D&D 4E 4e and reality

[P1NBACK]

I was in a D&D Encounters game last night, and I was playing Yuka, the pre-gen Mul Brawling Fighter. I used Serpent's Coils on a Dust Devil. The Dust Devil isn't a swarm, but it is an elemental that's nothing more than a vortex of wind and sand. The DM couldn't find anything about it being immune to being grabbed, so, like the power says, I grabbed it.

Cool. How did you grab it?

 

[Hussar]

Cool. How did you grab it?

Who cares?

No, let me rephrase the question and put it to Tony; Did anyone at the table care?

 

[P1NBACK]

Who cares?

I care. That's why I asked.

 

[Aegeri]

I love how you quoted me line by line and consistently missed the point nearly every time. Nor did you take the entire argument in its context, so you respond to something that I've already addressed elsewhere, pretending as if I never actually made note of it in a later response. That is really aggravating.

Are you saying the designers put immunity to disease/poison on undead "randomly"? You're saying, that's not good game design?

Basically it's not.

For one: No PC power in the entire game inflicts the diseased condition. It's just a strange thing to have for monsters as its never relevant to them.

For another: Poison immunity is often applied willy nilly and inconsistently (some elementals are, others aren't etc).

That's bad game design?

Given how prevalent it is basically turning poison using characters into needing a feat tax to use it, then yes. Also you misunderstand the term "feat tax" obviously. Melee training is a feat tax for characters in melee that don't use strength for opportunity attacks - otherwise they are heavily diminished in effectiveness (because they cannot hit anyone). Feat taxes are not solely math fixes, they are core things your character needs to be effective. If you use poison, then the feat to negate immunity is a tax.

You should look up what the term "Feat tax" is used for - it's more than just defensive feats and expertise. It's any feat a character requires to be effective. A poison using character does indeed suffer the poison immunity negation feat as a feat tax.

That's not bad game design. That's GOOD game design.

Because it is exceptional, it isn't putting blanket immunities onto a creature type as I've mentioned again and again and again. The odd immunity I've repeatedly stated can be interesting. Blanket immunizing creatures is not.

It's called ... Common Sense.

Common sense is the worst possible argument. What is common sense to you won't be to another person. When they are trying to communicate on rules, then this is the worst possible way to do anything. See many years of rules arguments across every edition of DnD.

Personally, I think half damage from melee and ranged attacks is BAD design.

I agree, but it's compensated by being vulnerable to blasts and they don't get exceptional immunities elsewhere. Personally if I did this I wouldn't give them vulnerability either.

We're not sticking immunities "at our whim".

Yep, you are.

That's really what it boils down to. Again, what none of those arguing for this have ever acknowledged is what *you* find silly might be entirely different for someone else. There is nothing about "common sense" or "Obviously ridiculous" here except to you. I for example think swarms in reality wouldn't be affected by a whole bunch of things, including critical hits and similar. If you're going to just rant about grab, you need to explain why you think a swarm can be critically hit with a dagger or a sling first.

Let's hope your build isn't a one-trick pony, and if it is, let's hope the DM considers this when planning the campaign. Or, better yet, collaborate and say, "DM, I want to play a poison-focused guy." "Player, sure, if we're going to do that, I don't want a ton of undead."

Or they take a feat tax and play their character, because the "feat tax" makes the poison immunity problem irrelevant. They just have to pay a feat for it. That's why I called it a feat tax: If you play a poison character, you need that feat or you're going to suffer heavily. Also I hope the DM isn't using a LOT of creatures, because poison immunity isn't confined to just undead you realize. Also I build my encounters based on what is logical and what suits the story and location.

Given I don't go giving things random immunities, I've never had a problem with that making PCs completely irrelevant in 4E.

And, strangely, the 4E designers use it liberally. Hmmm....

And yet in MM3 they directly acknowledged that resistances weren't an interesting mechanic and stopped using them? Did you notice the Volcanic Dragon isn't immune/resistant to fire and neither is the fire elemental?

Maybe they've realized that immunities and resistances are not that interesting from a game design view and are moving away from it? Hmmm.....

And, that has nothing to do with immunity to grab. If the designers of 4E had put "Swarms are immune to grab attacks..." in the rules, you'd be trying to defend how THAT was balanced.

But they didn't, so I will argue with what is there and not what isn't there. Also I would still think that was dumb, because you'll notice I am not defending poison immunity being so prevalent despite the designers putting it there.

Kinda blows your whole argument out of the water doesn't it?

Immunities are interesting if they make sense.

Immunities are boring. Powers that interact with things are far better. I again bring up the Earthquake Dragon (could easily just be immune to forced movement) and the Volcanic Dragon (could easily just be immune to fire). But wait! Wizards DIDN'T give them immunities and monsters started to figure out "Hey, maybe a more interesting interaction with a power than saying it doesn't work is better".

And indeed, they were right.

