For examples: would you allow a brass draconic bloodline sorcerer/forge cleric,with both 6th level abilitys (both of which give resistance to fire) to stack to become fire immunity? (The pc would be lv 12) a teifling level 6 forge clerics with Natural resistance+class resistance? a teifling wearing armor enchanted with resist fire?
I know what my choice would be,but I want to know your thoughts!
(Asking here cause l know that,RAW,the answer is no. I am asking if you would allow it,not if the DMG/PHB allows it.)
Edit:ok,so a overwhelming majority say no. Ok. Luckily,I just learned of a spell (investiture of flame) which grants fire immunity,and the above stated multiclass would get access to it (sorcerer 11) and also magic items. Thanks all for the feedback.
Edit 2 (Jul 27 2020?): could haveing 2 sources of resistance= say,only taking 1/4th the damage? Like if you have double fire resistance,and got hit by a fire spell,with a damage roll of 8,would halfing it twice to 2 be more fair and acceptable?
Edit 3: (12-07-2022) So, I've since decided to house rule that 4 separate sources of resistance= Immunity. For example, a Teifling Bear Totem Barbarian wearing (Red/Gold) Dragon Scale Mail and a Ring of Fire Resistance would be immune to fire damage.
Nope. Just because it is redundant doesn't make it the special overpoweredness of Immunity. I would caution a player that wanted to stack something like that. And if it was unavoidable, I might be inclined to offer a magic item or something else (depending on how vital it was to the core of the character) in lieu of trying to stack resistances, especially if the player didn't beg and whine about their character losing out (and probably something given for playing the character well if it is a magic item or a feat that I award them). Something along the tier level of Epic Boon would be where I would see Immunity coming in.
Nope. Just because it is redundant doesn't make it the special overpoweredness of Immunity. I would caution a player that wanted to stack something like that. And if it was unavoidable, I might be inclined to offer a magic item or something else (depending on how vital it was to the core of the character) in lieu of trying to stack resistances, especially if the player didn't beg and whine about their character losing out (and probably something given for playing the character well if it is a magic item or a feat that I award them). Something along the tier level of Epic Boon would be where I would see Immunity coming in.
But why do you say it's over powered? There are many classes that get immunity to stuff by level 12,like monks with charm and poison. If a player is creative enough to make a character designed to be immune by level 6 or 12,why not allow them to utilize this,and just have more magic casters use ice or something,to allow this character to have their gimic/niche? Why make this a epic boon,which l hear is for lv 20+ PCs?
It's overpowered because you are making it do something it's not supposed to do. Lots of high level clerics can cast multi-die 8 Cure Wounds if they burn the higher level spell slots, but that doesn't mean you should let a cleric do a 4d8 Cure Wounds with a level 1 spell slot. That, too, would be overpowered.
The rules say no to this. I see no good reason why I should allow something that the rules explicitly say cannot be done. I may sometimes allow things to happen contrary to the rules but only with a very good reason, and you have not provided a good reason. In fact, you haven't really provided any reason at all, except that, apparently, you want it not to work like the rules say it works.
Also your poll is not really done correctly. The DEFAULT ruling in any situation is what the rules say, assuming there is a rule about it. In this case, there is a very clear rule about it, that literally and specifically says you're not supposed to do what you are proposing to do. Therefore, those of us saying "no we would not allow it" don't need to explain why. The rules say no. End of story.
People who say yes would need to justify why, because they are doing something that is not allowed in the rules, and something that is, fairly clearly, overpowered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Completely OP. Classes and Race and Feat combinations would change drastically to maximize these immunities.
A dragon that does 80 damage with a breath weapon can be reduced to 40 with a Save or Resistance. 20 with both. If you could nullify the Save AND the Damage with two piddly Resistance combinations... expect your game to get stupid quickly.
You can get something like 6+ resistances on a character, and with something like a Transmuter Stone or Protection From Energy spell you could rotate immunity... nope!
Acid Resistance to stay infinitely inside a Tarrasque belly?
There’s a reason that an item that gives Immunity when combined with Resistance (Dragon Mask) is a Legendary Artifact.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
In general, games have a choice between buffs that stack but have individually minimal effects, or buffs that don't stack. If you allow buffs that both stack and have individually strong effects, the combined effect can rapidly get out of hand.
I'd consider homebrew classes or magic items that may allow "if already resistant, you become immune" as some high level (14+) thing.
But as a general "hey players, if you ever get resistance from two sources you become immune" then I'd say no.
I'd be willing to consider (maybe) "non-magical and non-monster sources" as immunity for elemental damage - being immune to lightning from a natural cloud or normal fire, OK. But you'd still only have resistance to magic or monster sources like from a lightning bolt spell or the flames of a Fire Elemental, or a monster's Lair effects. Basically your immunity is good for the rare non-magical trap or RP moment, not to make silly putty of any encounters I would make involving it. And this is only the elemental ones like fire, acid, cold, lightning, thunder. I wouldn't consider piercing/slashing/bludgeoning or force, radiant or necrotic, or psychic.
