[54 / 8 / ?]
Quoted By: >>42195057 >>42195651 >>42195665 >>42198314 >>42199405 >>42199657 >>42200008 >>42200418 >>42200651 >>42200751 >>42200946 >>42201799 >>42202195 >>42203345 >>42205303 >>42208035 >>42209668
Trying to figure out which matchups make sense, I asked myself: "What's the justification for a Fire type's weaknesses?"
>Water
>Rock
>Sand,Mud
These are methods to put out a passive fire. These would in no way affect a fire breather more than other creatures. Defensively ? sure, they may resist fire, but defeat it? How many literal flame mons have we had? None.
And so I followed that trail of thought, separating attack types from body types.
Attack types include poison and sound, as they wouldn't change a creature's physiology. At the rare occation that it does, a signature attribute is granted. For example muk would be an aquatic/field type with acid armor attribute.
Body types can characterise the environment they live in. Ground or Dessert type includes lizards which are weak to cold, but resistant to heat.
>Suggestions?
>Improvements?
>Water
>Rock
>Sand,Mud
These are methods to put out a passive fire. These would in no way affect a fire breather more than other creatures. Defensively ? sure, they may resist fire, but defeat it? How many literal flame mons have we had? None.
And so I followed that trail of thought, separating attack types from body types.
Attack types include poison and sound, as they wouldn't change a creature's physiology. At the rare occation that it does, a signature attribute is granted. For example muk would be an aquatic/field type with acid armor attribute.
Body types can characterise the environment they live in. Ground or Dessert type includes lizards which are weak to cold, but resistant to heat.
>Suggestions?
>Improvements?