# Revised DR



## IceBear (Jan 28, 2003)

Hmmmm - just read the front page.  More info on the changes there.  Dunno if I like the proposed materials changes to DR, but it looks like Harm and Haste are definitely getting "fixed"

IceBear


----------



## Mr Fidgit (Jan 28, 2003)

"It no longer has a hierarchy of materials and magic. That means that while silver weapons will effect lycanthropes, +1 weapons will not."


maybe i haven't been paying close enough attention...have people really had problems with DR, so much so that it needs this kind of 'fix'?


----------



## Victim (Jan 28, 2003)

I don't like the DR changes especially.  Sorry, that +5 Holy Fiend Bane (evil outsider) sword can't bypass the demon's defenses.  So stupid.  Who the heck asked for that change?

I would have rather seen a different change to Haste.  If the extra spell from haste makes quicken spell unattractive, then the same logic should be applied to the extra attack making 2 weapon fighting not worth it, etc.  If they don't change Quicken Spell to make it better, then spellcasters are going to have a hard time.  I don't see backwards compatibility as problem, since the new haste is just as imcompatibible.  Every high level adventure I've seen has the casters using haste to dump spells faster.  Instead of changing some stats, the entire tactics and encounter balance would need to be redone.  Also, the haste change hurts fighters too, since they could no longer partial charge+full attack.


----------



## IceBear (Jan 28, 2003)

Mr Fidgit said:
			
		

> *"It no longer has a hierarchy of materials and magic. That means that while silver weapons will effect lycanthropes, +1 weapons will not."
> 
> 
> maybe i haven't been paying close enough attention...have people really had problems with DR, so much so that it needs this kind of 'fix'? *




Yeah, I didn't mind the 5/blunt change to skeletons, but I never had an issue with silver weapons AND magical weapons affecting werewolves.  I suspect many people might incorporate the skeleton type DR, but leave the old stuff alone.

IceBear


----------



## AuraSeer (Jan 28, 2003)

Victim said:
			
		

> *I don't like the DR changes especially.  Sorry, that +5 Holy Fiend Bane (evil outsider) sword can't bypass the demon's defenses.  So stupid.  Who the heck asked for that change?*



Sing it, brother! I'm with you all the way on this one. It sounds like they're not "revising" DR at all, they're completely changing the way it works.

My kingdom for a _sure striking_ weapon.


----------



## IceBear (Jan 28, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> Sing it, brother! I'm with you all the way on this one. It sounds like they're not "revising" DR at all, they're completely changing the way it works.
> 
> My kingdom for a sure striking weapon. *




Yup, I'm with you there.  I liked that whole Titan with a sword vs a skeleton thing and if they had left it there I'd be fine with it, but the rest just blows.

IceBear


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 28, 2003)

Victim said:
			
		

> *I don't like the DR changes especially.  Sorry, that +5 Holy Fiend Bane (evil outsider) sword can't bypass the demon's defenses.  So stupid.  Who the heck asked for that change?
> 
> I would have rather seen a different change to Haste.  If the extra spell from haste makes quicken spell unattractive, then the same logic should be applied to the extra attack making 2 weapon fighting not worth it, etc.  If they don't change Quicken Spell to make it better, then spellcasters are going to have a hard time.  I don't see backwards compatibility as problem, since the new haste is just as imcompatibible.  Every high level adventure I've seen has the casters using haste to dump spells faster.  Instead of changing some stats, the entire tactics and encounter balance would need to be redone.  Also, the haste change hurts fighters too, since they could no longer partial charge+full attack. *




Certain enhancements such as Bane or Holy will probably affect fiends, so I don't think that will be a significant issue. After all, that's what House Rules are for, no?

And as for Haste, I think it's a great idea. It makes Quicken Spell less... useless. I always used Haste to gain extra spells per round, as opposed to having to prepare them as four levels higher. Much easier this way.

And as for the new Haste making two-weapon fighting useless... where do you get that from? Most people who would employ two-weapon fighting (fighters, rangers, other combat classes) are not usually casting Haste. And even if they had Haste cast on them, their two-weapon fighting would still serve its purpose.

Without Two Weapon: Attack 1 (normal), Attack 2 (Haste)
With Two Weapon: Attack 1, Attack 2 (off-hand), Attack 3 (Haste).

More attacks. It's very useful.

[EDIT: Why are people knocking a rule revision that hasn't even been FULLY explained? Sounds like too many go off half cocked and complain about things they have limited knowledge of.]


----------



## Zenon (Jan 28, 2003)

Well, I'll throw in an opposing opinion:

I was kind of excited by the DR changes. Why?

An example: My wife's ranger has lycanthropes as a favored enemy so she carries around a silver dagger just for them. Why does she do that? Her main shortsword is +2, good enough to beat the DR 15/silver they currently have. What?? That just never seemed right to me.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what other changes come from removing the heiriarchy. I believe they'll still keep the +1,+2,+3, etc. heiriarchy but we don't know how special materials will fit in yet.

Cold iron as a special material - that's cool! Darn fey will be running scared now!

Remember, there's nothing saying you have to adopt the new rules. If you don't like the changes, stick with the existing rules. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jan 28, 2003)

It goes without saying that everybody is free to use house rules.  That is not an excuse for rules that are ill-conceived in the first place.

If it does turn out that you need "holysilver" weapons to affect fiends, to the _exclusion_ of, oh, I dunno, blessed weapons, that will only indicate to me that some designer got so excited about this change as to conceive a foolish attachment to the notion of special materials.  This obviously remains to be seen.


----------



## Victim (Jan 28, 2003)

Just like a hastened caster could go Cone of Cold, [Haste partial] Fireball, Quickened magic missile.

More spells.  They're very useful.

Quicken spell is still be useful, but as an adjunct to haste.  You can quicken either useful low level buffs like shield or no save spells like magic missile.  As written, quicken spell is impractical for general use.

And while bane and holy properties would still take effect, that fiend slaying weapon is rather pointless since the primary weapon damage would be able to bypass DR.  Also, the comment also seemed to refer to the regen ability of varius outsiders.  If you couldn't deal normal damage with your holy sword, then it'd be pretty pointless.  

The revised edition shouldn't require as many house rules as the previous one.


----------



## Zenon (Jan 28, 2003)

Victim said:
			
		

> *The revised edition shouldn't require as many house rules as the previous one. *




I agree. I have very few house rules now. If they can lessen that even further I'd like it.

Now if they just rename the "5' step" to "Combat Adjustment" I'll cheer...that little misnomer has caused more confusion than AoO's!

I really can't wait to get a look at the revisions and see if they're as good as I hope they will be.


----------



## kreynolds (Jan 28, 2003)

Holy cow....I'm lovin' the hell outta this new concept for DR.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 28, 2003)

I actually like this idea for DR too.  It does bother me that silver weapons are basically useless for fighting lycanthropes past fifth level or so:  by then, parties are usually going to have magic weapons that are one-size-fits-all.  I think it adds some cool flavor to the game if some creatures are immune to attacks from most sources.

I think you could fix the pit fiend problem by ruling that holy swords ignore any DR of evil outsiders, or that bane weapons ignore the DR of their favored creatures, or the like.  I'd figure that was worked into the item's magic; I think this solution would preserve the cool flavor without making bane and holy weapons useless.

Daniel


----------



## IceBear (Jan 28, 2003)

Yeah, we are seeing the rules in a vacuum.  They may have changed certain powers as well.  There may be a passage under "Bane" that states that Bane weapons overcome the DR of any creature the Bane applies to, so I will withhold further judgement until then.

I just don't want it to come to the point where you have to carry around 4 or 5 swords of different materials just to function properly.

IceBear


----------



## Apok (Jan 28, 2003)

I actually like the proposed changes to DR, provided there is some consistency and logic applied.  Mostly because of the fact that Silver DR & Cold Iron DR are useless since getting a +1 weapon is easy.  

This new system will (hopefully) make creatures like Lycanthropes and Fey more dangerous.  It also makes the game more flavorful, as Pielorinho mentioned.  Awesome ideas, btw, Piel.


----------



## esorek (Jan 28, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *There may be a passage under "Bane" that states that Bane weapons overcome the DR of any creature the Bane applies to...
> IceBear *




Or even better that "Bane" weapons targeting critters whose DR can only be overcome by a specific material have to be made from that material, not only would this add more flavor to the weapon it will also be reflected in the weapon's pricing.


----------



## IceBear (Jan 28, 2003)

esorek said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Or even better that "Bane" weapons targeting critters whose DR can only be overcome by a specific material have to be made from that material, not only would this add more flavor to the weapon it will also be reflected in the weapon's pricing. *




Yup, though I'm not sure if there are generic categories of Bane that might have creatures affected by two different materials (I haven't looked at the bane list and I haven't seen what materials affect what creatures). 

Anyway, I'm less opposed to this DR change than I was before.  Still, this was one area that I didn't expect such a radical change in, so it kinda caught me off guard.  It was one thing to say that they would make creatures with certain abilities (like skeletons) follow a consistent method, and another to make a sweeping change.

IceBear


----------



## Mortaneus (Jan 28, 2003)

Personally, I don't like the DR thing.  I've seen a single Molydeus wipe the floor with a 20th level 2nd Ed party because nobody had a cold-iron weapon, despite the fact that they were loaded to the gills with +4 and +5 weapons.

This sounds like more of the same.  It's not fun as a PC to have your butt kicked because you didn't have the proper metal on you.  It results in a lot more metagaming.  Currently, you at least have a chance against high DRs with the greater magic weapon spells and such.  Those won't help against the DR changes they're proposing, though.


----------



## IceBear (Jan 28, 2003)

From reading the haste spell changes that were mentioned, I really think if you start using the d20 Modern versions of some spells you'll already be using the revised versions.

IceBear


----------



## Spatzimaus (Jan 28, 2003)

I like the changes... most of them, anyway.

DR 5/blunt?  Just fine, although how would you write the reverse, i.e. "take 5 less from blunt weapons"?  Would it be 5blunt/- or 5/!blunt?  Or would you just give it both 5/slashing and 5/piercing?

The silver thing?  Not a problem, IF you live in a campaign where every item is made of special materials.  If you assume that every weapon that's +3 or stronger will be made of silver (at that cost, why wouldn't you?), then the problem goes away.
IMC we started using an exotic material system a while back.  This new change should be easy to integrate.

The Haste change does one interesting thing: it makes Psions MUCH stronger, since they can still Schism to cast extra spells, although that spell has enough limitations to keep it balanced.


----------



## hammymchamham (Jan 28, 2003)

sounds to me like all this DR stuff sounds like it would be a better Variant rule than an offical rule. But thats just IMHO


----------



## AuraSeer (Jan 28, 2003)

Spatzimaus said:
			
		

> *
> The silver thing?  Not a problem, IF you live in a campaign where every item is made of special materials.  If you assume that every weapon that's +3 or stronger will be made of silver (at that cost, why wouldn't you?), then the problem goes away.*



I think you're missing the point. If all your weapons are silver, the problem only goes away until you run into something that requires a material other than silver. You'll still have difficulty hurting a fey with DR 10/coldiron, or a great wyrm with DR 25/mithril, or [insert monster] with DR 50/bratwurst. There are multiple special materials, so you'll need to carry one weapon of each type if you want to be safe.

Note that this change also has the potential to significantly weaken archers*. If they have to carry arrows tipped with every possible special material, only a fraction of their ammo will be usable in any given situation. Trips back to the local bowyer will become a frequent necessity.

[* People can argue whether nerfing archers is a feature or a bug. I'm gonna stay out of the whole debate.]


