As mentioned in the last post, I like the way things work from the players getting damaged point of view, and on being able to describe damage to the enemy. But a game is more than that. A game is the prep that goes into it before everyone is sitting around the table.
Okay, some creatures might not have all the same attributes. A golem may not have INT for example. An ooze may not have anything but CON. I'll probably figure it out on a case by case basis but it could be that if you do CHA damage to a grey ooze you simply don't damage it, or it could be that damage against an attribute the beast doesn't have equals CON damage. This will require more thinking but I'm leaning towards the former.
Along similar lines I can see a rule in which different armors protect against different types of damage although that would be a lot of bookkeeping to track so it would have to be an OPTIONAL rule.
So our statblock will look like the following:
DEX; STR; CON; CHA; INT; WIS; AC; Weapon Damage
Defence; Damage Adj; ENC; Mod; #Attacks;
I like the minimalism of that. It's not as clean as the minimalist style of early AD&D and OSR stablocks which don't include the attribute info but it is far better than the 4E statblocks I've seen. I'll have to consider some formula, average attribute values with HP/Level added to spike CON and DEX or something like that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
More playing with AI
This time battlemaps. I was surfing around looking at battlemaps and came across TheAIWizard creating a battlemap or two using AI. He uses...
-
Everybody treats CHA as a dump stat and I doubt anything I'll say here will change that but hopefully I'll provide a few nuggets wor...
-
I've never really thought AI artwork was a good idea. We near the point where entire professions will be wiped out. A buggy whip sort o...
-
So I've been playing with AI a bit more. Specifically Gemini and ImageFX . They are finicky but with patience they produce some nice st...
No comments:
Post a Comment