Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 7487190" data-attributes="member: 83242">I was talking about higher BW damage for more powerful dragons, not specifically damage = HP.  However, I don't considered any monster stats sacred cows, they are just not the important (IDT).  Perhaps they are a sacred cow to that type of monster, but not the game as a whole. I did not intend to imply that it is entirely subjective.  However, different groups play different ways and the game, by that very nature has some subjectivity that needs to be understood.  So again, what makes the game better for one group, even if that thing is excellent game design, doesn't make it better for all groups.Now, personally what I was talking about was me as DM and how I like my dragons <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=";)" />Interesting approach.  I have never thought to go back in fix 1e as a means to fixing whatever edition I am currently playing.  Balanced against who then?  You just said she could be cut to ribbons in one round.  I'm not saying your wrong (in fact I think your right), I just don't kow who she is balanced for.  Regarding offensive damgage, I really hadn't thought about damage being to high in a long time.  That is definitely not a concern with 4e and 5e where monsters hit very softly compared to PCs.  The only scheming I mentioned was dragon vs. dragon, not player vs. dragon, so I am not sure what this rant is about.  Why 200?  Again, who is the audience for this beast (what level of PC is she balanced for).  Ultimately that is the reason for 200, or 300, or 400.Your loosing me here.  This seems off-topic to me.  Again the only clever scheming I talked about was dragon vs. dragon.No worries, arrogance doesn't bother me.  It is a routinely undervalued attribute.  I don't know about high level 1e, but I am quite familiar with high level 4e and 5e play, so undoubtedly that flavors my thought process on these issues.However, when I say: "works for me" What I am talking about is what works for me as the DM/ creator of my game world.  I am quite confident I know what works for me in that context in any edition. Hmm, maybe your arrogance got in the way of your understanding on this one - or maybe I need to be more clear.  Your approach is very gamist, my approach is more about fantasy world logic (not sure what to call that).  I did not say breath weapon damage was a sacred cow.  I said I prefer that increasing damage across types because 1) history, 2) Internal logic/consistency, & 3) makes sense to me in a fantasy game logic (bigger/stronger = more powerful).   And to me #2 and #3 are more important to me.  Heck, in my games I give the blue dragon the highest breath weapon damage!PS I am sorry if I have offended you, that was not the intent.</blockquote>

Verification