Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="happyhermit" data-source="post: 7225740" data-attributes="member: 6834463">Because for most people the opposite (a constant mini-game of &quot;guess that damage type&quot;) is more lame. As to your other point, yeah I would say not even &quot;kinda&quot;, but that as presented in the default, it actually does makes damage &quot;types&quot; (b/p/s not all the other &quot;types&quot; like ranged/melee etc.) pointless for most encounters, by design. 4e got rid of it but they chose to bring it back because it is interesting to most people, in small doses, and as mentioned above it lays the groundwork and provides tools to GMs who want to make it a more important part of their games.I mean, I have seen this myself way before 5e was a thing. Players encounter something that resists a certain damage and they scramble to adjust their tactics, and they have a great time especially if it is something that &quot;makes sense&quot;. By the fifth time they encounter that type of monster it is no longer a very interesting part of combat and a bit of a pain. If every monster or even every second monster ends up being resistant/vulnerable to a particular damage type then most players just tune it out or deal with it like any other uninteresting overhead, grabbing the right club from their golf bag. Some players and some Gms and some types of games might really want to have this as a major aspect of play, and the framework is there for them, which is great but making it that way by default is &quot;lame&quot; for most people.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="happyhermit, post: 7225740, member: 6834463"] Because for most people the opposite (a constant mini-game of "guess that damage type") is more lame. As to your other point, yeah I would say not even "kinda", but that as presented in the default, it actually does makes damage "types" (b/p/s not all the other "types" like ranged/melee etc.) pointless for most encounters, by design. 4e got rid of it but they chose to bring it back because it is interesting to most people, in small doses, and as mentioned above it lays the groundwork and provides tools to GMs who want to make it a more important part of their games. I mean, I have seen this myself way before 5e was a thing. Players encounter something that resists a certain damage and they scramble to adjust their tactics, and they have a great time especially if it is something that "makes sense". By the fifth time they encounter that type of monster it is no longer a very interesting part of combat and a bit of a pain. If every monster or even every second monster ends up being resistant/vulnerable to a particular damage type then most players just tune it out or deal with it like any other uninteresting overhead, grabbing the right club from their golf bag. Some players and some Gms and some types of games might really want to have this as a major aspect of play, and the framework is there for them, which is great but making it that way by default is "lame" for most people. [/QUOTE]

Verification