Anyway, I'm creating a homebrew setting based on Vagrant Story and would like to incorporate some of the mechanics. At my table, the one idea some players won't even consider is "typing" physical damage... for example, it doesn't make sense in traditional gaming that an arrow strikes a skeleton as effectively as a mace does. It seems like a simple conversion, based on weapon group:
Bows, Crossbows, Light Blades, Spears = Piercing
Maces, Staves = Blunt
Axes, Heavy Blades = Slashing
An average skeleton might have Resist 5 Piercing, Vulnerable 5 Blunt... (as the necromancy typically affects the bones), and an average zombie might have Resist 5 Blunt, Vulnerable 5 Slashing (as the necromancy typically (traditionally?) affects the sinews and muscles... All-in-all, just a little something to reward preparation and tactics, to add just a little something more to combat.
What do you guys think?
I don't think weapon types added much fun to the game to tell you the truth. The "smart" players just carried around 3 different types of weapons. My players just rolled their eyes after a couple of rounds figuring out the monster was resistant to some type of weapon and switched weapons.
Does Conan the Barbarian carry around a mace and a spear for the times his massively huge two handed sword is ineffective? nahhh would be less heroic
What do you guys think?
Alow me to say that I think it's absolutely brilliant.
The loss of weapon types is something I miss from previous editions. Weapon typing adds color and situational value to specific weapons and adds further depth to monsters (to those who complain of characters carrying one of each type of weapon, I suggest you look at encumberance penalties if this is something you wish to discourage).
I particularly like the way you have suggested incorporating weapon typing. Essentialy, the weapon type follows the "Weapon" Keyword in the Power description whenever a power makes use of a weapon. The significance of the Keyword is adjudicated in the same way as would be any other. It's flexable, it's low-impact, and it works.
It does require that the DM add this "type" to all the weapons in the game and consider what monsters might have what vulnerabilites and what resistences. Doesn't seem too much work though.
As for armor resistance and vulnerability to weapon type, I suspect typing should be used here as sparingly as it is used for magical resistances. I would save it for masterwork and magical armor perhaps. Most armor would not be particularly vulnerable or resistant to any particular weapon type -- if only for simplicity's sake.
It will devalue a number of feats and class abilities (especially those of the fighter).
How?
How?
Easy, suddenly you've added damage reduction back into the system for characters who use weapons with their powers.
Warlocks and Wizards, etc.. Would not be subject to your new weapon type rules, and therefore gain relative power over the weapon users. To balance this you might add more resistance to fire, cold, etc.... But I see this as opening your system up to 3.5 like complexity, but worse, as now you have to do all the work of assigning these values and balancing things.
I disagree, you already have resistance to your elemental attack users, and very little to weapon users if at all. So adding back damage reduction as you put it makes sense. Plus if you throw in vunerabilities to certain weapon types you can balance it well enough.
Except there's already a fair number of balances on that; yes, physical attacks tend not to be reduced by resistances as often, however:
1) elemental resistances tend to be fairly low or fairly rare;
2) weapon attacks overwhelmingly target AC, rather than Reflex, Fort or Will, which are easier defenses to hit; this is countered somewhat by the proficiency bonuses weapon-wielders get, but this remains part of our overall balance consideration between classes.
3) With the exception of the considerably-less-accurate Archery ranger, weapon attacks require the character to remain in or near melee;
4) Most [w]s happen to be considerably smaller dice than the typical dice for non-weapon powers (usually d10s, if I'm not mistaken);
5) Elemental keywords vary considerably by POWER, within classes that have them: this allows those classes to pick the right power for the right situation, and circumvent most resistances and game most vulnerabilities simply by using the right powers. If a Wizard runs into a construct, it's a pretty simple matter to use one of his powers that *isn't* Stinking Cloud, of which he has several. For a Weapon-wielding character to deal with monsters in a similar manner, he needs to amass a golf bag of weapon types, and keep them near his character level enchantment-wise, putting a considerable additional wealth burden on those characters. And God help him if he's a light blade wielding rogue or an Archery ranger, targeting someone with effective Piercing DR; you're basically forcing him to choose between using his powers and doing damage with his attacks.
