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="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 2591403" data-attributes="member: 326">Hi Alzrius dude! <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=":)" />Glad its okay now.I think it makes perfect sense. For starters the Plane of Fire isn't a big fireball (or Sun for that matter). If it was, the City of Brass would melt.Gaining a new power/item is not a creative solution, and forcing players to gain power 'x' to overcome enemy 'y' is contrived and tantamount to railroading.Wrong. By removing the absolute nature of an immunity you make its acquisition less important.But you are not working within any boundaries, you are closing off one section and opening another. Which means you are alienating everything thats come before.You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.If we had as many people playing immortal campaigns as non-immortal campaigns I am sure the problem would have been recognised long ago. You are dodging the obvious here. Lets say for the sake of argument the giant is holding his breath - or if the gets hit by a spell that duplicates the effects of the big bang, according to you the giant is okay...am I correct?A fire would even be destroyed by a much hotter fire.So I can have MegaFlames, but not MegaFlame Immunity. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> It says that my use of words differing from yours is a sort of microcosm of this argument - in that everything to you is black and white. Well for the record a lot of the immunities in D&Dg were not present in the IH. But I must admit SKRs article was revelatory.Sometimes its difficult to see the wood for the trees. ...and how many 100 year old SUVs do you see being driven on the roads? Well I am thinking more along the lines or reticence and trepidation rather than fear and panic. I think its quite clearly an improvement. I thought SKRs article did a great job of pointing out the illogic of absolutes.If they don't adapt that is. <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification