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: 5315895" data-attributes="member: 78116">I love how you quoted me line by line and consistently missed the point nearly every time. Nor did you take the entire argument in its context, so you respond to something that I've already addressed elsewhere, pretending as if I never actually made note of it in a later response. That is really aggravating.Basically it's not.For one: No PC power in the entire game inflicts the diseased condition. It's just a strange thing to have for monsters as its never relevant to them.For another: Poison immunity is often applied willy nilly and inconsistently (some elementals are, others aren't etc).Given how prevalent it is basically turning poison using characters into needing a feat tax to use it, then yes. Also you misunderstand the term "feat tax" obviously. Melee training is a feat tax for characters in melee that don't use strength for opportunity attacks - otherwise they are heavily diminished in effectiveness (because they cannot hit anyone). Feat taxes are not solely math fixes, they are core things your character needs to be effective. If you use poison, then the feat to negate immunity is a tax.You should look up what the term "Feat tax" is used for - it's more than just defensive feats and expertise. It's any feat a character requires to be effective. A poison using character does indeed suffer the poison immunity negation feat as a feat tax.Because it is exceptional, it isn't putting blanket immunities onto a creature type as I've mentioned again and again and again. The odd immunity I've repeatedly stated can be interesting. Blanket immunizing creatures is not.Common sense is the worst possible argument. What is common sense to you won't be to another person. When they are trying to communicate on rules, then this is the worst possible way to do anything. See many years of rules arguments across every edition of DnD.I agree, but it's compensated by being vulnerable to blasts and they don't get exceptional immunities elsewhere. Personally if I did this I wouldn't give them vulnerability either.Yep, you are.That's really what it boils down to. Again, what none of those arguing for this have ever acknowledged is what *you* find silly might be entirely different for someone else. There is nothing about "common sense" or "Obviously ridiculous" here except to you. I for example think swarms in reality wouldn't be affected by a whole bunch of things, including critical hits and similar. If you're going to just rant about grab, you need to explain why you think a swarm can be critically hit with a dagger or a sling first.Or they take a feat tax and play their character, because the "feat tax" makes the poison immunity problem irrelevant. They just have to pay a feat for it. That's why I called it a feat tax: If you play a poison character, you need that feat or you're going to suffer heavily. Also I hope the DM isn't using a LOT of creatures, because poison immunity isn't confined to just undead you realize. Also I build my encounters based on what is logical and what suits the story and location. Given I don't go giving things random immunities, I've never had a problem with that making PCs completely irrelevant in 4E. And yet in MM3 they directly acknowledged that resistances weren't an interesting mechanic and stopped using them? Did you notice the Volcanic Dragon isn't immune/resistant to fire and neither is the fire elemental?Maybe they've realized that immunities and resistances are not that interesting from a game design view and are moving away from it? Hmmm..... But they didn't, so I will argue with what is there and not what isn't there. Also I would still think that was dumb, because you'll notice I am not defending poison immunity being so prevalent despite the designers putting it there.Kinda blows your whole argument out of the water doesn't it?Immunities are boring. Powers that interact with things are far better. I again bring up the Earthquake Dragon (could easily just be immune to forced movement) and the Volcanic Dragon (could easily just be immune to fire). But wait! Wizards DIDN'T give them immunities and monsters started to figure out "Hey, maybe a more interesting interaction with a power than saying it doesn't work is better". And indeed, they were right.This is a mirror of your own flawed "It's common sense" argument, where you still haven't acknowledged the actual flaw that what can be common sense to one person in terms of an immunity won't be to another. For example, you don't think a swarm can be grabbed but I still can't fathom why you think it can be critically hit. If you're going to start applying one thing, the slippery slope is going to come in really quick.For example, you wonder why I don't think a swarm should be critically hit: yet "common sense" suggests to me that a dagger or a sling isn't going to bother a huge horde of flies at all. Just like you don't think they can be grabbed, I don't think they should be able to be critically hit (as there are numerous individuals without a common "weak point" in the whole lot). The difference is I don't subject "common sense" on my players: Merely the rules, especially when them not being immune to crits doesn't bother the game in the least balance wise (or add anything if I make them immune).To you it makes no sense. To me I can think of numerous explanations, Draco for example has already given a few in this thread and ultimately it doesn't bother me overly that much. They have a strong advantage and make up for it with a strong disadvantage, unlike the insubstantial weakening wraith for example.When you respond line by line to something, can you actually read all the arguments I've made before doing that? Because I point this out for you and in fact, I have already mentioned other creatures immune to being knocked prone in previous posts. I am unsure what point you're trying to make here.I love the tone here.When used in very very very limited amounts.Let's see: All undead and a whole bunch of other monsters being immune to poison = boring.Torog and a literal handful of other monsters being immune to prone = interesting.Scale matters. Something that comes up rarely and isn't even predictable by creature type is interesting. Something that comes up all the time from certain creatures isn't interesting. IMO.But at the same time, part of my argument is based on the fact Wizards aren't even going to "logically" give things immunities. Take fire elementals, I take it you've noticed they aren't fire resistant and instead have other "punishment" mechanics. Same with the Volcanic Dragon and Earthquake Dragon.These are infinitely more interesting than immunities/resistances ever were.That's exactly what you're doing.And there is already a precedent for epic level creatures doing so little damage they are basically ineffective against PCs of their level. If you're going to argue that the monster design in 4E got it right out of the gate, you're on a losing argument here. Especially when more recent books are toning down on immunities and resistances in favor of other mechanics.A point you've continuously ignored.Here we have the ultimate coup de grace to every argument you've made. I don't think it makes sense for a swarm to be critically hit, they have numerous individuals, no sensitive organs in an overall mass of billions of flies and what IS that rogue doing to get sneak attack on a gigantic mass of flies/cockroaches/spiders anyway? Neither of those make any more sense than grabbing the swarm, yet you think that grabbing a swarm makes no sense yet happily think they can be critically hit by a dagger (a sharp pointy thing).The inherent flaw in your entire argument is now exposed.What is common sense to you isn't to someone else. I think swarms being immune to crits would be "common sense", but I don't inflict it on my players because I don't see a point. It is common sense, but it adds nothing to the game or to the encounter. Neither is making them immune to grab.It depends entirely on your personal decisions about how you think the fluff should work. That's what I'm telling you. Reverse the argument and apply it to critical hits. I don't think they should be critically hit, but yet you have no problem with a dagger somehow critically hitting a swarm of thousands of creatures. Yet you're telling me you're doing this "For the fiction!!!!" and to make the game logical or something? Yet you're completely ignoring something else just as completely illogical happening right next to it! It's just hilariously inconsistent.It's not hyperbole it's better game design: Something that Wizards showed me and not what I came up with personally. The Volcanic Dragon and Earthquake Dragons are the epitome of how I want 4E monster design to go. Don't make them immune - make them interact with powers in an interesting way by doing something else (the dragons knocking prone on forced movement is a key example in my argument). This enhances an encounter and makes those monsters unique. This is also, going back why I don't mind UNIQUE immunities. What I dislike is blanket immunities over an entire subset of creatures. I've explained that multiple times now as well.</blockquote>

Verification