Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8724569" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Well, yes (is it a quibble if I never said otherwise?). Spells (absolutely) could be resisted by SR*, and creatures could have resistance to the damage types of the spells**. Those might be contravening/counteracting influences pushing the incentivization math back towards martials (or just towards spells which don't trigger SR or elemental resistance). Much like the sure-striking weapon, I found SR to be a situation where they set up a structure, but then immediately provided a loophole. There were feats, PrCs, spells, and magic items which all helped punch through SR, and it was a big enough threat (especially at high levels, when you might be facing lots of outsiders) that most casters seemed to take them, where possible. This is what I mean about the specifics of the system effecting trying to incentivize certain gameplay types, and how it is a challenging balancing act. I can certainly envision a version of 3e without the options which let people circumvent weapon-type DR, and without ways to punch through SR. And maybe that's what you want for 5e.*minus, for whatever reason, conjuration spells which I guess summoned non-magical fire, acid, etc.**which weapons might also include, as add-ons.Suppression fire (or the low-tech equivalent, archers waiting until you stick your head up to shoot you) are another system I haven't seen done well in most RPGs. Usually, it is just better for the firer to shoot at someone with a penalty than wait for them to jump up and give them a clearer shot. With D&D it also runs into that on the suppressed person's side, a single shot isn't going to deter them from getting up and rushing the firer, since they are likely to survive it and it is better to eliminate the threat than wait for an opening which might not come or try to slowly inch around looking to flank or something.</blockquote>

Verification