Changes

If you're any kind of decent DM and you know that you're going to (for example) negate your flammenwerfer in a party that's gearing up to face the Fire-Faced Flame Demon of Flamey Fireflame by giving the demon true immunity to fire, give the werfer something else to do. Provide mooks the werfer CAN hit. Have support opportunities. Maybe he finds some kind of energy admixture weapon. Hell, if your party is high level already, have them appeal to a deity who can bless their weapons with its power to the degree that they overcome the True Immunity. This is not hard. I don't know how else to say this. This feat isn't intrinsically dickish by any reasonable definition in a game that already provides varying degrees of resistance, immunity, and a wiki full of things that ignore them. Like Ghostwheel's argument, yours comes down to arguing playstyle, and like GW, you're claiming this feat is bad game design by virtue of being an extension of an integral mechanic of the game. That makes NO sense. If you don't like immunities in general, fine, give this a 1 or something. But I'm not going to listen to your objection if all you're actually saying is "Span, your fun is wrong" because of your playstyle preferences. This is no different than saying "I think Dragons are bad for the game, therefore your draconic feat gets a 0 rating.- [[User:Spanambula|Spanambula]] ([[User talk:Spanambula|talk]]) 01:00, 6 February 2017 (MST)