Just me, sitting here pondering what it would be like to model an NPC in #DnD5e as a tactical fighter by giving them resistance to bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage if they have a weapon in hand.
But also let PCs make an ability check whenever they hit the NPC to figure out their defenses, which would also remove the resistance.
It's something I've kind of thought about in the past as well, using temporary hit points as a measure, with a character resetting their temp hit points on their turn because they are "back on their game."
The idea that the PCs have to "do a thing" to remove their ability, and "do a thing" may not just be hitting them with the right damage type.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
WotC intentionally named one game release as a ".5," but there is not universally accepted standard for what IS a .5 edition of a game. In fact, from a marketing standpoint, it was actually a pretty weird thing for them to do.
Declaring it "3.5" probably contributed to the panic about compatibility, because it wasn't just saying "we revised the same rules," but tried to communicate that "it's compatible, but only to a point."
My point being, there is no naming convention that is going to easily summarize how much a revised ruleset is going to differ from a previous ruleset. There isn't a published standard where "we've changed 35% of the rules-related text, so we're required to call it a new edition."
For some random reason I decided to watch deleted scenes from Star Trek Nemesis to start the day, and wow, do I not always agree with what the people in charge think are important story beats.
There is a whole section where Shinzon is addressing his supporters and the new Romulan senators that establishes that not only were they working on this for a while, but that he was having to convince the fleet to continue supporting him.
That felt way more consistent with the Romulans they established from the TNG era than a throwaway line saying that coups happen all the time on Romulus and that somehow it's never been noteworthy.
We really do need more politicians that understand that "this country does not have our best interests at heart, so we should be careful dealing with them" is actually different than "this country is our enemy."
Ironically, saying someone is your enemy to someone that isn't already your enemy is a good way to make them into your enemy.
While I think it's pretty self-evident, if you want to know how I would draw that distinction, there is a difference between "I want to advance this thing that they may not agree with or that may be detrimental to them" and "I will do this thing expressly to harm them."
One interesting aspect of looking at the #OneDnD playtest documents is that it makes me realize things that I didn't fully process in all the years of running #DnD5e. For example, I knew the Artificer is a class that is very dependent on its subclasses for its identity.
It never struck me how true this was for druids as well. The core druid is a very thin framework on which to hang subclasses, with the subclasses doing a lot of heavy lifting. This became even more true as subclasses started using Wild Shape as a player currency for abilities.
What's even more interesting about THAT development is that we're seeing a lot of One D&D developments that come from recent design, like from Tasha's forward, but Wild Shape as currency for non-wild shape stuff comes in pretty early.
This morning @BrandesStoddard started talking about dwarves and comic relief, and the degree to which it can be too much, etc. This reminded me how much I loved FR11 Dwarves Deep.
There was a lot of stuff about dwarven culture in this book that, shall we say, kind of got overwritten by pop culture suddenly becoming aware of dwarves and glomming on to some very specific traits.
I also wanted to say, some of the stuff I loved, because it provided texture, was also stuff that can cause a lot of harm if used by people at the table that aren't being careful about the context of story elements.
Some thoughts on languages based on what we've seen in #OneDnD so far. Backgrounds have really added to how many languages PCs are likely to know, since language is an assumed thing that you get from backgrounds.
When you add that to classes that get a special language, you have a ton of languages that exist all over the place and probably won't do much other than remove a reason for the PCs not be able to receive information from a clue.
My general thought is, D&D actually needs to proliferate its languages rather than condense them. For example, drow used to have their own language, but in the interest of consolidation, they are now likely to speak Elven or Undercommon, with no distinct drow language.