----------



## reiella (Jan 28, 2003)

Well to me, the idea would be silly of making a +5 Holy Demon Bane weapon that wasn't silver given that situation.  Especially seeing how cheap silver is relative to the +5 Holy Demonbane aspect .

It also gives meaning to the Fighter diverse weapon proficencies, afterall, the war-cleric only gets one martial.

There's also the one example.
Pit Fiend, 15/holysilver as opposed to 25/+2.

Expect Bless Weapon to be changed as well with this (elsewise, it completely trivializes the change to holysilver ).  It becomes alot easier to break their DR at least if you're prepared (and it's easier to breach the lower DR).

Spec though, will have to wait and see for my opinion .


----------



## Victim (Jan 28, 2003)

Based on 2e, one kind of fiend was hurt by cold iron, and the other was silver.  What do you make your fiend-bane sword out of?


----------



## Conaill (Jan 28, 2003)

Talk about backwards compatibility! All of a sudden, every Fighter is now going to have to redo his equipment. I would hope that most DM's will allow their players to upgrade their wepons for free, otherwise we're going to see a lot of worthless Holy Avengers out there...

I'm also hoping they'll have some rules for alloys. E.g. an adamantine / mithril alloy gains the benefits of both materials (no stacking though), but costs extra cost for both materials are added as well. No more than two metals allowed in an alloy. Would that seem reasonable?


----------



## shilsen (Jan 28, 2003)

I'm all for the change to DR. I don't think it'll cause anywhere near the amount of problems people in this thread are expecting, and it adds flavor and tactical decision-making, both of which I like. Change to Haste sounds fine too, esp. since it's almost exactly the house rule I'm using  And taking out partial actions and clarifying AoOs can only be an improvement.


----------



## Dr. Zoom (Jan 28, 2003)

I also like what I am hearing about DR.  Great idea.  I cannot wait to see how it is all fleshed out.  I noticed he said that rangers will not be so frontloaded with the feats.  I wonder how they will "fix" that?  Good riddance to partial actions.


----------



## Rill (Jan 28, 2003)

So now GMW won't be the end-all be-all spell that it currently has become. That leaves a whole lot of room for other useful spells that could be distributed among the classes. Maybe Paladins can now transmute their weapon to holysilver for 1 min/level. Maybe a Ranger can cast transmute wood to silver. Will wizards start adding the spell Transmute Metal to their spellbooks instead of haste? Maybe, maybe not. *shrug* Just remember that we can't see the whole picture yet.

-Rill


----------



## RedSwan78 (Jan 28, 2003)

*stupid...*

Sorry all, I see this possible change as *stupid*. 

 I mean, the whole "silver weapon" thing.. Well, you need a silver weapon to hurt it, because it is a magical creature, right? Hmm.. what is a magical sword?

 To ME, a "Magical Sword" is just that, it's MAGICAL. It is bursting with the essence of magic! Meta-game thinking tells you it's "Just a +1 weapon"  does your character know that? No, your character knows that it is a *magical* sword that helps him hit easier and do more dmg to things. Why would a magical weapon NOT harm a creature just because it isn't made of the proper alloy? (silver).. Doesn't the magical-ness of the sword overcome that?


 Sorry, just don't see anything wrong with lycanthropes being harmed by +1 weapons.. ::shrugs::


----------



## Spatzimaus (Jan 28, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> I think you're missing the point. If all your weapons are silver, the problem only goes away until you run into something that requires a material other than silver. You'll still have difficulty hurting a fey with DR 10/coldiron, or a great wyrm with DR 25/mithril, or [insert monster] with DR 50/bratwurst. There are multiple special materials, so you'll need to carry one weapon of each type if you want to be safe.
> *




Didn't miss the point, that was one of the things I LIKE about the rule.  You now need multiple weapons, which might keep people from using Greatswords for everything.  My point was, every high-end magic weapon will already be made out of one of these materials, so it's not like you have to carry your +4 sword AND a silver one AND a cold iron AND ...; that +4 might be +4 silver, removing the need for one "specialty" material.

Besides, DR 50/bratwurst might make you immune to weapon attacks, but there's still Fireball to worry about.  And, if someone somehow manages to find the Holy Bratwurst of Antioch you're in for a world o' hurt.

I'm sure you could come up with an Alloy rule (like Conaill talks about), although I'd think they'd include something like this from the start.  I'd also go with the Bane modification someone mentioned earlier (acts as if the weapon were the correct material).


----------



## smetzger (Jan 28, 2003)

I don't think I'll like the new special material DR.  Sounds like it will result in more record keeping and metagaming.  

I am also warry about the new facing rules.  Could someone who has the ChainMail rules elaborate?  Are they going to have another entry for 'space filled'?  Can my horse go through  a 5 ft alley?


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 28, 2003)

I really like the idea of having resistances like 5/blunt,  it's intuitive and can be overcome if necessary.

On the other hand, if the 15/holysilver stuff is what it sounds like, I'm not touching that crap with a 10' pole - it's an added complication I can really do without.

Anyone wonder what decent artifact-level weapons will look like with these rules? +5 keen, silver-coldsilver-coldiron-mithral-adamantite-meteoric iron-darksteel-quicksilver alloy with ironwood, duskwood and obsidian inlay,  holy, unholy longsword?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: stupid...*



			
				RedSwan78 said:
			
		

> *
> I mean, the whole "silver weapon" thing.. Well, you need a silver weapon to hurt it, because it is a magical creature, right? Hmm.. what is a magical sword?*



Well, I wouldn't call all such creatures with DR as "magical creatures." I mean a true werewolf is just that, a natural creature in a "natural fantasy world." Should they be affected by a magical weapon even if said weapon is not made of silver? Does enchanting a weapon automatically turn it into iron (vs. fey) and silver (vs. werewolf) at the same time?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 28, 2003)

Several things come up with this change that we will need to wait on.

How many types of materials are we talking about?
Silver
Holysilver
Mithral?
Cold iron
Crystal?
Jade?
Admatium?

Are any of these stackable?
Silver
Mithril
Holysilver

Will there be 1 or more "Bane" spells to enchant normal weapons?

Will you be able to stack +X and Silver/Holysilver? if so why wouldn't you?

Will we start seeing more double weapons now with different materials on each head?

Using the new concept what is to stop you from making a double bladed axe (not double weapon) with different materials on each blade? How would damage be calculated?


It seems to me that any magic weapon given the cost would be made of at least 1 special material. Who would buy one that wasn't? 

When everyone converts thier characters (suggestions for DMs and esp. Living campaigns) will we be allowed to upgrade our material as well since logicaly we would have made sure to make/purchase the weapon this way were the rules of the universe this way in the past?

If "Bane" lets another material go through material DR for a little more wouldn't you get your +5 Holysilver weapon baned against fey?

On a more general level:

What's the purpose? Seems just as silly to me that a were-creature is affected by a silver weapon costing +50gp but ignore a +5 weapon costing 100,000 gold. Were in the fantasy genre have you ever seen this before?

Seems to me this part of all the changes would be the first to be House Ruled by large numbers of players, and create the most problems with new material not being backwards compatible. Will there be some standard for converting DR 15/Holysilver to DR X/+X? or will this not be "options, not rules" like they talk about.

I have no problem however by adding the DR Blunt/Slashing/Pierceing part, at least makes sense.


----------



## Victim (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: stupid...*



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> Well, I wouldn't call all such creatures with DR as "magical creatures." I mean a true werewolf is just that, a natural creature in a "natural fantasy world." Should they be affected by a magical weapon even if said weapon is not made of silver? Does enchanting a weapon automatically turn it into iron (vs. fey) and silver (vs. werewolf) at the same time? *




Werewolves have supernatural abilities, and thus are magical creatures.  

Actually, were creatures might be a special case.  I just checked the rules, and their DR is Extraordinary.  I could accept weird, unusual (ex) DR being only breached by special weapons, and normal supernatural DR as being cut through with magic.  As long as the extraordinary DR remained the exception and not the rule.

In any case, I now have to use werecritters in an AMF.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jan 28, 2003)

Bear in mind the existence of the 'truestrike' quality - I dare say the existence of +5 truestrike weapons will now have a point...


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 28, 2003)

*Holy Silver*

I think that this has been misinterpreted.

I don't think he meant holy silver as a material. I think he meant weapon a silver _+1 holy weapon_. A weapon made of a pure metal (silver), enhanced to a  _+1 weapon_, then given the _holy_ quality.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 29, 2003)

I also like the new DR idea. Frankly, the beat all blender of GMW is boring at high levels. Give the monsters back some of their interasecrecies (horribly misspelled I'm sure).

This is a great way to give the DM back some of the power of high level combat. When your players can mow through enemies like paper, and introducing some of the strange DRs can send them running, then in my mind that's a good thing.

Of course, as many have said we're in a vaccum right now. We don't know if there will be new spells to create these materials. How much it will cost to have weapons of some of these materials, etc.


----------



## whatisitgoodfor (Jan 29, 2003)

YES!!!!! 

D&D is getting more and more Pratchettian every day. 

IMO, every bar tender in the (supernatural) world should have a cudgel with a strip of cold iron, a strip of silver, that's been soaked in garlic oil, and with a piece of blanket on the end. After all they have to deal with customers of every sort and should get to be prepared for every possibility. 

PS. and yes I do realize that 5 exclamtion points is the mark of a truly sick mind.


----------



## dcollins (Jan 29, 2003)

I can see this as being a clever idea -- perhaps too clever. 

Advantages:
- Increased flavor. Makes the different material types versus demons and devils important for the first time.

Disadvantages:
- Very very not back-compatible. I hate the idea of a campaign that suddenly switches everyone's favored weapons in midstream for rules changes like this.

- Will end up expanding the non-specialness of magic items. Everyone's practically dripping with magic trinkets already. Now fighters are going to have even more motivation to carry around a satchel full of different magic swords ("Caddy, give me the 2-iron of flaming burst, if you please...").


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 29, 2003)

And for the seocnd time today I find myself really liking something from Revised.

C'mon July!


----------



## hong (Jan 29, 2003)

If this DR thing goes through, I can see my archer using his aimed shot/penetrating shot thing a lot more....


----------



## Andy_Collins (Jan 29, 2003)

The original poster shared only half the significance of the change.

The change from a strict hierarchy to a single specific quality, damage type, or material of the weapon (or in very rare cases, a combination of two) is indeed an attempt to recapture the "flavor" of damage reduction: werewolves are resistant to non-silver weapons, fey are most vulnerable to cold iron, skeletons are resistant to piercing & slashing weapons, demons are vulnerable to good-aligned weapons, and so on. As a number of people have pointed out, it's lame that all the flavor of the "special material" DR is completely lost once the party has +1 weapons at hand (or even ready access to the magic weapon spell). And the hierarchy of pluses introduces the ugly metagame element of characters rating weapons (and monsters) by plus rather than by the actual qualities of the weapon (magic, silver, piercing, holy, whatever).

But the second half is what keeps this from being a hose-job to the fighters. That's the fact that DR *values* are going down, almost across the board. As I shared at Winter Fantasy, the vast majority of monsters will have DR 5 or 10 (a few, such as the mighty pit fiend, creep up to 15). That means that the fighter who doesn't have the right weapon can still dish out damage to a DR monster, just not as much. (Can you say Power Attack?)

This second part comes about because, despite R&D's best efforts to create a wholly new DR system for 3.0, the fact that there were monsters with DR 20, 30, or even 50 made the system work just like it did in previous editions, which is to say, "If you don't have a weapon this good, don't bother fighting." I mean, come on, does anyone even *try* to fight an iron golem (DR 50/+3) without a +3 weapon? It might as well just say "immune to damage from weapons less than +3" and in 99% of the cases, it'd be exactly the same.

