Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8374253" data-attributes="member: 97077">I think you have to consider the much narrower focus of the original game though. It really was a game about what you can carry into and out of a dungeon while weighing the risks of how deep you go. To that end, having spells and effects that destroy equipment makes a lot of sense because it puts at risk limited resources that are important to surviving the dungeon.In D&amp;D 5e, the game isn't focused on just that one thing. So it would make very little sense to have a fireball that always has a chance to blow up people's stuff because it wouldn't be a good fit for the subset of games where equipment isn't as important. For many groups in my experience, they pick their adventuring gear and much of it rarely sees use. It's not important to whatever it is they are spending the most time on (sitting around the tavern, shopping, interviewing quirky, cagey NPCs, for example).If one is running a D&amp;D 5e adventure or campaign that is focused on the classic town-to-dungeon experience, however, the DM can include monsters that destroy or degrade equipment (oozes, rust monsters, for example), traps and hazards that do the same, and simply have monsters and NPCs target objects. For instance, I mentioned having monsters attack the PCs' lantern upthread. Further, for any given ability check, a DM might say a failed check results in achieving the goal, but at the cost of a piece of equipment (&quot;progress combined with a setback&quot;) if it follows logically.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 8374253, member: 97077"] I think you have to consider the much narrower focus of the original game though. It really was a game about what you can carry into and out of a dungeon while weighing the risks of how deep you go. To that end, having spells and effects that destroy equipment makes a lot of sense because it puts at risk limited resources that are important to surviving the dungeon. In D&D 5e, the game isn't focused on just that one thing. So it would make very little sense to have a fireball that always has a chance to blow up people's stuff because it wouldn't be a good fit for the subset of games where equipment isn't as important. For many groups in my experience, they pick their adventuring gear and much of it rarely sees use. It's not important to whatever it is they are spending the most time on (sitting around the tavern, shopping, interviewing quirky, cagey NPCs, for example). If one is running a D&D 5e adventure or campaign that is focused on the classic town-to-dungeon experience, however, the DM can include monsters that destroy or degrade equipment (oozes, rust monsters, for example), traps and hazards that do the same, and simply have monsters and NPCs target objects. For instance, I mentioned having monsters attack the PCs' lantern upthread. Further, for any given ability check, a DM might say a failed check results in achieving the goal, but at the cost of a piece of equipment ("progress combined with a setback") if it follows logically. [/QUOTE]

Verification