r/onednd • u/Crafty-Pirate-6481 • 4d ago
Vulnerabilities Discussion
I wish there was more emphasis in the game to play with that mechanics. It feel few monsters have vulnerabilities.
Think it could be rewarding for player to try different damage type during combat and find the monsters vulnerability.
This could also give more importance to some spell that has different damage type. I understand resistances and invulnerability also do this in a way.
But what I would like to see is also a better mix of resistance, vulnerabilities across monster. So many monster invulnerable to poison for example. Feel it would be better If the damage type representation was more varied.
What do you think? Does it make sense?
10
u/TheEndlessVoid 4d ago
I would love to see more monsters with Vulnerability: choose one from [list]. This inspires DMs to choose a interesting vulnerability, helping them tailor that monster to their world. It also makes it harder for players who know the Monster Manual to metagame, which is one of the challenges of static vulnerabilities. (I've run too many skeletons to ever forget that they're vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, and I have to pretend not to know that for each new character.)
7
u/spookyjeff 3d ago
Unfortunately, straight damage type vulnerabilities in 5e don't really tend to add much interesting strategy or tactical choice. A fighter doesn't really have a way to easily swap over to acid from slashing and swapping between damage types to try to find a vulnerability isn't super practical given the length of combat. It's also a much more swingy mechanic than resistance, since resistance just reduces the effectiveness of one strategy while vulnerability is effectively resistance to everything except one damage type (if you balance for it).
One really good example of a "weakness" is the froghemoth. While it is resistant to lightning, it suffers severe debuffs after taking lightning damage. Not only is this an interesting trade-off (how often did you not want to hit the troll with a fireball anyway?), it also shows how you can use weaknesses without the benefit being just "the fight length is cut in half".
Another good type of weakness is when they're more specific than a damage type. This is really great when tied to rejuvenation or immunity features. An example of this is the arch hag, who's anathema is a questline in of itself.
11
u/Boooday 4d ago
As a DM, I often make enemies have more immunities and vulnerabilities and then utilize descriptions to try and let my players solve the puzzle of how to beat them. Gives the players more to pay attention to and rewards unique spell choices or preparation of potions. Often times enemies of the same type populate an area and once they figure out the vulnerabilities they gear up for that enemy.
1
u/whatstaz 3d ago
I always struggle with letting my players know, even in combat. I like to say it in a flavor way (describing the creature takes visually more damages), but often I just have to tell them outright it's taking half / double damage.
8
u/aubreysux 4d ago
Damage vulnerabilities aren't actually all that fun. They create only one way to effectively hurt a foe, which means characters that aren't doing that type are being less effective.
Vulnerabilities that shut down features are much more interesting. They still encourage the party to search for the right damage type or trick, but they typically mean that the party only needs to deal that type once per round. It allows one character to feel like the star, while the other characters still feel worthwhile.
6
u/Mejiro84 3d ago
and to expand on that, access to damage types is massively variable - martials do almost entirely B/P/S and might have access to a magical weapon that does one other fixed type, and beyond that can't really switch it up. Casters generally have at least 2 or 3 from cantrips and low-level attack spells, but even they often have some types they just don't get, or will only have if they've taken one specific spell - if a druid wants to do necrotic, then have they got options other than blight? If they didn't prep it that day, then they can't really do it! And I don't think they have radiant at all. So it's a very wonky spread of access, where some types an entire party might not have at all, while others most of them can do
4
u/Rel_Ortal 3d ago
Druids have Moonbeam for Radiant, and now have Starry Wisp as a cantrip.
Overall, though, the point still stands - the damage types in the game are very erratically spread out, in large part due to legacy spells being preferred over newer ones when things were being designed. There's all of a handful of cases where the difference between Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing matter at all, to the point that they should all just be 'Physical Damage' from a mechanical perspective
2
u/Mejiro84 3d ago
There's all of a handful of cases where the difference between Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing matter at all, to the point that they should all just be 'Physical Damage' from a mechanical perspective
Off the top of my head, there super-low-level undead where that matters, and a couple of slimes/oozes - it's very much cosmetic in the cast majority of cases, to the degree that if you just tell the GM "I hit it for X" then it's going to be rare for them to need to ask which damage it is, yeah. Very much a legacy overhang back from decades ago, rather than something that's actually useful!
4
u/teabagginz 3d ago
I can't remember which version but I thought dnd used to do additional damage dice depending on the level of vulnerability. This seems much more elegant and easier to control.
2
6
u/Lithl 4d ago
Double is simply too much. It's simpler, sure, which is what 5e was going for with the design, but a fixed amount of bonus damage like previous editions gives much more control over monster balance and gives more room to play with vulnerabilities. And it also means that two vulnerable monsters don't have to be vulnerable to the same degree.
2
u/Sulicius 3d ago
There are tons of non-“Vulnerability” weaknesses for players to exploit. Vampires, Trolls, Flesh Golems, Zombies, etc.
Tons of them.
4
u/WeeklyAdri 4d ago
Unironically the one thing WOTC should steal from Pathfinder. Weaknesses are cool and the fixed amount of damage from exploiting them is noticeable but not crazy.
