01-17-2020, 10:54 AM | #11 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
Agreed; I think it is reasonable and a good idea, in a game-ist sense, to have Toughness count against 'armor piercing' special attacks.
|
01-17-2020, 11:20 AM | #12 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
So by the ITL 108 categories Toughness is magical protection not armor and any figure with Toughness II can just wear a green slime like they were Naofumi Iwatani?
__________________
-HJC |
01-17-2020, 01:22 PM | #13 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
I don't think that's the type of distinction here. Each staff zap is a distinct effect and would be reduced for each attack. A slime latching on and eating you is one continuous effect that devours a body completely in 24 turns, so protection doesn't apply per turn but per slime-attachment.
|
01-17-2020, 02:24 PM | #15 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
|
01-18-2020, 04:00 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
Quote:
My reading of it is that it is an ability for the body to cope with the shock of trauma better than normal. The effective damage is therefore lessened since part of the 'damage' is system shock. Seems very fair to apply this to larger creatures. |
|
01-18-2020, 08:39 AM | #17 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
The only objection I can think of is that it makes quite large, powerful things (dragons, dinosaurs, elephants, etc.), particularly those that also have specified natural armor (scales, etc.), seem too tough for a small party to slaughter in a stand up fight. To which I would respond: 'Exactly!'
|
|
|