Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5977841" data-attributes="member: 54710">Well, this is really about the question of whether characters should be directed towards single types of damage.&nbsp; If your character concept is a total poison master and immunity to poison is a major part of the game, then the game has to decide whether they are going to live with that &quot;flaw&quot; as a major part of the character concept or whether the game is going to rescue the character.&nbsp; Certainly, 3.x rogues became a lot less useful in campaigns dominated by the undead (or constructs/oozes, I suppose).&nbsp; Sorcerers that focus on a particular energy type are in a similar situation.Personally, I think the right thing to do is to give those characters a way of working around their specialization, so they are less effective, but not totally ineffective.&nbsp; For example, a good rogue feat/ability would be one that traded a die or two of damage for the ability to apply sneak attack to otherwise immune to damage.&nbsp; Or, the assassin example should have a way to trade a couple points of damage for an attack that deals poison and acid damage.The alternative (a part of 4e and D&amp;DN) is to focus more on resistances than immunities.&nbsp; I think it would be a good idea for the rogue's sneak attack to do &quot;precision&quot; damage, and then seed the world with creatures that are resistant or vulnerable to that kind of damage.&nbsp; (Maybe a vampire is generally resistant to precision damage, but vulnerable to precision damage with an otherwise non-magical and less effective stake?)-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5977841, member: 54710"] Well, this is really about the question of whether characters should be directed towards single types of damage. If your character concept is a total poison master and immunity to poison is a major part of the game, then the game has to decide whether they are going to live with that "flaw" as a major part of the character concept or whether the game is going to rescue the character. Certainly, 3.x rogues became a lot less useful in campaigns dominated by the undead (or constructs/oozes, I suppose). Sorcerers that focus on a particular energy type are in a similar situation. Personally, I think the right thing to do is to give those characters a way of working around their specialization, so they are less effective, but not totally ineffective. For example, a good rogue feat/ability would be one that traded a die or two of damage for the ability to apply sneak attack to otherwise immune to damage. Or, the assassin example should have a way to trade a couple points of damage for an attack that deals poison and acid damage. The alternative (a part of 4e and D&DN) is to focus more on resistances than immunities. I think it would be a good idea for the rogue's sneak attack to do "precision" damage, and then seed the world with creatures that are resistant or vulnerable to that kind of damage. (Maybe a vampire is generally resistant to precision damage, but vulnerable to precision damage with an otherwise non-magical and less effective stake?) -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification