[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]
First ...wow the condensation just drips off of that last post. Its so full of it that it becomes hard to read but I will try to get to the points.
#1-4 your trying to pull cart before the horse. Your asking for answers to questions before the testing to give the answers. I have said and YOU have said it will need to be balanced that is journey not a starting point that is your ending point. You can ask those questions but you need to test to find them. That's why Wizards of the coast uses Unearthed Arcana and play test before printing anything official. You know that. ...so why?...
#5 is your real argument and drives everything else you say. The answer you want and are expecting is the dragon should do more damage to the armor.
"Requirement: Bigger badder more iconicalky tough foes (ancient dragons) should be as dangerous or more (maybe much more) to gear survivability than say a lot of low lufes (say a dozen kobolds)."
I actually don't think that's true. I just posted this in response to another post so I will quote myself:
"I feel like that is double jeopardy on hits because they are already taking hit point damage. Doing it on miss means tracking on or the other so your engaged ether way. If you had a fight against little "minions" there is not lose there if they keep missing adding armor damage mean that gains wear. If you have a powerful boss that never misses then you don't have to worry about your armor but you might die. This means in both situations you have worry and a drain which suites my goal. I could be wrong but I am more for tweaking and fixing this idea before I just through it out. If it doesn't work in the end going to a critical hit system will be my backup."
From a design prospective having the minor minions create a drain her and letting stronger enemies be as they are just levels your worry so everything drains you.... This is my "grittier world" goal... So design is fits that. That is my goal and where I am going. I am not lost. I see a path I am just trying watch where I step. So I figure your going go say you don't like that concept next but It is the concept I am aiming for. It also means your argument that at end game it breaks may not be true. So if your complaint is you don't like the concept of "things wear out" and you can't suspend disbelief that a dragon... eh hem ... a dragon can do less damage to armor buy being a more capable at damaging the target without attack just the armor in such a way that it is critical to structure or function... well then we have to did agree to disagree.
If you have something constructive as opposed to dismissive I would be happy to hear it. If you have an alternate idea to do roughly the same thing I am aiming for (degrading gear for equipment management and possible situations where once in a while they have to make divisions to acquire lesser version or except a lose somewhere else creating meaningful out of combat planning due to shortage late campaign, likely pushing through enemy territory) then I would be glad to hear it and compare. It might help me improve mine or It might replace mine. If but if your just saying "you need play testing" and "I don't like this style" then ... I mean I am not asking you not to post. Just please more on topic than personal assault please.
ClaytonCross
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of testing both as its objective and timing.
Decisions like "how many battles before armor fail do we want" (the impactful vs crippling) are not determined by testing. They are design goals.
Testing is not first to set goals but is well after goals to see if the model reaches the goal.
By the time UA releases stuff, it has already seen design, goals, requirements, been vetted against already establish data etc and passed whatever their internal criteria are - then it is handed out to gauge interest. If you look at a lot of the dev comments on feedback to UA they rarely focus on power or balance or frequency or numbers - they mention and spend more time on interest, uniqueness and other broader isdues like complexity vs simplicity.
Alpha and beta are way after goals/requirements and internal dev and testing.
As for content vs personal blah blah, i note you dismissed the actual question for details about the "system" and goals and chose to go straight for personal.
Some might see that as indicative of what you want to engage in.
As for your meta-think on dragons vs kobold daggers and their armor shredding capabilities, that would be a very difficult sell to players for most settings that would be called gritty. In my experience, most players have preconceived notions about how durable armor is against mostly typical small weapons (extremely durable in fact) and they also have little to no problem seeing masdive dragon strike as much much more damaging.
Part of that can stem from fantasy lit/film/source which have on numerous occasion described or shown "teeth as big as daggers" or "claws like swords" and the like.
I can well imagine if I tried to sell gritty and kobold knive shred armor better that dragons mouth full of daggers - mostly my players would laugh.
It is easier to see your attempt to claim that as a feature or goal as driven by "need to defend the mechanic" than to see it as an actual in play game world gritty reality you **wanted** to design a sysyem to create. But if you want to stick to the "goal" and such position thats fine.
I myself coined in my games decades ago "My Stupid Rule." It says in short that if i would feel stupid in play in game explaining how some rule worked and the redults it creates, i di not use that rule.
I have found that as a bery usefil guiding principle in many different settings in many diffetent systems. It also works well way outside of rpgs to most any design appproach.
Telling someone that the giant dragon with rows of teeth "as big as daggers" does no damage to their plate armor on a bite and on a miss does less danage to the armor that say four kobolds stabbing them with daggers and missing **would not pass** "My Stupid Rule."
You may find that kind of disconnect between "in game reality" and "gritty claim" to limit your proposal's appeal beyond those invested in finding a way to make your initial idea work.
I would be fine with providing more direct sub-system analysis and suggestion and less design and process related info or inconsistency info, but again, you serm unable or unwilling to set basic benchmarks or targets to aim for.
