Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7361042" data-attributes="member: 6919838">ClaytonCrossYou have some fulffy goal of impactful but not crippling. Why not blue but not yelliw or spicy but not sweet? Lets start with a very basic idea, shall we? A "default" used for balancing 5e is between long rests 6-8 encounters of medium to hard. A default used for balancing 5e is magic items are rare and basically not assumed for balance in significant numbers. So lets ask a basic fundamental question or two... Ones that *need to be answered* in order to assign numbers that create that outcome.This is basic design 101. Its calked "requirements gathering". Really its more like Design 100.1 - How many medium to hard encounters without access ti magic repair or buying new gear or forges for fixing etc should a plate wearing warrior expect to complete before his armor fails FOR IT TI BE CONSIDERED IMPACTFUL?2- Same question for CRIPPLING?3 - Should this system be built so that it varies by level or remain static as you level up?4 - You have stated magic armor will be expected at some level? At what level should magic armor be  assumed to be in place for all characters - essentially, what level does this sunset?5 - Drawing on your point - should the system be built so that kobolds in numbers who frequently miss targets wearing place do a lot more plate degradation than a gigantic dragon with only 3-5 attacks most of which hit? Is that the flavor of "gritty" goal? Or is that an abberation caused by throwing numbers and such without design goals? The last ine spotlights design vs dive in creation. Dive in we create numbers and an idea and see what hapoens. Most likely, it fails to achieve a cohesive outcome. Design we list a number of goals, give some specifics and then determine mechanics and numbers to get us there."If you dont know where you want to go, you are likely to end up somewhere else!"So, using your example...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).If that was a requirement, then almost every number you put in is going the wrong direction.1 - Choosing a set 2p or whatever to each attack that lands on armor treats each kobold sling stone the same as a mega dragon bite and so - wrong way. Damage to armor should scale by damage of attack because bigger threats have bigger attacks, not necessarily more attacks.2 - Only misses threaten armor. Wrong way. Bigger threats hit more often, have fewer misses. Your design literally causes a warrior to be at more risk of armor loss from giving his enemy disadvantage on attacks. Do you really want a fighter in the big fight to see it as sometimes more beneficial to take a hit than take a miss if his armour is weak but his HP are strong? 3 - The ideas that AoE are less threatening to armor is also wrong way since oftimes the bigger threats get AoE attacks to help make them threatening.There are more but thats just a few.Design leads development, not the other way around, if you want a good chance of success.You can decide "i want something good for supper" put six folks in a car and tell them to make six turns, two lefts, three right and a final left.... Give them values for each turn of 1 mile, seven miles, half mile, nine miles, 50 ft at the last. But unless you already knew that spot...odds are they end up not in the parking lot of "a good place to eat."How</blockquote>

Verification