Long story short, for #5: the mixture of resistances and vulnerabilities tends to be a net POSITIVE for classes that have multiple damage types at their disposal, such as Wizards, Warlocks, and so forth, because they can game such things in their favor, and would be a net NEGATIVE for weapon-centric classes, that *cannot* easily change up the weapon they're using. Seriously, the average Infernal Warlock could easily stumble into something like three distinct damage types, as well as untyped Arcane damage, as early as level 1. Wizards can do every bit as well. And that's without even looking at cross-pact powers or the like.
Basically, your argument above hinges on the assumption that weapon-wielding characters are doing the same damage, in the same conditions, with the same ease of changing damage type, as non-weapon-wielding characters. In other words, you're claiming that each of the above five issues are such non-issues that changing this one factor and keeping everything else the same will have no overall impact on game balance. I'm just a bit skeptical here.
Easy, suddenly you've added damage reduction back into the system for characters who use weapons with their powers.
Well. You've not thought it through.
Because for every weapon type resistance, there is a corrisponding weapon type vulnerability. These balance each other out.
Moreover, monsters (and magical armors) already have resistances and vulnerabilities to magic of various types (fire, cold, etc) under rules as written. But even were this not so, the first point would eliminate threat of imbalance.
...3.5 like complexity...
Complexity = Good
Complication = Bad
really, what other monsters were immune/resistant to specific damage types? i could probably count them on one hand with few of my fingers broken.
Well. You've not thought it through.
Actually, I'd argue that you haven't thought it through quite as much
Because for every weapon type resistance, there is a corrisponding weapon type vulnerability. These balance each other out.
Moreover, monsters (and magical armors) already have resistances and vulnerabilities to magic of various types (fire, cold, etc) under rules as written. But even were this not so, the first point would eliminate threat of imbalance.
...and unlike elemental vulnerabilities and resistances, which vary by power (again, a level one Infernal pact warlock that just sticks to the default powers has three different elemental keywords to pick from, plus a generic arcane one. Even a level 1 wizard who's *trying* to screw himself over will pick at least one non-fire power at level one), weapon vulnerabilities and resistances apply to *all* attacks that character makes. And some fun classes, like the Rogue, are further limited in weapon selection, leaving them screwed something awful if they face anything with piercing resistance.
It's pretty straightfoward; gaming the current resistance system to hit targets with powers that they're vulnerable, or at least, not resistant to: easy for characters that have access to elemental spells. In fact, it's as easy as picking a defense you thing the target's weak against, for many of the same classes.
By contrast, keeping around multiple weapons with appropriate bonuses to do the same with weapon resistances: requires breaking the wealth paradigm and still leaves weapon-specialist classes like the Rogue, Ranger, or even Fighter fairly screwed. Because the wealth system isn't built around the idea that characters are carting around a bunch of extra "back-up" weapons with them.
all in all damage types don't matter. how many monsters form all the Monster Manuals can you think of off the top off your head that these damage types would matter? zombies and skeletons.
And all of the Oozes. And Rakshasha would probably get their Piercing vulnerability (or, more accurately, DR against everything else) back. The Gibbering Mouther and its kin would get their DR/Bludgeoning back, Golems, certain Hags, for some reason, pretty much all other Undead, such as Liches and mummies, and... honestly, I got pretty bored with this before I got to M. But, you get the idea. There *are* more than a couple, and, just to belabor the point, *un*like elemental resistances, classes that care about this stuff aren't really provided with the tools to circumvent them. A wizard who *deliberately cripples* himself at first level is still going to have at least one Thunder or Force power, in addition to his Fire at-will, encounter, and daily. So, he might have limited options when facing something with Fire resistance, but he still has *options*. A rogue, on the other hand, is going to be stuck using his dagger, no matter *what* power he uses with it.
