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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Transformer" data-source="post: 5920835" data-attributes="member: 70008">I recognize that this is a subjective thing, but I don't want to go back to carefully limited bonuses to resist things rather than full-blown immunity.  Now that I've seen dwarves given actual immunity to poison, and elves to charm and sleep, the alternative reeks of safe, carefully-sanitized, "Fun" design. Only abilities that actually need to be limited to remain balanced should be limited. If immunity isn't gamebreaking--and I see no reason why it should be--why not give it? Why add a little extra math to the system that isn't needed? I understand that the math for lots of things must be carefully tuned and can't be allowed to go to infinity. I know why damage, for example, needs to be kept within certain limits, and why save-or-dies are problematic. But why does resistance to a very specific type of damage need to be so laboratory-tested and hermetically-sealed and fitted with a nice boring optimizer-proof lock? If a race's other abilities are weak enough, why not immunity? It's much cooler. +4 resist to poison makes me yawn when I'm building a character. But immunity? Awesome.And I definitely don't want legendary warriors dying from regular old scorpion bites. And if it was the demigod king of the scorpions and not just a regular old scorpion, then well, maybe the poison resist should specify that it doesn't apply to certain legendary poisons.Anyway, I think if the playtest doc had said +4 resist to poison I wouldn't have batted an eye. But now that it says immunity, I want it to stay.</blockquote>

Verification