Yeah... That's you imposing your opinion of "interesting" on everyone else. That's not really much of an argument.

This is a mirror of your own flawed "It's common sense" argument, where you still haven't acknowledged the actual flaw that what can be common sense to one person in terms of an immunity won't be to another. For example, you don't think a swarm can be grabbed but I still can't fathom why you think it can be critically hit. If you're going to start applying one thing, the slippery slope is going to come in really quick.

For example, you wonder why I don't think a swarm should be critically hit: yet "common sense" suggests to me that a dagger or a sling isn't going to bother a huge horde of flies at all. Just like you don't think they can be grabbed, I don't think they should be able to be critically hit (as there are numerous individuals without a common "weak point" in the whole lot).

The difference is I don't subject "common sense" on my players: Merely the rules, especially when them not being immune to crits doesn't bother the game in the least balance wise (or add anything if I make them immune).

By your logic, it's perfectly acceptable for a character to "grab" a swarm if it makes NO sense

To you it makes no sense. To me I can think of numerous explanations, Draco for example has already given a few in this thread and ultimately it doesn't bother me overly that much. They have a strong advantage and make up for it with a strong disadvantage, unlike the insubstantial weakening wraith for example.

Also, there are creatures immune to being knocked prone. Whirling Blades Automaton is one of them. Why? Because it makes sense.

When you respond line by line to something, can you actually read all the arguments I've made before doing that? Because I point this out for you and in fact, I have already mentioned other creatures immune to being knocked prone in previous posts. I am unsure what point you're trying to make here.

There you go... Now, you're getting the picture. Good work.

I love the tone here.

Hmmm. Immunity = interesting? Wait a second...!

When used in very very very limited amounts.

Let's see: All undead and a whole bunch of other monsters being immune to poison = boring.

Torog and a literal handful of other monsters being immune to prone = interesting.

Scale matters. Something that comes up rarely and isn't even predictable by creature type is interesting. Something that comes up all the time from certain creatures isn't interesting. IMO.

But at the same time, part of my argument is based on the fact Wizards aren't even going to "logically" give things immunities. Take fire elementals, I take it you've noticed they aren't fire resistant and instead have other "punishment" mechanics. Same with the Volcanic Dragon and Earthquake Dragon.

These are infinitely more interesting than immunities/resistances ever were.

No one

, not one single person, is suggesting giving creatures immunities based on "personal whims".

That's exactly what you're doing.

No, that was my core point. There's already a precedent for immunities in the game.

And there is already a precedent for epic level creatures doing so little damage they are basically ineffective against PCs of their level. If you're going to argue that the monster design in 4E got it right out of the gate, you're on a losing argument here. Especially when more recent books are toning down on immunities and resistances in favor of other mechanics.

A point you've continuously ignored.

Why wouldn't a swarm be susceptible to critical hits? That doesn't make any sense.

Here we have the ultimate coup de grace to every argument you've made. I don't think it makes sense for a swarm to be critically hit, they have numerous individuals, no sensitive organs in an overall mass of billions of flies and what IS that rogue doing to get sneak attack on a gigantic mass of flies/cockroaches/spiders anyway? Neither of those make any more sense than grabbing the swarm, yet you think that grabbing a swarm makes no sense yet happily think they can be critically hit by a dagger (a sharp pointy thing).

The inherent flaw in your entire argument is now exposed.

What is common sense to you isn't to someone else. I think swarms being immune to crits would be "common sense", but I don't inflict it on my players because I don't see a point. It is common sense, but it adds nothing to the game or to the encounter. Neither is making them immune to grab.

It depends on the swarm and the fiction. That's what we've been trying to tell you.

It depends entirely on your personal decisions about how you think the fluff should work. That's what I'm telling you. Reverse the argument and apply it to critical hits. I don't think they should be critically hit, but yet you have no problem with a dagger somehow critically hitting a swarm of thousands of creatures. Yet you're telling me you're doing this "For the fiction!!!!" and to make the game logical or something? Yet you're completely ignoring something else just as completely illogical happening right next to it!

It's just hilariously inconsistent.

You're using hyperbole as your argument. Awesome.

It's not hyperbole it's better game design: Something that Wizards showed me and not what I came up with personally. The Volcanic Dragon and Earthquake Dragons are the epitome of how I want 4E monster design to go. Don't make them immune - make them interact with powers in an interesting way by doing something else (the dragons knocking prone on forced movement is a key example in my argument).

This enhances an encounter and makes those monsters unique. This is also, going back why I don't mind UNIQUE immunities. What I dislike is blanket immunities over an entire subset of creatures. I've explained that multiple times now as well.

 

[nightwyrm]

My 2 cp regarding common sense as the arbiter of rules. Common sense is highly dependent on a person's knowledge and experience. What is common sense to someone would be non-sense to somebody else.