Slashing - Big duh.
Blunt - There's a lot of force behind that blow!
Piecring - Lrn2stab?
#6: The fighter's powers are mostly weapon-type-dependent. It's not as simple for him to just 'use another weapon type' because his powers suddenly stop working properly (or at least don't work nearly as effectively). Other characters may have elements of this too (especially if they've chosen weapon-type feats such as Hammer Rhythm or Heavy Blade Opportunity), but the fighter will take it on the chin more than others.
I'll add #6 to the list above:
#6: The fighter's powers are mostly weapon-type-dependent. It's not as simple for him to just 'use another weapon type' because his powers suddenly stop working properly (or at least don't work nearly as effectively). Other characters may have elements of this too (especially if they've chosen weapon-type feats such as Hammer Rhythm or Heavy Blade Opportunity), but the fighter will take it on the chin more than others.
I do think that's partly related to #5, in the sense that it's "Using a different elemental power is *easy*, and having a different weapon type around that you can use is *really not easy*" but yes, absolutely.
Rogues are similarly limited to light blades for the overwhelming majority of their powers, and Archery rangers are pretty much stuck using arrows on everything.
And all of the Oozes. And Rakshasha would probably get their Piercing vulnerability (or, more accurately, DR against everything else) back. The Gibbering Mouther and its kin would get their DR/Bludgeoning back, Golems, certain Hags, for some reason, pretty much all other Undead, such as Liches and mummies, and... honestly, I got pretty bored with this before I got to M. But, you get the idea. There *are* more than a couple...
but how many of those will you encounter on regular basis? if the game is light on undead will the hammer fighter carry around a sword on the off chance he runs into a gibbering mouther, or an ice pick in case you run into a raksasha? probably not. if he is, the weapon's magical bonus will be so low that he wont be able to hit the monsters very well, so he might just hit them with his hammer and do little damage.
and if you are going to make golems immune to certain types of damage, why not go back to the roots and make them immune to everything but molten cheese.
but how many of those will you encounter on regular basis?
Do you mean individually, or taken en toto? Once we're talking about staples like Most Undead, Most Golems, and All Oozes, they definitely start to represent a significant portion of the Monster Manual. There's a *reason* there are very, very few monsters in the MM that have Radiant resistance, after all, and it's to avoid precisely this issue.
but how many of those will you encounter on regular basis? if the game is light on undead will the hammer fighter carry around a sword on the off chance he runs into a gibbering mouther, or an ice pick in case you run into a raksasha? probably not. if he is, the weapon's magical bonus will be so low that he wont be able to hit the monsters very well, so he might just hit them with his hammer and do little damage.
You're right, he won't carry around extra weapons (he probably *can't*, thanks to the wealth rules), and that's sort of *exactly my point*. Basically, it amounts to an unavoidable power source penalty on martial classes in a way that the arcane power source doesn't see with elemental resistances. When an Infernlock runs into, say, skeletons, he says, "oh, I guess I'll have to stick to my fire and arcane and cold powers, rather than hitting them with Necrotic damage". When a Rogue or Archery ranger or Spear fighter runs across skeletons in this paradigm, he says, "Oh, well I guess I won't be doing damage this combat". It has a totally different effect on play.
Because people can pick and choose what elemental attacks to use, the vulnerabilities end up being more relevant than the resistances. Because martial characters *can't* pick and choose which weapon to use on that next attack, the resistances end up being *much* more relevant than any vulnerabilities.
...
well, im glad we both agree that adding physical damage types adds needless complexity and nerfs melee classes in the name of "realism".
as far as im concerned damn the realism, the game is suppose to be fun for everyone involved, not fun for some and exercise in futility for others.
well, im glad we both agree that adding physical damage types adds needless complexity and nerfs melee classes in the name of "realism".[/quoe]
Not for the purpose of "realism". For the purpose of depth.
And once again...
