I never said to separate each type of damage. You are though.
Irrelevant, it was an example of how a similar system was used in a previous edition and turned out to be wildly unpopular.
And what 10 levels of characters can not deliver 30 points of damage in a round combined ?
One where most of the party is made up of casters. If the party is a wizard, a warlock, a cleric, and a fighter, suddenly the fighter somehow is useless or nearly so against opponents that wear armor. Plus, this is not something that the party suddenly has to start dealing with at 10th level. It's an issue at 1st level. And it's going to prolong fights if the majority of damage inflicted every round gets eaten up by someone's ablative damage resistance. How exactly does that make the game more fun?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Monsters should fight to their intelligence level and knowledge of the situation, in general they are intelligent creatures and should behave so.
Monsters should fight intelligently, yes, but D&D is a game. And it's not even a competitive wargame, the goal of D&D is not for the GM to beat the party. Monsters that use exploitative tactics that the party is unable to counter reliably do not make or a fun game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Monsters should fight to their intelligence level and knowledge of the situation, in general they are intelligent creatures and should behave so.
Monsters should fight intelligently, yes, but D&D is a game. And it's not even a competitive wargame, the goal of D&D is not for the GM to beat the party. Monsters that use exploitative tactics that the party is unable to counter reliably do not make or a fun game.
I think we are on the same page.
GM's who create situations the players have no chance of defeating and do not allow for them to retreat is often unfun. GM's who tend to look at players character sheets and have monsters use attacks on each different player that uses their worst save...tends to be unfun. GM's who think the game is me vs them...often tends to lead to unfunness (if that is a word).
The same can be said if every battle, skill test, social combat is essentially the same and only masks of the participants change.
There is one group of armors actually could be grouped, these are the ones made of small plates: the scale, brigandine and lamellar armors. Their construction method, thus their appearance is different, but they are also very similar due to the method of protection.
There should be a medium and a heavy armor set of these. The description should explicitly mention these 3 names as variants or examples, and the fact they all composed of small plates. The stats would be the same, so they could be a single group.
The question is, what could be their name (medium + heavy)? A common name? Or one of these armors, and the rest would be mentioned in the description?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Monsters should fight to their intelligence level and knowledge of the situation, in general they are intelligent creatures and should behave so.
Irrelevant, it was an example of how a similar system was used in a previous edition and turned out to be wildly unpopular.
One where most of the party is made up of casters. If the party is a wizard, a warlock, a cleric, and a fighter, suddenly the fighter somehow is useless or nearly so against opponents that wear armor. Plus, this is not something that the party suddenly has to start dealing with at 10th level. It's an issue at 1st level. And it's going to prolong fights if the majority of damage inflicted every round gets eaten up by someone's ablative damage resistance. How exactly does that make the game more fun?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Monsters should fight intelligently, yes, but D&D is a game. And it's not even a competitive wargame, the goal of D&D is not for the GM to beat the party. Monsters that use exploitative tactics that the party is unable to counter reliably do not make or a fun game.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think we are on the same page.
GM's who create situations the players have no chance of defeating and do not allow for them to retreat is often unfun. GM's who tend to look at players character sheets and have monsters use attacks on each different player that uses their worst save...tends to be unfun. GM's who think the game is me vs them...often tends to lead to unfunness (if that is a word).
The same can be said if every battle, skill test, social combat is essentially the same and only masks of the participants change.
There is one group of armors actually could be grouped, these are the ones made of small plates: the scale, brigandine and lamellar armors. Their construction method, thus their appearance is different, but they are also very similar due to the method of protection.
There should be a medium and a heavy armor set of these. The description should explicitly mention these 3 names as variants or examples, and the fact they all composed of small plates. The stats would be the same, so they could be a single group.
The question is, what could be their name (medium + heavy)? A common name? Or one of these armors, and the rest would be mentioned in the description?