For example, let's take overland travel in a D&D-esque game. The distance travelled in a day is determined by a creature's speed. This seems reasonable at first glance, a faster creature should travel farther than a slower one. This is where most people's expectation ends. Except that travel over long distance is much more dependent on endurance than on short term speed and (unknown to most people) humans are near the top of the endurance totem pole on earth. To an anthropologist who has studied primitive hunting, the "common sense" idea that an antelope or a horse can travel farther than a human in a few days would violate his common sense. Humans outrun horses in a marathon, not the other way around.

 

[P1NBACK]

I love how you quoted me line by line and consistently missed the point nearly every time. Nor did you take the entire argument in its context, so you respond to something that I've already addressed elsewhere, pretending as if I never actually made note of it in a later response. That is really aggravating.

This is hilarious. At least I quoted you. You cut out half my text. Good job. That's an excellent way to get your point across; delete the oppositions text.

For one: No PC power in the entire game inflicts the diseased condition. It's just a strange thing to have for monsters as its never relevant to them.

For another: Poison immunity is often applied willy nilly and inconsistently (some elementals are, others aren't etc).

That's not willy nilly. That's one elemental being immune and another not. Like I said in my earlier post, liberally edited by you, each monster should be judged by it's own purpose in the game and the fiction.

Given how prevalent it is basically turning poison using characters into needing a feat tax to use it, then yes. Also you misunderstand the term "feat tax" obviously. Melee training is a feat tax for characters in melee that don't use strength for opportunity attacks - otherwise they are heavily diminished in effectiveness (because they cannot hit anyone).

Melee Training is not a feat tax. You can still be effective at your role without being good at opportunity attacks. Plain and simple. Feat taxes are feats that are required because you need them for the math of the game to work, not because you want your character to be better at something...

Feat taxes are not solely math fixes, they are core things your character needs to be effective. If you use poison, then the feat to negate immunity is a tax.

LoL. No. The feat is for your poison to be more effective in a variety of situations.

You should look up what the term "Feat tax" is used for - it's more than just defensive feats and expertise. It's any feat a character requires to be effective. A poison using character does indeed suffer the poison immunity negation feat as a feat tax.

Perhaps you should look it up. Some campaigns may never even use creatures with immunity to poison. Therefore, it's not an inherent problem with the game system, only specific encounters in specific campaigns. Feat taxes are when the actual game system across the board needs to be fixed (i.e. Expertise feats).

Because it is exceptional, it isn't putting blanket immunities onto a creature type as I've mentioned again and again and again. The odd immunity I've repeatedly stated can be interesting. Blanket immunizing creatures is not.

And, again and again, I've stated this:

DMs are allowed (and encouraged) to make custom monsters. It depends on THAT monster what it's abilities are. If I decide a particular swarm can't be grabbed, then so be it. I write "Immune: grab" on the sheet and we're done.

Common sense is the worst possible argument. What is common sense to you won't be to another person.

Do you know what the word "common" means? Common sense?

When they are trying to communicate on rules, then this is the worst possible way to do anything. See many years of rules arguments across every edition of DnD.

I've seen more rules arguments over literal vs. interpreted representations of the "hard-coded rules" you so zealously defend (and yet argue against at the same time!).

I agree, but it's compensated by being vulnerable to blasts and they don't get exceptional immunities elsewhere. Personally if I did this I wouldn't give them vulnerability either.

I would. Swarms are (by definition) grouped tightly together in a mob of something. It makes sense for them to be vulnerable to attacks that can hit all of them entirely (vs. say, a group of individual minions for example).

That's really what it boils down to. Again, what none of those arguing for this have ever acknowledged is what *you* find silly might be entirely different for someone else.

No, I have acknowledged this. In the "swarm thread" I said it was very important for the group to come to a consensus on "tone" and "color" and "setting". If we all agree that we're playing an anime style game, then that's going to work well. If one of us wants an anime style game, and the other a classic fantasy, then something is wrong here.

That's the problem. Not common sense, but communication.

There is nothing about "common sense" or "Obviously ridiculous" here except to you. I for example think swarms in reality wouldn't be affected by a whole bunch of things, including critical hits and similar. If you're going to just rant about grab, you need to explain why you think a swarm can be critically hit with a dagger or a sling first.

First, I'm not ranting about "grab" - I'm ranting about using the fiction to dictate what is possible and not some rule. If I want to push a swarm of rats, and come up with a reasonable method, you're suggesting because the "rules" dictate I can't, I shouldn't be allowed to.

I'm arguing for the opposite.

Or they take a feat tax and play their character, because the "feat tax" makes the poison immunity problem irrelevant. They just have to pay a feat for it. That's why I called it a feat tax: If you play a poison character, you need that feat or you're going to suffer heavily.

Only if every creature in the game has poison immunity. Otherwise, no.

Also I hope the DM isn't using a LOT of creatures, because poison immunity isn't confined to just undead you realize. Also I build my encounters based on what is logical and what suits the story and location.

Yeah... I realize that. I did provide the example of over 1200 "official" creatures with immunities. I think I've done my research on immunities in 4E.

