Re: Vulnerability
- From: Justisaur <justisaur@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:39:26 -0700
On Oct 14, 8:37 pm, SeaHen <seahen...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It seems that the goal of the current resistance system (as compared
to percentage reduction) is to allow creatures to ignore small amounts
of damage, without modifying large amounts to the point that they
shift the game balance. So why not do the same with vulnerability?
Then, the extra effect of a flaming sword on a cold-based creature
would be clearly noticeable, but that of a fireball wouldn't be
unbalancing.
If a creature has fire vulnerability N, let it mean that the first N
points of fire damage per hit are doubled.
I like the idea. Reverse resistance.
- Justisaur
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Vulnerability
- From: Matt Frisch
- Re: Vulnerability
- References:
- Vulnerability
- From: SeaHen
- Vulnerability
- Prev by Date: Re: Controlling Schroedinger's Bag
- Next by Date: Re: First 4E stats!
- Previous by thread: Vulnerability
- Next by thread: Re: Vulnerability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|