Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 8583102" data-attributes="member: 7808">This was a big discussion in the 3.0e to 3.5e update.&nbsp; In 3.0 you needed a specific material to overcome resistance, in 3.5 a magical weapon overcame all material resistances.The main explanation I remember hearing from the designers was that material resistances just resulted in a golf bag of different weapons.&nbsp; Players would have their silver weapon, their cold iron weapon, their adamantine weapon, etc.&nbsp; This was considered not ideal for multiple reasons: it increases reliance on items instead of abilities, it prevents players from relying on a favored weapon, it makes players more likely lug around a mobile arsenal of weapons, etc.Personally, I like the idea of going back to multiple resistances having more meaning, but I don't think it fits in with the zeitgeist of 5e.&nbsp; I would embrace the added crunch, but I would much rather see a deeper design delve into other areas first.Edit:&nbsp; Staffan corrected my edition misnumbering, but I'm leaving it unchanged here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 8583102, member: 7808"] This was a big discussion in the 3.0e to 3.5e update. In 3.0 you needed a specific material to overcome resistance, in 3.5 a magical weapon overcame all material resistances. The main explanation I remember hearing from the designers was that material resistances just resulted in a golf bag of different weapons. Players would have their silver weapon, their cold iron weapon, their adamantine weapon, etc. This was considered not ideal for multiple reasons: it increases reliance on items instead of abilities, it prevents players from relying on a favored weapon, it makes players more likely lug around a mobile arsenal of weapons, etc. Personally, I like the idea of going back to multiple resistances having more meaning, but I don't think it fits in with the zeitgeist of 5e. I would embrace the added crunch, but I would much rather see a deeper design delve into other areas first. Edit: Staffan corrected my edition misnumbering, but I'm leaving it unchanged here. [/QUOTE]

Verification