I've been using this system in my home game for a few months now, and after some initial adjustments by the characters (such as buying extra arrows, or swapping a normal weapon for a special-material weapon, or just buying a secondary melee weapon), the players have taken to it really well. The "bypass mechanics" have generally proven very intuitive to players, meaning that they quickly figure out from context clues what they need to fight particular monsters (though I'm looking forward to their first fight with a lich...)


----------



## hong (Jan 29, 2003)

Andy, can you tell us anything on how many different types of special materials there are going to be? I can see the change being a good thing, eg reducing the utility of GMW, and making life more difficult for machinegun archers. If there's too many types, though, then that just introduces metagaming of a different sort (see the "golf-bag o' weapons" comment previously).


----------



## IceBear (Jan 29, 2003)

Thanks for sharing that Andy - it helps put things into perspective.  Yeah, with lower damage amounts to get past DR it does help with the flavor and still keep things from getting crazy.

IceBear


----------



## IceBear (Jan 29, 2003)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> *And for the seocnd time today I find myself really liking something from Revised.
> 
> C'mon July! *




What was the other thing?

IceBear


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 29, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *What was the other thing?
> *




Haste.

I'm hoping Shield makes it a trifecta.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 29, 2003)

Sorry Andy,

While most changes pre-released so far seem like good ideas the changes to material DRs seems like an ill-considered change. This goes against the 3E motto of simpler and instead harkens back to why I quit at 2nd edition, unneeded added complexity. Of all the other changes I have seen and heard people pointing out the flaws that are now being addressed, but not this one. It seams to me to that this was added because one or two individuals in the revision proccess wanted it for thier own campaign. Are the benefits from this reworking worth the consequences of incompatability and complexity, I personally feel not and am irritated at the fundemental nature of it making it hard to Rule 0.


----------



## dcollins (Jan 29, 2003)

Yeah, I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. It had never occurred to me in 20 years that magic items hitting resistant creatures was "lame". Revising the numbers to every creature with DR seems like a distressingly big change to the rules system.


----------



## Burne (Jan 29, 2003)

Thoughts on DR from a rules prespective:
DR:50/+3 is easy to understand. Easy is good. Simple is good.
Thoughts from a 2e gamer playing 3rd:
Wow the werewolf sucked, whats with that?  Aren't they unkillable except by silver weapons, I just wacked it with this newb magic sword we found and it died.  What's with that.
Throughts from a DM prespective:
Ooo, it's, umm, some sort of, uhh, round eye thing with lots of little arms, yeah, and it smells like cheese. _Will my poor foolish PC's guess that it has 1000/cheese DR?  Either way, I have them now!!_


----------



## Mort (Jan 29, 2003)

Assuming the designers didn't go crazy on the amount of materials involved, I really like the change to DR; especially with Andy Collin's news that the amount of DR has dropped pretty much across the board.

A +5 weapon should not be the "be all-end all", it should be the best under *most* circumstances; it's a good idea to throw the players for a loop every once in a while.


----------



## Andion Isurand (Jan 29, 2003)

I agree with Mort,

Furthermore, I also think that the changes to DR are a good thing because it is more honest to the classic creatures of old and their respective mythologies.

This helps the mythical and bizarre creatures that color the fantasy genre, within the context of the d20 3rd Ed D&D system, regain some of the flavor they once had.

Now, the classic creatures of old that decide to make appearances in the new novels written about today's campaign settings, will remain closer to same old staples we have come to know and love them as.

Also, the spell 'Greater Magic Weapon' is no longer the only DR bypass spell needed.


----------



## nameless (Jan 29, 2003)

I'm divided on the issue. On one hand, it makes knowledge of your enemy important. Whether this is good or bad is debatable. It also adds a little spice to normally mediocre things like werewolves. Due to the presence of GMW spells and such, most DR is trivial to high level parties. So making them diversify is a good thing.

I would also assume that most things with alternate-DR would only have 5/something, like the skeleton does. So it makes them resistant to damage, but still easily damagable. Only staples like Lycanthropes would have something on the order of 15/silver or Sidhe might have 15/cold iron. If demons had DR of 25/+3 and 5/holy silver on top of that, they would still be challenging, but easily beatable without holy silver.

So, here's hoping that they properly balance the weird DR things and don't have fighters carry Ehlonna's Golf Bag o' Swords to fend everything off.


----------



## Andion Isurand (Jan 29, 2003)

here's a spell from the WotC website

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/mc/mc20020130a 


Silvered Weapon
Transmutation
Level: Brd 0, Clr 0, Drd 0, Pal 1, Rgr 1, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: One weapon or projectile
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: None

You transform a single weapon or projectile into a silvered weapon or silvered projectile. A silvered weapon or projectile functions as a normal item of its type, except that silvered weapons or projectiles can hurt some creatures that can resist damage from normal weapons, such as werewolves.

Material Component: A silver coin.


----------



## Mortaneus (Jan 29, 2003)

A couple of problems with the whole thing:

1.  Fighter w/ caddy (mentioned earlier) - 'Cedrick, pass me my +3 Golem Cleaver if you would be so kind...'

2.  Monks are screwed.  Not only is their Ki strike gained so late as to be almost completely useless (maybe changed??), but now they've got to worry about DRs they can't penetrate even when they get it.

3.  It makes the speedy fighters and dual-weapon types even less useful, because it puts the emphasis on one big powerful blow, rather than being able to whittle down an enemy with many quick attacks.


Personally, as a player, I would find this just plain annoying.  I'd rather boost HPs to prolong the fight, or give it regen with vulnerabilities to only those metals, than using DR.  Watching something heal before your eyes is bad, but you can deal with it.  Watching your weapons bounce off, except from the most telling of blows, is just plain frustrating.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 29, 2003)

In my opinion, the new DR system isn't a big deal.  S&F already introduced the idea of Surestriking weapons which can penetrate up to DR/+5 for the low, low cost of a +1 weapon enhancement.

What's to stop some enterprising wizard from coming up with an Anymaterial enhancement, or a _transmute material_ spell?  You can bet it's going to happen before long.

You would then need at most one secondary weapon instead of a golf bag.


----------



## Dash Dannigan (Jan 29, 2003)

I like it! Thank you Andy, I did a small double take seeing your post, most gracious. 

With the lowering of DRs across the board, combined with the flavor-crunchines of weapon types, mmmm, D&D. As has been mentioned before I'll just throw my hat in and say I look forward to many/all of the revisions that have appeared thus far  to be taking place with the revision. Wish it was summer already...


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 29, 2003)

Andion Isurand said:
			
		

> *here's a spell from the WotC website
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/mc/mc20020130a
> 
> ...




So the whole special material resistance is negated by a CANTRIP. Yeah this is better


----------



## Xeoble (Jan 29, 2003)

It said something about monks getting major revisions so maybe their abilities will reflect the DR changes


----------



## Issalzul Syde (Jan 29, 2003)

While I like the changes to the DR system, I don't like the fact at all that they are not very backwards-compatible.

I still gotta find the cash for the new books, and I gotta talk to the other DM who's playing a parralel campaign so we don't get screwed when the parties meet or all of a sudden he switches and the PC group get screwed up.


----------



## Perithoth (Jan 29, 2003)

Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> *The original poster shared only half the significance of the change.
> *




As that origional scooper Andy I must have missed that part that the DR values are going down. My bad. There was a lot of information being tossed about and my brain is a bit fried from the con. It was a pleasure to hear you talk about the new rules and I hope you are feeling better, I know that giving a talk while battling a sever cold really sucks.

As I am reading the reactions to my inital write up of the meeting more and more is coming back. I am hoping I can find the contact information for those guys from the public access show in Ft. Wayne. It would be a lot easier to buy a copy of the tape and see the dang thing again and absorb it more slowly. I am sure there is a ton of stuff I haven't remembered.

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Perithoth
Lord of Grumpiness


----------



## zero skill LPB (Jan 29, 2003)

*Monk-y prediction!*

Wanna take any bets that Ki Strike no longer stages up as +1/+2/+3 but rather "defeats DR 5/*, 10/*, 15/*"? 

3:2 odds? 5:3?


----------



## The Fifth Elephant (Jan 29, 2003)

How about Ki Feats?  Once you get Ki strike +1, take Ki Strike Silver... after that, at Ki Strike +2, take Ki Strike ColdIron, and on.


----------



## Illuminae (Jan 29, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Holy cow....I'm lovin' the hell outta this new concept for DR.  *




*YES!*


----------



## Illuminae (Jan 29, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *Sorry Andy,
> 
> While most changes pre-released so far seem like good ideas the changes to material DRs seems like an ill-considered change. This goes against the 3E motto of simpler and instead harkens back to why I quit at 2nd edition, unneeded added complexity.
> *




No, it doesn´t. It does not, in any way, add to *rules* complexity, IMHO.

The rules for special material affecting DR already existed. The difference however, is that now they MATTER.

But it DOES add to Role-playing and imagination. Remember those good old things that *still matter besides not having the highest pluses or pluses at all*.

When you think only about rules and mechanical power, other things become useless.

Why would a fighter want to use a weapon different than his highest-plused one?

Now he has a reason to.

These rules make Un-magical itens still worth it.

I really like to look at the equipment list and see USEFUL stuff that let my character do DIFFERENT things instead of just giving pluses to the rules-oriented aspects of the game.

Mirrors, 10-foot poles, ropes, and now different materials.

And that means: OPTINS, NOT RESTRICTIONS.

As my character has to act more like I do, the more real he seems.

And the thing I liked the most about new DR is that the good ole fighter (and everyone else) can still fight something without having to rely on magical items only.

And that, too, means more rules SIMPLICITY, since it is no longer REQUIRED a +3 weapon/smackdown as the only ways for a fighter type to beat an Iron Golem.

Got the guts? Swing it away!

Some of us like the LotR way of placing magic items in the world...
Maybe my 16th level fighter didn´t find any magical sword, but he can still take on them beasties, it just will be harder.

HE IS 16TH LEVEL, FOR LORD´S SAKE!! 

A character and what he/she has learned through his life (class abilities) SHOULD BE ALWAYS MORE IMPORTANT than what he possess....Just like in the real world. 



> It seams to me to that this was added because one or two individuals in the revision proccess wanted it for thier own campaign.




Now that makes at least 2-3 of us.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 29, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Holy cow....I'm lovin' the hell outta this new concept for DR.  *




Have to agree. Actually they nearly copied my houserules on that matter.

And it sounds like they changed the amount of DR... lowered it. That way a fighter who causes 35 points of damage each hit will still bring 20 points to the counter...


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 29, 2003)

I suppose the fact that the DRs will be going down - 5 and 10 for most critters, 15 for really tough monsters - is a good thing, and makes it more useable than I though it'd be.

But what it also does is make big honkin' two-handed weapons even more desireable then they already are, a +2 greatsword wielded by someone with 18STR and Weapon Spec. goes through DR 5 like butter, and does ok against DR 10... At the same time, the guy trying to play a character with 2 short swords, who technically is supposed to have a similar damage output, gets hosed.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 29, 2003)

*RE*

I like the DR changes. They sound very cool. I have always felt the werewolves should be as formiddable as they are in films. The same way with golems. This will make that happen. 

Golems should have DR/- like a barbarian though, which will offset their lack of Constitution.


