Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 5039294" data-attributes="member: 46713">Thanks for everyone's thoughts about this!I guess, I'll start with a few minor adjustments to monsters to test things out. From a balance viewpoint it's probably easier to add vulnerabilities that don't just increase damage (and I'll grant they may even be more interesting).Thanks for reminder about gricks! That's an interesting precedent for something similar to the 'resist weapon', I've been looking for.I'm unsure about the argument regarding the difficulty of designing generic adventure modules. Looking at the H1-H3, P1-P3, E1-E3 modules they already showcase how WotC failed to balance the different damage types.This 'campaign' against Orcus becomes a lot easier for groups with access to (at-will) radiant damage. Because it uses so many undead monsters it also becomes somewhat predictable regarding the kinds of energy types that the party should have defenses against.What I'd strife for as a design goal would be to have a vulnerability to balance every immunity and maybe add another vulnerability for every one to two resistances. I'm just not sure how much easier monsters become to kill. But that'll require some playtesting.Using a healthy mix of monster types should make sure that no energy types become prevalent or the single best choice. It's something I always strife for when designing adventures.</blockquote>