this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
158 points (98.8% liked)

RPGMemes

10282 readers
94 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I think damage immunity is one of the goofiest things. Resistance is fine. But fully immune to non magical damage? Come on, cut the martials some slack, especially if you're stingy with magic weapons.

Something like a fire elemental being immune to fire damage is fine though.

[–] Kerrigor@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

How're you supposed to sword a non-corporal entity?

[–] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

With determination!

One of the greatest flaws of D&D is insisting that martial classes ought to be completely mundane human beings. Pick your flavor, mythical heroes or anime characters, you'll find plenty of ways someone can deal with untouchable enemies and overwhelming forces using sheer brawn or precise finesse.

All that said, the most boring way to go about it is to just hit it because your sword has a number.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Especially when the martials already include things like "man literally too angry to die", "woman literally so angry that she gains the power of flight", and "sneak thief bastard can dodge an explosion while standing directly in the middle of it"

They're all already magic, they just don't do the magic by casting spells

[–] Archpawn@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Punch them. Your body won't interact with them, but your soul will.

[–] TheSpookiestUser@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

This is why you should always carry a live swordfish for use as an emergency anti-ghost weapon*

*If a live swordfish is not available, a wildshaped druid will also work

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How's a non corporeal entity supposed to hurt me?

[–] Kerrigor@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Magically. That's the point of this thread.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You don't see how it's shitty for a DM to throw magical enemies who can't be hurt by anything except for magic at players who have no way to do magical damage?

@JackbyDev@programming.dev @Kerrigor@kbin.social I mostly disagree here. I mean, yes, if the DM has set up a situation where the PCs are railroaded into a fight where they are required to "do damage" to something they have no way to do damage to, that's pretty lousy.

Usually, though, the PCs could flee, attempt to resolve the situation by "non-combat" means, or otherwise just avoid getting in that situation to begin with.

I do fully embrace your earlier point about non-corporeal beings hurting corporeal beings: I like the idea that there ought to be potential "enemies" with that limitation who can only harm the PCs indirectly (through trickery and deception, distraction, or some manner of influence over something that can hurt them). Not every opponent needs to be a "combat statblock".

[–] Kerrigor@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"hey, this world has magic in it, let's all decide to go in fully unprepared to deal with it!" is not the fault of the DM

[–] Sol0WingPixy@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago

When the DM is largely responsible for giving the party magic items (as is the case with 5e), it is absolutely the fault of the DM for throwing something against them that multiple members of the party are fully useless against, especially at a low level.

[–] TheConsulate@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 year ago

In 3e, there were enemies that were immune to "any damage or effect from any creature whose level was lower than level 20"

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

damage immunity is one of the goofiest things

I go with Keith Baker's explanation that a non-magical sword will still cut a werewolf and maybe even cause it pain, but damage immunity means that it gets back up and keeps fighting. Maybe it immediately regenerates, or maybe it just ignores wounds that ought to have killed it. In other words, you can stab the werewolf through the heart and the sword will in fact pierce it and come out the other side, but the werewolf simply won't die (and remains just as capable of killing you as it was before you did that).

This does imply that if you're strong enough to cleave the werewolf in two with one blow, it still dies - it can't reasonably regenerate half its body or keep fighting without legs. But at that point, you're either out of combat (bound werewolf, guillotine) or so much higher level than the werewolf's CR that it really doesn't matter.

Anyway, if I were the DM, I would only make players face a werewolf without magical weapons if either they were meant to be running away or they did something really stupid. I would also allow them to deal damage to it in creative but non-magical ways. Maybe they can lure it into a trap prepared ahead of time or even just cut off its leg, grab that leg before the werewolf can plop it back on, and then play keep-away. (Can you run faster than a werewolf can run on three legs?)

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Goofy from a game design perspective, not from a lore perspective. It's just so unfair to tell a player there's no way they can hurt something when one of the ways they could've hurt it is with a magic weapon but you've refused to give them any.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ah, in that case I generally agree. My guess is that D&D (3.5, I haven't played the newer ones) was designed with a subconscious "nerds rule, jocks drool" mentality. So of course the bookworm is going to be better than the big muscular guy who gets angry a lot.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

The newer ones aren't as bad but it is still there at times.