NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5309119" data-attributes="member: 78116">It really isn't, for example in a solo swarm or similar. Being useless for one or two monsters if okay, being useless in an entire encounter is a different thing. Believe me, I can make challenging encounters in 4E and I feel I don't need to make a single character useless in any manner.We're talking about situation X, which is what character Y does as their primary thing and so what happens is that character Y is useless in situation X. That's the entire point. Most builds in the game are not specific, but if you say, make a creature immune to marking then the fighter needs a way around that. If it just cannot be marked then it's not an interesting encounter - that's boring lazy design and should be avoided at all cost.Instead the fighter should have to be in the area the creature guards, attack its master to draw the attention, suffer a more enraged creature's attacks (Heroslayer Hydra) or something else. Something interesting than saying "No that just doesn't work". One is interesting and fun, the other is boring and doesn't add to the encounter at all. I'm arguing "Let's keep it that way".At the games detriment as well. The sheer number and variety of creatures outright immune to poison for example. This doesn't mean I can't understand things like undead and many elementals being immune to poison, but it's not an interesting mechanic. MM3 showed me you could make something that should be immune, resistant to X and make a better, deeper and more interesting mechanic.Would I run a Volcanic Dragon with 15 fire resistance (snore) or the same dragon with its current triggered power that deals its aura damage when hit by a fire attack? One of these mechanics is completely boring, the other makes a battle more exciting, interesting and highlights tactical choice. I know what I go with every time!I never said there isn't a good reason to have them from a logical point of view: But I do agree from a game and fun point of view there is a fantastic reason not to have them. I would far prefer the concept that a grabbed swarm deals extra damage, has access to another power or does something interesting.Saying "lawl it's immune" is boring.I 100%, absolutely, completely and utterly disagree. I disagree so vehemently with this statement it's impossible to even give you the degree of magnitude as to how much I do.Volcanic Dragons triggered action? Interesting.Immunity to Fire? Totally boring.Earthquake Dragons mark and knock prone aura? Interesting.Immunity to Forced movement? Totally boring - but again it's so rare that in the odd encounter it's quite interesting.On the other hand, sometimes I am okay with immunities like swarms.Immunity to Forced movement from melee/ranged attacks = Interesting BECAUSE they are still vulnerable to bursts and blasts. It rewards tactical choices.Immunity to Grab over a group of creatures? Absolutely boring and adds utterly nothing to the game. Where is the choice? Where is this adding to the tactical aspect of the encounter? All it does is start adding exception based design into the game for entire groups of monsters - leading to the same absurd problems we had with creatures like undead being immune to crits/sneak attacks and similar.Because it's boring.Instead powers or similar that make some swarms interact with grabs are more interesting. They don't straight up make anything useless, but they do make it a tactical choice without making an entirely characters build useless.The only time I agree with making something immune or immensely resistant is if it adds to the game. Solos being immune or very resistant to daze, dominate and stun for example. Lockdowns where it does nothing all combat makes it a boring, uninteresting encounter and a very lame "flop" when your BBEG doesn't inflict a single point of damage on the party. Why does a swarm need to be immune to being grabbed to make a more interesting encounter. That's what you need to sell me on.Powers can let you grab creatures that are bigger than yourself - this is how the brawler fighter works.This isn't correct, a phasing creature can move through anything and that includes other creatures (so it can move through enemies spaces). Phasing is a very handy quality.That is 100% correct and I understand people who make things immune. My DMing style is absolutely different, if I make something immune I think "Can I instead make that a fun, interesting part of the encounter and tactically relevant?".I've been inspired by MM3 creatures. Creatures like the Earthquake Dragon and the Volcanic Dragon caught my imagination. What do you honestly believe would be more fun to fight, the current earthquake dragon or "Just make him blanket immune to forced movement". I honestly cannot fathom the blanket immunity creature being anywhere near as fun, interesting and great an encounter. Now whenever I make a monster, an encounter or similar I just think "I hate immunities, how can I make something interesting?".Of course I get a bit stuck, I don't really know how to make poison immunity feel interesting for undead for example. That is one thing I might in the end just let bygones by bygones. But I'll never allow that to creep into everything else. I'll never make oozes immune to prone (unless I can make it interesting), I'll never just decide to make a creature immune to grab (unless I can make it interesting) and so on. Like the groans and general eye rolling that occur whenever someone uses a poison power - just due to how prevalent the immunity is they're just about worthless.But you can. So you're now getting into the slippery slope here. In every single case, I fail to see how making a characters abilities useless is "fun". Unless it has immensely good justification, like Ogremochs immunity to forced movement or in the tomb of horrors (MAJOR SPOILER)[spoiler]Acererak being immune to prone so that he can keep mobile and away from the PCs in his pillared hall environment[/spoiler]I can see the point. Blanket immunity on an entire group of creatures - however rare you want to argue they are - just doesn't seem to be adding to "fun". Solos I can see being exceptional and deserving of exceptional immunities to PCs powers. Mooks? Only if it is very rare and really well justified. Even so, immunity is boring. A new interesting way of interacting with the combat (Star of Ulban, dominating whoever dominates it or the Earthquake Dragons aura against forced movement) is far better - and easily more fun from my experience.I absolutely agree.I absolutely disagree immunities make anything more fun.I absolutely believe that interesting power interactions - like the Earthquake dragon are a far superior model. I would personally give the swarm a power that interacted with being grabbed - not making it impossible but putting a twist on it.It's fun to be absolutely useless and contribute nothing to an hour long combat?That's news to me.Personally I think a forced movement based character fighting an earthquake dragon is going to have a more challenging, interesting and fun time, than that same character whose entire thing is useless against a tembo (immune to forced movement - albeit a solo). That's just the way I like to run games more now though. Less immunities in general and more interactions. Don't make something plain useless, put a spin on it that makes it detrimental without being useless or just not working. In no way am I saying this is wrong to do or "Badwrongfun", but I am vehemently against the idea because from a design point 4E gives far more options to make this interesting.</blockquote>

Verification