuses to saving throws which was not giving you that much.
I think that the 5e rules of disallowing cumulative resistance in most cases is for that simple reason: it would make the characters and monsters way too powerful. To a minimum, you could accept accumulation by dividing the damage by a power of 2. So one instance of resistance to the damage type causes the creature to take 1/2 damage, two resistances cause 1/4 damage, three resistances cause 1/8 damage, etc. There are already some cases where 5e allows 1/4th the damage (on a successful save when you have resistance).
answered Sep 27 at 3:14
Alexis WilkeAlexis Wilke
5,7148 gold badges32 silver badges72 bronze badges
edited Sep 27 at 8:19
answered Sep 27 at 3:14
Alexis WilkeAlexis Wilke
5,7148 gold badges32 silver badges72 bronze badges
answered Sep 27 at 3:14
Alexis WilkeAlexis Wilke
5,7148 gold badges32 silver badges72 bronze badges
answered Sep 27 at 3:14
Alexis WilkeAlexis Wilke
5,7148 gold badges32 silver badges72 bronze badges
5,7148 gold badges32 silver badges72 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f156860%2fwould-houseruling-two-or-more-instances-of-resistance-to-the-same-element-as-imm%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
7
$begingroup$
Maybe you can expand the question with explanation why you consider such thing in first place? Do you find resistance abilities too weak to use? Is it for sake of 'realism'? Do you have some specific combo in mind? It might help to answer not just original question, but maybe do a bit of frame challenge and point to better solutions to original problem.
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
Sep 27 at 10:42