like why is it worded the way it is, why did they feel it to be important that you spend your action to end one effect? Is it just meant to limit how you you use it in combat? is it meant to prevent you from ending effects that also incapacitate you or force you to use certain actions (such as dominate and any fear effect forcing the victim to flee)? or is it that way simply to prevent it from also giving you immunity to effects you are immune to if you have immunity to being charmed or frightened, like the glamour bard's enthralling performance? Is it a mix of all these factors perhaps?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I'm pretty sure it's just to give it a cost of some kind. If you get frightened or charmed you have to make the choice on whether you spend an action or just put up with it. I think making the character outright immune would make it a bit too powerful of an ability... although I think I would prefer to just have it cost Ki instead. Whether that reduces it to a free action or a bonus action, I feel like it would be even more useful that way.
Yes, to all of the above. Its meant to be a cool and strong option without being completely overpowered. Poison, Charm, and Fear are the three 'delivery' status effects that often carry more interesting effects. Immunity to all three would make the monk impervious to a lot of different spells and monster effects, to the point where the the game becomes much less fun for the DM and the players.
Its almost meant to be flavorfully evocative. Actively focusing your mind to regain control and repel invaders is much more faithful to the trope than just always being immune to any foreign influence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
like why is it worded the way it is, why did they feel it to be important that you spend your action to end one effect? Is it just meant to limit how you you use it in combat? is it meant to prevent you from ending effects that also incapacitate you or force you to use certain actions (such as dominate and any fear effect forcing the victim to flee)? or is it that way simply to prevent it from also giving you immunity to effects you are immune to if you have immunity to being charmed or frightened, like the glamour bard's enthralling performance? Is it a mix of all these factors perhaps?
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I'm pretty sure it's just to give it a cost of some kind. If you get frightened or charmed you have to make the choice on whether you spend an action or just put up with it. I think making the character outright immune would make it a bit too powerful of an ability... although I think I would prefer to just have it cost Ki instead. Whether that reduces it to a free action or a bonus action, I feel like it would be even more useful that way.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Yes, to all of the above. Its meant to be a cool and strong option without being completely overpowered. Poison, Charm, and Fear are the three 'delivery' status effects that often carry more interesting effects. Immunity to all three would make the monk impervious to a lot of different spells and monster effects, to the point where the the game becomes much less fun for the DM and the players.
Its almost meant to be flavorfully evocative. Actively focusing your mind to regain control and repel invaders is much more faithful to the trope than just always being immune to any foreign influence.