Has anyone ever tried dropped the damage roll change and made it so that along with ignoring resistance immunity is treated as resistance? Would that be terrible broken or OP?
Probably wouldn't be OP, but if something is fully immune to a damage type it's usually for a reason; for example constructs are immune to poison because they have nothing to poison. Ignoring resistance is different because the creature is still susceptible to the damage, i.e- for poison they're still organic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Thematically I wouldn't let it apply to dragons and their associated breath type or elementals. One reason why im thinking about making this change at my table and making the case for it at one of the games I play is because to me there is a difference between magical elemental damage and and mundane. A spell that makes fire the initial fire from it, a firebolts actual bolt, fireballs initial blast, etc is magical in nature and would be more harmful than mundane fire. Now any fires set by fire spells would be mundane as not part of the spells initial magical oomph. Same can be said for cold, just because something is adapted to the cold doesn't mean that the magical embodiment of cold isn't going to damage it. If I expose a polar bear to absolute zero, the polar bear will be adversely effected.
It is an interesting idea, and I've had campaigns where the DM gave some leeway for example on Elemental Adept (Acid) for an acid-themed caster, since the acid spell selection is a bit disappointing (though we later just made our own acid-swapped spell cards).
Like I say, I don't think it'd be OP; the main difference is that players who would have been forced to switch to another element, can instead just use what they prefer anyway, even if it will do less damage (good if you like the special effect of a spell, but casting without any damage at all seems far too costly). I think though that as a general rule it's an "at your DM's discretion" kind of affair, for example:
Spells you cast ignore resistance to damage of the chosen type. If the target is immune to damage of the chosen type, you may instead treat it as if it were (unignorable) resistance to damage of the same type, at your DM's discretion.
When you roll damage for a spell you cast that deals damage of that type, you can treat any 1 on a damage die as a 2.
The DM always has final say anyway, but it's good to reinforce it on rules where the DM will most likely have to make a decision case-by-case.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This feat has 2 abilities, you wish to grant it a this ability that is more powerful than the other two.
Current Abilities:
Strong: Negating a good but not perfect defense by turning 1/2 damage into full damage, a 100% improvement.
Weak: Turning 1 into 2, average damage upgrade for 1d6 from 3.5 to 3.66666
But turning the best, perfect defense into a merely good defense, is far more powerful than the current Strong ability.
At the very least you are doubling the feat's power, some would say more than that. Frankly, I would hesitate to consider doing what you desire as a Second Feat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Has anyone ever tried dropped the damage roll change and made it so that along with ignoring resistance immunity is treated as resistance? Would that be terrible broken or OP?
Probably wouldn't be OP, but if something is fully immune to a damage type it's usually for a reason; for example constructs are immune to poison because they have nothing to poison. Ignoring resistance is different because the creature is still susceptible to the damage, i.e- for poison they're still organic.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Thematically I wouldn't let it apply to dragons and their associated breath type or elementals. One reason why im thinking about making this change at my table and making the case for it at one of the games I play is because to me there is a difference between magical elemental damage and and mundane. A spell that makes fire the initial fire from it, a firebolts actual bolt, fireballs initial blast, etc is magical in nature and would be more harmful than mundane fire. Now any fires set by fire spells would be mundane as not part of the spells initial magical oomph. Same can be said for cold, just because something is adapted to the cold doesn't mean that the magical embodiment of cold isn't going to damage it. If I expose a polar bear to absolute zero, the polar bear will be adversely effected.
It is an interesting idea, and I've had campaigns where the DM gave some leeway for example on Elemental Adept (Acid) for an acid-themed caster, since the acid spell selection is a bit disappointing (though we later just made our own acid-swapped spell cards).
Like I say, I don't think it'd be OP; the main difference is that players who would have been forced to switch to another element, can instead just use what they prefer anyway, even if it will do less damage (good if you like the special effect of a spell, but casting without any damage at all seems far too costly). I think though that as a general rule it's an "at your DM's discretion" kind of affair, for example:
The DM always has final say anyway, but it's good to reinforce it on rules where the DM will most likely have to make a decision case-by-case.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This feat has 2 abilities, you wish to grant it a this ability that is more powerful than the other two.
Current Abilities:
But turning the best, perfect defense into a merely good defense, is far more powerful than the current Strong ability.
At the very least you are doubling the feat's power, some would say more than that. Frankly, I would hesitate to consider doing what you desire as a Second Feat.