Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="P1NBACK" data-source="post: 5315735" data-attributes="member: 83768">Are you saying the designers put immunity to disease/poison on undead "randomly"? You're saying, that's not good game design? I think you're wrong. I think the designers said, "Well, undead probably shouldn't get diseased because it doesn't make much sense. Ok. They're immune to disease. Note that." ... That's bad game design? Likewise, if a DM decided that tiny swarms of creatures (or massive swarms of large creatures) can't be grabbed, then that's him saying, "Well, you know this swarm of HUMANS (you know, like a gargantuan <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/monster.aspx?id=1681" target="_blank">Angry Mob</a>) ... It doesn't make much sense for them to be yah know, grabbed by one human. So, let's put immune to grab on there..." That's not bad game design. That's GOOD game design. And, I'd be just as happy saying "You can force this swarm of rats to move using that special tactic (like the example earlier of a character taking a large board and pushing a swarm of rats back...)." It's called ... Common Sense. Personally, I think half damage from melee and ranged attacks is BAD design. I'd rather someone be able to do full damage rather than grab a swarm. But, that's just me. This seems like a case where the designers were trying to make the controller more useful against swarms (a metagame design plan) instead of just going with the fictional aspects of swarms. In fact, I'm tempted to just house rule swarms to take full damage from melee and ranged, be vulnerable to area attacks, and in some cases, immune to grab. DMs are allowed (and encouraged) to make custom monsters. It depends on THAT monster what it's abilities are. If I decide a particular swarm can't be grabbed, then so be it. I write "Immune: grab" on the sheet and we're done. We're not sticking immunities "at our whim". We're saying, "Hmmm, that'd be kind of dumb if a zombie could get a disease, or a rat could get filth fever... Let's make those immune to those conditions." Guess what, that's what the designers did. Let's hope your build isn't a one-trick pony, and if it is, let's hope the DM considers this when planning the campaign. Or, better yet, collaborate and say, "DM, I want to play a poison-focused guy." "Player, sure, if we're going to do that, I don't want a ton of undead." "Hey! what about my cleric? That means my radiant powers are slightly weakened." "Alright, well, I'll pick up that feat that let's my poison work on undead (holy poison or something) and we can have some undead." "Sure, you can get that around level 4, so I'll start introducing the undead sub-plot around then." "Great!" "Great!" "Great!" And, strangely, the 4E designers use it liberally. Hmmm.... This is not a feat tax. Lol... Feat taxes are feats that you need for the inherent math in the game to work. Having your poison attacks work on poison immunity creatures is not a feat tax. That's a laughable scenario. That's like saying, "This monster has a speed of 7! That means I have to take that feat that gives me a +1 to my speed to be as fast! FEAT TAX!" Gimme a break, man. And, that has nothing to do with immunity to grab. If the designers of 4E had put "Swarms are immune to grab attacks..." in the rules, you'd be trying to defend how THAT was balanced. Gimme a break. What is interesting to YOU should not be design parameters. That's lousy design. Immunities are interesting if they make sense. Plain and simple. An undead creature being immune to disease makes sense. Yeah... That's you imposing your opinion of "interesting" on everyone else. That's not really much of an argument. If I say, "Swarms being resistant to melee attacks is boring!" Well, that's my opinion and doesn't have much to do with anything. You find that perfectly acceptable, and I'd rather have swarms take full damage from melee attacks and not be able to be grabbed (actually, I don't care if they are grabbed if it makes sense fictionally... same as I don't care if a swarm of rats are "pushed" if it makes sense fictionally). By your logic, it's perfectly acceptable for a character to "grab" a swarm if it makes NO sense, yet it's completely unacceptable for a swarm to be pushed (because... they have an interesting vulnerability that makes up for it!)... That means you're fine with shoe-horning players into tackling your encounter in the ONE prescribed manner (area attacks). Nah... I'll let them do what they want if it makes sense in the fiction (like taking up a board and pushing back a swarm [DMG page 42 FTW!]) and not let me do stuff that doesn't make sense (like a single man grabbing a gargantuan mob of humans with his bare hands). That's funny because there's nothing to offset the undead's immunity to disease/poison. I guess that's "bad design" as you suggest. Also, there are creatures immune to being knocked prone. <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/monster.aspx?id=3465" target="_blank">Whirling Blades Automaton</a> is one of them. Why? Because it makes sense. This is okay, because Torog is an exception - a precious snowflake amongst monsters and therefore his immunity makes him stand out.</blockquote>There you go... Now, you're getting the picture. Good work. All of my monsters are precious snowflakes. I'm sorry yours aren't. And, by precious snowflakes, I think you mean "interesting". Right? Hmmm. Immunity = interesting? Wait a second...! I get it. You're starting to see the list of immunities that are in 4E and you're like, "Wtf? All this <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I've been saying kind of doesn't make sense when you look at it like that..." Like swarms being immune to forced movement? Yeah. Gotcha. No one, not one single person, is suggesting giving creatures immunities based on "personal whims". Everyone is suggesting such rules based on common sense and fictional circumstances - the same reason WotC gave undead immunity to disease. It's common sense, and makes sense in the fiction. Maybe the undead in your world are actually "partially living" still. FINE. Take away their immunity to disease and poison. THAT'S OK! No, that was my core point. There's already a precedent for immunities in the game. If a DM deems it appropriate for a particular creature to be immune to a particular source of damage/effects, then so be it. If that is what works for her campaign/adventure/world, then so be it. Yeah. Like swarms being immune to forced movement. So much for that choice... What it does actually, is give players the option to come up with creative ways to tackle (pun intended) something outside of their normal "power allotment". Damn! We can't push this swarm into the furnace nearby with our powers! How could we do it? Or, maybe we should figure out another way to beat them besides pushing them! Let's lure them away from the furnace (so we don't get pushed in), and take them down in the hall, where our wizard can get up high on the stairs and blast them with AoE attacks. Huh? Swarms can move over you without you grabbing them. And, I'm sure every swarm being immune to forced movement is "boring" as well? Sure. That's fine. CHANGE them. Maybe every swarm being grabbed is "boring" to me. Fine. Change it! Not all parties. The last swarm I ran against a party didn't have any lick of area attacks. Guess what? The fight dragged on because of the stupid melee resistance. *shrug* I'll change that next time. Except if they don't have area attacks... Damnit! Now all those PC builds are USELESS! ... Not really. Why wouldn't a swarm be susceptible to critical hits? That doesn't make any sense. Nah. The melee guys who don't focus on grab in that situation get shafted. better change the whole game. Neither does making them immune to grab. Slowed, immobilized, etc.. would still work. It depends on the swarm and the fiction. That's what we've been trying to tell you. You're using hyperbole as your argument. Awesome. No. No one ever suggested saying, "Your effects don't work". What was suggested was using common sense and fictional cues to determine whether an effect should work or not (the same as WotC decided disease shouldn't "work" on undead). Just like the rat swarm example. I don't give a rat's ass (pun intended) if they are "immune" to forced movement. If the player gives me a common sense approach to pushing the rats, I'm going to pull up page 42 of my DMG and let them try it. Good. Way to houserule. I salute you.[/QUOTE]

Verification