Andy,

Please tell me you are going to ensure the the sorcerer can use the Quicken spell feat pre-epic levels without taking Arcane Preparation. They do not receive bonus feats, it would be highly unfair to disallow sorcerers the use of Quicken, considering that it will be the only way to cast two spells per round.


----------



## hong (Jan 29, 2003)

Illuminae said:
			
		

> *
> Why would a fighter want to use a weapon different than his highest-plused one?
> 
> Now he has a reason to.*




I fail to see why this is such a Good Thing.



> *Some of us like the LotR way of placing magic items in the world...
> Maybe my 16th level fighter didn´t find any magical sword, but he can still take on them beasties, it just will be harder.*




Eh. The most likely consequence of this rule change, if taken too far, is that said 16th level fighter will have a Heward's handy haversack filled with half a dozen weapons made of special materials, just in case. What will happen is that these supposedly "special" weapons just become another part of the armoury.



> *A character and what he/she has learned through his life (class abilities) SHOULD BE ALWAYS MORE IMPORTANT than what he possess....Just like in the real world.
> *




The rule change is a terrible way of achieving this end, whatever its other merits might be.


----------



## evilbob (Jan 29, 2003)

I agree with the posts stating that it's hard to know the extent of the rule changes without further information.  But more than that, I have to say that I generally trust the creators of D&D when it comes to sweeping changes like this...  (Look at the differences between 3e and 2e, for one thing.)

These are the types of guys who sit down and think of EVERYTHING, so I seriously doubt that anyone could look at their system and punch giant holes in it within two seconds of reading it.  I mean come on - what else do these guys do besides think up new ways to play games?  : )  I'm sure in the end the vast majority of players will not only agree with and like the new system, they'll forget what it was like without it.  It's like explaining to someone how previous editions didn't even have things like "feats..."

I wouldn't worry so much.


----------



## Zenon (Jan 29, 2003)

First - Andy, thanks for the additional comments, I know many here missed the lowered DR.

Second - 



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *So the whole special material resistance is negated by a CANTRIP. Yeah this is better *




Hmm, considering that everyone of the spell casters on the list has to use a slot and memorize it beforehand (except the sorcerer) or have a "open" slot and spend 15 minutes to memorize it, what is wrong with that? Are cantrips supposed to be totally useless? Would you feel better if it was 9th level?

Like I said before, no one is twisting anyones arm to change. These rules will be available in the SRD, so you can look before you put out the $ for new books.  We haven't seen all the changes yet, all we're going on is rumor. And, in the end, if you've read them all and just don't like it, then there are house rules and Rule 0.

And I agree with evilbob.


----------



## bret (Jan 29, 2003)

From what I've heard of it, I dislike the new DR rules.

I wouldn't mind having rules like DR 5/piercing or DR10/blunt. Doing it by damage type doesn't bother me as much. It still makes it tough for the rogue, who isn't proficient in a slashing weapon.

Doing it by the material that the item is made of does bother me. In my opinion, it does add complexity for very little benefit. It will also make it very difficult for any EXCEPT a fighter to hurt the creatures. 

In my experience, the other character classes do lower average damage per hit than a fighter, so they are the ones who would end up needing the golf bag of weaponry. I can't recall any stories involving a rogue or cleric carrying a half-dozen different weapons. Anyone trying to stay at light encumberance is going to have trouble carrying enough different weapon types.

What is wrong with a magic weapon being MAGICAL? Allow it to hurt any type of creature if the magic is strong enough, the person who enchanted the weapon certainly put enough effort into it.

Personally, I hate the 'memorize the monster properties or die' type of creatures. Why should you reward a player for memorizing the monster manual? In my experience, it is exactly that type of creature you want to avoid, because it causes people to focus on the game mechanics rather than the story.


The only good thing about this rule I can see is it will make it easier for me to talk people into playing more of other FRPG systems. It has already become a regular refrain in our group that the reason something works in a certain way is because of silly D&D rules. This should help kill the last of the suspension of belief. An advantage from my viewpoint, but I suspect WotC might not agree.

_Edit: Spelling_


----------



## Zad (Jan 29, 2003)

> But the second half is what keeps this from being a hose-job to the fighters. That's the fact that DR *values* are going down, almost across the board. As I shared at Winter Fantasy, the vast majority of monsters will have DR 5 or 10 (a few, such as the mighty pit fiend, creep up to 15). That means that the fighter who doesn't have the right weapon can still dish out damage to a DR monster, just not as much. (Can you say Power Attack?)




No, I can't say "Power attack" if I'm an archer. And that's who this change is going to put the shaft to.

DR 5? Sure I can live with that. But DR10 or 15?!? 

One of the things about archery is that you do low damage per shot, but you can get more attacks and get them to hit. This has ups and downs - great generally, problem against animated objects, etc.

But my 18th level arcane archer (You remember that prestige class? the one that makes magic arrows on the fly as their biggest core ability and therefore can get by DR as an archer without other aids?) does 1d8+16 inside 30 feet for damage.  So let's say average of four, that's 20 points. Which means I'm going to do 5 points to a big creature? (And at 18th level, you fight a lot of big creatures now don't you.) 

If I'm doing 5 points a shot, I may as well sit down and cook some stew because I'm going to be totally useless in combat. Sure if I know what's coming, I can have some XXX arrows, but honestly, most of the time a party has no idea what they'll be fighting. Do I buy an extra horse to carry around every wierd arrow known in the world? And what about that core ability of the class? Now it's just a little extra to hit and damag, and won't be enough when I really need it.

This change is going to take established, developed characters (i.e. archers) and render them useless, and gut a core prestige class. 

I guess I should ask my DM if I can start rolling up a mage.


----------



## hong (Jan 29, 2003)

Zad said:
			
		

> *
> No, I can't say "Power attack" if I'm an archer. And that's who this change is going to put the shaft to.*




Good. 

Note: I PLAY an archer, and I think they could do with a bit of toning down myself.



> *DR 5? Sure I can live with that. But DR10 or 15?!?
> 
> One of the things about archery is that you do low damage per shot, but you can get more attacks and get them to hit. This has ups and downs - great generally, problem against animated objects, etc.*




D00d, you're also out of range of grappling, improved grab, rend, swallow whole, energy drain, ability drain, unholy aura, and all those other lovely specials that make melee fighters' lives difficult. So the tanks sometimes get to do more damage than you. Big whoop. Stop complaining.


Hong "is getting a bit tired of 'archer of death' jokes" Ooi


----------



## IceBear (Jan 29, 2003)

They need to do some sort of equivalency.

+1 = Material X
+2 = Material Y
etc

That way a magical weapon of sufficient power could still blast through the DR of some monsters.

BTW - I've always house ruled GMW so that the pluses from the spell aren't "real" in that they can overcome DR or be used for sundering.  Sure, that might screw the players if they don't have a +3 weapon when fighting that golem, but I tend to plan so things like that don't happen (or if they do, I *WANT* it to be a tough fight).  In my case, the potential abuse of the spell more than offsets this potential problem.

Anway, I think we need more feedback from Andy on this DR issue before we can say for sure.

IceBear


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 29, 2003)

The sky is falling!  The sky is falling!

Daniel


----------



## IceBear (Jan 29, 2003)

It is! It is!



IceBear


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 29, 2003)

Okay, maybe that's not the most productive thing I've ever posted.  But good gravy, there's a lot of Chicken Littles running around in this thread.

Before you conclude that new DR rules are going to hose your PC, it'd behoove you to:

1) Consider that the people designing 3.5 have heard of, and will pay attention to, game balance.
2) Think of possible solutions to the potential problems you're imagining, and discuss ways to make the system work; and
3) Don't condemn the system until you've seen it.

Worried that an arcane archer is going to get hosed?  What about that new 1st-level arcane spell, transmute metal?  For one round/level, it'll change one melee weapon or 50 missiles from one nonmagical metal into another nonmagical metal.  Presto:  the arcane archer is useful again.

There are probably easy fixes to other problems, too.  And one easy fix is this:  if you're going to the Abyss, carry blessed silver weapons.  You'll overcome the DR of those pesky pit fiends, and feel all smart for doingi t.

Daniel


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 29, 2003)

Zenon said:
			
		

> *First - Andy, thanks for the additional comments, I know many here missed the lowered DR.*




So now a first level fighter with high strength and a two handed weapon can damage anything. What happened to the invulnerability to normal weapons these high level critters are supposed to have?




			
				Zenon said:
			
		

> *Second -
> 
> 
> Hmm, considering that everyone of the spell casters on the list has to use a slot and memorize it beforehand (except the sorcerer) or have a "open" slot and spend 15 minutes to memorize it, what is wrong with that? Are cantrips supposed to be totally useless? Would you feel better if it was 9th level?*




People were complaining about GMW disrupting the game by making it easy to get by DRs but all that was done now is changed the spell needed to do this and made it a cantrip. And yes cantrips by definition are pretty much totaly useless and shouldn't have a great impact against a CR10+ creature. The only cantrips I use at high level anyways are detect/read magic so yes I already have lots of unused cantrip slots. You might even see an unintended consequence of this now as many high level fighters start taking 1 level of sorcerer so they can fix thier own weapons on the fly as needed. For 1 less BAB and 3 less HPs you can now bypass material DRs.



			
				Zenon said:
			
		

> *Like I said before, no one is twisting anyones arm to change. These rules will be available in the SRD, so you can look before you put out the $ for new books.  We haven't seen all the changes yet, all we're going on is rumor. And, in the end, if you've read them all and just don't like it, then there are house rules and Rule 0.
> 
> And I agree with evilbob. *




Unlike every other rule they are fixing this one is fundemental to the rules structure. You can't just house rule it without changing dozens of creatures and spells. If it wern't for this I would buy 3.5 and implement it imediately. With this I will consider not buying it and adopting the other changes from the SRD into 3.0. If they are trying to sell more books they almost had my money.

[Edit: fixed quote bars]


----------



## SimonMoon5 (Jan 29, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *I liked that whole Titan with a sword vs a skeleton thing *




Grrr, I didn't. A titan should do so much damage with a sword that halving it won't make much difference to a skeleton. 

I mean, its warhammer does 4d6+19. If it uses a sword with similar damage, that's still 33/2 = 16 damage on average to a skeleton. Even Large skeletons only have 13 hp. So, where's the problem?


----------



## Zad (Jan 29, 2003)

> 1) Consider that the people designing 3.5 have heard of, and will pay attention to, game balance.




I am certainly hoping that is the case. Part of the problem is I'm a little too used to computer RPG's where the designers put in a fix without thinking it all the way through, and that certainly biases me here.



> Worried that an arcane archer is going to get hosed? What about that new 1st-level arcane spell, transmute metal? For one round/level, it'll change one melee weapon or 50 missiles from one nonmagical metal into another nonmagical metal. Presto: the arcane archer is useful again.




What about it? Reference please  It's not mentioned on the 3.5e  info page, nor the other material I've read (granted I haven't combed for every iota of information but I did read the 3.5e info page and just went back and searched it.)  Assuming it's out there, then certainly that makes life much more practical for everyone, and would be a grand and wonderful thing. (On the other hand, doesn't a spell like that eliminate the flavor they're going for by letting parties easily counter the DR? Beats me.)


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jan 29, 2003)

Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> *I've been using this system in my home game for a few months now, and after some initial adjustments by the characters (such as buying extra arrows, or swapping a normal weapon for a special-material weapon, or just buying a secondary melee weapon), the players have taken to it really well. *




Well, your players already have it, so it doesn't need to be changed in the core rules, then.

Seriously, most of the 3.5 changes I've heard about are in response to issues that have been experienced by a lot of people.  They address problems that come up repeatedly, at least judging from the limited evidence of forums like this.  This DR thing, on the other hand, strikes me as, for the most part, a solution in search of a problem.