Poison immunity I'd be OK with. It's a mediocre damage type - there's a reason why resistance or immunity is given easily for low level even through official options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Never, under any circumstances, would I allow resistance to become immunity, even if it is stacked ten times. Why? Resistance is a lot more readily available than immunity, meaning that you can easily get several sources of resistance for the same difficulty as a single source of immunity. But, more importantly, immunity and resistance do very different things. While both mitigate damage, taking no damage is very different than taking half damage for combat balance purposes. Immunity allows for cheesing fights in ways that aren't normally possible- I once killed a player's fire sorcerer with a fire elemental druid wild shape (as another player- complicated situation, but it was my character or his) simply because immunity allows for cheese. Sure, he had a couple other options, but if you look at enemies, they tend to be much more monolithic. If I give a player resistance, they can tank hits better but still have to be tactical- taking half damage does eventually add up. If I give them immunity, then they can ignore enemies entirely on a tactical level.
As a DM if my players have immunity I try to avoid them encountering that damage type frequently- otherwise, it turns into one character just dealing with the encounter, which makes it boring for the other players and likely the player with immunity as well. Unless immunity is limited to pretty short amounts of time, it tends to imbalance encounters too much to make that damage time worth using. It's the same reason why I don't throw enemies with immunity against the party unless they have an answer to it somehow, either with other damage types (preferably for at least most of the party) or environmental options. It just makes combat a foregone conclusion.
Stacking two resistances to get immunity is broken. If you were to have them stack more resistances to get immunity then I could see that, but just twice is too easy to get for how powerful it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
No, for 2 reasons. 1. Imagine immunity, as an ability. There are reasons only legendary items and artifacts grant it. 2. Your players will become focused on getting immunity, so instead of actually playing, they'll just stack resistance to immunity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. Oh, and it would be nice if you gave him a fishing rod.
Doesn't seem like a debate to me. This is perhaps the only thread where most of the responses agree ( other than the OP who seems to be have wanting to show their DM that other DMs would allow this).
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Doesn't seem like a debate to me. This is perhaps the only thread where most of the responses agree ( other than the OP who seems to be have wanting to show their DM that other DMs would allow this).
You aren't wrong,though I currently don't have a dm. Also, I wanted to know the general consensus on the topic, should I have a player who asks,so I could make a informed decision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For examples: would you allow a brass draconic bloodline sorcerer/forge cleric,with both 6th level abilitys (both of which give resistance to fire) to stack to become fire immunity? (The pc would be lv 12) a teifling level 6 forge clerics with Natural resistance+class resistance? a teifling wearing armor enchanted with resist fire?
I know what my choice would be,but I want to know your thoughts!
(Asking here cause l know that,RAW,the answer is no. I am asking if you would allow it,not if the DMG/PHB allows it.)
Edit:ok,so a overwhelming majority say no. Ok. Luckily,I just learned of a spell (investiture of flame) which grants fire immunity,and the above stated multiclass would get access to it (sorcerer 11) and also magic items. Thanks all for the feedback.
Edit 2 (Jul 27 2020?): could haveing 2 sources of resistance= say,only taking 1/4th the damage? Like if you have double fire resistance,and got hit by a fire spell,with a damage roll of 8,would halfing it twice to 2 be more fair and acceptable?
Edit 3: (12-07-2022) So, I've since decided to house rule that 4 separate sources of resistance= Immunity. For example, a Teifling Bear Totem Barbarian wearing (Red/Gold) Dragon Scale Mail and a Ring of Fire Resistance would be immune to fire damage.
Nope. Just because it is redundant doesn't make it the special overpoweredness of Immunity. I would caution a player that wanted to stack something like that. And if it was unavoidable, I might be inclined to offer a magic item or something else (depending on how vital it was to the core of the character) in lieu of trying to stack resistances, especially if the player didn't beg and whine about their character losing out (and probably something given for playing the character well if it is a magic item or a feat that I award them). Something along the tier level of Epic Boon would be where I would see Immunity coming in.
But why do you say it's over powered? There are many classes that get immunity to stuff by level 12,like monks with charm and poison. If a player is creative enough to make a character designed to be immune by level 6 or 12,why not allow them to utilize this,and just have more magic casters use ice or something,to allow this character to have their gimic/niche? Why make this a epic boon,which l hear is for lv 20+ PCs?
It's overpowered because you are making it do something it's not supposed to do. Lots of high level clerics can cast multi-die 8 Cure Wounds if they burn the higher level spell slots, but that doesn't mean you should let a cleric do a 4d8 Cure Wounds with a level 1 spell slot. That, too, would be overpowered.
The rules say no to this. I see no good reason why I should allow something that the rules explicitly say cannot be done. I may sometimes allow things to happen contrary to the rules but only with a very good reason, and you have not provided a good reason. In fact, you haven't really provided any reason at all, except that, apparently, you want it not to work like the rules say it works.
