Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WalterKovacs" data-source="post: 4558537" data-attributes="member: 63763">Even if they didn't speak the language, they are likely to understand body languague of someone challenging them to a fight. If it's unintelligent undead, maybe you make yourself appear a bit more appetizing for their &quot;tastes&quot;.&nbsp;Anyone you are fighting against in D&amp;D is going to have some reason for attacking you in the first place. While an argument could be made that there should be some creatures TOO intelligent to go after the fighter ... a creature being &quot;too stupid&quot; to go after the fighter doesn't necessarily exist, because if it wouldn't attack the fighter why is it attacking the group in the first place?&nbsp;The big thing though is ... having a power that, in a FEW circumstances, doesn't make sense was deemed better than having to track a list of examples and counterexamples. If each power had to be crossreferenced to monsters that it would or would not work against, it would make it &quot;make sense&quot;, at the cost of making the game a LOT more complicated for players and DMs.&nbsp;There are a couple of exceptions where they leave certain monster types out of the situation (for example grabbing and pushing, etc sometimes have size restrictions involved to avoid grabbing or pushing around really big creatures. However that has to do with &quot;how easy is it to define the exceptional monsters?&quot;&nbsp;Basically, it would be a lot more work to create a way to define when the power doesn't work than to just let it always work. Similarly, they could make the power only work part of the time, but then they are just putting a power into the book that says &quot;unless your DM decides to let you use this, just pick a different power&quot;. [Which is another option for people that hate &quot;magical, but only in specific situations, but because there is at least one situation, even if that situation never comes up, the power is magical&quot; powers ... just don't use them. There are a number of other powers available to choose from]. Part of the design of 4e was addressing problems that SOME PLAYERS had with 3.5. Anyone that has played a rogue has run into at least a few monsters with &quot;character resistance: rogue&quot; that disables one of your defining class features, and your main source of dealing out damage. Having players that stop working against certain types of monsters was not fun, for some players. Instead of having powers that onl work some of the time, they had works that work all the time [but only to a limited number of times 1/enc or 1/day], and make sense most of the time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WalterKovacs, post: 4558537, member: 63763"] Even if they didn't speak the language, they are likely to understand body languague of someone challenging them to a fight. If it's unintelligent undead, maybe you make yourself appear a bit more appetizing for their "tastes". Anyone you are fighting against in D&D is going to have some reason for attacking you in the first place. While an argument could be made that there should be some creatures TOO intelligent to go after the fighter ... a creature being "too stupid" to go after the fighter doesn't necessarily exist, because if it wouldn't attack the fighter why is it attacking the group in the first place? The big thing though is ... having a power that, in a FEW circumstances, doesn't make sense was deemed better than having to track a list of examples and counterexamples. If each power had to be crossreferenced to monsters that it would or would not work against, it would make it "make sense", at the cost of making the game a LOT more complicated for players and DMs. There are a couple of exceptions where they leave certain monster types out of the situation (for example grabbing and pushing, etc sometimes have size restrictions involved to avoid grabbing or pushing around really big creatures. However that has to do with "how easy is it to define the exceptional monsters?" Basically, it would be a lot more work to create a way to define when the power doesn't work than to just let it always work. Similarly, they could make the power only work part of the time, but then they are just putting a power into the book that says "unless your DM decides to let you use this, just pick a different power". [Which [i]is[/i] another option for people that hate "magical, but only in specific situations, but because there is at least one situation, even if that situation never comes up, the power is magical" powers ... just don't use them. There are a number of other powers available to choose from]. Part of the design of 4e was addressing problems that SOME PLAYERS had with 3.5. Anyone that has played a rogue has run into at least a few monsters with "character resistance: rogue" that disables one of your defining class features, and your main source of dealing out damage. Having players that stop working against certain types of monsters was not fun, for some players. Instead of having powers that onl work some of the time, they had works that work all the time [but only to a limited number of times 1/enc or 1/day], and make sense most of the time. [/QUOTE]

Verification