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="P1NBACK" data-source="post: 5315990" data-attributes="member: 83768">This is hilarious. At least I quoted you. You cut out half my text. Good job. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> That's an excellent way to get your point across; delete the oppositions text. That's not willy nilly. That's one elemental being immune and another not. Like I said in my earlier post, liberally edited by you, each monster should be judged by it's own purpose in the game and the fiction. Melee Training is not a feat tax. You can still be effective at your role without being good at opportunity attacks. Plain and simple. Feat taxes are feats that are required because you need them for the math of the game to work, not because you want your character to be better at something...LoL. No. The feat is for your poison to be more effective in a variety of situations. <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=":)" /> Perhaps you should look it up. Some campaigns may never even use creatures with immunity to poison. Therefore, it's not an inherent problem with the game system, only specific encounters in specific campaigns. Feat taxes are when the actual game system across the board needs to be fixed (i.e. Expertise feats). And, again and again, I've stated this: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. Do you know what the word "common" means? Common sense? I've seen more rules arguments over literal vs. interpreted representations of the "hard-coded rules" you so zealously defend (and yet argue against at the same time!). I would. Swarms are (by definition) grouped tightly together in a mob of something. It makes sense for them to be vulnerable to attacks that can hit all of them entirely (vs. say, a group of individual minions for example). No, I have acknowledged this. In the "swarm thread" I said it was very important for the group to come to a consensus on "tone" and "color" and "setting". If we all agree that we're playing an anime style game, then that's going to work well. If one of us wants an anime style game, and the other a classic fantasy, then something is wrong here. That's the problem. Not common sense, but communication. First, I'm not ranting about "grab" - I'm ranting about using the fiction to dictate what is possible and not some rule. If I want to push a swarm of rats, and come up with a reasonable method, you're suggesting because the "rules" dictate I can't, I shouldn't be allowed to. I'm arguing for the opposite. Only if every creature in the game has poison immunity. Otherwise, no. Yeah... I realize that. I did provide the example of over 1200 "official" creatures with immunities. I think I've done my research on immunities in 4E. You can build your encounters in whatever way you want, but that's irrelevant to the topic of communicating with each other about expectations for style, tone and color - in addition, what type of campaign it is. Given that I don't give creatures "random" immunities, I've never had this problem either. They did? On what page do they say, "resistances aren't interesting". The only thing I've heard from on this is I think Mike Mearls saying something about how to design resistances to coincide with a "themed" campaign, like an "Frozen North" campaign where the wizard takes mostly Cold spells and all the creatures have cold resistance. There's a logical solution. Get rid of all the cold resistance for that campaign. Easy. Done. And, this is exactly what I've said from the get-go. DM's, suit the monsters to your campaign. Go from there. Maybe not. Good speculation though. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Not really. Your argument is that "immunities are boring, don't use them" - my argument is, "immunities are a functional part of 4E's design, use them when appropriate". There's a marked difference. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over instead of addressing my examples and issues (again, you deleted most of them). Those designs worked for those monsters. Great. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> First of all, I never said one person's campaign should have all the same rules as another. In fact, I suggested a campaign where undead don't have poison immunity. You didn't address this. Instead, you make blanket statements about stuff I never even said. <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=":)" /> Hilarious. Secondly, I never said a "swarm can't be grabbed". Click on my name. Read back over my posts. Carefully. Read. Them. Then, come back here and let's talk about my stance on grabbing a swarm. I can. You hit MORE flies that time than others... Duh. Well, I think putting a blanket statement, as you like to do, on all swarms is never a good idea (as I suggest, take each monster for that monster). Certainly, there might be a swarm out there that can't be critically hit. But, critical hit simply means "good hit". *shrug* Certainly, if you can "hit it" then you can "hit it good". Lol.  Sure you do. Every time you play I bet. Sure. I'm glad you agree. Thanks. Perception is reality as they say. This doesn't make any sense. If those "super special snowflakes" exist, and those are "good (not boring)" and I decide to use them in each encounter I throw out... That's not very, very, very limited amounts. <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=":)" />! We're going up against undead! Let's plan for that guy's! Wizard, don't prep your poison daily. Use fire or radiant! *shrug* Sounds good to me. I don't get this logic. <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 really don't. Maybe that's just me. Sorry. I tried to understand. Agreed. Like, swarms being immune to forced movement. Lol. You're arguing against me and for me. I love it. All undead are immune to poison as far as I can tell. That seems to be an internal "logic" in the system. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see WotC doing that for a reason. Not randomly as you suggest. To you. No, I'm not. I never played Epic. But, this is a math flaw (same as those feat taxes...) that breaks the system. Second, I never once said "4E got it right out of the gate". How in the world did you get that from my post? I quite specifically said that I didn't like "swarms being resistant to melee attacks". So... Why are you going to say I'm arguing for something I never argued for? Like really, I've been debating with you for like a week now on these forums and you have a serious problem with putting words into people's mouths in order to supplement your argument. It's whack man. Let's not do that. Can you cite examples? I explained how this worked up thread. It makes sense to me. Not really. No. Common sense is just that. Literally. Do I need to post the definition? Common sense, based on a strict <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_%28logic%29" target="_blank">construction</a> of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense" target="_blank">sense</a>" as their common natural understanding.It really is that. Common sense. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate crits. I'm not really sure what you think they are. Agreed. I don't have a problem with that.Except, critting a swarm is not illogical. At all. Only in your skewed point of view on crits. Sorry. Sweet. Then you have a lot of work to do. 1270 monsters to convert... And, now I've explained multiple times, I never said anything about blanket immunities. <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=":)" /> In fact, I suggested making creatures that currently have blanket immunities and making them not immune (like the undead example). Pretty straightforward actually.</blockquote>

Verification