Also your poll is not really done correctly. The DEFAULT ruling in any situation is what the rules say, assuming there is a rule about it. In this case, there is a very clear rule about it, that literally and specifically says you're not supposed to do what you are proposing to do. Therefore, those of us saying "no we would not allow it" don't need to explain why. The rules say no. End of story.
People who say yes would need to justify why, because they are doing something that is not allowed in the rules, and something that is, fairly clearly, overpowered.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
No. Because it isn’t supposed to work that way.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Completely OP. Classes and Race and Feat combinations would change drastically to maximize these immunities.
A dragon that does 80 damage with a breath weapon can be reduced to 40 with a Save or Resistance. 20 with both. If you could nullify the Save AND the Damage with two piddly Resistance combinations... expect your game to get stupid quickly.
You can get something like 6+ resistances on a character, and with something like a Transmuter Stone or Protection From Energy spell you could rotate immunity... nope!
Acid Resistance to stay infinitely inside a Tarrasque belly?
There’s a reason that an item that gives Immunity when combined with Resistance (Dragon Mask) is a Legendary Artifact.
They did a ton of stacking in 3e and found it totally overpowered. Kept surprising the DM with secret builds that were to tough to defeat.
So basically almost nothing stacks anymore unless it is expressly designed to do so.
When I'm out in the rain, rubber boots give me a resistance to getting wet. Same goes for wearing a raincoat.
Wearing rubber boots and a raincoat, I am not protected from getting wet when I jump into a swimming pool.
Two resistances do not make immunity.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
In general, games have a choice between buffs that stack but have individually minimal effects, or buffs that don't stack. If you allow buffs that both stack and have individually strong effects, the combined effect can rapidly get out of hand.
If the player wants immunity to fire instead of resistance, they can work their way up to level 17 of Forge Cleric and get it as a class feature.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Can't exactly do that if your character is meant to be a multiclass,which is kinda the point of the first example I gave.
Then they can't get it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'd consider homebrew classes or magic items that may allow "if already resistant, you become immune" as some high level (14+) thing.
But as a general "hey players, if you ever get resistance from two sources you become immune" then I'd say no.
I'd be willing to consider (maybe) "non-magical and non-monster sources" as immunity for elemental damage - being immune to lightning from a natural cloud or normal fire, OK. But you'd still only have resistance to magic or monster sources like from a lightning bolt spell or the flames of a Fire Elemental, or a monster's Lair effects. Basically your immunity is good for the rare non-magical trap or RP moment, not to make silly putty of any encounters I would make involving it. And this is only the elemental ones like fire, acid, cold, lightning, thunder. I wouldn't consider piercing/slashing/bludgeoning or force, radiant or necrotic, or psychic.
Poison immunity I'd be OK with. It's a mediocre damage type - there's a reason why resistance or immunity is given easily for low level even through official options.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
No. The game specifically says that doesn’t happen.
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Subclasses | Races | Spells | Magic Items | Monsters | Feats | Backgrounds
Never, under any circumstances, would I allow resistance to become immunity, even if it is stacked ten times. Why? Resistance is a lot more readily available than immunity, meaning that you can easily get several sources of resistance for the same difficulty as a single source of immunity. But, more importantly, immunity and resistance do very different things. While both mitigate damage, taking no damage is very different than taking half damage for combat balance purposes. Immunity allows for cheesing fights in ways that aren't normally possible- I once killed a player's fire sorcerer with a fire elemental druid wild shape (as another player- complicated situation, but it was my character or his) simply because immunity allows for cheese. Sure, he had a couple other options, but if you look at enemies, they tend to be much more monolithic. If I give a player resistance, they can tank hits better but still have to be tactical- taking half damage does eventually add up. If I give them immunity, then they can ignore enemies entirely on a tactical level.
As a DM if my players have immunity I try to avoid them encountering that damage type frequently- otherwise, it turns into one character just dealing with the encounter, which makes it boring for the other players and likely the player with immunity as well. Unless immunity is limited to pretty short amounts of time, it tends to imbalance encounters too much to make that damage time worth using. It's the same reason why I don't throw enemies with immunity against the party unless they have an answer to it somehow, either with other damage types (preferably for at least most of the party) or environmental options. It just makes combat a foregone conclusion.
Stacking two resistances to get immunity is broken. If you were to have them stack more resistances to get immunity then I could see that, but just twice is too easy to get for how powerful it is.
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
No, for 2 reasons. 1. Imagine immunity, as an ability. There are reasons only legendary items and artifacts grant it. 2. Your players will become focused on getting immunity, so instead of actually playing, they'll just stack resistance to immunity.
Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. Oh, and it would be nice if you gave him a fishing rod.
-Trevor Noah
Current character: Daceth dococeth, moon blessed.
Resistances don't stack. That's the rules. Why is this a debate?
Doesn't seem like a debate to me. This is perhaps the only thread where most of the responses agree ( other than the OP who seems to be have wanting to show their DM that other DMs would allow this).
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You aren't wrong,though I currently don't have a dm. Also, I wanted to know the general consensus on the topic, should I have a player who asks,so I could make a informed decision.