A piece of this has been effectively addressed (lower damage & lower Health). Another piece however is types of damage and their different effects. An example of this would be Fire damage on an Ice creature, Water damage on a Fire creature. I propose that it becomes the responsibility of the damage dealer to know the increased effect and call the appropriate damage rather than expect the person monstering to know. When you are monstering you are playing a unfamiliar character and have more than enough to remember already.
Well, Thad, I've been with you so far, lol. Here comes the clash for once, haha!
My argument against the "one damage phases it" is this. Think about the swarms, where only mages do damage. People were PISSED when I sent that swarm out. We even got complaints, so I don't know how well it will fly, even though I love the simplicity and realism of it. There are quite a few monsters in D and D layed out this way.
As far as the different damage types, and as one who has Tox actions, I feel that in the system we currently have, tox is useless. Now the STORY effect of poisoning the cook was fun as hell. I think instead of specific Tox damage, it should roll into story effect and only be useful as damage if Tox effects the creature. Now on the same note, "Poisoning" is a great great great story action. Claire and I both had an amazing time role playing that out. And it's in true Rogue fashion to do it. I vote a yes on that since Ranger and Rogue are most likely ciombining and it's COMPLETELY something Glimmer would do. But that heads towards Character design.
What about a type of Metamagic, where a mage can interchange what type of damage they call. It may already be that way (in honesty I haven't researched mage well enough but will do so now.)
I also think that pierce actions are INVALUABLE. I do feel pretty powerful as Ranger stands now, with having the option of weapon damage bonuses and pierce bonuses. I think if yu use a bow though, the actions should all flat out be a pierce tagline. It simplifies the combat option of remembering if you just called a 20 sharp or if you used your last +10 pierce action. Technically, arrows pierce. So call it pierce across the board. Fighters can call sharp or blunt depending on the weapon they use, but they only have th one base tagline for damage. Give ranged combatants the same. It's simpler. (If that came out bitch dusty, it wasn't intended.)
I'm uber passionate about Ranger and I fought a big one for the class. I'm proud we have it, and that's where I have the most experience, so my replies here will be obviously partial. I'll do the best I can to relate it into other combat areas though. Think of it as Rock Paper Scissors. Fighters are the rock (sharp or blunt), mages are paper (fire, ice, or shock; take base spell out for simplicity), and Rangers/Rogues are Scissors (pierces). I do think a dagger should call pierce in the sneak attack form, and possibly all rogue actions when using daggers. I also think Rogues should be limited to light weapons (ie dagger, short sword or bow). A rib shot shouldn't have to withstand a shield unless the other person has enough capability to block it (deflect). Now that may border more towards character development, correct me if I'm wrong. I guess I'm more passionate about the damage issue than I realized, lol.
You make a valid point; folks don't care for monsters that are impervious to their attacks. I do like the idea with the trolls, though. Anybody can beat the monster down, but you need a certain damage type to finish the job. It makes sense in many cases, reinforces the importance of damage types, and is simple enough for the person playing the monster.
I'm iffy about poisoning as a story effect. Tox damage encompasses all manner of poisons and acids, many of which are useful in combat. In addition, most story effects don't deal directly with monsters or NPCs; they're designed mostly to deal with obstacles and information-gathering, neither of which describes poisons.
As a rule of thumb, I avoid metamagic abilities like the plague. That way lies complexity and confusion. That being said, allowing different casters to acquire different damage types the same way a fighter might pick up a different weapon makes sense. There could be room for something like that.
Worry not; pierce will be the bread and butter of the scout. It's not going to be automatic for all bows, though; the first and best defense against an arrow is a shield so it only makes sense to let them be blocked. Keep in mind that I'm considering at-will abilities, of course, so scouts may be able to pick up an at-will ranged attack that causes pierce without any bonus damage. ;)
I rest my case then, lol. And I do like the idea of having a certain damage having to be what actually killing blows a monster.
I understand the metamagic plague, lol. It is complex to deal with, so I'll let go of that one. But I do like maybe having an affinity for a certain damage spell, such as fire ice or shock buff.
