deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:32 pm
NPL, do you realize that you're seriously advocating that the BEST WAY to implement a Fire Mage
Lets stop you right there.
I may have made an argument that the "best" way to tag an ability intended to ignore fire immunity was with text that says "ignores fire immunity".
I never made an argument on the "best" Fire Wizard. If you go back you will find I have been fairly stubborn in stating that the competing proposals for fire wizards from the fire mage to the forge mage and so on. Were all fine. You can have your popular vanilla "fire" flavor, you can have your arty edgy "Forge" flavor, you can have your more generalist and more specialist variants under either name. It doesn't matter.
Because none of those variants necessitate having "Ignore Fire Immunity", or not. That text could as easily appear on a Forge Mage as it could NOT appear on a Fire Mage. There is no mechanically necessitated link anywhere there. And whether they do have it or not, since RPS doesn't matter, it doesn't especially matter at a game design level. You cannot "careful" your way into making Fire Immunity or Ignore Fire Immunity, OR "lets just keep slapping on extra damage types" suddenly change from "watch out" to "OK" at a design level.
My argument firmly from the beginning has been simply that "Ignore X Immunity" is a functional and useful piece of rules text you absolutely should use IF your subjective and flavor related goals are to represent that specific, and certainly in many cases desirable, interaction. That sure, you don't NEED to, but you definitely shouldn't stupidly rule it out through some delusion that you HAVE to in order to save the game from some sort of design level mind trap.
That is far from ever presenting an argument of the "Best" fire wizard. The closest I ever got to that was suggesting that "Fire Wizard" might just be more popular
as a broad theme than "Forge Guy". Which seems to me... not unreasonable. And even then I said the forge guy option was fine if you wanted that for thematic reasons.
fighting a god
Your hyperbole has been pretty bad already. And you've seen before the sort of people and the sort of arguments that resort to "but but what about fighting GOD!" but you want to go there? Remember when I mocked you for bringing in sitting on the surface of the Sun. Did you not get the hint there?
The first reason to create a damage type is because some creature is spectacularly VULNERABLE to it. The next reason to create a damage type is because some creature is extraordinarily RESISTANT to it.
The, first, reason you say. Interesting totally irrelevant ranking tangent there (and typically obsessively compulsive needlessly list making). Especially when you keep adding "spectacularly" to all the reasons.
You are. Again. Poorly. Just describing advantageous and disadvantageous match ups. Which again, because RPS doesn't matter are tools that will turn up at a completely arbitrary and unknown rate at the whim of the group of players at the table NOT at the whim of your "careful" game design.
Where the rules lead you to 'the best course of action for anything immune to fire is burn it anyway', that's not a game I want to play.
Again you just go to the extreme hyperbole. Attributing things to my arguments, and the mechanics I am discussing that just are not there.
What precisely about "Ignores Fire Immunity" as a piece of rules text makes you think an attack with that tag is the BEST course of action against targets with fire immunity?
Even if it allowed a specialist to use the thing they specialize in, that at best makes it the best course of action for that individual specialist. There is no reason to believe that it would not be better to bring a different specialist or even a generalist. Nor is there even any reason to believe it will only appear attached to a specialist in the matching damage type.
And that's even just when the 'Ignores Fire Immunity" text even shows up at all. There will still be fire attacks in the game, perhaps even by specialists, that do not have that tag attached to them. I won't make any claims about how often that happens because no one can, just that it can happen, and that's when Fire Immunity gets to do its thing without being bypassed.
You even in the premise for that very claim insisted that damage types exist
first and foremost to create vulnerability match ups. You even needlessly made them "Spectacular". What about bypassing an immunity makes it ALSO apply the effects of the target being spectacularly vulnerable? What about Fire Immunity itself makes the target automatically NOT spectacularly vulnerable to something else?
In order for "Ignore Fire Immunity" to be the very best option against a target with "Fire Immunity" that target would ALSO have to not have ANY vulnerabilities AND would need to be at the very least resistant to EVERYTHING ELSE. And such a poorly designed edge case target is in fact if anything an open invitation of a puzzle monster begging "Ignore Fire Immunity" to be present.
Why do all your arguments against having any ignore immunity text at all somehow always require you to make OTHER completely independent bad design decisions.
It makes a joke of immunity and outside of a specific type of parody game (a la Bastard!),
I find it amusing that you think you are somehow above Bastard!. Your fantasy fiction you generate in your game play or game design is somehow better?
It's fine to like your own stuff more than other stuff, if your don't then FFS, change your stuff. But lets not be too arrogant here, the stories we generate playing our little TTRPGs with friends are... rarely if ever high quality fiction.
Case in point. Bastard! a piece of fiction loosely inspired by some guy's TTRPG experiences.
I'd have a hard time saying anything other than pointing out that it's just irrelevant arrogance on your part, but you first tried wedging this in here trying to dismiss my support of an immunity bypass as "unique"... by giving an example from famous popular fiction, which was just another great moment in you immediately contradicting your own point.
is corrosive to the sense of cause and effect which is a critical underpinning of a shared fantasy narrative.
Lets be clear. This bit, is you saying "Because I don't personally like it" but trying to pretend it's objective.