You can build your encounters in whatever way you want, but that's irrelevant to the topic of communicating with each other about expectations for style, tone and color - in addition, what type of campaign it is.

Given I don't go giving things random immunities, I've never had a problem with that making PCs completely irrelevant in 4E.

Given that I don't give creatures "random" immunities, I've never had this problem either.

And yet in MM3 they directly acknowledged that resistances weren't an interesting mechanic and stopped using them? Did you notice the Volcanic Dragon isn't immune/resistant to fire and neither is the fire elemental?

They did? On what page do they say, "resistances aren't interesting". The only thing I've heard from on this is I think Mike Mearls saying something about how to design resistances to coincide with a "themed" campaign, like an "Frozen North" campaign where the wizard takes mostly Cold spells and all the creatures have cold resistance.

There's a logical solution. Get rid of all the cold resistance for that campaign. Easy. Done. And, this is exactly what I've said from the get-go. DM's, suit the monsters to your campaign. Go from there.

Maybe they've realized that immunities and resistances are not that interesting from a game design view and are moving away from it? Hmmm.....

Maybe not. Good speculation though.

But they didn't, so I will argue with what is there and not what isn't there. Also I would still think that was dumb, because you'll notice I am not defending poison immunity being so prevalent despite the designers putting it there.

Kinda blows your whole argument out of the water doesn't it?

Not really. Your argument is that "immunities are boring, don't use them" - my argument is, "immunities are a functional part of 4E's design, use them when appropriate".

There's a marked difference.

Immunities are boring. Powers that interact with things are far better. I again bring up the Earthquake Dragon (could easily just be immune to forced movement) and the Volcanic Dragon (could easily just be immune to fire). But wait! Wizards DIDN'T give them immunities and monsters started to figure out "Hey, maybe a more interesting interaction with a power than saying it doesn't work is better".

You just keep repeating the same thing over and over instead of addressing my examples and issues (again, you deleted most of them).

Those designs worked for those monsters. Great.

This is a mirror of your own flawed "It's common sense" argument, where you still haven't acknowledged the actual flaw that what can be common sense to one person in terms of an immunity won't be to another. For example, you don't think a swarm can be grabbed but I still can't fathom why you think it can be critically hit. If you're going to start applying one thing, the slippery slope is going to come in really quick.

First of all, I never said one person's campaign should have all the same rules as another. In fact, I suggested a campaign where undead don't have poison immunity. You didn't address this. Instead, you make blanket statements about stuff I never even said. Hilarious.

Secondly, I never said a "swarm can't be grabbed". Click on my name. Read back over my posts. Carefully. Read. Them. Then, come back here and let's talk about my stance on grabbing a swarm.

For example, you wonder why I don't think a swarm should be critically hit: yet "common sense" suggests to me that a dagger or a sling isn't going to bother a huge horde of flies at all.

I can. You hit MORE flies that time than others... Duh.

Just like you don't think they can be grabbed, I don't think they should be able to be critically hit (as there are numerous individuals without a common "weak point" in the whole lot).

Well, I think putting a blanket statement, as you like to do, on all swarms is never a good idea (as I suggest, take each monster for that monster). Certainly, there might be a swarm out there that can't be critically hit. But, critical hit simply means "good hit". *shrug* Certainly, if you can "hit it" then you can "hit it good". Lol.

The difference is I don't subject "common sense" on my players: Merely the rules, especially when them not being immune to crits doesn't bother the game in the least balance wise (or add anything if I make them immune).

Sure you do. Every time you play I bet.

To you it makes no sense. To me I can think of numerous explanations, Draco for example has already given a few in this thread and ultimately it doesn't bother me overly that much. They have a strong advantage and make up for it with a strong disadvantage, unlike the insubstantial weakening wraith for example.

Sure.

When you respond line by line to something, can you actually read all the arguments I've made before doing that? Because I point this out for you and in fact, I have already mentioned other creatures immune to being knocked prone in previous posts. I am unsure what point you're trying to make here.

I'm glad you agree.

I love the tone here.

Thanks. Perception is reality as they say.

When used in very very very limited amounts.

This doesn't make any sense. If those "super special snowflakes" exist, and those are "good (not boring)" and I decide to use them in each encounter I throw out... That's not very, very, very limited amounts.

Let's see: All undead and a whole bunch of other monsters being immune to poison = boring.

! We're going up against undead! Let's plan for that guy's! Wizard, don't prep your poison daily. Use fire or radiant!

*shrug*

Sounds good to me.

Torog and a literal handful of other monsters being immune to prone = interesting.

I don't get this logic. I really don't. Maybe that's just me. Sorry. I tried to understand.

Scale matters. Something that comes up rarely and isn't even predictable by creature type is interesting. Something that comes up all the time from certain creatures isn't interesting. IMO.

Agreed. Like, swarms being immune to forced movement. Lol. You're arguing against me and for me. I love it.