Complexity = Good
Complication = Bad
there is no such thing as "needless complexity". Complexity is it's own justification. One must watch for needless complication, or for complication that fails to produce sufficient complexity. One must also consider balance issues as well -- but much of the impact of this rule which you take for problems, I see as features.
It was, after all, when the snowspeeder's discovered imperial armor too thick for blasters that they improvised with tow-cables.
It was, after all, when the snowspeeder's discovered imperial armor too thick for blasters that they improvised with tow-cables.
And if they didn't have any tow cables lying around?
I mean, you're describing why it's great for someone who can change around damage types simply by using another power (elemental resistances/vulnerabilities), not why it would be good for classes that can only afford to sink resources into a single weapon (all classes) or classes that are inherently limited to using a single weapon type to do anything at all (especially the Rogue, but also the Fighter).
Please try to understand this. Weapon resistances would be vastly less like elemental resistances, and vastly more like "Orb resistance" or "Staff vulnerability". It keys off *equipment*, which is scarce and not easily changed around, not powers keywords, which are quite plentiful, and easy to switch between (in fact, characters basically *have* to).
And if they didn't have any tow cables lying around?
They would have found another way.
I chose the example because the tow-cable was not intended as a weapon. In the film, the blasters were the snowspeeder's only armament.
In real life too, it is always the seemingly insurmountable that inspires true innovation.
You see; you think it unfair to deprive your players of effective weapons. I don't think the game begins until they're convinced they've got nothing with which to win.
They would have found another way.
I chose the example because the tow-cable was not intended as a weapon. In the film, the blasters were the snowspeeder's only armament.
Of course, tow cables didn't actually make much sense as included on the speeders at all (speeders fly through midair at high speeds, making "tow cables" make about as much sense as tow cables attached to jet planes), and were basically a convenient plot device. More to the point, if this is somehow an analogy for something, be it improvised weapons (which still run afoul of most of the other problems mentioned above- non-proficiency and being unenchanted guarantees their uselessness from late heroic onward, for example)
In real life too, it is always the seemingly insurmountable that inspires true innovation.
Cute cliche, but far more often, the seemingly insurmountable actually is insurmountable. Especially in a game, where things only exist if they're dropped there by the GM. There aren't any tow cables unless the writer *gives* them to the Rebels, in other words. And since we're talking about the game mechanics, it would be nice if you somehow managed to reference them somewhere in your post. It would have the effect of somehow making the post relevant to the discussion.
You see; you think it unfair to deprive your players of effective weapons. I don't think the game begins until they're convinced they've got nothing with which to win.
Again, nice aphorism. Of course, I speak from personal experience when I say that it's unbelievably frustrating to have a single character that needs to sit out or flee combat because they can't do anything, AT ALL. This is *exactly* what happened to my Small 3.5 Archery ranger. He didn't have Silvered arrows, so when he was faced with a Vampire, he could do a single point of damage above its DR. When he was LUCKY ... and which was promptly absorbed by Fast Healing. His options were basically reduced to a)die horribly b)cower in a corner, or c) leave the rest of the party to the wolves. It led to an unbelievably frustrating, and fairly boring encounter for the entire party, and this was under the best DM that I've ever had the pleasure of gaming with. So, you'll excuse me if I'm somewhat credulous of your claim that this somehow enhances the game; every single on of my experiences has been to the contrary, and you haven't even seen fit to reference the game *itself* in your posts.
You see; you think it unfair to deprive your players of effective weapons. I don't think the game begins until they're convinced they've got nothing with which to win.
from my experience you have 2 types of players:
1. min-maxers: they will carry tow cables, replacement snowspeeder parts, and the kitchen sink. these are also the players for whom the character is all too often just a set of numbers (note that not all are like that, but most that i have seen). these are also typically the ones who miss the 3.5 combos that allow them to make the rest of the party obsolete.