You are right about the tox thing. It makes sense the way you layed it out. I can't run to a monster and say "here drink this. 50 tox" lol
I don't really think that we should get rid of monsters that are completely immue to anything but elemental damage. Sorcerers now have an action that allows them to imbue someone elses weapon. I know that this is delving a bit in to character development, but if they were able to make and cast the enchantment at lower levels, then the group would be ready for anything.
That aside, I completely agree with everything that Thad said in his first post. Though, I sorta feel a need for a negative energy damage type, like prime's opposite. I know that you could say that that we already have one (drain), but I don't really feel that it is true evil damage. But regardless if we stick with drain as prime's opposite or make a new one, I feel that those closer to prime energy such as healers and maybe Ixifar (they have prime racial actions) should take some more damage from it. I say all of this because every other elemental damage type will find its weakness and usefulness, and I feel that a negitive energy type should find it's.
Bonus damage or multipliers are something that we need to avoid here. We're trying to make the math simpler. If we say that a creature takes an extra point of damage from every attack with a certain damage type, or takes half again as much or whatever, that defeats the purpose of simplification. This was the reason thresholds were originally created: No extra damage, but an additional effect for specific vulnerabilities.
Something else worth mentioning is that we can remove Spell damage from the list for development purposes. All mages will start out with Spell damage, so it should be analogous to Blunt or Sharp in that it is basic and probably doesn't need any special interaction with monsters. That pares the list back to five damage types with monster-specific significance: Fire, Ice, Prime, Shock, and Tox.
On that note, I'm currently of the mind that we need fewer damage types rather than more, Chris. Right now, damage types have almost no significance. Even when they do, their significance will be limited to specific monsters. I'd rather not add anything else to the current list and dilute that significance even further.
I like the killing blow Idea for damage. Everyone can damage the creature, but if not killing blowed with correct damage then it simply respawns. So a skeleton can get beat down by anyone but would have to be killing blowed with blunt weapon to kill it. A air elemental would take a tox killing blow since I believe thats the Earth damage type. Shock is the wind, and the other two are obvious.
It makes sence that you would want to do that, Thad. From what I can gather, you are implying that all mages will start out calling the Spell tagline. Then either through metamagic-like feats or through class abilities, they would be able to change their elemental damage type. If this is so, I agree and have nothing further to add to this discussion. If not, then I still have nothing further to add because this is not the character development boards. lol
This one's been a long time in need of development attention. Right now, we have 10 damage types: Blunt, Drain, Fire, Ice, Pierce, Prime, Sharp, Shock, Spell, and Tox. I like these thematically because they each describe a very different form of real or fantasy trauma. Two of them, Drain and Pierce, already have special mechanics that make them useful, so in my mind there's no need to plan out specific interactions for those.
That leaves us with the other eight: Blunt, Fire, Ice, Prime, Sharp, Shock, Spell, and Tox. Right now, the only ways we have to represent differential effectiveness are damage immunity and thresholds on monsters. I like thresholds in theory, but they don't work well in practice. I'd like to find a way to make them significant, but in a simpler way.
On that note, we do have to put some of the onus on the monsters, Ashley. Unfamiliar or not, PCs rarely realize what it is they're fighting. I'd like to preserve that process of mystery and discovery. "Hey, I hit this thing with my flaming sword and it went down in one hit! Use fire on them!"
Another thing the current system doesn't represent well is damage types of different weapon materials. Using a silver weapon against a lycanthrope should have an additional effect. The problem here is the one-syllable methodology in use. I don't plan on dumping that, so the question becomes how to say "silver" in one syllable.
One possible solution is to make certain monsters impervious to all damage except damage of a specific type. For example, maybe powerful undead can only be harmed by Prime; nothing else phases them. That would be simple enough for the monster to keep track of easily.
Another way to do it might be a matter of respawn. Perhaps certain monsters receive a killing blow of a specific damage type. Trolls, for instance, may need a Fire or Tox killing blow or else they rise again after a minute at full health and actions. Again, easy to remember and implement, and having that flaming sword is suddenly very handy.
These are just a few thoughts. Feel free to chime in with your ideas.