I can grant the point about using a more consistent mechanic for skeletons and such, but that's the only thing I see here that addresses any real need of any kind.  As such, the rest of this business would make a perfectly fine variant among the other variants in the revised DMG, but a poor move otherwise.


----------



## reiella (Jan 29, 2003)

You still can buy 3.5 and easily ignore this rule.

Just don't buy the 3.5 MM...  Problem solved, no?

[add]
There are a few problems with the Revised Change however...

d20 monsters will need to be reworked...

Plus side, it appears Monsters of Rokugan would be ok, since they already use similiar behavior for Jade.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jan 29, 2003)

reiella said:
			
		

> *You still can buy 3.5 and easily ignore this rule.
> 
> Just don't buy the 3.5 MM...  Problem solved, no? *




No.  As I've said before, the fact that DM's are free to institute house rules does not in any way whatsoever excuse poor design decisions in the core rulebooks.


----------



## reiella (Jan 29, 2003)

Was more so in reference to the comment that you weren't able to buy 3.5 because you didn't agree with that single rule and wouldn't be able to 'easily' adapt out of it.  Should be just as easily as using the older MM material instead.  In fact, it looks like for some time that would be the easier course of method for general use if you happen to use any book with monster supplements that have DR at all.


----------



## IceBear (Jan 29, 2003)

SimonMoon5 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Grrr, I didn't. A titan should do so much damage with a sword that halving it won't make much difference to a skeleton.
> 
> ...




Ok, I wasn't saying that I thought it was bad before, just that for CONSISTENCY purposes, I was ok with it.  All it does is make any monster that is resistent to certain attacks follow the same rules.  That's what I didn't mind.  Understand now?

IceBear


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jan 29, 2003)

Agreed, IceBear.  I don't think there's any problem with how the rule about skeletons' weapon resistance _behaves_, and the notion that Titans are unduly penalized is a straw man argument.  But having one game mechanic for such things, not two, is proper.

For that matter, I do think that the fact that "+1" is on a hierarchy with "silver" is a consistency problem.  If a +1 weapon should affect the creature, then its DR should read something along the lines of "DR 5/+1 or silver."  But that's not what we're talking about here.  We're talking about someone's opinion that a highlighting a variety of special materials would not only be a Neat Idea in Their Campaign, but is so important, so universally necessary to all fantasy gaming, that it should be part of the core rules.


----------



## dravot (Jan 29, 2003)

Zad said:
			
		

> *
> What about it? Reference please  It's not mentioned on the 3.5e  info page, nor the other material I've read (granted I haven't combed for every iota of information but I did read the 3.5e info page and just went back and searched it.)  Assuming it's out there, then certainly that makes life much more practical for everyone, and would be a grand and wonderful thing. (On the other hand, doesn't a spell like that eliminate the flavor they're going for by letting parties easily counter the DR? Beats me.) *




I'd be interested in seeing this spell as well.

And I don't think it eliminates the flavor at all, and isn't *that* easily countered.  The spell uses up a spell slot that you could take for another spell (or costs money if it's in a wand, etc.), and unless you're pre-buffing for a fight, will take precious time to cast/invoke, etc. - especially when haste is nerfed to extra attacks instead of extra partial actions.


----------



## RedSwan78 (Jan 29, 2003)

> Worried that an arcane archer is going to get hosed? What about that new 1st-level arcane spell, transmute metal? For one round/level, it'll change one melee weapon or 50 missiles from one nonmagical metal into another nonmagical metal. Presto: the arcane archer is useful again.




 Wrong.

Read the spell, it's ONE projectile it changes. Sorry, still just see this "change" as a bad thing, and If I have anything to do with it, *won't* be using it. The bad thing is, when I *won't* have anything to do with it, such as when I join a new group or such.

 So basically melee's are getting screwed out of hitting things, right? The fighter of the group has to carry around new weapons.. well there goes alot of his monetery resources. Does the fighter now get extra money per level to buy additional swords and such? 

 Hey, why aren't magic users getting screwed too? I mean, a magic missile still hits a werewolf, right? Or do they have to memorize a "silvery magic missile"..?  See how stupid it gets?




EDIT- Just saw a few people asking for that spell, here is the referrence:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article..../mc/mc20020130a

Silvered Weapon
Transmutation
Level: Brd 0, Clr 0, Drd 0, Pal 1, Rgr 1, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: One weapon or projectile
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: None

You transform a single weapon or projectile into a silvered weapon or silvered projectile. A silvered weapon or projectile functions as a normal item of its type, except that silvered weapons or projectiles can hurt some creatures that can resist damage from normal weapons, such as werewolves.

Material Component: A silver coin. 


Also, how do you make your quote's include that "originally posted by: x" thingy? hehe I haven't posted too much here


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 29, 2003)

RedSwan78 said:
			
		

> *  Wrong.*




Not wrong, just misunderstood.  

Lemme quote the part of my post that people are missing:



> 2) Think of possible solutions to the potential problems you're imagining, and discuss ways to make the system work




See?  With about 30 seconds' thought, I came up with a POSSIBLE spell they could add to 3.5 that would enable archer characters to be useful in combat vs. creatures with DR/special material.  I wasn't talking about that 3E cantrip at all.

Before you run in circles, screaming and shouting, think about whether the problems you're imagining have imaginary solutions as well.  If they do, why not discuss those imaginary solutions?  Andy is obviously reading this thread; if your suggestions are good, maybe he'll include them.

But talking about how You're Not Going To Buy 3.5 Because of This Sucky Rule -- this is, I'm guessing, both false and irrelevant.  People said exactly the same thing before 3E came out, kvetching about all sorts of stuff that later proved to be immensely popular.  

Only 3 saving throws?  Wizards can wear armor?  Clerics have nine spell levels?  Blasphemy!  Despair!  Armageddon!  I'll never buy the books!

And yet when people saw how these changes were actually implemented, people found them to be fair and exciting.  People bought the books after all.  And i do hope that Monte, Skip, and all the others ignored people's I-won't-buy-the-book-if-you-make-this-change threats.

So discuss these changes.  But give the designers the benefit of the doubt.  Point out potential pitfalls, but use your imagination, and try to come up with possible solutions.

That's constructive criticism.  Just saying, "This su><><0r5!" is perilously close to whining.

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 29, 2003)

RedSwan78 said:
			
		

> * Also, how do you make your quote's include that "originally posted by: x" thingy? hehe I haven't posted too much here  *




At the bottom right corner of each post is a button marked "quote."  Click on it.

If you want to get fancy, you can use tags throughout your post.  To put more language in the quote format (e.g., if you want to break up a quote by someone else, or you want to quote the SRD or something), you can put "[ quote ]" in front of the text, and "[ /quote ]" after the text.  (Remove the spaces in order to get it to work).

If you break up someone's quote, though, for God's sake don't reply to their post sentence by sentence.  That gets super-annoying, and is usually a sign that you're engaging in a fruitless bicker-battle with the person.  Or maybe that's just my personal peeve .

Daniel


----------



## green slime (Jan 29, 2003)

I'm slightly concerned at this. Not overly. I find the DR modification to be exciting and challenging. Something that has bugged me for a while, was the inclusion of DR 5/silver which had no real meaning.

That said, I don't like the idea of revising all the DR stats of the monsters, considering the MMII, MoF, FF (slated for April, before the arrival of the revised MM), not to mention all non-WotC monster books, of which ToH, CC and CCII immediately leaps to mind....

SO it is with mixed feelings and trepidation that I read of this DR change. I hope the revised MM contains some simple rules for converting "old" DR to this new system. I'm sure someone at WotC has already thought of this.


----------



## IceBear (Jan 29, 2003)

Daniel,

You mentioned Monte's name in your post.  I knew that Andy and Skip were involved in the revised rules, but I didn't think Monte was.  Is he?

IceBear


----------



## RedSwan78 (Jan 29, 2003)

Sorry, didn't really mean to "jump down your throat" and all, it's just I'm.. well, upset at the proposed changes, because I REALLY don't see anything wrong with the current DR rules. ::shrugs::

 Also, it will get annoying for future gaming, for me at least. Right now, it's pretty much everyone is using 3e. There's still a few old-school 2e players running around. I mean, that's what I first learned, was 2e. I made the conversion over to 3e, and after learning it, I like it much better.

 Now, with 3.5 coming out.. it will be kinda wierd.. "so are you playing 3e, or 3.5?" or you think it's a 3e game, but they never really *say* it's a 3.5 game and.. bleh, I'm blabbering..

 I guess it all comes down to, I thought the "revised" books where just going to include all the various "errata".. but, now I see that it is *changing* things.. and that I don't like.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 29, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Daniel,
> 
> You mentioned Monte's name in your post.  I knew that Andy and Skip were involved in the revised rules, but I didn't think Monte was.  Is he?
> 
> IceBear *




Not that I know of -- and given what he's doing with Arcana Unearthed, I'd doubt it.  I referred to him in the context of writing 3E, and the similar (to me) complaints people were making about 3E before it came out.

Daniel


----------



## Rill (Jan 29, 2003)

Does anyone else like the idea that enhancement bonuses to weapons will now "enhance" the weapon instead of turning it into something entirely different? It just seems to make more sense to me.

  And for the "fighters are weakened, archers are weakened, why do casters still get to throw spells at these monsters without penalty?" crowd, just remember that virtually every caster will have one less spell per round to work with due to the haste changes. Those same changes make the spell more likely to be placed on the non-casters granting an additional attack. I don't see a net loss for combat types, especially considering the lowered DR numbers.

  Again, the game is played as a system, and changes trickle down through all aspects. Which tends to validate concerns about the backward compatibility issues, but will likely lessen many of the other complaints as more details and thought are put into those issues.

-Rill


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 29, 2003)

I'm in agreement with Pielorinho here. First off, no change that the designers could have made is going to please everyone. 3E didn't please everyone, but it did a damn fine job. The same people are now working on your revised rules.

In response to some of the issues:



> It seams to me to that this was added because one or two individuals in the revision proccess wanted it for thier own campaign.




First off, that is a little harsh and more than a little insulting to the developers.

Andy has said: "the R&D mantra for revised 3e, "do no harm." If there was something cool to change but it didn't really need to be done, it wasn't."

These people CARE about what you the buyer THINK. TSR never did that. The new staff has taken the time to do things like, post to your board. Comments like this make me wonder why they care.

And the Sky is not falling. But I am unimpressed with the reponse from these boards. Everyone wants to bash the new rules set without having seen it. Why not reserve judgement until you have all the facts. D20 works with balance by a collection of rules, not just one set. Saying things can be overcome by a cantrip... Who's to say they aren't revising that to? The truth is, no one knows the extent of the changes. I'm reserving judgement until I see the completed product, though I have faith that the staff did a damn good job (why? because they care enough to listen to me when I e-mail in and say I've had a problem with DR).

And speaking of this little speck of information we have recieved (thank you Andy for clearing things up):

Why would your fighter carry a "caddy"? He can't afford a bunch of weapons unless he takes away from his primary one. So he has a +4 bashing sword. Can he kill demons quick. Sure, using things like power attack and the like. Can the paladin and cleric with their holysilvered weapons do it better. Maybe, but perhaps they should be able to.

And in response to the low damage weapons... I think it is a lot more likely that the treasure seeking rogue has a dagger for every monster than a barbarian having a greatsword for every occasion. "Hey guys, I got that <X Material> dagger hear... Let me sneak up on it, then you guys move in."