2. casuals: they just want to play the game for the story, or killing monsters, or just fun, but dont care that they are playing a tiefling fighter. thats not to say type one players dont have fun, they just enjoy dnd accounting more then anything else.
if you have a group of type 1 players they will be each carrying a bag of weapons for different occasions, some may even hire a peon to carry them.
if you have a group of type 2 players they will just find the encounter frustrating and boring.
also in the game environment it is up to DM to either provide the tow cables, or let players know that the tow cables will be needed, and unfortunately most DMs i played with (while some were great story tellers) did not have that foresight.
if you ask me, i would rather focus on the story and making sure that the one tool the character uses is up to snuff, then to worry if everyone is capable of doing x, y, z, aa, ab types of damage.
if you have a group of type 2 players they will just find the encounter frustrating and boring.
Unless you never give penalties for certain weapon types, rather bonuses, i.e. small vulnerabilities - added on the monsters as they are.
This means that casuals can still enjoy it and get the occasional "neat!" effect, while min-maxers will get the benefit that makes them happy.
It certainly fits 4E's "Yes"-strategy - give monsters vulnerabilities, not resistances!
Cheers, LT.
Unless you never give penalties for certain weapon types, rather bonuses, i.e. small vulnerabilities - added on the monsters as they are.
This means that casuals can still enjoy it and get the occasional "neat!" effect, while min-maxers will get the benefit that makes them happy.
It certainly fits 4E's "Yes"-strategy - give monsters vulnerabilities, not resistances!
Cheers, LT.
And now Weapon damage is better than magic typed damage. Congratulations.
And now Weapon damage is better than magic typed damage. Congratulations.
Why?
And now Weapon damage is better than magic typed damage. Congratulations.
Not really; at best, it's *as* good, and much more likely, it's not.
Remember, elemental attacks tend to do just about *as* much base damage, modulated for factors like range and area vs single target. Once again, arcanists and the like benefit from having being able to pick the right tool for the right job, meaning they get to maximize situations in which they benefit from extra damage, and minimize situations where resistance kicks in.
Nothing like that exists for weapon-users; they're using the same weapon, no matter what. Since the rogue and ranger are just chugging along, using the same weapon all the time, there's no meaningful way to maximize the situations in which bonus damage applies. In fact, for Defender classes like the Fighter, Paladin and Swordmage, it's even worse; since part of their job is to pin enemies down and create bottlenecks, they don't even get much license to discriminate in terms of targets, meaning there's even less opportunity to maximize these attacks.
...in a game, where things only exist if they're dropped there by the GM. There aren't any tow cables unless the writer *gives* them to the Rebels, in other words.
It's funny but in my games, my players are constantly thinking up ways to get themselves out of trouble -- actions I never even began to anticipate.
...and you haven't even seen fit to reference the game *itself* in your posts.
Well. Perhaps I should apologize if my posting is not up to the standard to which you have grown accustomed! Oh my!
It certainly fits 4E's "Yes"-strategy - give monsters vulnerabilities, not resistances!
Lord Tirian. I bow most humbly before your wisdom.
This eliminates any of the problems raised by our cantakerous opponents and yet allows the DM to add additional "flavor" to monster encounters and additional value to weapons. It will make various combat weapons only slightly more powerful than they are at present.
(1) What compensates for nerving archers / ranged rogues? arcane/divine characters can just use an other spell. martial ranged characters are mostly stuck with piercing (be it bows, daggers, ...).
(2) how do you compensate with the multiple damage type mechanism?
In case of mutiple damage types, damage is calculated in favor of the attacker:
- a necro/fire spell deals full damage if the defender does not have resist necro AND resist fire.
- a necro/fire spell deals more damge if the defender has vunrability necro OR vunrability fire.
example:
John, the tiefling with a flaming longsword, encounters a fire demon
- in the old system, the demon X would have resist fire 20, which means -20 damage from every fire attack John does)
- in the new system. the demon X has resist fire 20, resist blund 5, slashing vunrability 5. every attack John does with his flaming longsword (even if its a fire attack) deals +5 damage. every attack John does with a flaming club only gets 5 damage substracted.
