The mechanics and the story/flavor should be deeply connected. To say, for example, that "Dwarves are excellent craftsman, especially when working with stone or metal" can only be true if they are actually good at it. If humans, elves, and even orcs are every bit as good at crafting (mechanically) as a Dwarf is, then it would be false to say that Dwarves are better at it. If, on the other hand, Dwarves are supposed to be better at it, then make them actually better at it. I mean,...
View full commentThe mechanics and the story/flavor should be deeply connected. To say, for example, that "Dwarves are excellent craftsman, especially when working with stone or metal" can only be true if they are actually good at it.
If humans, elves, and even orcs are every bit as good at crafting (mechanically) as a Dwarf is, then it would be false to say that Dwarves are better at it. If, on the other hand, Dwarves are supposed to be better at it, then make them actually better at it.
I mean, what's next? A strong character doesn't need a high strength score to be strong? A giant doesn't have to be any bigger than a halfling to be a giant? C'mon.
The mechanics and flavor should go hand in hand.
That being said, I see no reason why the book can't give rules/guidelines for altering a race's mechanical facts, based on the nature of individual campaigns. So, if Elves don't use Bows in the Land of Nolegolasia, then maybe the book should provide some means of replacing that benefit with another.
I am on board with the idea of a neutral option. I think that having flavor represented in the rules - like the dwarven Stonecunning racial trait - is a cool feature. As for weapon-favoring and favored enemies, I'd be okay with having tohe option of bypassing these. What if my gnome was orphaned and raised in a monastery far from the ongoing mutual disdain between his kin and kobold. What it my dwarf was raised in a city and joined the city guard, favoring a broadsword? If he runs across his...
View full commentI am on board with the idea of a neutral option. I think that having flavor represented in the rules - like the dwarven Stonecunning racial trait - is a cool feature. As for weapon-favoring and favored enemies, I'd be okay with having tohe option of bypassing these. What if my gnome was orphaned and raised in a monastery far from the ongoing mutual disdain between his kin and kobold. What it my dwarf was raised in a city and joined the city guard, favoring a broadsword? If he runs across his "favored weapon" in a dungeon would he suddenly feel generations of axe-wielding prowess coursing through his body? Likely not. But at the same time, I don't mind abstractions such as these effects. They still define something broad about the race, the world, and the game on a general level. I don't think that something based on your physical racial qualities can be as easily passed over though. Maybe you play a halfling that is on the chubby side and isn't the best climber, but it's assumed that it's not the case and that your physical build is allowing you this improved climbing. I see things like the halfing's prowess at a certain ability based off of their stature and physical nature - or how dwarves are sturdy and hard to push around or knock over - to be more embedded than something like favoring a specific arm or knowing a certain foe's weaknesses.
In a sense, I don't really see either holy nor radiant as damage types. Heat, acid, cold, electricity, sure... but holiness and light don't cause damage per se, now do they? Would a magical laser cause radiant damage? Nope -it would burn. Heat damage (or fire, or burn, whatever). Checking the examples I would say -Flamestrike is clearly burning damage (which BTW should work especially well on dry old skeleton bones, but anyways) -the holiness of the flamestrike would be the same holiness...
View full commentIn a sense, I don't really see either holy nor radiant as damage types. Heat, acid, cold, electricity, sure... but holiness and light don't cause damage per se, now do they? Would a magical laser cause radiant damage? Nope -it would burn. Heat damage (or fire, or burn, whatever).
Checking the examples I would say -Flamestrike is clearly burning damage (which BTW should work especially well on dry old skeleton bones, but anyways) -the holiness of the flamestrike would be the same holiness that would pervade any magic cast by the cleric of an appropriate deity. It'd work better, IMHO, as an added effect to all magic -or even to all attacks- the cleric uses against enemies of their faith, be they demons, devils, undead, whatever (it would depend on the faith involved, I'd suggest).
Searing Light is, again, a burning attack. What does the light do? Blind you. No extra damage. And if the light isn't even Searing, then no damage, just blindness. I don't see it as a damage type.
Glow of Ulban is an interesting case. Otherwordly light that spears and dazzles an enemy. Well, that really depends on how you conceive of this mystical, weird force, but let's say for the sake of argument this is not a laser-like beam (otherwise, burning damage as above). Let's say it's just light, and yet it spears someone. Piercing damage, like a spear, I would say. Maybe it's cold light and deals piercing and cold damage. Maybe it's very flashy and can indeed impair the enemy's vision -dazzle could work, as an added effect.
See, that's the point, holiness and light would actually be extra effects most of the time -one deals damage to what's unholy -whatever's unholy for the casters or their patrons- while light would simply tend to blind you. If you have eyes, I mean (and I guess even w/eyes some creatures would be more difficult, or even impossible, to blind).
I think it depends on the complexity you want to achieve. Heat from focused light based damage can be protected against in different ways than heat from flames. This make the simulation better but the game more complex.