Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CovertOps" data-source="post: 5039975" data-attributes="member: 65152">In a home campaign if I was going to do this I think I would balance the monsters that get more vulnerabilities against any PC that has some sort of at-will power that does that damage type.  For example if the party has a rogue with a flaming weapon that can convert all attacks with the sword to fire damage, then if I was going to give a monster a vulnerability to fire I would also give it more HP's to balance that PC.  I wouldn't worry too much about encounter or daily powers as those are situational and limited.For vanilla 4e I don't think this works well because as hinted at above a really tough encounter for one group could be a cakewalk for another.  That's not the sort of variation 4e was striving to achieve.  This sort of thinking will lead you back to constructs/undead/etc. that are immune to sneak attack damage and other things like it that vary the usefulness of individual PC choices of powers or class and can dramatically increase the "swinginess" of encounters based on PC "build".Ask yourself "What problem am I trying to solve?"  Once you've figured that out then the changes you make should address that problem instead of just randomly giving out vulnerabilities to monsters because you felt like it.Personally I don't like the grindyness of combats in my game so I give everything a +1/3 level bonus to damage on all attacks and that helps to both make the monsters more threatening and to make combat just a little shorter.</blockquote>

Verification