But at the same time, part of my argument is based on the fact Wizards aren't even going to "logically" give things immunities. Take fire elementals, I take it you've noticed they aren't fire resistant and instead have other "punishment" mechanics. Same with the Volcanic Dragon and Earthquake Dragon.

All undead are immune to poison as far as I can tell. That seems to be an internal "logic" in the system. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see WotC doing that for a reason. Not randomly as you suggest.

These are infinitely more interesting than immunities/resistances ever were.

To you.

That's exactly what you're doing.

No, I'm not.

And there is already a precedent for epic level creatures doing so little damage they are basically ineffective against PCs of their level. If you're going to argue that the monster design in 4E got it right out of the gate, you're on a losing argument here. Especially when more recent books are toning down on immunities and resistances in favor of other mechanics.

I never played Epic. But, this is a math flaw (same as those feat taxes...) that breaks the system.

Second, I never once said "4E got it right out of the gate". How in the world did you get that from my post? I quite specifically said that I didn't like "swarms being resistant to melee attacks". So... Why are you going to say I'm arguing for something I never argued for?

Like really, I've been debating with you for like a week now on these forums and you have a serious problem with putting words into people's mouths in order to supplement your argument. It's whack man. Let's not do that.

A point you've continuously ignored.

Can you cite examples?

Here we have the ultimate coup de grace to every argument you've made. I don't think it makes sense for a swarm to be critically hit, they have numerous individuals, no sensitive organs in an overall mass of billions of flies and what IS that rogue doing to get sneak attack on a gigantic mass of flies/cockroaches/spiders anyway? Neither of those make any more sense than grabbing the swarm, yet you think that grabbing a swarm makes no sense yet happily think they can be critically hit by a dagger (a sharp pointy thing).

I explained how this worked up thread. It makes sense to me.

The inherent flaw in your entire argument is now exposed.

Not really.

What is common sense to you isn't to someone else.

No. Common sense is just that. Literally. Do I need to post the definition?

Common sense, based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they "sense" as their common natural understanding.

It really is that. Common sense.

I think swarms being immune to crits would be "common sense", but I don't inflict it on my players because I don't see a point. It is common sense, but it adds nothing to the game or to the encounter. Neither is making them immune to grab.

Perhaps you need to re-evaluate crits. I'm not really sure what you think they are.

It depends entirely on your personal decisions about how you think the fluff should work. That's what I'm telling you. Reverse the argument and apply it to critical hits. I don't think they should be critically hit, but yet you have no problem with a dagger somehow critically hitting a swarm of thousands of creatures.

Agreed. I don't have a problem with that.

Yet you're telling me you're doing this "For the fiction!!!!" and to make the game logical or something? Yet you're completely ignoring something else just as completely illogical happening right next to it!

Except, critting a swarm is not illogical. At all.

It's just hilariously inconsistent.

Only in your skewed point of view on crits. Sorry.

It's not hyperbole it's better game design: Something that Wizards showed me and not what I came up with personally. The Volcanic Dragon and Earthquake Dragons are the epitome of how I want 4E monster design to go. Don't make them immune - make them interact with powers in an interesting way by doing something else (the dragons knocking prone on forced movement is a key example in my argument).

Sweet. Then you have a lot of work to do. 1270 monsters to convert...

This enhances an encounter and makes those monsters unique. This is also, going back why I don't mind UNIQUE immunities. What I dislike is blanket immunities over an entire subset of creatures. I've explained that multiple times now as well.

And, now I've explained multiple times, I never said anything about blanket immunities. In fact, I suggested making creatures that currently have blanket immunities and making them not immune (like the undead example).

Pretty straightforward actually.

 

[P1NBACK]

My 2 cp regarding common sense as the arbiter of rules. Common sense is highly dependent on a person's knowledge and experience. What is common sense to someone would be non-sense to somebody else.

Nah. "Realism" maybe, but not common sense. That's why I never use "realism" as a gauge for playing games.

For example, let's take overland travel in a D&D-esque game. The distance travelled in a day is determined by a creature's speed. This seems reasonable at first glance, a faster creature should travel farther than a slower one. This is where most people's expectation ends. Except that travel over long distance is much more dependent on endurance than on short term speed and (unknown to most people) humans are near the top of the endurance totem pole on earth. To an anthropologist who has studied primitive hunting, the "common sense" idea that an antelope or a horse can travel farther than a human in a few days would violate his common sense. Humans outrun horses in a marathon, not the other way around.

When would overland travel come up in a game of D&D outside of generalizing travel times? It won't. If it does, because of a skill challenge, you start making skill checks. Endurance would be one of the primary skills in that challenge.

Yah know?

You're trying to implant "realism" onto the game. That's not really what I'm talking about. As mentioned earlier, people have many different influences for their game, from classic fantasy literature, to mythology, to anime, to whatever. It's something most people don't do when they sit down to play D&D (especially for a Wednesday night game of Encounters, that's pretty much a board-game exercise in a D&D minis-like experience), but you should communicate your goals for the game and what sort of representation in the fiction things like "powers" and whatnot actually represent.