And I think the over reaction to, ALL my weapons are worthless is a bit much. There aren't that many materials that are going to be applied to ALL monsters with DR. It's not like half the monsters are going to need some rare or unique weapon to hit. Silver and maybe like two others will probably be a "Standard". Remember guys, give the designers some credit. They have playtested this...

And even if that new nifty critter needs a TrueFireCrystal blade to bypass it's awesome DR... Well that leaves two choices:

1) Let's beat it with a cool strategy.
2) Let's go on a quest to get the legendary TrueFireCrystal Sword.

Options... Not restrictions... Anyone can pick apart new rules. Just like anyone can try and embrace them and work with them. Have a little faith guys. And don't panic when you haven't even seen all the rules yet.

pax.


----------



## IceBear (Jan 29, 2003)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not that I know of -- and given what he's doing with Arcana Unearthed, I'd doubt it.  I referred to him in the context of writing 3E, and the similar (to me) complaints people were making about 3E before it came out.
> 
> Daniel *




Ah, I read your post too fast it seems   I also thought it a bit much for Monte to be working on Arcana Unearthed and 3.5.

Edit: BTW - I was joking in my response to the sky is falling (in case some thought I think the sky is falling)

IceBear


----------



## heirodule (Jan 29, 2003)

Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> *But the second half is what keeps this from being a hose-job to the fighters. That's the fact that DR *values* are going down, almost across the board. As I shared at Winter Fantasy, the vast majority of monsters will have DR 5 or 10 (a few, such as the mighty pit fiend, creep up to 15). That means that the fighter who doesn't have the right weapon can still dish out damage to a DR monster, just not as much. (Can you say Power Attack?)
> 
> This second part comes about because, despite R&D's best efforts to create a wholly new DR system for 3.0, the fact that there were monsters with DR 20, 30, or even 50 made the system work just like it did in previous editions, which is to say, "If you don't have a weapon this good, don't bother fighting." I mean, come on, does anyone even *try* to fight an iron golem (DR 50/+3) without a +3 weapon? It might as well just say "immune to damage from weapons less than +3" and in 99% of the cases, it'd be exactly the same.
> *




I'm glad that you are playtesting the DR drop with the fighter types, but the complexity fo the rules still makes me lack confidence that such a sweeping change will be truly considered in all its aspects.

Like the Lantern Archon, which is a fine creature for Summon Monster IV, only has 1 hit die, but that's ballanced by its DR 20/+1. If you thought of that and rebalanced the Lantern Archon, I slaute, you but I'm guessing nobody cared enough to worry about it.

Paul


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 29, 2003)

> Edit: BTW - I was joking in my response to the sky is falling (in case some thought I think the sky is falling)




Nope. I know you better. I'm sure some other people thought it was though.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 29, 2003)

Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> 
> "It seams to me to that this was added because one or two individuals in the revision proccess wanted it for thier own campaign."
> 
> ...




That was me who wrote that and I still stick by it. Previously in the posting I said I like 90% of what they were doing but thought that this didn't work. As you pointed out "the R&D mantra for revised 3e, "do no harm." If there was something cool to change but it didn't really need to be done, it wasn't." This seems to contradict what they are doing. As far as I can tell this was not a major issue and was done because it was cool. As a result great harm has been done to its backwards compatability. 

I appologize to the individual developers if they were insulted, but not to WotC which IMO is no longer the company that cares and is rapidly devolving to T$R. If WotC cared they would not be gutting thier staff, producing unfinished products, and allowing changes to a revision that invalidates large chuncks of 3rd party stuff I have invested in after only 3 years.


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 29, 2003)

> This seems to contradict what they are doing. As far as I can tell this was not a major issue and was done because it was cool. As a result great harm has been done to its backwards compatability.




You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

I would question the comment that it wasn't a major issue. Is your backing for this simply the EnWorld and Wizard's Boards? Remember that there are a number of sources such as write ins and e-mail of which you cannot view publicly.

I know more than a few people that were concerned with DR, and while it might not be as Major an issue as the Heal/Harm debate, we still cared enough to ask questions and give our opionions to WoTC.

I'm still reserving judgement untill I see the system as a whole. 

--pax


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jan 29, 2003)

the reasons have already been said so I'll just say, LAME.


----------



## Mortaneus (Jan 29, 2003)

Hmmmm....all of this gives me an idea.....


New Weapon Special Abiliites:

Penetrating (+2):  Weapon ignores the first 5 points of damage reduction each strike.

Greater Penetrating (+4): Weapon ignores the first 10 points of damage reduction each strike.


----------



## Grog (Jan 29, 2003)

One thing I haven't seen brought up yet is how this change to DR will impact the creation of magic weapons. In the original 3E rules, DR was the main reason to put a high enchantment + on your weapon instead of a bunch of special abilities. If players went for a truckload of special abilities instead of more weapon plusses, they risked getting in trouble when they ran into a creature with DR (this was easily gotten around with GMW, but that's a whole other topic). But now, what incentive will players have not to make a +1 holy flaming shocking keen greatsword of speed? Since they'll have to pull out their backup weapons every time they run into a creature with DR anyway, they're not sacrificing anything for making a weapon like that.

I think this change sucks. It sucks because a fighter will have to cart around half a dozen different swords just to be a viable character. It sucks because whenever they're using their backup weapons, they won't be nearly as strong as they usually are. It sucks because archers will have to keep track of a half-dozen different types of ammunition and they'll probably end up having to make constant restocking trips. It sucks because, at high levels, spellcasters are going to dominate the game even more than they already do.

JMO. Maybe when all's said and done and the books come out, this will be implemented well. But just going by what I've seen, I think this change is bad, bad, bad.


----------



## green slime (Jan 29, 2003)

I disagree that having Archers cart around a few various types of arrows is such a big hastle. Most players IMC:


[*] Always starts a campaign with a silver weapon
[*] Always carries a variety of weapons (reach/blunt/sword/dagger)
[*] Always has a variety of arrows, if they can afford them



 There is a reason for the existence of the Quiver of Ehlonna...

What I would like to see is GMW only affecting 1 projectile, to give the archers true reason to purchase expensive "permanent" magical arrows.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 29, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> So now a first level fighter with high strength and a two handed weapon can damage anything. What happened to the invulnerability to normal weapons these high level critters are supposed to have?*




Where the hell do you get that from? A first level fighter attacking a Pit Fiend with DR 15/_holy_ with his two-handed weapon will deal little to no damage.

Str 18 (+4)
Greatsword (2d6)
Two-handed (Str + 1/2)
2d6 + 4 + 2 = range of 8 - 18, without Power Attack or anything.

That does 0 to 3 damage to that pit fiend. After the blow lands, the pit fiend them simply takes the fighter apart and heals the damage easily.

Remember, a first level fighter can also drop a 20-20-dead on that same Pit Fiend, but I don't see you complaining about that.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> People were complaining about GMW disrupting the game by making it easy to get by DRs but all that was done now is changed the spell needed to do this and made it a cantrip. And yes cantrips by definition are pretty much totaly useless and shouldn't have a great impact against a CR10+ creature. The only cantrips I use at high level anyways are detect/read magic so yes I already have lots of unused cantrip slots. You might even see an unintended consequence of this now as many high level fighters start taking 1 level of sorcerer so they can fix thier own weapons on the fly as needed. For 1 less BAB and 3 less HPs you can now bypass material DRs.
> *




Totally useless? I used a Ray of Frost (0-level) to put one of the toughest villians I have ever faced in his coffin. Cantrips are NOT totally useless.

And another point... that spell is from the Wizard's site. Nowhere have is been stated that the spell will be in the revision. If it is in the revision, it must be prepared (or spontaneously cast) and cast on a single weapon, with a very limited duration. It also only affects creatures hurt by SILVER, not by anything else, whereas GMW would overcome _ANY_ DR, based on material or enhancement bonuses, as well as grant those bonuses to attack and damage. There are WORLDS of difference between those two spells, and I think you should have taken a deeper look before you responded.

Silverered Weapon (0-level/1st-level)
Makes 1 weapon or projectile silver for 1 round/level
* Your single level of sorcerer would grant silver for _ONE_ round, so you need to cast it in the midst of combat.
* This will only allow damage through a lycanthrope's DR for one round, not very useful.
* This spell's range is touch, which means you must be holding the weapon or be next to someone who is.
* Minimum level attained for any class: 1st.

Greater Magic Weapon (3rd-level/4th-level)
Makes 1 weapon or 50 projectiles magic for 1 hour/level
Grants +1 bonus per 3 levels
* Grants an enhancement bonus to _ATTACK_ and _DAMAGE_ and damages through certain DR
* Also, if cast by a cleric or paladin, it is considered blessed (which will negatively affect certain creatures)
* This spell's range is Close, which means you can cast it on your friend who is being slaughtered in order to give him an edge.
* Minimum level attained for any class: 5th (which means _FIVE_ hours of enhancement, minimum).

These spells are not even in the same ballpark.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> Unlike every other rule they are fixing this one is fundemental to the rules structure. You can't just house rule it without changing dozens of creatures and spells. If it wern't for this I would buy 3.5 and implement it imediately. With this I will consider not buying it and adopting the other changes from the SRD into 3.0. If they are trying to sell more books they almost had my money.
> *




Excuse me? How is changing FOUR core classes not changing the fundamental rules? Every published product out there will now have to be changed on the fly to compensate for the changes.

And actually, it's incredibly easy to house rule this, based on the information released so far. Any character with DR/material can be affected by a +1 or higher weapon. Simple.

Just as simple as when I house ruled that lycanthropes could not be affected by +1 or higher weapons, but only silver.


----------



## dcollins (Jan 29, 2003)

Shalewind said:
			
		

> *These people CARE about what you the buyer THINK. TSR never did that. The new staff has taken the time to do things like, post to your board.*




Those sentiments are nice. 

However, the real test of a quality rule system is whether it's gone through a sufficiently wide playtest. That's one of the things that really impressed my about 3rd Ed.; the lack of same was one of the main downfalls of 2nd Ed.; it's one of my main concerns about Revised 3rd Ed. To date, I still haven't seen any assertion that there's any out-of-house playtesting being done on the proposed rule revisions.

Even nice people can make mistakes. My comfort level would only be adjusted if a lot of end-players were first using and commenting on the changes.


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 29, 2003)

> Even nice people can make mistakes. My comfort level would only be adjusted if a lot of end-players were first using and commenting on the changes.




Agreed. And, I know they aren't perfect. They are trying though. And I would feel safer if they had done some more public from the start. However, according to them the play testing staff never truly disbanded and has been continuing ever since inception. Perhaps we'll here more in the months to come. I'm willing to give benefit of a doubt for the moment.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jan 29, 2003)

Mourn said:
			
		

> *And actually, it's incredibly easy to house rule this, based on the information released so far. Any character with DR/material can be affected by a +1 or higher weapon. Simple.*




Not true.  Their strategy for balancing the change involves lowering the DR values across the board, so you also have to figure out what the appropriate value is if you change back, and hope that your judgement was correct (or that you have the 3.0 version of the same creature, if any).


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 29, 2003)

I also wonder -- does anyone know whether all DR will look like this?  I'm guessing that the majority of creatures will still have DR 5/+1 (or whatever), with the related hierarchy of pluses; I'm guessing that the special material DR will be something reserved for a minority of creatures.   You won't need to carry around a diamond saw for when you fight gargoyles, or a fire extinguisher for when you fight salamanders.  This isn't Zork, after all.

But that's my WAG.  Does anyone know?

