|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 10:17PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
There once was a white copper ring of fire, but it added positive energy damage to the "fire" attacks.
Does anyone else remember from previous editions what happens when a random someone is pumped way-too-full of Positive energy?
Is there any reason why the same thing can't happen when pumping a fire-whatever way-too-full of fire?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 10:24PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2009
|
Absolute immunities suck. A player who wants to focus exclusively on one type of damage should be enabled, not punished. If I play a pyromancer, it should be a mark of my character's skill that she can walk up to an embodiment of elemental fire and bloody well burn it to death!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 10:54PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
There once was a white copper ring of fire, but it added positive energy damage to the "fire" attacks.
Does anyone else remember from previous editions what happens when a random someone is pumped way-too-full of Positive energy?
Is there any reason why the same thing can't happen when pumping a fire-whatever way-too-full of fire?
My thoughts exactly, pump enough fire in a fire elemental, you get the classic scene of: "You want my power? Here, choke on it!"
But in all the classic scenes I can think, it could not happen at level appropriate encounter, you would have to be one badass pyromancer to pump too much fire into even a small fire elemental, never mind a huge one.
Putting in-game logic is never about punishing players (at least it should not be), it's about... putting in-gmae logic, period. I disagree that playing a pyromancer should enable you to walk up to a fire elemental and burn it... dear Lord, just the notion of burning a freaking fire elemental gives me a migraine. BUt it could be a class skill to have huge diplomacy bonus with it, perhaps avoiding combat (similar to 3.5 druid's animal empathy).
Or the pyromancer could have spells to controll said elemental, maybe even tapping into said elemental to power up his own power.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 11:00PM
#44
|
|
|
So, the guy whose spells control fire can't use his spells to ... control fire? By dissipating it, bleeding it off, separating it into smaller fires? No reason at all he shouldn't be able to damage the thing.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 11:27PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2012
|
Absolute immunities suck. A player who wants to focus exclusively on one type of damage should be enabled, not punished. If I play a pyromancer, it should be a mark of my character's skill that she can walk up to an embodiment of elemental fire and bloody well burn it to death!
I agree that a player should be enabled to choose whatever path they want their character to go. However, using the pyromancer example, i think that if a player chooses to specialize to such a degree for whatever reason this does not mean that they should be able to do things that make no sense.
In one way its kind of like saying "I should be able to repair a car whether or not i have the right tools to do it" The simple fact is that if i don't have the right tools i won't be able to fix that car. The same applys to monsters. If you don't have the right tool to defeat the monster you shouldn't be able to.
With that said, i do agree that absolute immunities suck in some situation, but in some they make sense. Using fire to defeat a fire elemental just seems wonky to me....
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 11:47PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2007
|
Absolute immunities suck. A player who wants to focus exclusively on one type of damage should be enabled, not punished. If I play a pyromancer, it should be a mark of my character's skill that she can walk up to an embodiment of elemental fire and bloody well burn it to death!
I agree that a player should be enabled to choose whatever path they want their character to go. However, using the pyromancer example, i think that if a player chooses to specialize to such a degree for whatever reason this does not mean that they should be able to do things that make no sense.
In one way its kind of like saying "I should be able to repair a car whether or not i have the right tools to do it" The simple fact is that if i don't have the right tools i won't be able to fix that car. The same applies to monsters. If you don't have the right tool to defeat the monster you shouldn't be able to.
With that said, i do agree that absolute immunities suck in some situation, but in some they make sense. Using fire to defeat a fire elemental just seems wonky to me....
I'm not sure that analogy fits. After all the spells, powers, and skills a player chooses ARE the "tools" of the character.
Therefore it actually comes down to is the player choosing...
to fix every thing with an engine?
to fix only foreign cars?
to fix only automobiles and not boats?
to fix only cars and not trucks or buses?
So the question is how specialized and therefore narrow is specializing in fire? And what does that specialization get them?
I don't really see any compromise on this though. Some people will want to penalize specialists and some don't.
Because you like something, it does not mean it is good.
Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus.
Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 11:48PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2009
|
Absolute immunities suck. A player who wants to focus exclusively on one type of damage should be enabled, not punished. If I play a pyromancer, it should be a mark of my character's skill that she can walk up to an embodiment of elemental fire and bloody well burn it to death!
I agree that a player should be enabled to choose whatever path they want their character to go. However, using the pyromancer example, i think that if a player chooses to specialize to such a degree for whatever reason this does not mean that they should be able to do things that make no sense.
In one way its kind of like saying "I should be able to repair a car whether or not i have the right tools to do it" The simple fact is that if i don't have the right tools i won't be able to fix that car. The same applys to monsters. If you don't have the right tool to defeat the monster you shouldn't be able to.
With that said, i do agree that absolute immunities suck in some situation, but in some they make sense. Using fire to defeat a fire elemental just seems wonky to me....
Invalid argument. You can fix a car without tools, it just takes ingenuity and elbow grease. Same applies here. As an example? The sun's made of fire. You drop the flecking sun on a fire elemental, fire elemental's gone. Fire beats fire elemental.
The fires of Hell burn things that don't exist. You unleash those on a fire elemental, you've burned it to death. Fire beats fire elemental.
Some fires are just plain better than others. Fire elementals tend to be red. Blast it with blue or white fire, it's gone. Fire beats fire elemental.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 1:10AM
#48
|
|
|
I wish I could recall every time I looked over a class, feat, spell, PrC, paragon path, magic item, or whatever and said, "Oh man, that's so cool. But what about all those fire creatures? Hmm, I'll keep looking." Replace "fire" with "undead" or "flying" or whatever is relatively common and annoying, and you get my point.