The latest D&D design is trying to give more baseline by including more fiction with the powers (notice those new feats have a line or two about what they actually mean? yeah...).

 

[Aegeri]

This is hilarious. At least I quoted you. You cut out half my text.

Because honestly, you repeat yourself a great deal without adding a new argument while simultaneously ignoring that what you're writing is addressed by an argument made in the same post a little later. I can make one point and address 5-6 paragraphs you write, because you've basically made the same argument five times in one post.

I feel I have addressed most of your arguments comprehensively, so will not respond line by line repetitively! If I delete anything, it's because I feel I've responded to it sufficiently previously and have nothing else to add.

Melee Training is not a feat tax.

For non-strength characters melee training is commonly accepted as a feat tax. You can go to CharOp on the official boards and argue with them about it if you like. You won't find much agreement with you that it isn't a feat tax (and I happen to agree, especially if you have a warlord in the party or anyone who grants MBAs).

Do you know what the word "common" means? Common sense?

More sarcasm instead of an argument. I would point out that again, you already can't get agreement with many people in this thread about what "common" sense is on the actual topic - those saying swarms shouldn't be grabbed are hardly holding an overwhelming majority in this thread you should realize.

We're having a debate (and it's not just me arguing) because there are a wide variety of posters in this forum, in this thread and a good chunk of us can't agree with the other on what "common sense" is.

That you still cannot see this despite all these posts of disagreement with your views from separate posters (not just me) is proving my point. To YOU grabbing a swarm is silly. To others (like me) they don't care and it isn't anything important to them.

If I want to push a swarm of rats, and come up with a reasonable method, you're suggesting because the "rules" dictate I can't, I shouldn't be allowed to.

I've never actually argued this. I would prefer if you argued things that were actually my arguments. I am sticking solely to the concept of "Can a swarm be grabbed" and if there are more interesting ways than blanket immunity to represent a resistance to being grabbed.

That's my argument.

Yeah... I realize that. I did provide the example of over 1200 "official" creatures with immunities. I think I've done my research on immunities in 4E.

Over half of which are undead, nearly all of whom are poison immune and so your list of, what is actually 1270 immune monsters, has an enormous chunk of it from one group with a fixed immunity (50% or so).

There are 4059 creatures in 4E. 1200 of them are immune and 682 of them are Undead. If we split the remaining immunities up amongst all types, like fire, radiant and such we'll find poison is the predominant immunity. Because, you know, 50% of those creatures immune to something are undead and are hence immune to poison.

There are handfuls immune to conditions like prone, forced movement and similar though. They're the interesting ones and I don't mind them as I've already stated.

They did?

Rodney Thompson:

Actually, one of the things we tried to promote in this MM (at least in the case of the volcano dragon and other catastrophics) was that they have elemental deterrents instead of resistances. It's still a bad idea to hit the volcano dragon with fire, it's just not a "I wasted my time with that spell" bad idea, but instead, "Well, I hit him with fire, and so he did damage to everyone in the aura."

This helps not only eliminate the "wasted turn" feeling that resistances to cause, but also helps speed up combat; instead of reducing one target's hit points by less, both sides got their hp decreased.

He also elaborates further:

Hm. It's hard to recall exactly (this is just one small thing in a big book, a book I was done with last August!), but from my recollection it was something that came out of collaboration between design and development both. We've actually been talking about the role of resistances and vulnerabilities for a while now, so it was really just an evolution of design. It probably started with Mike, but I know we spent a lot of time talking about the catastrophic dragons' deterrence mechanics, even involving people all the way up the chain as high as Bill Slavicsek at one point.

I do know Mike's not fond of resistances (maybe I'll nudge him to pop by here and talk about why), while I'm *mostly* OK with them. I say mostly because (in my opinion) sometimes it's OK because it is appropriate for the monster. The trick with resistances in my book is that you've got to give vulnerabilities or similar weaknesses to counteract them. We don't always do that, though, and I think that's where we get fights that slow down when the wizard and the warlock just aren't damaging the fire archon, for example. It might just be me, but I like a little bit of reward for having the right spell at the right time; I like that the cleric says "bring 'em on" to undead because of radiant vulnerability. It's a little bit of classic D&D that I think falls by the wayside just by the nature of how easy it is to pick resistances. It's easy to say "What should this be resistant to?" but forget to figure out where to put the rewarding weakness.

So yes, my argument is actually based on the way the game is being designed - from the impressions of the people who designed it.

Not really. Your argument is that "immunities are boring, don't use them" - my argument is, "immunities are a functional part of 4E's design, use them when appropriate".

That is not my argument.

My argument summarized in a single sentence: Immunities are boring, don't use them if you can think of a better and more interesting mechanic instead - or - they are suitably rare.

That's my argument in a nutshell. Also that's a great example, for your below comment of putting words in my mouth.

Well, I think putting a blanket statement, as you like to do, on all swarms is never a good idea (as I suggest, take each monster for that monster).

I agree, but that's not the argument in this thread and not what I have argued against.

Like really, I've been debating with you for like a week now on these forums and you have a serious problem with putting words into people's mouths in order to supplement your argument. It's whack man. Let's not do that.

It's funny, because that's what you did to me just in this very post you complained about it. In any event, my point seems to have been missed here. I'm saying that just because a bunch of things have immunities previously doesn't make it a good or great design decision. Quite the opposite in fact, because 4Es design is improving all the time and one area it has is in the reduction or resistances/immunities.

See quote from RT above. Newer monsters tend to have interesting or odd mechanics to things: Not outright immunity or resistances (which seem to have been toned down a bit).

Can you cite examples?

You have never once acknowledged in any post the difference in monster design mechanics now - where creatures lose resistances over other mechanics. However, I didn't realize you were apparently unaware this is something Wizards actually are consciously doing, making this argument a little less relevant. So I can see why that would not be as significant to you as it is to me! I have something of an obsession with monster design, so I followed the reasoning for the lack of resistances on newer monsters very closely.

I explained how this worked up thread. It makes sense to me.

And critically hitting a swarm with a sling doesn't to me. Just in the same way grabbing a swarm makes no sense to you. We could do this all day really, but I've already made all the point I need to with this

Except, critting a swarm is not illogical. At all.

In my fictional view of the DnD world it's just as illogical as grabbing a swarm.

Only in your skewed point of view on crits. Sorry.

I could have wrote, with equal sarcasm and derision to your arguments "Only in your skewed point of view on grabbing. Sorry." and accomplished the exact same point. Again, proving my argument on why "common sense" is a poor way of ruling anything because your view is going to be inherently different to mine. I don't think critically hitting a swarm is very probable with a dagger or a sling. You apparently won't buy grabbing a swarm, but will accept a tiny dagger managing to seriously injure (and sneak attack) a swarm of flies.

I view both as ridiculous, but as they make the game fun and playable, I don't care. If I did care, I'd make a cool mechanic that made it interesting and a relevant thing - not make them immune.

 

[P1NBACK]

Because honestly, you repeat yourself a great deal without adding a new argument while simultaneously ignoring that what you're writing is addressed by an argument made in the same post a little later. I can make one point and address 5-6 paragraphs you write, because you've basically made the same argument five times in one post.

Lol. Man. That's good because there's a massive chunk taken out of my post that you just ignored that I had never said before. Yet, we hear your "immunities are boring" argument a million-times over. Funny.

I feel I have addressed most of your arguments comprehensively, so will not respond line by line repetitively! If I delete anything, it's because I feel I've responded to it sufficiently previously and have nothing else to add.

You haven't. But, feel free to ignore my points and continue to put words into my mouth.

For non-strength characters melee training is commonly accepted as a feat tax. You can go to CharOp on the official boards and argue with them about it if you like. You won't find much agreement with you that it isn't a feat tax (and I happen to agree, especially if you have a warlord in the party or anyone who grants MBAs).

Non-Str characters weren't designed to be good at OAs. That's not an inherent flaw in the system. It's a give and take of class design. Wizards not being as good at striking in melee combat as a Fighter? Yeah. Makes sense to me.

More sarcasm instead of an argument.

My post is chock full of argument. Forgive me if I respond to some of your comments in a humorous manner - they are humorous.

I would point out that again, you already can't get agreement with many people in this thread about what "common" sense is on the actual topic - those saying swarms shouldn't be grabbed are hardly holding an overwhelming majority in this thread you should realize.

So, you agree that a man (say a human fighter) should be allowed to grab a gargantuan angry mob of people? Just answer me that. Thanks.

We're having a debate (and it's not just me arguing) because there are a wide variety of posters in this forum, in this thread and a good chunk of us can't agree with the other on what "common sense" is.

I think we can. Is it common sense for a single human to grab and immobilize an entire mob of people with his single hand?

You're confusing common sense with rules definitions. It's clear we have a different definition of "crit".

Let me define it: Crit happens on a 20 and deals max damage. It's a good hit. If you can hit something, you can surely crit it. Can I hit a swarm of flies? Sure. So, can I crit it? Absolutely. Common sense.

That you still cannot see this despite all these posts of disagreement with your views from separate posters (not just me) is proving my point. To YOU grabbing a swarm is silly. To others (like me) they don't care and it isn't anything important to them.

Once again, putting words into my mouth. I never said grabbing a swarm is silly. I said sometimes it doesn't make sense. See my example above. I'm interested in your response.

I've never actually argued this. I would prefer if you argued things that were actually my arguments. I am sticking solely to the concept of "Can a swarm be grabbed" and if there are more interesting ways than blanket immunity to represent a resistance to being grabbed.