Daniel


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 29, 2003)

Mourn said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Where the hell do you get that from? A first level fighter attacking a Pit Fiend with DR 15/holy with his two-handed weapon will deal little to no damage.
> 
> ...




My point was, and you provided the numbers, that a first level fighter can with only a little luck damage a pit fiend with a normal weapon. I never claimed that he would live past the first round. If the rule change is to make things make more sense (Your definition of sense may vary) this does not from my perspective. A pit fiend should be shrugging off any damage that a level 1 fighter can do. Im not sure what the 20-20-dead is about but if you are talking about crits (dead is not a part of crits) then yes I suppose you could damage a pit fiend on confirmed 20-20 crit with a 2 handed weapon maxing the damage for a total of 4 HP damage, but with the new rules you need only one 20 with a greataxe to cause damage 25% of the time. If you crit 20-20 with that greataxe under the new rules you will do 39 HP damage to it.


As for new spells and DR I realize that these may not be the same, and we will have to see what they do for spells. I was pointing out that right now they had a 0 level spell that could ignore the new DR. If they realy intend for this to be different than the current situation they will have to prohibit any change material spells or you end up with the same problem you have with GMW.  If GMW is the real problem fix the spell not the DR system.



> Excuse me? How is changing FOUR core classes not changing the fundamental rules? Every published product out there will now have to be changed on the fly to compensate for the changes.
> 
> And actually, it's incredibly easy to house rule this, based on the information released so far. Any character with DR/material can be affected by a +1 or higher weapon. Simple.
> 
> Just as simple as when I house ruled that lycanthropes could not be affected by +1 or higher weapons, but only silver.




Its more fundemental because it is effecting many more things from spells to feats to monsters. Yes changing the core classes is fundemental but it doesn't have the same ripples. I can still use the old ranger with the new rules. Its not so simple to houserule either since using your rule that pit fiend is now hittable with a +1 weapon.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jan 29, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *I'm slightly concerned at this. Not overly. I find the DR modification to be exciting and challenging. Something that has bugged me for a while, was the inclusion of DR 5/silver which had no real meaning. *




You're overstating the case, I think.  Lycanthropes range down to the CR where you certainly don't expect everyone to necessarily have magic weapons.  

So it's more to the point to say that silver weapons have no meaning after characters reach mid- to high levels.  I have no more problem with that, personally, than the fact that most characters eventually stop bothering with stuff like tanglefoot bags.


----------



## Perithoth (Jan 29, 2003)

dcollins said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Those sentiments are nice.
> 
> ...




Um,

The play test for the changes was us. A lot of the rethinking of the rules was based upon the steady torrent of feedback from the consumer. There are external play tests going on right now. In fact I know someone who is a part of one such group.

The difference between the 3e play test and the revised 3e play test is they are not working with a complete unknown. Instead they have 2.5 years of heavy load testing on the old 3e rules system. They have further tested new ideas with D20 releases (Star Wars, D20 Modern, Wheel of Time, etc.) So I would say that the revised edition is getting a better test than the origional.

One last thing about play test. A few hundred people will never catch what thousands will find. The fact that they didn't have a big splashy play test like the last time does not concern me.

Happy that stuff will be updated and improved,

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Perithoth
Lord of Grumpiness


----------



## Particle_Man (Jan 29, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *One thing I haven't seen brought up yet is how this change to DR will impact the creation of magic weapons. In the original 3E rules, DR was the main reason to put a high enchantment + on your weapon instead of a bunch of special abilities. If players went for a truckload of special abilities instead of more weapon plusses, they risked getting in trouble when they ran into a creature with DR (this was easily gotten around with GMW, but that's a whole other topic). But now, what incentive will players have not to make a +1 holy flaming shocking keen greatsword of speed? Since they'll have to pull out their backup weapons every time they run into a creature with DR anyway, they're not sacrificing anything for making a weapon like that.
> 
> *




You know, I HOPE that players think like this, because I want to see the looks on their faces when I get a strong mook with a +2 greatsword to sunder their +1 holy flaming shocking keen greatsword of speed.  

Anyhow, I will reserve judgement until I get the books.  And I will get the books.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jan 29, 2003)

Perithoth said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Um,
> 
> ...




The "errors" were playtested by us, but the fixes haven't been.  Or do they have this new DR thing in d20 modern, and really for how long has the new haste been playtested in d20 modern with it being new and it being a magic light game.  So no these fixes haven't really been playtesed as much as I'd like unless there is some super secret playtest going on that no word has leaked about.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jan 29, 2003)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You know, I HOPE that players think like this, because I want to see the looks on their faces when I get a strong mook with a +2 greatsword to sunder their +1 holy flaming shocking keen greatsword of speed.
> 
> Anyhow, I will reserve judgement until I get the books.  And I will get the books. *




Well considering that a higher + is needed to break a enchantment can you actually claim that no insane amounts of metagaming aren't going on when you even attempt to sunder a weapon crackling with holy fire and lightning.  So if you are being serious I can't tell, the look you'll likely see is the you a metagaming geeble look otheriwse known as the yeah right whatever your the DM I guess you can screw us over however you want as long as we play here.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jan 29, 2003)

Something that is really bothering me, is the fact that even if I have a weapon made of nearly any material I can imagine, I still don't know which one to use. Or have the new monster painted on them "DR 10/coldiron"...I would wonder if it is the way...has a fighter to spend several rounds hitting the monster until he knows which weapon to use??? Will there be a spell "Analyze DR", is the cleric standing behind until he has analyzed the DR and then casting "Transmute x to Y" and then simply adding again GMW, is that how it should be done know?!? And this process will take several rounds with the revised haste...the fighter is nearly beaten up in this process until he gets the right weapon and starts with dealing damage to the monster...but that is all what comes to my mind, so how should I say it: let's wait for the final rules then we can start complaining about facts not imaginations!!!


----------



## Fenes 2 (Jan 29, 2003)

Actually, with all the "Let us commission this-and-that-Sword" attitude toward magic items it stands to reason that many people would expect a weapon with obvious energy enhancements to have only a low enhancement bonus, and therefore be vulnerable to sundering. The people living in that world are not stupid, after all.

Now, in a world where magic item creation is not as easy as in the standard campaign, I would be more cautious with such antics, but in standard D&D? What is good for the goose is good for the gander - if players can order custom weapons, then others can at least get information about the limits of magic weapons.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 29, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *My point was, and you provided the numbers, that a first level fighter can with only a little luck damage a pit fiend with a normal weapon. I never claimed that he would live past the first round. If the rule change is to make things make more sense (Your definition of sense may vary) this does not from my perspective. A pit fiend should be shrugging off any damage that a level 1 fighter can do. Im not sure what the 20-20-dead is about but if you are talking about crits (dead is not a part of crits) then yes I suppose you could damage a pit fiend on confirmed 20-20 crit with a 2 handed weapon maxing the damage for a total of 4 HP damage, but with the new rules you need only one 20 with a greataxe to cause damage 25% of the time. If you crit 20-20 with that greataxe under the new rules you will do 39 HP damage to it.
> *




I'm talking about the Intant Kill variant rule in the DMG, where if you roll a 20, then a 20, then a critical hit, you kill your target instantly. I've used that rule for all of my gaming, so I automatically figured it into the process.

As for new spells and DR I realize that these may not be the same, and we will have to see what they do for spells. I was pointing out that right now they had a 0 level spell that could ignore the new DR. If they realy intend for this to be different than the current situation they will have to prohibit any change material spells or you end up with the same problem you have with GMW.  If GMW is the real problem fix the spell not the DR system.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *Its more fundemental because it is effecting many more things from spells to feats to monsters. Yes changing the core classes is fundemental but it doesn't have the same ripples. I can still use the old ranger with the new rules. Its not so simple to houserule either since using your rule that pit fiend is now hittable with a +1 weapon. *




I don't think DR is more fundamental than the core classes. Not every monster has damage reduction, so the players don't always have to deal with it. However, players do have to deal with the core classes, which makes them a more fundamental part of the game. There are more players than DMs out there, so I think player-related material is much more fundamental to the game.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 30, 2003)

I, for one, like, no, *love* the ideas for the new DR.

The 3.0 DR was a good idea, but as implemented, it was lame.  There is no monster with DR that cannot be trivially bypassed by GMW from a spellcaster of level appropriate to combatting the beastie.  The typical ??/+3 monster is CR ~15 or better.  There are a few ??/+2 critters that might catch a low to mid level party off guard, but that is about it.


----------



## Illuminae (Jan 30, 2003)

OH MY GOD ! Hong has replied to my post!
Does it mean now that I can be your friend and pimp slap you around?!?!?!?!?

 

Illuminae "hong´s jokes have fans" Ooi


----------



## bret (Jan 30, 2003)

Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Agreed. And, I know they aren't perfect. They are trying though. And I would feel safer if they had done some more public from the start. However, according to them the play testing staff never truly disbanded and has been continuing ever since inception. Perhaps we'll here more in the months to come. I'm willing to give benefit of a doubt for the moment. *




This would be the same 'original playtesting staff' that never noticed problems with Harm or Heal?  

There are many styles of games. If the styles of the various play testers are too close to each other, they are going to miss the same areas. This is especially true if there isn't much time to try out the rules changes. It takes time to develope an effective strategy with some of the character classes, and in my opinion a numerical analysis just isn't going to do it.

I don't care for the DR/material change. I don't think it is needed and is too risky a change. I also don't think qualifies as backward compatible since I believe it would have a significant effect on how players chose equipment and can turn battles into a binary system. Either you've got weapons made from the right material, in which case it is a cake walk, or you don't and it results in a TPK.


Talking to a few of my friends, I convinced them that it wouldn't add to their game either. It was really quite simple.

Assume you use special materials.

Now, you are a fighter. How do you deal with this?

Answer: The golf bag of weaponry. An extradimensional space to store weapons of the various flavors.

As a GM, is that what you want your characters to do?

The answer was no, that wasn't an improvement in the game style.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 30, 2003)

I like the flavor of this new rule, but I hate the new bookeeping it will cause - and probably even destroy some parts of the backward compatibilty - assume you are playing a Bard that used Greater Magic Weapon on his arrows to penetrate Damage Reduction. He can no longer do this - but he could just cast the 1st level spell "transmute arrow" - unfortunately, he doesn`t learn any more 1st level spells, so what can I do now?

But consider this:
We know that creating magic items needs some kind of base materials, which are quite expensive (a holy water flask has how many silver powder in it?) - why just assume that a enhanced magical sword consists of special materials each of them effecting a certain array of damage reduction types ...

So, there is the flavour in the old system, hidden far behind the rules...

On the other hand: 
If the Damage Reduction values go down, this might compensate for something - still, a smaller creautre or a two weapon guy is severaly penalized against this type of monster... 

Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## hong (Jan 30, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> My point was, and you provided the numbers, that a first level fighter can with only a little luck damage a pit fiend with a normal weapon. I never claimed that he would live past the first round. If the rule change is to make things make more sense (Your definition of sense may vary) this does not from my perspective. A pit fiend should be shrugging off any damage that a level 1 fighter can do.*




As said before, if the pit fiend has DR 15/holywhatnot, that 1st level fighter will be lucky to do two points of damage to it, even with Power Attack. I don't know about you, but taking two points when you have 250+ pretty much fits the definition of "shrugging it off" to me.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 30, 2003)

Personally, I like what I've seen of the new DR rules.

[rant]

Yes, the change in rules will make some classes or playing styles less effective.  However, before you starting moaning about how two-weapon fighters/arcane archers/monks/yada/yada/yada are going to get sc   ed by the new rules, consider the following:

How often do you fight DR creatures?  One in twenty encounters?  One in ten?  One in five?  Just because you have to expend a bit more effort to overcome a small subset of the creatures you meet, it's the end of the world?  

