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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5822053" data-attributes="member: 58197">Regarding "categorical immunity," I'm okay with certain spells not working on certain types of foes. There was a lot of stuff that couldn't be affected by charm spells in 3E, but enough creatures were subject to them that charm person and charm monster were tools worth having in the wizard's toolbox.However, it's important to avoid taking this too far. Categorical immunities have a way of making characters virtually useless for whole sessions at a time. Ever see a 3E rogue in an undead-centric adventure or campaign? It ain't pretty. Likewise, a beguiler may not be able to charm a zombie, but shouldn't turn into a slightly-tougher-than-normal commoner when the DM runs a "zombie apocalypse" scenario.IMO, immunity to spells/effects should be rare, focused, and strongly tied to the fiction. Skeletons can't be charmed? Okay, I can see that. Whatever force drives the skeleton has no concept of friendship or loyalty, so it makes sense you can't make a skeleton think you're it's friend. Or you can, but it doesn't care.On the other hand, why should death knights have massive spell resistance? There's no reason in the fiction for that to be the case. And from the game point of view, it's just a trap for wizards who make the mistake of thinking that the school full of blasting spells is what you should specialize in if you want to cast blasting spells. The idea that conjurers are better at blasty-magic than evokers, because conjurers can bypass SR while evokers can't, is ridiculous.</blockquote>

Verification