This would be a better game if I could geek out over the concept art or the clever powers or whatever without having to metagame and try to find feats or items that let me get around the game-world limitations of something. That doesn't mean I want to play characters without limitations - I just don't want to be locked into choices that will translate into massive suck if certain kinds of enemies show up. I don't want the DM to feel like he can't use undead because I'm a rogue or can't use demons because I'm a pyromancer or can't use golems because I'm an enchanter.
What I do want is for classes (etc) to be designed to *function in the game world* with the actual rules in mind. If there are fire resistant or immune creatures left and right, then don't give me a pyromancer class or PrC or whatever that isn't prepared. Some bright lad or wizened sage at the pyromancer guild better have come up with a way to get around fire resistance/immunity, a way to weaken or subvert it or something. And it better come with the class standard, because otherwise the class is hideously adapted to the game world. Ditto for rogues - this is a class iconic for things like wandering off alone to get that extra bit of loot. These guys might rob tombs and abandoned castles and wizards' creepy towers. So why do they get drilled by any undead or constructs that come along? I mean, they know where to find a xorn's kidney, but can't figure out how to drop a zombie? They can't dismantle golems, but they can slide a dagger between a bullete's, um, whatever a bullette has around it's important parts?
Not terrifically "simulationist" in my book, especially when you consider that these are supposed to be classes or fighting tecchniques to survive in the world, not classes that kick down the wrong door and get mauled by common monsters that they have no ability to fight.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 1:13AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2012
|
the positive elemental plane rules worked like this:
first it would heal you. Then it would add bonus hp. When you got to double your max, you would explode. Fire elementals tend to feed on fire, but I suppose the principle exists, but they could just as likely "bleed off" the excess fire, or become bigger fire elementals, maybe even possessing the caster.
A fire elemental is a psyche + fire, right?
But what's the difference between an 8th level fire elemental and a 32nd level fire elemental from Al Qadim's Arabian Adventures? Perhaps it's possible to overburn a fire elemental, but I'd think you'd have to do it all at once, and you've got to give the being more 'fire' than it can handle. Hypothetically, if you were trying to Burst an elemental in this way, I'd probably say something to the effect that an elemental with a max of 64 hit points might explode at 512+ damage, but based only on the concept of over charging it. I have no reason to assume this would work, but there are cases where we use Dynamite to blow out large fires.
Options are Liberating
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 1:58AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
Or the pyromancer could have spells to controll said elemental, maybe even tapping into said elemental to power up his own power.
And than you answered:
So, the guy whose spells control fire can't use his spells to ... control fire? By dissipating it, bleeding it off, separating it into smaller fires? No reason at all he shouldn't be able to damage the thing.
...
Did you like, willingnly disragard my last sentence to make a point? And if yes, what point?
I don't mean to be rude to anyone, but damn, sometimes I feel like a lot of my fellow gamers are like children playing snakes and ladders and throwing a fit because the got swallowed by a snake instead of going up the ladder. Guess what people? Sometimes bad things happen to your character, sometimes your fire spell won't work, sometimes, a sword won't deal any damage and aometimes your whole character concept simply won't do it for this particular encounter.
Stop bitching about it and grow up!! When you manage to survive an ennemy immune to all your powers by being clever, either by running away (gasp, yes, even D&D heroes can run away to fight another day), that makes for an interesting story. I think it's a lot more interesting to say how you cleverly used the terrain features and ruse to trick a fire elemental on the rock bridge, than used a fireball to bring down the roof and the bridge and drop the elemental in the lake than simply saying: "I cast fireball on it and killed it."
This would be a better game if I could geek out over the concept art or the clever powers or whatever without having to metagame and try to find feats or items that let me get around the game-world limitations of something.
You wrote that it would be a better game as a fact, when in fact it is only an opinion. And you never HAVE to metagame, you choose to. If your character is wise and knows it can't hurt undeads because he specialized in imbuing all of his attacks with negative energy, it's not metagaming to look for a magic item that gives a temporary weakness to negative energy to undead, that's playing smart.
What I do want is for classes (etc) to be designed to *function in the game world* with the actual rules in mind. If there are fire resistant or immune creatures left and right, then don't give me a pyromancer class or PrC or whatever that isn't prepared.
That's fine, you can choose to play a character that wants to be ready for anything, but that is why a class, feat, prestige, or whatever are OPTIONALS. Don't like them?Don't pick them! Picked them? Don't bitch about their limitations, incorporate them in your role play and learn to have fun.
Some bright lad or wizened sage at the pyromancer guild better have come up with a way to get around fire resistance/immunity, a way to weaken or subvert it or something.
In 3.5, that was called energy substitution, incorporeal magic weapons, etc... there were lots of ways to do this.
And it better come with the class standard, because otherwise the class is hideously adapted to the game world.
No, not being able to do EVERYTHING does not equal not being adapted to the world. Not everyone is able to do everything, and there is at least one thing for everyone that that person can't do, or at least it does not come naturally (hence the need for feats, multi-classing, magic items, and so on) I'm sorry, but you sound like a child on a rant!! "I chose water spell to drown my opponents and it does not work on the siren!!! Wahhhhhh... I'll tell my mommy!!! "
Yeah, sorry this comes out rash, but I don't mean to belittle your opinins, it's just the way it sounds to me. You want to keep your cake and to eat it too.
especially when you consider that these are supposed to be classes or fighting tecchniques to survive in the world, not classes that kick down the wrong door and get mauled by common monsters that they have no ability to fight.
That'S your interpretaion of the game, not mine. A fire specialist is not meant to "survive the dungeon", he's meant to cast fire spells, period. Hey, no one said life was fair kids, you chose to specialized, it has a price.
|
|
|
