Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fba827" data-source="post: 4772792" data-attributes="member: 807">Because I know my post is about to sound like I'm disagreeing with you, let me preface by saying that I am agreeing with you despite how it is about to sound (it'll make sense by the end of the post <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :P"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /> )Few creatures have resistance to acid and/or thunder (and no creatures from the MM1 have vulnerability to either of them)However, with fire, you do have a considerable number of creatures that are resistance or vulnerable to it, making it a better tactical choice in certain encounters (in encounter against creatures resistant to fire, the acid/thunder attacks are better; in an encounter against creatures vulnerable to fire, the ongoing fire is more painful)... plus, I think (going from memory here) there are a couple more feats and items that enhance fire damage effects than there are to enhance acid or thunder effects.In a general situation? Yes, the numbers certainly are better - I am not in any way disagreeing with that.Just keep in mind that ongoing 10 acid and ongoing 10 fire will have different results depending on what creatures you are up against (and what powers/feats/items/etc you have that modify acid or fire).my point in saying all this -- I have a feeling that they assign more &quot;importance&quot; to fire damage (or radiant damage due to undead vulnerabilities) than they do for other damage types.Is it right for them to do so?&nbsp; Not so much in my opinion because my encounters may focus on monster groups of different proportions than the resistant/vulnerable spread of creatures in the MM1.But it is a factor that may have gone in to the thinking process none the less.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fba827, post: 4772792, member: 807"] Because I know my post is about to sound like I'm disagreeing with you, let me preface by saying that I am agreeing with you despite how it is about to sound (it'll make sense by the end of the post :P ) Few creatures have resistance to acid and/or thunder (and no creatures from the MM1 have vulnerability to either of them) However, with fire, you do have a considerable number of creatures that are resistance or vulnerable to it, making it a better tactical choice in certain encounters (in encounter against creatures resistant to fire, the acid/thunder attacks are better; in an encounter against creatures vulnerable to fire, the ongoing fire is more painful)... plus, I think (going from memory here) there are a couple more feats and items that enhance fire damage effects than there are to enhance acid or thunder effects. In a general situation? Yes, the numbers [u]certainly[/u] are better - I am not in any way disagreeing with that. Just keep in mind that ongoing 10 acid and ongoing 10 fire will have different results depending on what creatures you are up against (and what powers/feats/items/etc you have that modify acid or fire). my point in saying all this -- I have a feeling that they assign more "importance" to fire damage (or radiant damage due to undead vulnerabilities) than they do for other damage types. Is it right for them to do so? Not so much in my opinion because my encounters may focus on monster groups of different proportions than the resistant/vulnerable spread of creatures in the MM1. But it is a factor that may have gone in to the thinking process none the less. [/QUOTE]

Verification