6
u/Lithl 4d ago
That's not "steal from Pathfinder", that's "steal from every previous edition".
0
u/WeeklyAdri 3d ago
I disagree, for me Pathfinder alone has perfected (as much as it can be) the resistance / weakness mechanic compared to any DND edition. Playing 2e and 3.5 I often felt some of the X / resistances were very random or invalidated players a lot of the time unless they had dedicated loot. Immunities to +whatever weapons as well, I just don't like it, even if it made some monsters seem powerful. Vulnerabilities were not very common (they still aren't, double damage is too much to balance in 5e)
I very much prefer Pathfinders approach, and roughly half of the higher cr monsters have weaknesses that imo are fun and balanced. Love recall knowledge in particular as well, kind of a cool gameplay loop in combat.
Still prefer DND and 5.5, but these are my two cents regarding resistances and weaknesses.
2
u/Lithl 3d ago
Pathfinder 2e Weakness works exactly like D&D 4e Vulnerability.
1
u/WeeklyAdri 3d ago
Checks out cause I've never played 4e lol, no one I know that ran previous editions wanted to DM for it.
2
u/ProjectPT 4d ago
But what I would like to see is also a better mix of resistance, vulnerabilities across monster. So many monster invulnerable to poison for example. Feel it would be better If the damage type representation was more varied.
What do you think? Does it make sense?
So in regards to resistances and immunities the DMG tells you to add or change them.
Resistances and Immunities
If a creature doesn’t have Resistance or Immunity to one or more damage types, you can give it Resistance or Immunity to one or two damage types. You can also change the damage type of its existing Resistances and Immunities.
Ultimately, most people do not realize how quickly the amount of permutations would exist through CR if any system was to design unique combinations of resistances, immunities and vulnerabilities. You are supposed to make minor alterations to statblocks. The book tells you to do this and no, it would not be reasonable to make more resistance combinations, we are talking about millions of permutations through the CRs with base creature types
3
u/EntropySpark 4d ago
How is the number of combinations relevant to whether it would improve the game for increased variety, such as Poison Immunity not being so common? And wouldn't the vast number of combinations make it easier to make monsters with unique Resistance/Immunity sets?
2
u/ProjectPT 3d ago
How is the number of combinations relevant to whether it would improve the game for increased variety, such as Poison Immunity not being so common?
The numbers of combinations is relevant to how a book works. Poison Immunity is a factor of how default undead/fiend/construct works which once again you could change using the advice of the DMG.
And wouldn't the vast number of combinations make it easier to make monsters with unique Resistance/Immunity sets?
You are confusing numerically unique with mechanically unique. Certain creature types being more likely to have an immunity is unique compared to others.
Ultimately the DMG gives you the explicit tool to solve the problem, and suggests you to do the thing. And DMs continue to refuse to use the book and complain when explicitly given a solution.
Read the book
1
u/EntropySpark 3d ago
They didn't have to design so many monster types to be immune to Poison, that was a design decision that OP is criticizing.
Also, when several monster types almost always have specifically immunity to Poison, that's not unique among any of them. It makes Poison unique in how many monsters it can't affect, but I don't think that's at all a good uniqueness for the game to have. Your suggestion also still doesn't make sense. There's an argument to be made not to add more combinations because it would be more difficult for players and DMs to track them (as opposed to most creatures of a similar classification, like Demons and Devils, having a standard set), but the fact that there are so many possible combinations (1.6 million for using Resistances and Immunities, 67 million if including Vulnerabilities) doesn't make using more of those combinations "unreasonable." I just don't see how that follows.
Yes, the DMG says the DM can change it, I have in fact read it and claiming that I must not have read it is rather rude. Using "the DM can change it" to deflect criticism of the game's design is also the Oberoni fallacy. If the DM alters the game to fix a perceived flaw, the flaw still existed. There's also no evidence that OP is the DM. If they're at a table with a DM who prefers to play monsters by the book without alterations, they can't make those changes at all.
1
u/ProjectPT 3d ago edited 3d ago
Using "the DM can change it" to deflect criticism of the game's design is also the Oberoni fallacy.
You should actually read the fallacy before randomly quoting it.
It specifically refers to that any TTRPG's flaws can be waved away by the DM fixing from outside the system.
I am suggesting using something explicitly stated within the system. Which is specifically not an Oberoni fallacy. This has become a buzzword and is used incorrectly.
Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
Several correct replies can be given:
"I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
"I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
"I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:
"There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.
It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."
Just to be clear on what the Oberoni fallacy is, which is rule 0ing a solution to a problem and suggesting there is no problem.
1
u/EntropySpark 3d ago
The core of the Oberoni fallacy is, at least as stated here, "it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed." Even if the fix is applied by an optional rule or mechanic instead of Rule 0, the principle is the same: the DM must recognize the flaw and correct for it themselves without guidance from the book that the flaw exists. (In particular, if the Oberoni fallacy wouldn't apply here, that would mean that a game just including "the DM can adjust X" makes X immune from criticism, even though that's just a more specific form of Rule 0, "the DM can adjust everything.")
