Talk:Extra Immune (3.5e Trait)

Ratings

Tarkisflux dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

While I don't care at all about reinforcing immunities, this still seems like a poor fit for a trait. While it is very, very niche, it also seems a lot stronger than most traits. This isn't the minor shuffling of cost and benefit seen in most traits. It doesn't impact you at first level, as seen in most traits. It's a trait you need to build around levels into the future, which is deeply weird to me. So while I could get behind this as a variant rule, I'm not for it as a trait.

Thinking about it, I agree with Tarkisflux about this working better as a Variant Rule as far as straight mechanics go. The only hesitation I have is my opinion that most DMs (myself included) are much more tolerant of their players asking "Hey can I take this trait even though it's kinda weird for a trait," than asking "Hey can we use this variant rule that will probably only ever affect my character but now it's gotta apply to everything in your game forever." It may not be as perfect of a fit in the trait category, but it does seem a gentler one. Spanambula (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know Span, the variant would basically boil down to "you must have as many immunity piercers as a creature has immunity sources in order to affect it with something that it would otherwise be immune to", and that seems a really gentle rule. Basically just stacking immunities and piercings to see who has more.

But failing that, I'd still rather see this as a feat. It is extremely circumstantial and not at all worth taking unless you have a double immunity coming up at some point and expect to fight things that can pierce one of those immunities... but that's true of the trait too and one of the reasons it's such a bad trait. No one who doesn't have at least one immunity would ever take this trait. It's a straight, if very corner case, power up. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 19:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

	Ghostwheel dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	Absolute immunities are bad for the game. This either encourages immunities, or makes things that bypass them worse when they're not that good to begin with or common for that matter. Therefore, this is a poor trait from a system design point of view, which is the reason I'm downrating it.

That's a debate for the SRD, and present with or without this trait. You're not rating the trait, you're just saying you don't like how WotC did it. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct. And I think this trait exacerbates the situation if taken on a character who can take advantage of it. --Ghostwheel (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Small problem with that. WoTC has almost zero "ignore immunity" abilities. The vast majority are homebrew. As an aside, I actually think this ends up freeing up things more. Normally when you have two things redundant, its to your advantage to find a way to replace one of them with an Alt Class Feature or some other way to swap it out for something better. Having this would remove the need to do so since you are actually getting something out of the redundancy.

But mostly I think it's bunk since it's the same tier as "I hate dragons, ergo I will oppose all dragons" thing I had with MS in ages past. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, there are wotc spells that give you immunity to fire and cold. Add onto that something else that gives you immunity (there are a bunch of passive things), and boom, you're immune to a whole energy type. If it was limited to something like poisons or something similarly minor, I'd prolly be okay with that. But to an entire energy type? That's no bueno in my book. --Ghostwheel (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

So?

99% of the time, you were immune to said energy type already. Stacking it remains as useless and as redundant before until the 1% chance you run into that Searing Spell Fireball and your Extra Immune keeps you immune instead of making you take half. Oh no. The horror. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well it will only be a matter of time till someone goes and makes an article that says your damage bypasses even true immunity. And then someone makes truly true immunity as a response to that. --Sulacu (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The arm race begin. Industrial Immunity Complex problems. --Leziad (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's as useless and redundant as you say, why even make this trait? And regardless, it's the principle of the matter. Straight up immunities are bad, and things that promote them make the problem worse by encouraging people to take them. --Ghostwheel (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(RESET INDENT) Why make it? Because something useful in that 1% time is still useful. Giving it a use also promotes people not seeking to replace their now dead level with something else so they get something of value out of it, promoting simplicity.

Why a trait and not a feat? Well, I debated, and even if you were "now twice as useful as before", 1% x2 is still just 2%. It's useful, but its so specific that it is implausible you will ever purposefully set up a situation where this will happen.

Using the energy example again, it's highly unlikely your fire-immune plushie will cast Energy Immunity (fire) on purpose unless he knows he's going to go against searing spell fireballs. More likely it'll be a case of two class features, or a class and a race feature. Like a warforged (immune to poison) druid 9 (immune to poison). Even then, they're almost always immune to poison, they just remain immune when they run into that bee dragon. And if they're just using WotC, I can't think of any monsters which bypass like that for poison. You're not purposefully gonna to go out double immunities either, that's a much weaker choice than using your class level, money, and time on something else. Said warforged is leveling druid for its wild shape or its casting or whatever, and the poison immunity (again) is just gravy.

So since it's circumstantial as it was, I made it a trait. As for the latter half, "I hate dragons, ergo I oppose all dragons man. Why do I gotta be running around making all these new dragons, don't you know how much I hate them?"-- Eiji-kun (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's run with your example. How many wotc-created items/effects/abilities/spells that count as poisons pierce poison immunity? Does this, then, make it COMPLETELY redundant for warforged druids when the DM uses WotC material? If the DM's using homebrew to pierce through defenses, then he can just as easily say, "Nuh-uh, this is EXTRA special poison, it pierces through that as well," especially since once you get into the realm of homebrew, everything is DM fiat, basically. --Ghostwheel (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I see no reason for any article not to exist, no matter how circumstantial. If you play a lactose intolerant hindu, it's only a matter of time before the DM throws a cheeseburger in his face. Let those exceptions and times when you can make use of something situational enhance the roleplay rather than make it completely impossible. It's not like being impervious to flames doesn't leave you open to everything else. --Sulacu (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

WotC hasn't made many, or maybe any, super poisons to my knowledge. Unless you count ravages, which may or may not be poisons which breach poison immunity depending on how you read them. In WotC it's actually easier to have super-energy types which breach immunity. Since in WotC, energy immunity tends to be relegated to class capstones and similar, it's not exactly easy to obtain at any low level. In homebrew, both super-energy and super-status bypassing effects are more common, so yes, this trait is more valuable for a homebrew heavier game than WotC, as expected.

However, simply because I can't think of any poison-breaching poisons from WotC doesn't mean they don't exist. I want to say there is one that breaches an outsider's racial immunity to poison (if they have one), but since I am not master of poisons I can't recall. Point is, it could, and with homebrew it certainly does.

A DM could potentially DM fiat anything, and I don't see how that is relevant. If he's using homebrew, it's not fiat. The stuff is written, with rules behind it. That's not quite the same as magical tea party. Now, could this result in an arms race of bypassing abilities and true immunity counters? Sure, maybe. But how much are you willing to pay for it? There's this trait. There's the True Immunity feat. In theory maybe someone could make an immunity class feature. Immunity item. Immunity graft. Immunity magical location. And likewise a multiple-bypassing metamagic effect, Super Ultra Hyper Megalodon Searing Spell Fireball Perfect Gundam Edition. Except now your entire build is dedicated to the niche chance of a niche chance that your opponent is not just packing Searing Spell, but Super Searing Spell, Super Duper Searing Spell, etc.

Suffice to say it's a self-correcting problem. It's too much effort to focus on such a non-issue.

Also, back to the key point, I still find your rating reads as "I don't like dragons." And that is a poor rating. Say it doesn't do it's stated job, or that it contradicts itself, or the spelling is really bad or something. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I read it the same way, which is probably a violation of the 'rate on merits' guideline. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 04:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)