Another thing to consider with giving creatures vulnerabilities: lets say that your DM is not 30 years old, unemployed, and living in their parents basement. That would mean that your DM probably has a job, and/or school, possibly a significant other that, god forbid, want some attention. Now that we limit the time the DM has on preparing the game, would you rather have your DM spent his limited time on figuring out what damage types the monsters are vulnerable/resistant without making certain party members obsolete, or would you rather have your DM just pull the critter straight out of the book and focused on making the story fun?
another question to ask, while more "realistic", does typing the damage makes the game more fun for the players?
Why?
Currently, Weapon damage gets no vulnerabilities, Magic damage gets vulnerabilities but also resistances and immunities. You just advocated giving Weapon damage vulnerabilities without resistance and immunities. Therefore, Weapon damage is becoming better than it was before. If you assume weapon and magic damage were balanced before the change, you've just imbalanced them.
If you assume weapon and magic damage were balanced before the change, you've just imbalanced them.
Well, that's an assumption - not a given fact.
But aside from that: Yes, for a certain subset of monsters, some weapons will become better - but:
1) Not significantly so, unless you give out a lot of huge vulnerabilities.
2) The subset doesn't have to be large (there are only some monsters where it makes sense), so it sort of evens out in the long run.
3) While making some weapons marginally better, it's not making them better all the time or in general, it's a choice thing.
4) Not all weapons only do weapon damage, due to magic weapons and powers, so straight weapon damage isn't assumed by the game anyway.
To elaborate on 3: There are always ups and downs to certain damage types. By your logic, all clerics and paladins are better than the rest of their respective classes, because of their higher damage output against undead - despite the fact that it's not assured that each party has divine characters. And if you say it's sort of "rolled into their damage already", then they are unbalanced against non-undead foes, because they lack damage.
Cheers, LT.
1) Not significantly so, unless you give out a lot of huge vulnerabilities.
define significantly.
- for a lvl 1 monster with 20 or 30 hp, vunrability 5 is already big.
- any monster with resistances get nerved. big time. (be it resistance or vunrablity, the fact that weapons deal a damage-type, while spells don't. kinda breaks them)
2) The subset doesn't have to be large (there are only some monsters where it makes sense), so it sort of evens out in the long run.
thats a difficult way of creating variant rules: Making gnomes immortal is balanced as long as the party doesn't encounter them ...
(basically: any rule is balanced as long the impact will be minimal on the gameplay).
However, even if the players only encounter such monsters once, they'll probably revert back to "OMG, I need all types of weapon, to pass DR". there basically will be a lasting impact on the game, because the players know they can encounter such creatures ...
3) While making some weapons marginally better, it's not making them better all the time or in general, it's a choice thing.
IMO wrong.
- currently: a fire sword (dealing only fire damage) gets obstructed by fire resistance
- with this rule, a fire sword deals fire+slashing damage, making it pass any resistance of monster without both fire AND slashing resitance.
4) Not all weapons only do weapon damage, due to magic weapons and powers, so straight weapon damage isn't assumed by the game anyway.
care to elaberate? any attack with a weapon deals weapon damage, no?
To elaborate on 3: There are always ups and downs to certain damage types. By your logic, all clerics and paladins are better than the rest of their respective classes, because of their higher damage output against undead - despite the fact that it's not assured that each party has divine characters. And if you say it's sort of "rolled into their damage already", then they are unbalanced against non-undead foes, because they lack damage.
most radiant power are implement, not weapon.
define significantly.
- for a lvl 1 monster with 20 or 30 hp, vunrability 5 is already big.
- any monster with resistances get nerved. big time. (be it resistance or vunrablity, the fact that weapons deal a damage-type, while spells don't. kinda breaks them)
I basically thought of something small - vulnerabilities like 1, 2 and 5 for heroic, paragon and epic. Furthermore, all damage would still be weapon damage, basically weapon (slashing) and so on - i.e. monsters with resistances would end up in the same spot as now.
However, even if the players only encounter such monsters once, they'll probably revert back to "OMG, I need all types of weapon, to pass DR". there basically will be a lasting impact on the game, because the players know they can encounter such creatures ...
Yeah, that's a danger - but I think if the vulnerability is small (see above) and you, as a DM, acknowledge it's small (tell them!), then they shouldn't feel a need - plus compared to their main weapon, it wouldn't be effective enough to justify one, as the backup weapon is probably enchanted with a lower enhancement bonus, making it worse - even with the vulnerability added in.
IMO wrong.
- currently: a fire sword (dealing only fire damage) gets obstructed by fire resistance
- with this rule, a fire sword deals fire+slashing damage, making it pass any resistance of monster without both fire AND slashing resitance.
Again, I thought of it as a subset of the current way damage is handled, i.e. the fire damage would entire replace the weapon damage type of the weapon.
care to elaberate? any attack with a weapon deals weapon damage, no?
most radiant power are implement, not weapon.
On both counts: Paladins have a weapon-based at-will that deals radiant damage (Holy Strike). They get more weapon-based radiant attacks as they rise in level.
Mind you, the rule was more an idea/advice given in response to the thread - I haven't even planned to implement it in my own home games (didn't felt the need so far), so I like the discussion, as somebody who does want to implement things like that (like the OP), can take away something useful from this thread!
Cheers, LT.
Complexity is it's own justification.
I'm going to disagree completely with this one.
Complexity = bad. Usually.
Complexity and Complication is usually no different other than in semantics.
Sometimes simple rules can make for a complex game - ala Go. But here you're just talking about more complication.
As a total side note, I never got the idea that the tow cables on the Rebel Landspeeders were just "conveniently" there - I assumed they've been fighting the Empire for a long time and were aware that the Empire deploys walkers, and armed their fighters appropriately.
On both counts: Paladins have a weapon-based at-will that deals radiant damage (Holy Strike). They get more weapon-based radiant attacks as they rise in level.
... And in this new system it would do both [weapon type] *and* Radiant damage, no? Doesn't exactly get around the fact that all powers with the [weapon] keyword would be affected in this way, no matter what other keywords their powers had.
On both counts: Paladins have a weapon-based at-will that deals radiant damage (Holy Strike). They get more weapon-based radiant attacks as they rise in level.
indeed. and a holy strike / elemental weapon combo passes through almost all resistances.
edit: its also an easy way for tieflings to fight fire resistant monsters
"Hammers and maces deal damage to this monster as if they had the Brutal 1 property."
or...
"Light blade, bow and crossbow attacks score a critical hit against this monster on a roll of 18-20."
...or whatever you feel like.
Not a rules change at all - simply extra stats for selected monsters.
If I hear any complaint about how the monsters in the MM are "balanced" and this will break them, I'll explode :P
... As a total side note, I never got the idea that the tow cables on the Rebel Landspeeders were just "conveniently" there - I assumed they've been fighting the Empire for a long time and were aware that the Empire deploys walkers, and armed their fighters appropriately.
actually they seemed unprepared for the walkers. seemed to me like the tow cables were intended for... towing, not as a weapon.
actually they seemed unprepared for the walkers. seemed to me like the tow cables were intended for... towing, not as a weapon.
It's also worth noting that the rebels LOST that battle, and the tow cable trick wasn't actually effective enough to be anything more than a stall.
Not that a crushing loss can't progress the story, mind you, but there are plenty of ways of deliberately dealing out that crushing loss as it is; I really don't think we need to revive DR and all its suckitude just for the minor story benefit of having yet another way to make the PCs fail.
I basically thought of something small - vulnerabilities like 1, 2 and 5 for heroic, paragon and epic. ...
with number this small, why bother? usually both players and the DM have enough things to keep track of that 1 or 2 points of specific vulnerability will just slow the game down.
so is adding "realism" worth reducing immersion?
actually they seemed unprepared for the walkers. seemed to me like the tow cables were intended for... towing, not as a weapon.
