>blanket resistances and immunities
Was 4e the only post-1e D&D edition to do away with these?
>>43984553
What do you mean by "blanket resistances and immunities"?
Do you mean things like fire resistance (which 4e has the same as other editions) or something else?
>>43984699
"These guys (especially undead, demons, devils, etc.) get loads of resistances and immunities for no real reason even when you would hardly expect them without having read the Monster Manual."
>>43985058
Oh, so retarded shit like "Durr you can't backstab undead"? Seriously, what fucking mongoloid thought that was a good idea?
>>43985114
>Sneak attacking is where the rogue does extra damage by targeting vital organs or areas on the target
>An undead has no vital organs or areas because it's a fucking skeleton animated through magic
>Constructs have no vital organs or areas because they're walking solid masses of some material
>"WOW WHY DOESN'T IT WORK IT SAYS I DO EXTRA DAMAGE OKAY I WANT MY EXTRA DAMAGE WHY DOESN'T MY EXTRA DAMAGE WORK THIS IS BULLSHIT"
>>43985199
You can at least understand why rogue players would be frustrated, right? Especially considering how common undead are, and how dependent rogues were on sneak attack to be relevant in a battle?
Since sneak attack can be interpreted as attacking weak points, rather than just vital organs, is it really fair to say all undead/constructs don't have any weak points?
Rogues tend to have a talent for disabling devices, so knowing where to strike a construct where it might be weakest isn't too farfetched.
Overall, it's not a bad idea to have some undead/constructs/elementals be immune to sneak attacks/criticals, but with all of them being immune and creatures of a certain type tending to hang out together, it was hard to find a sadder person than a rogue in a cemetery.
>>43985199
vital, stabbable points on a skeleton:
>joints
>sometimes skull
>points central to structural integrity
>the threads of magic keeping it animated
stabbable points on a humanoid golem:
>joints
>rivets/whatever keeps it together
>core/heart
>sensors
>implying negating a central feature of a class against half the monster manual is good game design
>>43984553
I think 5e also got rid of type-based blanket resistances.
>>43985114
I think OP's talking more "high-level enemies categorically have a half-dozen different resistances and immunities for no apparent reason beyond making them trickier to kill".
For instance, in 3.5, demons are all immune to poison, which makes sense enough...as well as to electricity, and resistance to the other 3 major energy damage types. Why? REASONS, apparently.
>>43985777
>I think 5e also got rid of type-based blanket resistances.
Not true. Demons, devils, yugoloths, undead, and other types get tons of resistances and immunities.
>>43985869
On a second look, you're right. Everything in the demon entry is immune to poison and resists fire, lightning, and cold.
Everything in the devil entry resists cold and non-magical or silver weapons, and is immune to fire and poison.
On the other hand, the fiend creature type (which is what demons are) has no explicitly granted innate resistances, and there are fiends that don't have those resistances (such as the Rakasha or the Hellhound).
also there's no more shit like Sneak Attack resistance that entirely keks a class, and overcoming resistance is much easier (such as by the Elemental Adept feat).
>>43985744
>>43985199
>>43985777
If something is immune to sneak attacks it better be something like a gelatinous cube or some other homogeneous substance/creature.
>>43985777
>Sneak attacking magic with a dagger
Yeah okay
>Stabbing rivets off of a golem with a dagger
YEAH ALRIGHT
>implying negating a central feature of a class against half the monster manual is good game design
An entirely separate matter.
Nothing else in this stupid post is worth responding to.
>>43986564
>Sneak attacking magic with a dagger
>Yeah okay
Why do you act like there's no precedent?
>>43986564
>sneak Attacking Magic with a dagger
When Eowyn fought the Witch King she was able to harm him after Merry cleaved his back thigh with a Barrow-blade enchanted against the magics of Angmar and disrupted the force which bound his form. Since D&D drew so heavily from Tolkien, it seems odd that they would forget this ur-example of wraithforms being vulnerable. Granted, Merry's Blade would like count as a Disrupting weapon or another such specialized thing, but the point remains: ghosts have weak points, too.
>>43985744
>sadder person than a rogue in a cemetery.
>implying the Rogue isn't stealing everything worth digging up
>>43986728
>ghosts have weak points, too.
Yeah. Against a weapon designed to disrupt the magical energies that bind them to this world. Not to your goddamn +1 kitchen knife you picked up in town.
I am absolutely baffled as to why you'd pick a specific example that utterly sabotages your point and then act like your point remains true. If Merry had tried to "sneak attack" the Witch King with another weapon, he'd have done jack and shit.
>>43984553
>>43984699
>>43985058
So this has nothing to do with pillow fights? I am disappoint.
>>43986728
The Lord of the Rings is but one of many, many books that inspired D&D. And that inspiration is generally not particularly loyal to it's source material.
And one specific ghost, who's not even an ordinary ghost, but a living ghost created by a specific magical item, somehow outweighs all other examples of ghosts being unaffected by physical attack in all of fiction? And the back of the leg is a weak point? And that should apply to all undead, not just ghosts?
>>43986564
>>Stabbing rivets off of a golem with a dagger
>YEAH ALRIGHT
Man I accidentally strip the screws off my glasses constantly just by repeatedly pulling them off my face too fast, I think a guy could break the area around the rivet and make it stripped and loose with a dagger.
>>43984553
5e did too a decent bit.
And of course it was part of pathfinde's reforms as well.
>>43987971
Not for the outsiders in both games.
>>43984553
OD&D (at least the core three books) didn't have them (at least not to the same extent as later editions).
I mean, yes, undead take no damage from normal damage, half damage from silver-tipped weapons, and they only take full damage from magic weapons. And yes, they are immune to many magic-user spells like charm and sleep (so at least it isn't a caster supremacy thing) but other than undead I can't think of any other examples from the earliest edition.
>>43987223
The screws on glasses are utterly tiny and most likely made of shitty cheap metal. That is not a valid comparison. At all.
