Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5312019" data-attributes="member: 71571">The problem with this is that, as I said, your 'scrutiny' when applied to anything you do to a swarm, does not get applied.  In otherwords, your 'scrutiny' is applied to one thing while ignoring all the other things.Here's my logic: Except your logic for doing so has itself failed scrutiny... your logic 'that grabbing the swarm doesn't make sense' when applied fairly, also disallows melee attacks, immobilizes, slows, restrains, dominates, stuns...In other words, your scrutiny is being applied arbitrarily to one condition while allowing the rest to remain unchecked.That is called 'inconsistant.'The onus is on you to prove that it is not, because it's YOUR job to prove your point when presented with strong rebuttal.  It's not MY job to prove your argument for you.And I have.  Numerous times.  Here it is in a nutshell:Swarms are herds.  Immobilizing the alphas in a herd will ensure that the betas do not go along with it.  That's pretty simple.  The alphas decide where the herd goes, and they go there.However, forcing an alpha to move out of the herd does not have the same response.  The herd still remains where it is, until the alphas decide on a new direction.  The betas follow the alpha, not an external player.  In order to move those betas, you require an effect that hits the entirety of the swarm, for the same reason that throwing a rock, no matter how big or important that rock is, is not the same thing as throwing a pile of rocks.Controlling the alphas is a much simpler task than controlling all members of a swarm, and it is effective at what you want to do.This has been explained before.Post it, yet again, you mean.Moving a swarm and preventing the motion of a swarm are simply not the same thing.  I don't understand how you have found correlation.  By your same logic, freezing something must be the same as burning it.The fact is... things that are opposite to each other are not the same thing, and sometimes it is more possible to keep something still than it is to make something move... and vice versa.  There might exist monsters that are elementals of motion, that are immune to immobilization but where forced movemet works fine.  It makes sense because stopping something from moving, and making something move are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.The thing is, swarms are NOT immune to immobilization in any way shape or form.  Grabbing is an immobilization, it is not forced movement.  No, they are NOT related.  They're not in the same ballpark.  They're not even in the same city.  One is forcing something to move, the other is the prevention of motion.  They are diametric opposite effects.  If you can't understand how 'move' is different from 'not move' then I don't know how to explain this.There is an in-game mechanic.  It's called the Grab action, combined with Specific beats General.  In this case, no specific rule indicates that swarms are immune to grabs, or for that matter, any immobilization or restraining effects.  Nothing in any book printed in 3 years gives any indication that swarms can or should be immune to 'stay the hell put'.  Does there need to be a special exemption for swarms to exist for you to believe that they are grabbable?  No.  That's not how the game is designed.  So to insist on that, of course you're going to be able to go 'Yeah, there's no in-game explanation!'The truth is tho... out of every monster that is not immune to grabs, 100% of them have absolutely no rules explanation as to why they can be grabbed.  None.  Not one.  So, by your logic, no monster can be grabbed.Extending that to the point of absurdity, look at the kobold minion!  It has text that says it takes no damage from misses!  I also don't see any text stating it takes normal damage from hits!  There's no in-game explanation why it should take damage from a hit!  Therefore it must be immune to attacks!What you are asking the game to do is have a special exemption in cases where something is already stated to be perfectly legal.  Swarms do not need a special 'you can grab a swarm' rule, because it's already legally grabbable as a creature.  No special explanation is necessary in an exception-based design, because it's NOT special.  What you are asking of the game's ruleset is absurd.  It's just not possible, plausible, or even reasonable.The problem here is that those numbers are not relating to the game world.  You've set an arbitrary limit on them for no other reason than some OTHER unrelated condition doesn't work on them.  So therefore you've illogically extended that to include other, unrelated conditions.If I sit at your table, and I look at how my numbers translate into the game-world, I run into a wall of arbitrary limitation that isn't based on anything that I've said or done or roleplayed.. you've already said 'Nope, can't be done' before I've even announced my intention to translate my character's sheet into agency.If I create a character who is a grabbing expert, unless your name is Anderson Silva, he knows more about it than you do.  I'll defer to HIS expertise over yours.Brawler Fighters, and Monks, disagree with you on this tactically dubious question.In fact... an Avenger against an artillery monster with low reflexes pretty much loves the grab.Tactically dubious?  Immobilizes with sustain minor are bad these days?  Who knew!</blockquote>

Verification