Your character is now less effective in certain encounters.  Somebody else, possibly the hard-hitting barbarian or the flame-casting wizard, gets to shine instead.  Does your character really need to hog the limelight all the time?

Your DM wants to throw your party an interesting challenge, to change the pace of the adventure from the usual meet-the-monster-hack-slice-dice-puree to one of researching or obtaining something that can damage it significantly.  It would be sad if his plans can be totally derailed by a 3rd level spell cast at 15th caster level.

Ultimately, it's how you want to play the game.  If you don't like the new DR rules, rule 0 it or make Anymaterial weapons or _transmute material_ spells suddenly a lot more common in your campaign.

If some of your gaming group likes the change and some don't, it looks like you have playing style conflict.  And that's something that can be only partly blamed on the rule changes.

[/rant]

Shutting up now.


----------



## hong (Jan 30, 2003)

Illuminae said:
			
		

> *
> OH MY GOD ! Hong has replied to my post!
> Does it mean now that I can be your friend and pimp slap you around?!?!?!?!?*




Well, everyone else beats me with sticks, what's one more?

/me hands Illuminae a stick


----------



## Darklone (Jan 30, 2003)

Prefer chains, hong ?


----------



## Petrosian (Jan 30, 2003)

Well, while the new DR is different than the old DR, its not IMo any better.

its different in that now magic weapons are less beneficial than they were, but its just going to encourage carrying around a lot of different weapons ala the porcupine of weapons fighter we used to laugh about in 1e. With Heward's haversacks common enough, this is not a big deal. With GMW providing the magic bonuses, this is no big deal.

My biggest gripe with it is simple... it leaves spells untouched. A +3 sword may not do well against skeletons but a magic missile or ray of frost does just fine.

All in all, i think DR would be better served as some form of rapid healing or regeneration with specific "does not work againsts" defined for it.

If they wanted to add flavor, they seem to have failed and instead added bookkeeping and paperwork

**************

In conjunction with the new rule, i would expect to see the following...

a random materials roll for magic items/weapons to reflect the frequency of silver weapons being made and cold iron weapons being made. Should also be in the mundane weapons lists.

A suite of spells akin to GMW that alter the materials of the weapons.


----------



## Ferox4 (Jan 30, 2003)

I've remaind open to the proposed changes to Haste and Harm, but I just don't see the need to address DR. 

I hear people saying that GMW overcomes the DR thing too easily - well, isn't that what the spell is good for? Perhaps the problem is GMW and not DR. What if instead of 1 enhancement per 3/levels it was bumped to 1 every 4 levels? Seems a bit simpler to me. Then the 12th level Cleric is making +3 instead of +4 weapons, and the 15th level Cleric is still making +3 weapons instead of +5 weapons. That's a big difference.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 30, 2003)

I think the downsides the new DR rules are overstated.

At low levels (1-7), carrying around an extra weapon is a good idea.

Once you get a +2 weapon, it is nearly a wash to swap against a 5/silver critter unless you have another magic weapon.

IMHO, 3.0 monster design has a couple problems areas.  First of all, there is DR -- a cool idea that was not implemented quite right.  Second of all, energy resistances that are far more common than energy vulnerabilities.  Both these mechanices would add flavor, in theory; in practice, they made combat more flavorless. ("<grunt> I hit things with my +_n_ weapon.  And I keep hitting them until they are dead."  "Fireball?  I only use sonic substituted energy spells and Magic Missiles.")


----------



## Mortaneus (Jan 30, 2003)

FireLance said:
			
		

> *How often do you fight DR creatures?  One in twenty encounters?  One in ten?  One in five?  *




Well, considering Planescape is my setting of choice.....


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 30, 2003)

> Well, considering Planescape is my setting of choice.....




Okay... Probably shouldn't open this door but... 

If Planescape is your setting, I would think, that the extraplanar creatures and cultures have an even better grasp of the materials needed to hurt each other than some berk on the Prime.

Seems to me they would have more weapons and DR defeating stuff than anyone. New rules or no. I mean come on, it isn't core anyway...

But I do see your point and different groups are going to fight DR creatures with different frequencies. For some people DR will mean very little (I also think they might keep some of the generic +1's in the MM, after all, somethings surely still require a MAGIC weapon to hit, right?) For others, those that Dungeon crawl at high levels and such it will have more of an impact. Respect the other styles of play.

But I do agree, the number of DR creatures is a subset of all encounters, not the whole.


----------



## Conaill (Jan 30, 2003)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *A suite of spells akin to GMW that alter the materials of the weapons. *




Actually, I would expect to see a spell that allows you to bypass DR altogether (or perhaps only a certain amount of DR?). Kinda like the old GMW but without the +5.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 30, 2003)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *
> My biggest gripe with it is simple... it leaves spells untouched. A +3 sword may not do well against skeletons but a magic missile or ray of frost does just fine.
> 
> *




I actually think this is a good reason to institue new DR. Spellresitance is the antiwizard ability for monsters. DR is in many the antifighter ability, but with GMW doesn't often work out this way. There is no way for a Wizard to perfectly penetrate spell resistance, feats only help. However, fighters can completely penetrate DR with GMW. Seems wrong to me.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 30, 2003)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I actually think this is a good reason to institue new DR. Spellresitance is the antiwizard ability for monsters. DR is in many the antifighter ability, but with GMW doesn't often work out this way. There is no way for a Wizard to perfectly penetrate spell resistance, feats only help. However, fighters can completely penetrate DR with GMW. Seems wrong to me. *




Good point.

I have played in campaigns where I have gotten frustrated as a spellcaster.  Between SR, energy resistances (that are hard to guess unless you study the MM, which I don't), wards, and regular old saves, the average expected damage of my Fireball, Lightning Bolt, or Cone of Cold against a weird magical creature is laughable.

Then I discovered there is a very simple, reliable method of dealing with these threats: buff up a strong fighter with a high plus weapon and just watch him grind it down.  

While I concede there is no balance problem here, it quickly becomes pretty darn boring, *boring*, *BORING*.  It also _feels_ wrong that the only effective ways of dealing with, say, demons is to find a  tough fighter to hack it to smithereens while the wizard watches.

I think there is a real problem with how the SR, DR, and resistances are handled.  They have all been revised for 3e, but the net effect is they have stumbled into the same problems of previous editions.  All three are ripe for revision and I think the DR proposals are a definite step in the right direction.


----------



## LokiDR (Jan 30, 2003)

The new DR rules will force archers to change their actions.  At least they will need to figure out what the thing they are fighting is, figure out DR type, cast the right spell/pull the right arrow, and then fire.  I like this, but I think stacking GMW is more of a problem.

The dual wielding fighter is more limited by this, and that I don't like.  Magic arrows are cheaper than melee weapons.  The dual wielder can't rely on massive damage to get through the lower DR, and can't afford many different weapons.  From what I have read on this board, TWF is already weaker than two-handed style.  I won't even try to reconstruct the numbers.

So, I like DR X/blunt.  It fits a lot better with the other rules.  I like silver being different.  I think I would stop it there.  Coldiron--maybe.  Holy silver - too much.  Demons are magical, so magic alone seems fine.  Wizards, good and evil, can control demons in stories and myths.

Overall, I think this DR change is a bit much for a revision.  Has anyone here ever considered this a good sized problem before?


----------



## Simulacrum (Jan 30, 2003)

Oh boy I friggin like the changes, all of them. The revision will rule!
Dont listen to the whiners and nay sayers, these things should have been in from the beginning. All major problems get solved one by one....its everything the game needs.
Now the game becomes more intricate and shows some versaitility for DM's to challenge even the most experienced players. I always hated it that for everything in the game, there was a way too simple aproach to solve it or be prepared within a few spells cast...these times seem to be over, thats a good thing!


----------



## Grog (Jan 30, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *The dual wielding fighter is more limited by this, and that I don't like.  Magic arrows are cheaper than melee weapons.  The dual wielder can't rely on massive damage to get through the lower DR, and can't afford many different weapons.*




That's a very good point. Dual-wielders are going to get royally screwed by this change.


----------



## Rill (Jan 30, 2003)

So the two-handed fighters are worried about carrying another weapon, while the two weapon fighters are worried that they can't do enough damage to pass the DR. If the two sides put their heads together, maybe they'd see the advantages their styles provided. (for those missing my point: two weapon fighters will want to carry weapons of differing materials so they are always able to bypass the DR, while two-handed fighters should think about increasing their ability to punch right through DR.) 


-Rill


----------



## dcollins (Jan 30, 2003)

Perithoth said:
			
		

> *The play test for the changes was us. A lot of the rethinking of the rules was based upon the steady torrent of feedback from the consumer. There are external play tests going on right now. In fact I know someone who is a part of one such group.
> *




Could you provide a quote or source for this "external play test" group for the Revised changes? Can anyone here chime in and confirm that they are part of such a group?

Frankly, I'm extremely skeptical. WOTC has not said anything about such playtests so far. With 3rd Ed., there were public calls for playtesters, and a huge list of credits in the PHB.

I guess your vague anecdotal reference isn't much help, sorry.


----------



## LokiDR (Jan 30, 2003)

Rill said:
			
		

> *So the two-handed fighters are worried about carrying another weapon, while the two weapon fighters are worried that they can't do enough damage to pass the DR. If the two sides put their heads together, maybe they'd see the advantages their styles provided. (for those missing my point: two weapon fighters will want to carry weapons of differing materials so they are always able to bypass the DR, while two-handed fighters should think about increasing their ability to punch right through DR.)
> 
> 
> -Rill *




There is a balance issue in that.  The TWF fighter needs to spend more cash, while the THF can take a feat or get a different weapon?  The TWF would like to have backups for both of his weapons, the THF just needs one.

I think if they just removed the hierarchy of materials, and added the DR blunt, they would get most of the effect they want.  Then again, there wouldn't be too much reason to buy the new MM, would there?

I am sure that at least a portion of this "revision" is economic.  They want people to have a reason to buy the new books.  WotC is still a business after all.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jan 30, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's a very good point. Dual-wielders are going to get royally screwed by this change. *




This is a worry of mine as well.  I happen to like the big ole weapon of doom style, but if they weaken two weapon style or weapon and shield style any more even if indirectly like through the DR issue, I may end up seeing even more big weapon of doom styles.  I liked being unique with my huge sword in 1e and 2e, now there's a flood of em in 3e.  If it gets worse, well there goes the diversity.


----------



## Grog (Jan 30, 2003)

Rill said:
			
		

> *So the two-handed fighters are worried about carrying another weapon, while the two weapon fighters are worried that they can't do enough damage to pass the DR. If the two sides put their heads together, maybe they'd see the advantages their styles provided. (for those missing my point: two weapon fighters will want to carry weapons of differing materials so they are always able to bypass the DR, while two-handed fighters should think about increasing their ability to punch right through DR.)  *




I wouldn't call having to spend a ton of money on a bunch of different weapons an advantage.

If my two-handed weapon fighter has to carry around half a dozen different swords just to be a playable character at high levels, the problem is even worse for dual-wielders. They'll have to carry around a dozen different swords. This will cost them more money, and there will be more time involved in changing weapons. That's not an advantage in my book.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 30, 2003)

Simulacrum said:
			
		

> *Oh boy I friggin like the changes, all of them. The revision will rule!
> Dont listen to the whiners and nay sayers, these things should have been in from the beginning. All major problems get solved one by one....its everything the game needs.
> