Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fenriswolf456" data-source="post: 5920330" data-attributes="member: 6687664">It doesn't, if the other options are of equal weight, like what you presented. But if it comes down to "roll attack to do 6d6 damage" vs. "roll strength to push the golem to do 7d6 damage", most rogues will likely go for the 6d6 option. If that 6d6 becomes 1d6 because of the creature's immunity, then there's likely more pondering of other options. Of course, it all depends on the encounter and the 'rules' involved with it. My statement was more that given a choice between say dazing, or +5d6 damage, 9 times out of 10 the rogue is going for the damage.   Well, you could argue that you're choosing to specialize in stabbing vitals by choosing a rogue, much like choosing a specialist mage. The choice to specialize is selecting the class in the first place. I do see what you're saying though, I was just attempting to draw a parallel. And again, I don't endorse the 3E way of blanket immunities, just in the value of making some encounters tougher by virtue of denying special abilities. Much like an anti-magic field, or a desecrated graveyard that prevents healing, or ranged combat when the fighter is mostly melee based, and so on. There should be times when the party is forced to think outside the box of their usual tactics.</blockquote>