Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RealAlHazred" data-source="post: 6785267" data-attributes="member: 25818">One of the core design precepts for this edition seems to be to keep things as simple as possible. Another one is to make sure combat is as fast as possible while still retaining the playability factors.Therefore, if I were to use it, I would probably reduce this to, say, the damage types against the armor categories. So, Bludgeoning/Slashing/Piercing against Light/Medium/Heavy (and perhaps Natural). Somewhat less realistic, but more easily accessible by my group, as an example. If you really wanted to go all out, you could then go one better than Gary and include all the damage types: magical as well as weapon. I always thought it strange when I was a kid that it made a huge difference what weapon you used against an armored opponent, but whether you used a fire or lightning spell didn't, unless the spell author was very specific in his spell description.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RealAlHazred, post: 6785267, member: 25818"] One of the core design precepts for this edition seems to be to keep things as simple as possible. Another one is to make sure combat is as fast as possible while still retaining the playability factors. Therefore, if I were to use it, I would probably reduce this to, say, the damage types against the armor categories. So, Bludgeoning/Slashing/Piercing against Light/Medium/Heavy (and perhaps Natural). Somewhat less realistic, but more easily accessible by my group, as an example. If you really wanted to go all out, you could then go one better than Gary and include [B][I]all[/I][/B] the damage types: magical as well as weapon. I always thought it strange when I was a kid that it made a huge difference what weapon you used against an armored opponent, but whether you used a fire or lightning spell didn't, unless the spell author was very specific in his spell description. [/QUOTE]

Verification