But really, I think the best way to deal with such a combat is to admit that, yes, the PCs dispatch the Vampires handily, and there is much jubilation, but that it is meaningless to play out such a one-sided battle. After a few of these, the PCs will turn to non-necrotic monsters (or abandon their anti-necrotic gear) just to get the dice rolling again. If they don’t it means they actually prefer one-sided conflicts, and there was no problem to begin with

I don’t think its out of line to give solos and named elites a way to get around resistances when the story calls for it. Some auras or blasts are just more powerful, not in damage but in penetration.

While it is unfair for monsters or rules to change in response to a players abilities I think that the monster’s tactics should defiantly change in response to a players abilities.

As Mike described in his article having the monster interact with the environment is a great way for the monster to fight back against resistant PCs. Aid another can also help to allow monsters without a resistible to hit more often. The key is thinking what would a PC do.

If a PC had a special sword that only kicked out fire typed damage, and he was fighting against a fire resistant monster, what would he do. Well he would drop it and try something else. So the monster should be able to do the same.

For example, if a Vampire Spawn which only has one attack that does 5 necrotic damage is attacking a PC with Black Iron armor (resist Necrotic 5, Fire 5) it should realize fairly quickly it can do no damage to the PC (it has an Int of 10).

So something has to give, Dave mentioned he used non necrotic claws, however I think the whole point of typed damage is not to help the monster, but it is intentionally put there by the designer to allow the PC’s a chance to negate their effects. So I would not go with non necrotic claws because then all monsters best tactics would be to untype all of its attacks.

I think monsters need a way to get around this weakness and the way to do it is by the monster utilizing the environment, and not changing the inherent nature of the monster (I know there is no mechanical difference between the two approaches but I find having the solution coming from the environment is better for story)

So have the vampire try to pick up a club, throw rocks, etc. If it makes sense that they should be able to do it, let them, just remember that it should be worse that their standard attack. I would assume a -2 to hit and half the damage output would be fair. Also make the monsters spend actions to setup their advantages.

So allow a vampire spawn to pick up a chair and bash the PC over the head with it for 2 points of damage. Then have him waste a minor action to pick up a leg of that chair and use it as a club. From then on he attacks with a -2 and only does 2 damage.

Doing it that way still rewords the PC’s for having built up their character, but also adds memorable moments to your combats that highlight the characters strengths.

JesterOC

And yeah, adding a second damage type to an attack is a very effective way of piercing certain PC defenses. This works especially well when you know that at least one person will continue to resist that attack — it ups the danger level for the newly vulnerable without making the party feel like you’re going out of your way to subvert their character choices and hard-earned improvements.

Suddenly doubling everyone’s damage halfway through the battle is a little iffy, but looking at the monsters beforehand and adjusting them to your party’s level of ability is just part of DMing. (Unless you’re the kind of DM who runs D&D more like a videogame, where beating the DM is the whole point. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s just not very common any more.)