Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mattachine" data-source="post: 5821971" data-attributes="member: 6678226">I also am against swaths of creatures with categorical immunities.Campaigns sometimes prominently feature a creature type, such as undead, and if players know that, then they can plan accordingly.My experience as a DM, however, is that particular adventures (or series of adventures) feature particular sorts of creatures. While it is is challenging and fun to get around a limitation in an encounter or two, having a character who's major and secondary options are nullified in a whole adventure isn't fun as a player, and it made me sad as a DM.This was true for melee fighters fighting only flying creatures with ranged attacks, wizards fighting all creatures with high SR, bards/enchanters fighting undead, thieves/rogues fighting only creatures immune to sneak attack (backstab), or even an adventure with zero social interactions when you have a bard. A player can figure an encounter or two while they are on the sidelines, but having multiple play sessions of it is downright frustrating. The new edition spell philosopher should avoid making certain types of magic useless with blanket categorization.</blockquote>