Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5316044" data-attributes="member: 78116">Because honestly, you repeat yourself a great deal without adding a new argument while simultaneously ignoring that what you're writing is addressed by an argument made in the same post a little later. I can make one point and address 5-6 paragraphs you write, because you've basically made the same argument five times in one post.I feel I have addressed most of your arguments comprehensively, so will not respond line by line repetitively! If I delete anything, it's because I feel I've responded to it sufficiently previously and have nothing else to add. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />For non-strength characters melee training is commonly accepted as a feat tax. You can go to CharOp on the official boards and argue with them about it if you like. You won't find much agreement with you that it isn't a feat tax (and I happen to agree, especially if you have a warlord in the party or anyone who grants MBAs).More sarcasm instead of an argument. I would point out that again, you already can't get agreement with many people in this thread about what "common" sense is on the actual topic - those saying swarms shouldn't be grabbed are hardly holding an overwhelming majority in this thread you should realize.We're having a debate (and it's not just me arguing) because there are a wide variety of posters in this forum, in this thread and a good chunk of us can't agree with the other on what "common sense" is.That you still cannot see this despite all these posts of disagreement with your views from separate posters (not just me) is proving my point. To YOU grabbing a swarm is silly. To others (like me) they don't care and it isn't anything important to them.I've never actually argued this. I would prefer if you argued things that were actually my arguments. I am sticking solely to the concept of "Can a swarm be grabbed" and if there are more interesting ways than blanket immunity to represent a resistance to being grabbed.That's my argument.Over half of which are undead, nearly all of whom are poison immune and so your list of, what is actually 1270 immune monsters, has an enormous chunk of it from one group with a fixed immunity (50% or so).There are 4059 creatures in 4E. 1200 of them are immune and 682 of them are Undead. If we split the remaining immunities up amongst all types, like fire, radiant and such we'll find poison is the predominant immunity. Because, you know, 50% of those creatures immune to something are undead and are hence immune to poison.There are handfuls immune to conditions like prone, forced movement and similar though. They're the interesting ones and I don't mind them as I've already stated.<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5215736-post60.html" target="_blank">Rodney Thompson</a>:<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5216752-post79.html" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5216752-post79.html" target="_blank">He also elaborates further</a>:So yes, my argument is actually based on the way the game is being designed - from the impressions of the people who designed it.That is not my argument.My argument summarized in a single sentence: Immunities are boring, don't use them if you can think of a better and more interesting mechanic instead - or - they are suitably rare.That's my argument in a nutshell. Also that's a great example, for your below comment of putting words in my mouth. I agree, but that's not the argument in this thread and not what I have argued against.It's funny, because that's what you did to me just in this very post you complained about it. In any event, my point seems to have been missed here. I'm saying that just because a bunch of things have immunities previously doesn't make it a good or great design decision. Quite the opposite in fact, because 4Es design is improving all the time and one area it has is in the reduction or resistances/immunities.See quote from RT above. Newer monsters tend to have interesting or odd mechanics to things: Not outright immunity or resistances (which seem to have been toned down a bit).You have never once acknowledged in any post the difference in monster design mechanics now - where creatures lose resistances over other mechanics. However, I didn't realize you were apparently unaware this is something Wizards actually are consciously doing, making this argument a little less relevant. So I can see why that would not be as significant to you as it is to me! I have something of an obsession with monster design, so I followed the reasoning for the lack of resistances on newer monsters very closely.And critically hitting a swarm with a sling doesn't to me. Just in the same way grabbing a swarm makes no sense to you. We could do this all day really, but I've already made all the point I need to with this <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />In my fictional view of the DnD world it's just as illogical as grabbing a swarm. I could have wrote, with equal sarcasm and derision to your arguments "Only in your skewed point of view on grabbing. Sorry." and accomplished the exact same point. Again, proving my argument on why "common sense" is a poor way of ruling anything because your view is going to be inherently different to mine. I don't think critically hitting a swarm is very probable with a dagger or a sling. You apparently won't buy grabbing a swarm, but will accept a tiny dagger managing to seriously injure (and sneak attack) a swarm of flies.I view both as ridiculous, but as they make the game fun and playable, I don't care. If I did care, I'd make a cool mechanic that made it interesting and a relevant thing - not make them immune.</blockquote>

Verification