Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 684219" data-attributes="member: 1149">[/B]</blockquote>Now here we have you becoming somewhat evasive and very misinformayive.The percentage of creatures in the MM is an irrelevent stat. This comparison you now seem to make is meaningless, unless one tries to parlay that into a reflection of how frequently it is seen in play.Which is of course, exactly what you did above in earlier posts but which you are carefully sidestepping now with this extremely limited scope comment.lets look above to the followup in your post.And here is where the cat is out. This is what my comment stems from.If one wants to downplay the seriousness or impact of the new change by harping on how few AND how rarely they can be encountered, then at the same time the purported benefits are also diminished, which leads us to this being an unnecessary change.If one believes the benefits will be seen and a wonderful injection of flavor and story... is one crowing about that happening rarely, only a couple of times in levels 1-20, a campaign stretching years? I dont think so.Put simply, the "benefits" and the "downsides" will appear proportionally, based on how often the Gm decides to use them AND how well he uses them in scenarios. There is one exception... the preemptive effects, the things it encourages the characters to do to prepare for the potential encounter, will be pervasive and be seen every adventure. Would you suspect that disease causing monsters outnumber, either in play or in MM accounting the number of DR monsters in the MM? i wouldn't. My PCs often seek out cure disease items (usually expendable and cheap) ahead of time. It seems reasonable to them to take these out on adventures in case they get such an encounter, just like modern day people have first aid kits.Would you suspect the number of level draining creatures to be more numerous (in actual play or MM accounting) than those who have DR? No? Me niether. However, my players often seek out restoration devices (scrolls or potions typically) and carry them around when they go adventuring just in case they have such an encounter. It seems reasonable, just like auto drivers often have road flares or an emergency flasher in their trunk... just in case.Similar comparisons can be shown with creatures vulnerable to holy water, blunt weapons, and so on.  heck the same sort of thing can be done with things like healing potions for that matter.Do none of your PCs take these precautions? Do they find them all unjustified?Your attempt to spin up the positives so that somehow with only a few instances over several years a wondrous injection of story and flavor will be added, and spin down the downsides so that the negatives wont be seen more than a few times in a 20 level campaign, and so on is rather transparent.In a given campaign, either designer will be seen often enough to have a significant impact or it wont. this will apply to both the good and bad elements. However, the party preparations and considerations of these events will be in effect all the time.The changes made are not needed, they are just changes. The changes which needed to be made include reducing DR blocking numbers for a few beasties AND raising the DR bypass numbers in some cases where the values were so low as to be silly. If this was done, the problems mentioned with Dr could have been addressed without the designer dr overhaul.Didn't you say several pages ago that part of your arguments were just devil's advocating? if so why are you back in force once again? Boredom overtake you?Do you actually mean what you are arguing this time, as opposed to last time, or is this again just arguing for its own sake?Either way, you seem to be much more in spin than substance mode with trying to trump a MM accounting into a statement about frequency in play.[/QUOTE]

Verification