I'm using that as an example of how the "rules as written" are meaningless when the fiction trumps it. If someone can logically explain how they "push" a swarm, sorry rule!, you're gone!

And, you should probably get back over to the "swarm thread" if you want to only argue about "can a swarm be grabbed" - this thread is about house rules.

Over half of which are undead, nearly all of whom are poison immune and so your list of, what is actually 1270 immune monsters, has an enormous chunk of it from one group with a fixed immunity (50% or so).

There are 4059 creatures in 4E. 1200 of them are immune and 682 of them are Undead. If we split the remaining immunities up amongst all types, like fire, radiant and such we'll find poison is the predominant immunity. Because, you know, 50% of those creatures immune to something are undead and are hence immune to poison.

Thanks for that analysis. It highlights my point quite clearly.

There are handfuls immune to conditions like prone, forced movement and similar though. They're the interesting ones and I don't mind them as I've already stated.

Sweet. Me neither.

Rodney Thompson

:



He also elaborates further:

Yup. That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. It depends on the monster. Thanks!

So yes, my argument is actually based on the way the game is being designed - from the impressions of the people who designed it.

Sweet. Me too apparently.

My argument summarized in a single sentence: Immunities are boring, don't use them if you can think of a better and more interesting mechanic instead - or - they are suitably rare.

So, I didn't put words in your mouth. You just added a little clause.

I agree, but that's not the argument in this thread and not what I have argued against.

You certainly have. You said a swarm should never be immune to grab and should always be immune to forced movement.

Please, clarify me if I'm wrong.

And, I've said repeatedly, it all depends on the monster.

I'm saying that just because a bunch of things have immunities previously doesn't make it a good or great design decision. Quite the opposite in fact, because 4Es design is improving all the time and one area it has is in the reduction or resistances/immunities.

Cool. I agree. And, I'd also say that because a monster has immunities or resistances doesn't make that poor design. It depends on the monster and the campaign!

See quote from RT above. Newer monsters tend to have interesting or odd mechanics to things: Not outright immunity or resistances (which seem to have been toned down a bit).

RT said it depends on the monster. I agree with him.

You have never once acknowledged in any post the difference in monster design mechanics now - where creatures lose resistances over other mechanics. However, I didn't realize you were apparently unaware this is something Wizards actually are consciously doing, making this argument a little less relevant.

No... I was conscious of this. Hence me referencing Mike Mearls blog - which RT referenced...

I just don't think it's relevant and never argued against losing resistances. In fact, I argued for it when I said a rat swarm could be pushed if the fiction made sense.

And critically hitting a swarm with a sling doesn't to me. Just in the same way grabbing a swarm makes no sense to you. We could do this all day really, but I've already made all the point I need to with this

Can you hit a swarm with a sling? Can you hit it well? Yes. You can.

In my fictional view of the DnD world it's just as illogical as grabbing a swarm.

Which is weird... You can't hit a swarm well in your fictional view?

I could have wrote, with equal sarcasm and derision to your arguments "Only in your skewed point of view on grabbing. Sorry." and accomplished the exact same point.

Not really. My view on crits are quite simple. See above.

Again, proving my argument on why "common sense" is a poor way of ruling anything because your view is going to be inherently different to mine.

It's the only way of ruling anything, in my opinion.

I don't think critically hitting a swarm is very probable with a dagger or a sling. You apparently won't buy grabbing a swarm, but will accept a tiny dagger managing to seriously injure (and sneak attack) a swarm of flies.

Again. Again. Again. Again. Let's repeat this Again for Aegeri.

I never said you can't grab a swarm. I said, it's perfectly reasonable for some swarms not to be grabbed, just like it's perfectly reasonable for some swarms to be pushed.

I view both as ridiculous, but as they make the game fun and playable, I don't care. If I did care, I'd make a cool mechanic that made it interesting and a relevant thing - not make them immune.

I'm glad.

 

[Aegeri]

There is only one thing you bought up that I haven't really addressed conclusively in that post.

Non-Str characters weren't designed to be good at OAs.

Except for the classes that are extremely good in melee and then forget how they use a weapon outside their turn? While I don't houserule melee training for free, I do agree the arguments people make that a battlemind or swordmage should be able to make effective opportunity attacks without needing a feat is a compelling argumet. Of course, Wizards are addressing this (I hope, at least Mike Mearls said they were looking into options), but it also funnily enough fits into this thread very easily.

A melee weapon based defender like the swordmage and battlemind that is equal to the fighter on their turn and utterly incompetent outside of it on an opportunity attack, (often important for a defender) is a pretty curious flaw in 4E. It's almost certainly something that I will do something about, because unlike the tangents on swarms and other things - this heavily impacts non-strength defenders ability to perform their roles. I agree a wizard doesn't need a good OA, but a battlemind and swordmage does. Otherwise they have difficulty actually being a defender.