Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5314525" data-attributes="member: 78116">Yes, they're called "Feat taxes". You may have missed where most people completely hate feat taxes and think they are detrimental to the game. I mean your argument is "You have to take a feat or be useless", which is the definition of what we should try to avoid with feats. Poison is exceptional as well because not only does poison immunity utterly ruin your damage types, it completely negates ALL non-damaging effects of the power as well. This makes poison immunity an awful double whammy, even compared to fire or other energy types immunity.There are 20 swarms spread over several encounters in the first part of one my campaigns. It's insect/arachnid based initially and so, as many swarms are insects there are therefore a good chunk of swarms in that part of my game. "Swarms" not being a common creature type is irrelevant. I make the game and I decide what is in it. If I decide I want to run a delve into a crypt, it doesn't matter a damn if undead are "uncommon" in the game, because that's the predominant enemy. The theme of the adventure dictates the enemies: Not how common they are in the book. So if I adopted such positions as this thread, certain players would be absolutely useless in that game. Swarms are also already awesome, why do you think a creature that gets 1/2 damage from all melee and ranged attacks needs a further buffing in terms of resistance?It's also capable of being solved in one round of combat - often a single check. Traps have numerous fundamental differences to creatures as well, they can't be affected by conditions or marked for example. So this is an irrelevant comparison.I agree, but it's boring to make it immune and doesn't add a single thing. Also, as I said "Rarity" depends of the theme of the adventure. Swarms are not rare in the first adventure in one of my campaigns as swarms are perfect creature types for insects.No it doesn't.This is the perfect example of missing the point entirely, PCs can be allowed to retrain options they find completely useless. You can't retrain a creature making your powers or core class features utterly useless. ESPECIALLY when it's the DM and not the default games assumptions that have made those useless.That's why this point is fundamentally flawed as a response to my argument. Except to the player who is screwed over by it. Or grabbing a phasing creature, or critically hitting an undead creature without vital organs and such forth. I mean, there are so many holes in the way 4E does that once we start this we're never going to end until we might as well pretend we're playing Final Fantasy. Where every creature is a ton of random immunities to anything interesting and the game becomes a contest of figuring out what debuffs actually work on it. Incidentally, that's pretty boring gameplay.Once again, I invoke the slippery slope argument. As mentioned however, I'm into making things interesting and immunities are flat out boring to me. Now if the ooze expands its size and makes difficult terrain (or a damaging zone) when knocked prone (as it spreads out when out of shape) now we're actually making something that's interesting. Just saying "Your power doesn't work" = yawwwwwwn. Basically, if you can say "Making an entirely awesome, fluffy and fun build like the Brawler fighter utterly useless is good" then I can never ever agree with you on this point. I don't care about the rarity in the book, as I'm well aware that published adventures and my own have swarms as essential features of the encounter making the context important. When you make an entire class build useless in an encounter, you need to assess the worth of that rule and why it's being implemented. There are lots of ways to do something for an hour (the rough time of one encounter in 4E) and not enjoy yourself - DnD shouldn't be one of them.</blockquote>

Verification