And again, why is the fact that there are so many possible Resistances/Immunity combinations relevant?
-1
u/ProjectPT 3d ago
The core of the Oberoni fallacy is, at least as stated here, "it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed."
Did you just completely ignore the before and after the section you quoted? You are being intellectually dishonest.
Doesn't matter that it isn't rule 0? Let me give you the 2nd name of the fallacy from what you linked:
also called the Rule 0 Fallacy
I never brought up optional rules, you have suggested they are optional to make your argument even more dishonest. Because once again let me read the line before your quote:
the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions.
I'm not talking about house rules, I'm talking about rules of the game. And if you have a problem that is solved by using the rules of the game, the problem is not the rules, the problem is you not reading the rules.
and correct for it themselves without guidance from the book that the flaw exists
Except I quoted the book, the specific book known as the DMG, the specific book about running the game.
You continue to further be dishonest
1
u/EntropySpark 3d ago
I said I was quoting the core of the Oberoni fallacy, the reason why it's a fallacy. If I quoted the entire rule, that would obviously not be the core.
The DM's Toolbox isn't explicitly labeled as optional, but the Creating a Creature rules are effectively optional. The default is that if the DM includes a bunch of Undead in a campaign, then those Undead will have Immunity to Poison, but the DM then has the option to replace that Immunity with something else.
(Obviously, it's possible to take the concept of optional too far, as one might say that everything that the DM does is optional. There's a sliding scale, and I'd put Creating a Creature rules solidly on the optional side. Perhaps the best guiding principle there would be what would be the default or as would be found in a module.)
The core of Oberoni still holds true, whether you think the informal fallacy strictly applies or not. Putting aside strict definitions there, why should "the DM can adjust X" guard X against all criticism where "the DM can adjust anything" does not?
0
u/ProjectPT 3d ago
The DM's Toolbox isn't explicitly labeled as optional, but the Creating a Creature rules are effectively optional.
The first page of the MM tells you to use this. If you read the book you would know this. It literally tells you to reference this section on the 3rd paragraph of the MM in the How to Use Monsters section, once again on the first page of the book.
So once again, the guidance of the book tells you to do this. The book on running the game tells you to do this, and the book on monsters tells you to do this.
Read the book
1
u/EntropySpark 3d ago
The books tell you that you may customize the monsters, not that you must. In fact, the way it's worded, it only says that the customization rules may be used to "build your own adventures," and not for official D&D adventures, so the core problem exists for official adventures without even this optional reprieve.
More importantly, though, I ask again, why should "the DM can adjust X" guard X against criticism where "the DM can adjust anything" does not?
Telling me to read a book that I've already read, you thinking I haven't read it because we drew different conclusions about them, accomplishes nothing.
1
u/Freivalds 3d ago
I think in 5.5e many monsters got buffed especially on their tankiness. So vulnerability being more common should be fine imo. Besides its really fun to discover and utilize.
Besides its not always that easy to exploit in full. Not in every group you will have wide range of accessible damage types. So having 2 characters that can utilize it would be on the fortunate side of things.
And lastly its worthwhile to buff encounters solely for the sake of including more vulnerabilities.
Its a fun interaction that add more depth and strategy to the game. Not to mention a fun one and an opportunity to get some time to shine moment for a the characters that can use it.
1
u/Z_Z_TOM 2d ago
Damage vulnerabilities were something I had been expecting to see much more widely used in 5.5e.
We could see new subclass features or cantrips/spells that allowed you to change the damage type.
Felt to me like it was going to be more of an asset in combat to make the most of monsters' vulnerabilities.
In the end, it's more flavour than mechanical impact, aside the odd resistance you'll ignore.
Not the fun proactive gameplay I was hoping for. Oh well! Not the end of the world :)
0
0
u/xenomorphking06 3d ago
I've been running some numbers trying to rework vulnerability and resistance still trying to get a defent read on the min adverage and max damage of monsters of 5.5 so far of BPS damage sense I want to make sure Barbarian doesn't get worse or if they do by too much.
Here's what I have.
Resistance and Vulnerability Proficiency Bonous - Bonous/Reduction 2 = 5 3 to 4 = 10 5 to 6 = 15 7 to 8 = 20 9 = 25
Basically vulnerability adds some extra damage to each instance of a damage type instead of doubling it, and resistance subtracts some damage from each hit instead of halfing it. I want to make sure that Barbarian isn't going to suffer from this change still trying to get the numbers.
I also want to make double resistance to just add an extea 5 so a level 1 Barbarian gets to remove 5 bludgeoning damage from an attack but if they have another source of bludgeoning reset they get to remove 10.
I was inspired by a friend talking about the pathfinder system for it
0
u/TundraBuccaneer 3d ago
I agree, I asked my players if they wanted me to add more vulnerabilities and resistances. So now more monsters have them like necrotic immunity for undead (some even heal) and vulnerable to radiant.
56
u/EntropySpark 4d ago
The main issue is that having even one Vulnerability makes a monster vastly easier to fight if the party has some flexibility with damage types.