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="eamon" data-source="post: 5314640" data-attributes="member: 51942">Wow, that isn't what I expected!  A house-rule is campaign-dependant, and I don't think that just changing swarms would do it there.  Of course, if swarm immunities were in core, so might be countermeasures; and I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be any of those!Right, and in all campaigns I've ever played in or DM's swarms have never been a predominant creature type.  You know, particularly if swarms are predominant, I'd expect the DM to want to expand the rules concerning them; add flavor, tactics, countermeasures, and more detailed combat mechanics.  But, to each his own.That's false; you're misrepresenting what I said, which explicitly mentioned that such rules were not intended as major balance changers and that in the unlikely event they would be in your campaign, you'd need to take other balancing actions.  Again, you're ignoring what I said, the relevant bit being here that you should not only be upfront about all such rules, but actively solicit discussion by the players. People won't pick options that conflict with such house-rules, or only pick them after consultation and the necessary adaptation to make them workable.I.e., if you screw over a player, then you're not doing it right. Grabbing a phasing creature: sure, that can go too, if you want to; however, it's not clear that phasing is that precise - who says the grabber's hands dont phase along with the creature?  After all, phasing creatures aren't completely immaterial; perhaps a save would be a better idea; but in any case the effect is limited and as such it's a question of how much detail you want in your rules.  I certainly don't see the problem with critically hitting an undead creature.  Who says they don't have weak spots?  As a matter of fact, isn't it zombie lore that they can take all kinds of hits and dismemberment, but cutting off their head is final?  And indeed they're particularly vulnerable to crits in 4e, not immune.I'm only trying to address obvious nonsense, not load up every monster immunities.  For that matter, it doesn't necessarily have to be an immunity: if you're willing to reimagine a gelatinous cube as being a standing wave of sludge, say, then it really could be prone with all it's implications.  I just want the fluff to not contradict the rules given the fact that there's limited fidelity.  Fixing the fluff is fine with me, as long as you can and do (and that means do it consistently and predictably).    Sure, that's a fine solution.  I'm interested in consistency, not per se in immunities.Of course, if making an ooze prone very unattractive, it may as well be an immunity for all the tactical options that remain; worse even, since powers that prone and do other things get worse.Having targeted, selective "immunities" or "unusual effects" if you will makes things more interesting, not less, precisely because you can't just reuse the same old shtik in each combat.  That argument only works for characters that have other options, those that don't will need to find a workaround (and good class design helps here too: overly pigeonholed classes make workarounds hard to fit in).</blockquote>

Verification