Difference between revisions of "Talk:Extra Immune (3.5e Trait)"
Ghostwheel (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
So since it's circumstantial as it was, I made it a trait. As for the latter half, "I hate dragons, ergo I oppose all dragons man. Why do I gotta be running around making all these new dragons, don't you know how much I hate them?"-- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] ([[User talk:Eiji-kun|talk]]) 23:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | So since it's circumstantial as it was, I made it a trait. As for the latter half, "I hate dragons, ergo I oppose all dragons man. Why do I gotta be running around making all these new dragons, don't you know how much I hate them?"-- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] ([[User talk:Eiji-kun|talk]]) 23:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | : Let's run with your example. How many wotc-created items/effects/abilities/spells that count as poisons pierce poison immunity? Does this, then, make it COMPLETELY redundant for warforged druids when the DM uses WotC material? If the DM's using homebrew to pierce through defenses, then he can just as easily say, "Nuh-uh, this is EXTRA special poison, it pierces through that as well," especially since once you get into the realm of homebrew, everything is DM fiat, basically. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 23:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:09, 21 January 2015
Ratings
Ghostwheel dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4. | |
---|---|
Absolute immunities are bad for the game. |
That's a debate for the SRD, and present with or without this trait. You're not rating the trait, you're just saying you don't like how WotC did it. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Correct. And I think this trait exacerbates the situation if taken on a character who can take advantage of it. --Ghostwheel (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Small problem with that. WoTC has almost zero "ignore immunity" abilities. The vast majority are homebrew. As an aside, I actually think this ends up freeing up things more. Normally when you have two things redundant, its to your advantage to find a way to replace one of them with an Alt Class Feature or some other way to swap it out for something better. Having this would remove the need to do so since you are actually getting something out of the redundancy.
- OTOH, there are wotc spells that give you immunity to fire and cold. Add onto that something else that gives you immunity (there are a bunch of passive things), and boom, you're immune to a whole energy type. If it was limited to something like poisons or something similarly minor, I'd prolly be okay with that. But to an entire energy type? That's no bueno in my book. --Ghostwheel (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- So?
- 99% of the time, you were immune to said energy type already. Stacking it remains as useless and as redundant before until the 1% chance you run into that Searing Spell Fireball and your Extra Immune keeps you immune instead of making you take half. Oh no. The horror. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- If it's as useless and redundant as you say, why even make this trait? And regardless, it's the principle of the matter. Straight up immunities are bad, and things that promote them make the problem worse by encouraging people to take them. --Ghostwheel (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
(RESET INDENT) Why make it? Because something useful in that 1% time is still useful. Giving it a use also promotes people not seeking to replace their now dead level with something else so they get something of value out of it, promoting simplicity.
Why a trait and not a feat? Well, I debated, and even if you were "now twice as useful as before", 1% x2 is still just 2%. It's useful, but its so specific that it is implausible you will ever purposefully set up a situation where this will happen.
Using the energy example again, it's highly unlikely your fire-immune plushie will cast Energy Immunity (fire) on purpose unless he knows he's going to go against searing spell fireballs. More likely it'll be a case of two class features, or a class and a race feature. Like a warforged (immune to poison) druid 9 (immune to poison). Even then, they're almost always immune to poison, they just remain immune when they run into that bee dragon. And if they're just using WotC, I can't think of any monsters which bypass like that for poison. You're not purposefully gonna to go out double immunities either, that's a much weaker choice than using your class level, money, and time on something else. Said warforged is leveling druid for its wild shape or its casting or whatever, and the poison immunity (again) is just gravy.
So since it's circumstantial as it was, I made it a trait. As for the latter half, "I hate dragons, ergo I oppose all dragons man. Why do I gotta be running around making all these new dragons, don't you know how much I hate them?"-- Eiji-kun (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Let's run with your example. How many wotc-created items/effects/abilities/spells that count as poisons pierce poison immunity? Does this, then, make it COMPLETELY redundant for warforged druids when the DM uses WotC material? If the DM's using homebrew to pierce through defenses, then he can just as easily say, "Nuh-uh, this is EXTRA special poison, it pierces through that as well," especially since once you get into the realm of homebrew, everything is DM fiat, basically. --Ghostwheel (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)