Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5306586" data-attributes="member: 78116">Because swarms are directly on the flipside vulnerable to bursts and blasts - something that even a melee fighter can get with a power like come and get it. Being immune to prone is, just "immune to prone" or "immune to grab". Additionally you've missed the core point that some of the ways some characters inherently function is based on conditions like grab. If you make swarms immune to grab, there is an entire character build that is suddenly utterly worthless in the entire fight (as an example). A more interesting rule would make it so that a grabbed swarm does something to whoever is grabbing it (enhanced damage or similar).This is more interesting mechanically and gameplay wise. It doesn't invalidate and make an entire player at the table worthless that encounter. He'll take more damage sure, but his character still actually functions and isn't as useful as having effectively a dood who rolls a d20 for a pittance of damage every round. This is one reason I love that the volcanic dragon is *not* resistant or immune to fire, instead having another mechanic that deals with someone who hits it with a fire power. It's more interesting and produces a more mechanically distinct fight than "This makes X powers useless" or "This is just ignored anyway" (as is often the case with straight damage resistance/immunity). Immunities to conditions should be exceptional or particularly justified mechanically. It reminds me of sneak attack in 3rd edition, I have a penchant for undead, constructs and similar in that campaign. I remember how frustrated/bored the rogue player got when he was useless 90% of the time. Likewise, in 4E my list of monsters that my players hated the most are all condition immune in some manner. All of them were justified such as being powerful solos or specific monsters - but they were not the norm. It made them stand out from the chaff as exceptional and special. When all the chaff are immune to conditions willy nilly "just because we feel it should be that way" it just doesn't make this interesting anymore. It also means PCs have to play a guessing game as to what powers will work half the time - turning DnD into a "guess what conditions work" game like Final Fantasy. Not something I approve of.I play DnD because I absolutely love the consistency and balance in the combat system in 4th edition. I love the tactical gameplay and how it all fits together. The story, setting and other aspects on top of this is something that I find adds to it and I love - but I love good challenging tactical battles. Story and the feeling of the world drive those combats for me, justifying them and tying everything together from a narrative point of view. PCs with an invested stake in those battles is important, otherwise there is no reason to fight them but the mechanics have to back that fight up. Your immense badass needs to be an immense badass, if he falls over in one round that's not fun and satisfying for anyone. What I want from a game like DnD - as opposed to say Call of Cthulhu or Promethean the Created - is very fun tactical combat that represents hitting monsters and taking their stuff. Being balanced, fun and consistent in that is a good thing - a large amount of exception based immunities doesn't help that much.</blockquote>

Verification