1,032
edits
Changes
no edit summary
: "But there are other things that also grant immunity to a large subset of builds!" is not a good argument. Those are terribly created too and are bad design and a retarded decision to create my the designers. The whole golfbag fighter exists not because he specializes in different fighting styles to make them all good. It's to have a different weapon against creatures with specific DR/resistances. D&D is a game where only by specializing can you be viable, and trying to dip into many fighting styles, especially when you have no secondary source of damage or super-high str is going to make you suck super hard.
: Swarms, incorps, and wind walls are examples of such terrible design and are a lasting indication of how retarded the designers were. "But the designers made similar stuff!" isn't a good argument to make such material yourself either. Just because they had a terrible design philosophy doesn't mean we should copy their mistakes. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 09:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
::I believe I understand Ghostwheel's point, it just doesn't seem consistent. He says it's not a good argument to point to things with immunity to a large subset of builds. However, D&D has enough such things that crying "bad design!" at each of them indicates more of a personal inclination to a preferred style of D&D play, rather than a failure to meet objective criteria. Consider that most golems' magic immunity and often high DR grants them immunity to most magic users and multiple-attack builds. Consider mindless creatures' immunity to mind-affecting spells. The list goes on, and brings me to the second assertation GW makes that I disagree with. ''"D&D is a game where only by specializing can you be viable."'' While I don't disagree with that, I will instead point out that this is the exact reason that a party is composed of different classes with a wide range of abilities. No reasonable player is going to expect his PC to be SUPER EFFECTIVE in every single type of encounter. Charge builds and mobility fighters suffer in tight quarters. Trip builds aren't so useful when you fight a giant snake. Magic users suffer when there are AMFs being tossed around or line of sight/effect is difficult, and archers suffer when they can't reliably hit their target. This isn't "retarded" design, it's the designers saying "Hey, maybe we should make creatures different so each encounter can't be handled the exact same way every time." That sonds like a reasonable design philosophy to me. - [[User:Spanambula|Spanambula]] ([[User talk:Spanambula|talk]]) 10:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
