Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4682549" data-attributes="member: 2067">I would not add to Defense values much at all. It's a useful alternative (e.g.: it'd be nice to see that, too, once in a while), but I don't think it's a universal solution.Because an attack that misses is a psychologically harder blow than an attack that hits but is reduced.That is, it's a lot less fun to roll a 14 and miss than it is to roll a 14, hit, and only do 1/2 damage. There's already a problem in 4e with slogging battles with big monsters where the party keeps missing with Dailies and Encounters. This exacerbates that problem.That said, in moderation, it's a fantastic alternative -- something that maybe some of those poison-immune undead could pick up and run with. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Oh, and for the record:This train of thought struck me in the blog, too, as an especially narm-worthy kind of idea, and an example of the kind of fundamental disconnect in playstyle between me and most of 4e.Grok this noise: damage types, resistances, and immunities are valuable.Honest, they are.They're valuable from a strategic standpoint (Ah! This foe will require a different fighting style than blowing it up with fire!).They're valuable from a storytelling standpoint (Ah! This beast swims through lava, but if you were to fall into lava, you would die (no save)!). They're valuable from an emulation standpoint (Quick guess how many myths and fantasy tropes revolve around a creature who is invincible to most things? Answer: most of them).They're valuable from a purely logical standpoint (I blast the creature made of fire with more fire, is he burned?).The troubles that you deal with in having them should be dealt with, but that doesn't mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater (ye gods, I wish I could have had this conversation 3-5 years ago with EVERYONE who wound up working on 4e). Damage types are fun. Do they cause problems? Sure. But if people were looking for a problem-less existence, no one would own a dog. When you have a problem with your dog, you don't shoot the dog. You work around it, you use tools to mitigate it, and you still love that dog.There is really a very fine line between killing a sacred cow and shooting a beloved dog.There are things you can do to make those wacky players who absolutely MUST have ice mages fighting white dragons on a daily basis happy. This thread is FILLED with 'em, more than one of them very good ideas (and many of them useful in a sort of multi-pronged approach to the problem). One of the not-so-good ideas is cutting off the nose to spite the face, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, shooting the dog for having fleas, using the 'nuclear option' and eradicating all types of damage, and 1,001 other euphamisms for basically eradicating damage types in order to help out niche spellcasters who are better served by other options. Simplification and complexity both have their roles to play in game design. 4e combat is INSANELY complex compared to anything that isn't a wargame or a videogame. The amount of accessories alone that you need to make it work means that "casual" is right out the door with it. In fact, D&D overall is a HORRIBLY complex game, filled with maps and charts and subroutines and exclusive accessories, not to mention the time demands for six people to sit in a room for four hours when they undoubtedly have other demands on their time. But, arguably, that's kind of a positive thing. Part of the value of a game of D&D is just being able to pull it off, especially if you're lucky enough to get to do it on a semi-regular basis. Specifically with combat, complexity is usually a positive thing: more options, more stuff to do, more interesting interactions, more ways for the rules to tell you how awesome you are for playing.The ideal is this: complexity where you want it, simplicity for everything else.In D&D, you get into the fact that because each game is so personal, everyone wants different complexities and simplicities. I could stand with more noncombat complexity (PS: not skill challenges, y'know?) and more combat simplicity (PS: take it off the grid!), myself, but that's because I tend to run fairly "balanced" games that tow the line between different types of challenges. Elemental resistances and damage are a place where a little bit of complexity (but not much) is a good thing. All of those things I mentioned above are better with a bit of complexity in this avenue of the game. Simplicity by itself is pointless. Flipping a coin isn't a satisfying afternoon. Simplicity is also often unwanted: simplify something someone loved, and you've shot the dog. Simplify something they're interested in, and they won't be interested in using your simple rules for it. Simplicity is "Cliff's Notes" instead of Henry VIII. Simplicity is The DiVinci Code instead of The Dubliners. Simplicity is The D&D Movie to the Lord of the Rings novels. Simplicity is "Loops of Fruit!" in a bag instead of "Fruit Loops" in a box. Simplicity is Limp Bizkit instead of Black Flag. Simplicity is Twinkle Twinkle Little Star instead of The Illiad. Simplicity, in otherwords, is overrated.What you want (or what I want, at least), ideally, is to design something with scaling complexity so that you can ignore it if you want, but if you pay a lot of attention to it, it manages to grow complex with it. Something maybe like Harry Potter, or the Lord of the Rings movies, that starts off easy, but can get pretty deep. Something in the middle ground. Something that has a bit for the casual player, something that has a bunch for the hardcore trufan. What you don't want (what I don't want) is simplicity itself enshrined like it is a good goal in and of itself.Simplicity isn't a goal. It's a way to get something out of the way of you reaching your goal. It's a tool, and like every tool, it has things that it is well-suited for, and things that it sucks at. What it sucks at is making anything interesting. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification