Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Terraism" data-source="post: 4677479" data-attributes="member: 278">Thanks.&nbsp; At some point, assuming someone kept trying, it would eventually get absolute - I mean, enough strikes at armor, and it'd no longer provide a benefit.&nbsp; I was tempted, in both cases, to state that &quot;if the item has sustained penalties equal to either the armor bonus provided or the proficiency bonus to attacks it grants, it breaks.&quot;&nbsp; Didn't know if that'd be too much, though.&nbsp; I mean, granted, the armor thing sorta is that way already - armor that provides a +0 bonus isn't doing much anymore, anyway.&nbsp; Weapons, I dunno.Yeah, I didn't think they'd be particularly weak.&nbsp; Hard to use sometimes, yes, but that's intentional by way of preventing them from becoming a standard start-of-combat tactic.&nbsp; I was more concerned that it'd be too much.Hrm.&nbsp; So too hard to use, you think?&nbsp; How about the consequences of cutting down opponent offense too much?Hrm.&nbsp; Good point in that there's no default fallback for disarmed monsters.&nbsp; Downside of powers being built the way they are.&nbsp; Offhand, I'd suggest that they can still use their normal powers, but at a penalty equal to the proficiency bonus that's ordinarily provided by the weapon.&nbsp; (Yes, I'm aware that technically, monsters don't have a proficiency bonus, just an attack bonus.&nbsp; Thus why I'm calling it a penalty.)Damage is a little trickier.&nbsp; I suppose our options would be to either leave it the same and consider the penalty to attacks enough, drop it by, say, two die sizes (which gets wonky if the monster was using a small weapon, like a dagger,) or go the more involved route and create a table of standard unarmed damage/size category.&nbsp; I'm leaning more towards the last, but does that make it too much work to look up?&nbsp; What do you think?And this is an excellent point. Thank you - this is 100% of the feedback I needed - issues where the tactic would, despite limitations, be just too powerful.&nbsp; Given the considerations above, the penalty to attacks and possible damage penalty, is it still too much, d'you think?&nbsp; Offhand, I think most solos are monstrous type creatures that don't use weapons, but there are cases where that is the case.&nbsp; Still, I think that, with the penalties above, it may be fair enough as-is.This is just a good call.&nbsp; I'm making the change now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Terraism, post: 4677479, member: 278"] Thanks. At some point, assuming someone kept trying, it would eventually get absolute - I mean, enough strikes at armor, and it'd no longer provide a benefit. I was tempted, in both cases, to state that "if the item has sustained penalties equal to either the armor bonus provided or the proficiency bonus to attacks it grants, it breaks." Didn't know if that'd be too much, though. I mean, granted, the armor thing sorta is that way already - armor that provides a +0 bonus isn't doing much anymore, anyway. Weapons, I dunno. Yeah, I didn't think they'd be particularly weak. Hard to use sometimes, yes, but that's intentional by way of preventing them from becoming a standard start-of-combat tactic. I was more concerned that it'd be too [i]much[/i]. Hrm. So too hard to use, you think? How about the consequences of cutting down opponent offense [i]too[/i] much? Hrm. Good point in that there's no default fallback for disarmed monsters. Downside of powers being built the way they are. Offhand, I'd suggest that they can still use their normal powers, but at a penalty equal to the proficiency bonus that's ordinarily provided by the weapon. (Yes, I'm aware that technically, monsters don't have a proficiency bonus, just an attack bonus. Thus why I'm calling it a penalty.) Damage is a little trickier. I suppose our options would be to either leave it the same and consider the penalty to attacks enough, drop it by, say, two die sizes (which gets wonky if the monster was using a small weapon, like a dagger,) or go the more involved route and create a table of standard unarmed damage/size category. I'm leaning more towards the last, but does that make it too much work to look up? What do you think? And this is an [i]excellent[/i] point. Thank you - this is 100% of the feedback I needed - issues where the tactic would, despite limitations, be just [I]too[/I] powerful. Given the considerations above, the penalty to attacks and possible damage penalty, is it still too much, d'you think? Offhand, I think [i]most[/i] solos are monstrous type creatures that don't use weapons, but there are cases where that is the case. Still, I think that, with the penalties above, it may be fair enough as-is. This is just a good call. I'm making the change now. [/QUOTE]

Verification