Large red dragon mini with only 5 fire resist...

[Derren]

double post

 

[Derren]

What are you are saying? I am really not getting it. People make bad characters on purpose but don't know that this is bad?
That is laughable. And even if, I expect that players are smart enough to know that betting everything on one card is risky.

Also you are not staying on topic. Of course it is possible to make useless characters in D&D, but its quite hard to make a character which is fine most of the time and only useless when faced with one certain energy immunity.
Imo that is not even possible when you are not using splatbooks. I challenge you, make such a character which is fine otherwise but entirely useless when facing a specific energy immunity.

So basically, you won't take real world examples, or mythological examples, because "D&D is a creature of itself." Which means the only examples you'll take are from D&D. And of course since immunities have historically been part of D&D, you've set up parameters whereby nobody can convince you. I've heard plenty of closed-minded arguments on the internet before, but even by that standard, I'm impressed.

I'm just saying that by now D&D created its own mythology which means it isn't required to follow real world mythologies anymore.

So, it's fine with you that the God of Fire can't harm a red dragon with fire. It's fine with you that no amount of fire can damage a fire elemental in any way. It doesn't bother you that a fire elemental can literally plunge through the heart of the SUN and survive.

Yes, I am fine that the god of fire can't harm a fire creature with fire (to harm them he should take away the fire from them) or that fire elementals can go straight trough the sun (ignoring things like gravity). Its more stylish to say that the sun is just a huge mass of fire elementals instead of a continous chemical/physical reaction (see science vs magic).

 

[JohnSnow]

What are you are saying? I am really not getting it. People make bad characters on purpose but don't know that this is bad?
That is laughable. And even if, I expect that players are smart enough to know that betting everything on one card is risky.

Also you are not staying on topic. Of course it is possible to make useless characters in D&D, but its quite hard to make a character which is fine most of the time and only useless when faced with one certain energy immunity.
Imo that is not even possible when you are not using splatbooks. I challenge you, make such a character which is fine otherwise but entirely useless when facing a specific energy immunity.

Toughness is a bad feat. So is Dodge. There are other examples.

Monk is a weak class. So is bard. People make characters on purpose that use these feats or classes, many of which were intentionally designed to be suboptimal. Knowing how to pick the "best" combination of race, class, items and feats is considered to represent "game mastery" in D&D. The idea is that there will be better (and worse) choices and that this somehow rewards experienced players of the game.

Fourth Edition seems to be moving away from the notion that this "Game Mastery" is a desirable condition of D&D. And that's a good thing.

 

[Derren]

Toughness is a bad feat. So is Dodge. There are other examples.

Monk is a weak class. So is bard. People make characters on purpose that use these feats or classes, many of which were intentionally designed to be suboptimal classes. Finding the "best" combination of race, class and feats is considered to represent "game mastery" in D&D. The idea is that there will be better (and worse) choices and that this somehow rewards experienced players of the game.

Fourth Edition seems to be moving away from the notion that this "Game Mastery" is a desirable condition of D&D. And that's a good thing.

Stay on topic. First, if those feats and classes are bad can be disputed. Either way, they are not useless.
Second non of those classes is completely useless when facing a enemy with energy immunity which is the real issue here. Quite likely the monk isn't affected at all by it and the bard also retains much of its normal effectiveness.

Why don't you (Mourn is of course also invited) to make a character which is completely useless when facing someone with energy immunity? You can even decide the level. I assure you that, you will have to build the build specifically to have this weakness and it gets harder the higher the level is. That this happens by chance is night impossible

 

[The Little Raven]

What are you are saying? I am really not getting it. People make bad characters on purpose but don't know that this is bad?

I don't know how I can be any more clear, but I'll try.

The designers of 3rd Edition elected to design the system with the concept of "system mastery," which means that they intentionally chose to develop certain feats, classes, races, spells, powers, items, or whatever as crap. This was so that after playing the game for a while, you can look at Toughness and see that it's a worthless waste of space, but a new player will be tricked into making a bad choice because he doesn't know better. This is especially a problem in 3rd Edition, since one bad feat choice can ruin your character development, since you basically have to plan it from 1st level in order to make sure you qualify for everything you want.

Also you are not staying on topic.

Says the guy who shifted us off topic by saying that making sure all builds are valid is a bad idea? Huh. That's funny.

Imo that is not even possible when you are not using splatbooks. I challenge you, make such a character which is fine otherwise but entirely useless when facing a specific energy immunity.

Sorcerer with all fire spells against a fire immune creature. Not a single spell, which are his only source of usefulness, will achieve anything.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Man, I am going to have to put 'I agree with whatever JohnSnow says' in my sig at this rate.
Well put, Sir JS
Edit: and Mourn, too!

 

[The Little Raven]

Man, I am going to have to put 'I agree with whatever JohnSnow says' in my sig at this rate.
Well put, Sir JS

Dude's got quite a brain.

And impeccable taste in protagonists, I would say.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Dude's got quite a brain.

And impeccable taste in protagonists, I would say.

ROFL

 

[Derren]

I don't know how I can be any more clear, but I'll try.

The designers of 3rd Edition elected to design the system with the concept of "system mastery," which means that they intentionally chose to develop certain feats, classes, races, spells, powers, items, or whatever as crap. This was so that after playing the game for a while, you can look at Toughness and see that it's a worthless waste of space, but a new player will be tricked into making a bad choice because he doesn't know better. This is especially a problem in 3rd Edition, since one bad feat choice can ruin your character development, since you basically have to plan it from 1st level in order to make sure you qualify for everything you want.

Toughness looks bad in level 20 build, but for a level 1 elven wizard it can be a livesaver.
Anyway, taking toughness does not make a character useless, only less effective (which resistences would also do. So are resistences bad too?).
And Toughness does in no way affect the effectiveness of a character when fighting creatures with an energy immunity.

Sorcerer with all fire spells against a fire immune creature. Not a single spell, which are his only source of usefulness, will achieve anything.

Create such a sorcerer. You won't succeed (don't forget that at low level mundane weapons is also a viable option for a sorcerer).
I'm waiting for your build (if you don't dodge the question again).

 

[JohnSnow]

Yes, I am fine that the god of fire can't harm a fire creature with fire (to harm them he should take away the fire from them) or that fire elementals can go straight trough the sun (ignoring things like gravity). Its more stylish to say that the sun is just a huge mass of fire elementals instead of a continous chemical/physical reaction (see science vs magic).

He can't "take fire away," because there's no way to "take fire away." Sorry, thanks for playing.

But is that stylish? Or is it just the kind of conceit that would make it into a book intended to appeal to slack-jawed 6-year-olds?

I get it. You like absolute immunity. It suits your playstyle. I'd also be willing to guess you're very fond of all of D&D's other absolutes: 1st Edition style +1 or better to hit, Save or Die, Knock, etc.

The thing is that it doesn't suit a lot of people's playstyles. Whenever you set up an absolute, that's the END. Nobody can have more, or better. Like I said, nobody can magically lock a door in a way that knock can't open it. That doesn't bother you? That's why Wish is a bad spell, especially for something that's supposed to be available before the very highest level. How do you design a spell that does "more" than Wish? Conceptually, it's absurd.

Now maybe your love for absolutes is limited to energy resistance. But the truth is that your way is no more "logical," no matter what you might want to believe. Magic doesn't have to be absolute. Why? Because it's magic. It doesn't have to be anything.

And the designers have decided that making it less absolute will make for a better game. And I (and many others) agree with them. It sounds like you don't, which is your right. May I suggest you keep playing 3e?