Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spells dealing cold damage. effects?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dozen" data-source="post: 6167501" data-attributes="member: 6698275"><p>I have my own explanations for each of those spells. I'll readily admit they are very forced, and some of them awfully convenient to support my theory there. More on this later.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're right, it isn't. It was more that I had do come up with <strong><em>something </em></strong>at one point, and this was the first idea I came across that worked, however shakily. </p><p></p><p>The kind of players I play with - the kind I <strong>like </strong>to play with - tend to rip the game system apart for fun. That's not a problem for me the way most DMs think of it. I do the same thing, and I enjoy a good challenge. It's not perfect though, as every once in a while you meet an idea that is completely legit within game rules but cannot be countered. </p><p></p><p>At that point, the one who wins is the one who does the trick first. It takes away the soul of the game and everyone would eventually go home for the day in disappointment. Figuring out a system that can't be broken was only one of the many necessities to keep my players interested and the campaigns intact.</p><p></p><p>I try to keep the game as realistic as the abstract system allows it for the same reason. You can't 'cheat' in the real world - this is more me playing it safe than anything else. I grudgingly accept there are infinite possible explanations, a fraction of which are balanced, and I shouldn't have phrased my explanations in a way that suggested it was the only right way to do it. </p><p>But alas, while possible, I don't have the time, nor the smarts to invent and test a whole new set of basic rules. Thus I picked the best alternative readily available. </p><p></p><p>I recommend the same should you ever run a campaign like I do. It's a lot more easier than coming up with a system from scratch. And (to my pleasant surprise) realism reduces the power gap between magic users and fighter types! Especially ranged fighters, the poor things. </p><p></p><p>Originally I changed gravity to simply fill in another hole. You have to admit, D&D's rules for gravity, collision, and by extension, ranged weapons, are silly. </p><p>Pathfinder's guidelines(I formally thank Paizo for using the word 'guidelines' as opposed to 'rules', because referring to them as such would give me a seizure), present a rare exception in that they are even worse, requiring an object to be<a href="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/environment/environmental-rules#TOC-Falling-Objects" target="_blank"> <em>as large or larger than a halfling</em></a> to hurt you when it falls on you. Never mind that size has jacksh*t to do with weight or mass. Even weirder, they do know it, as right after the table they point out heavier objects should deal more damage! Except when they are small. Logic? Also, damage is dealt differently if the object is dropped as part of a trap. Somehow. (though I admit the creation of a singularity each time a trap is made would explain the horrendous price tags on the damn things.)</p><p></p><p>Then a player pointed out archer builds would kick ass under my new ruleset. And indeed they do! A realistic take on gravity and collision immensely increases their damage output - they are still miles behind a magic user focused on direct damage, but they can keep up with them! And I never had to nerf anyone! That was fantastic to realize.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dozen, post: 6167501, member: 6698275"] I have my own explanations for each of those spells. I'll readily admit they are very forced, and some of them awfully convenient to support my theory there. More on this later. You're right, it isn't. It was more that I had do come up with [B][I]something [/I][/B]at one point, and this was the first idea I came across that worked, however shakily. The kind of players I play with - the kind I [B]like [/B]to play with - tend to rip the game system apart for fun. That's not a problem for me the way most DMs think of it. I do the same thing, and I enjoy a good challenge. It's not perfect though, as every once in a while you meet an idea that is completely legit within game rules but cannot be countered. At that point, the one who wins is the one who does the trick first. It takes away the soul of the game and everyone would eventually go home for the day in disappointment. Figuring out a system that can't be broken was only one of the many necessities to keep my players interested and the campaigns intact. I try to keep the game as realistic as the abstract system allows it for the same reason. You can't 'cheat' in the real world - this is more me playing it safe than anything else. I grudgingly accept there are infinite possible explanations, a fraction of which are balanced, and I shouldn't have phrased my explanations in a way that suggested it was the only right way to do it. But alas, while possible, I don't have the time, nor the smarts to invent and test a whole new set of basic rules. Thus I picked the best alternative readily available. I recommend the same should you ever run a campaign like I do. It's a lot more easier than coming up with a system from scratch. And (to my pleasant surprise) realism reduces the power gap between magic users and fighter types! Especially ranged fighters, the poor things. Originally I changed gravity to simply fill in another hole. You have to admit, D&D's rules for gravity, collision, and by extension, ranged weapons, are silly. Pathfinder's guidelines(I formally thank Paizo for using the word 'guidelines' as opposed to 'rules', because referring to them as such would give me a seizure), present a rare exception in that they are even worse, requiring an object to be[URL="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/environment/environmental-rules#TOC-Falling-Objects"] [I]as large or larger than a halfling[/I][/URL] to hurt you when it falls on you. Never mind that size has jacksh*t to do with weight or mass. Even weirder, they do know it, as right after the table they point out heavier objects should deal more damage! Except when they are small. Logic? Also, damage is dealt differently if the object is dropped as part of a trap. Somehow. (though I admit the creation of a singularity each time a trap is made would explain the horrendous price tags on the damn things.) Then a player pointed out archer builds would kick ass under my new ruleset. And indeed they do! A realistic take on gravity and collision immensely increases their damage output - they are still miles behind a magic user focused on direct damage, but they can keep up with them! And I never had to nerf anyone! That was fantastic to realize. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spells dealing cold damage. effects?
Top