Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8150044" data-attributes="member: 72555">Consider using half-vulnerability: weakness; +50% damage instead of x2.x2 runs into the problem of being too big.&nbsp; 50% is big enough to track without dominating, and is pretty fast math.A treant being weak to fire makes fire a smart tactical choice.A treant being vulnerable to fire makes it a trivial fight if you have fire vs not having fire.And similar, skeletons who are weak against crushing gives a neat benefit to the mace/hammer users....5e doesn't try to control &quot;big attack&quot; vs &quot;multiple small attacks&quot; as an important balance difference.&nbsp; (most, but not all, damage boosts are &quot;per turn&quot;)Making it matter seems risky.Magic Missile, for example, makes force vulnerability crazy dangerous.It also impacts melee/caster balance.&nbsp; Melee characters are more likely to rely on multiple taps, while a caster is more likely to have a big attack; the caster often also has some multiple tap options.By making having that choice -- single vs multiple -- important, you weaken weapon users.&nbsp; The &quot;consequence&quot; of an attack roll landing is bounded in 5e, which also effectively bounds damage (rogues and paladins are the exception to that rule) per tap, while the &quot;consequence&quot; of a save failing is unbounded (up to and including &quot;lose the fight&quot;).That means that a failed save can be $lots$ of damage, while an attack that hits shouldn't be.&nbsp; (again, smite breaks this, and is why there is so much smite-based charop, and there would be a lot of sneak attack charop if it wasn't so expensive to get).And while this introduces a mechanical and tactical difference between vulnerability 5 and vulnerability 15, that tactical difference is larger than the narrative difference between them.&nbsp; &quot;Fire seems to burn it easily&quot; is a narrative element; that &quot;easily&quot; being bigger or smaller is a smaller one.---Nice cover.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 8150044, member: 72555"] Consider using half-vulnerability: weakness; +50% damage instead of x2. x2 runs into the problem of being too big. 50% is big enough to track without dominating, and is pretty fast math. A treant being weak to fire makes fire a smart tactical choice. A treant being vulnerable to fire makes it a trivial fight if you have fire vs not having fire. And similar, skeletons who are weak against crushing gives a neat benefit to the mace/hammer users. ... 5e doesn't try to control "big attack" vs "multiple small attacks" as an important balance difference. (most, but not all, damage boosts are "per turn") Making it matter seems risky. Magic Missile, for example, makes force vulnerability crazy dangerous. It also impacts melee/caster balance. Melee characters are more likely to rely on multiple taps, while a caster is more likely to have a big attack; the caster often [I]also[/I] has some multiple tap options. By making having that choice -- single vs multiple -- important, you weaken weapon users. The "consequence" of an attack roll landing is bounded in 5e, which also effectively bounds damage (rogues and paladins are the exception to that rule) per tap, while the "consequence" of a save failing is unbounded (up to and including "lose the fight"). That means that a failed save can be $lots$ of damage, while an attack that hits shouldn't be. (again, smite breaks this, and is why there is so much smite-based charop, and there would be a lot of sneak attack charop if it wasn't so expensive to get). And while this introduces a mechanical and [b]tactical[/b] difference between vulnerability 5 and vulnerability 15, that tactical difference is larger than the narrative difference between them. "Fire seems to burn it easily" is a narrative element; that "easily" being bigger or smaller is a smaller one. --- Nice cover. [/QUOTE]

Verification