"Imperial walkers..." not "Holy hell, what are those?"
"Use your tow cables" not "This may sound nuts, but I've got an idea..."
I can't quite see the point of having a "tow" cable designed to be fired from a gun like weapon with a gunner onboard who has no apparent duty other than firing the tow cable unless it was designed as a weapon.
What this has to do with smashing skeletons to pieces, I have no idea!
"Imperial walkers..." not "Holy hell, what are those?"
"Use your tow cables" not "This may sound nuts, but I've got an idea..."
I can't quite see the point of having a "tow" cable designed to be fired from a gun like weapon with a gunner onboard who has no apparent duty other than firing the tow cable unless it was designed as a weapon.
What this has to do with smashing skeletons to pieces, I have no idea!
Oh, see, it's because like tow cables, reviving DR either forces you into an incredably contrived situation where the right weapon for the job -and a person who can use it- *happens* to just be lying around, or else requires you to carry around an extra weapon in the off-chance you end up needing to fight Imperial Walkers. Or, something.
That was 1shmael's point, right?
And again, just to harp on this point, the Rebels *lost* the Battle of Hoth. Probably because they didn't have better weapons.
That was 1shmael's point, right?
No. My point was that, with few exceptions, all those not fortunate enough to have me as a DM, deserve my pity.
And you have it.
No. My point was that, with few exceptions, all those not fortunate enough to have me as a DM, deserve my pity.
And you have it.
It's true! It's pure tragedy that we're not all amazingly godlike and (certainly not at all personally abrasive) DMs like 1shmael is. We, who actually care about the mechanical impact of arbitrary houserules, or who recognize that setting pieces actually need to be included, i.e, dropped there via deliberate authorial intent, in order to reliably serve any benefit to the characters, are *clearly* in need of 1shmael's pity. Honestly, we should probably all just give up on DMing entirely, since we'll clearly never be able to live up to the standard of DMing set by 1shmael. After all, how could we *possibly* live up to the sort of DMing that would introduce new houserules that force multiple players to sit out entire encounters, because they can't use any of their powers or do any damage?
The first, is that a knife doesn't always just do piercing. Otherwise you don't cut throats, you stab them.
I'm saying this is purely cinematic. I can cut, stab, or blade someone with a sword or axe. I can stab, smack or graze someone with a spear. An arrow either pierces, connects solidly, or tears flesh. Hammers are the only weapons really impacted imo... and that's because all they really do is impact. Hard.
My point is, it's an unrealistic and arbitrary rule that restricts martial characters in a way that doesn't always agree with their powers. It's all fluff. If you're good with your weapon, you can hurt things whether they're bone, brawn, scale or pudding.
Though the idea of making enemies vulnerable to a specific type sounds like some fun. Moles weak against hammers. Origami warriors who can't take edged weapons but beat the tar out of hammer-boys. Of course scissory looking foes would have to be vulnerable against hammer... hells make it like fire emblem. :D
Hammers are the only weapons really impacted imo... and that's because all they really do is impact. Hard.
Unless you use a german warhammer, that is ...
link
Step 1: Make new monster.
Step 2: Give it Resist/Vulnerability: maces x, hammers y, light blades z.
Step 3: Give lip service to a tired internet meme.
Step 4: Profit.
Our fighter does too much damage with his 2 Mace in comparison to his armor and the rogue or mage with us and I would like to have one encounter, say with a golem or so, that will let the others shine. I think I'll just add 5 or 10 blunt resistance to the Golem out of the monster manual and let them hack at it.
Is there an enemy that is unfriendly to melee in general, say some sort of negative effect or so, without beeing overly strong (will be a side quest adventure as the healer is not with us) or unfriendly for a ranger?
Hmm, *continuing to look through the MM*
€: Will probably use the bronze warder from Thunderspire labyrinth and only have blunt resist and not resist all