Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5306536" data-attributes="member: 51942">It is and I agree!  It's just that I don't want to sacrifice fluff consistency for rules consistency.  I like the limited amount of arbitrary workaround abilities (i.e. why does this thing have truesight again?).  But I don't like it when the fluff becomes inconsistent - and is actively suggested to be OK to be made inconsistent ("just think of some explanation") - at the cost of what would have been a rather minor immunity.How often is it important to grab a swarm?  How often is it important to trip an ooze?  There's nothing wrong with banning those occurences by means of immunities - or when you forget to, to suggest the rules should be ignored rather than the fluff in odd cases.Immunities and other wholesale changes are particularly bad when they pervade the system for little reason (*ahem* solo's...). When used in moderation to support the description and narrative, they're fine.You don't need 3e's approach of deriving as much as possible from first principles to have consistency.  You can have a simple game and a believable game.  That's what we can aim for - we don't need to willfully discard any believability just because we can't achieve perfect believability, especially since there's so little to be gained and so much to lose by giving it up.</blockquote>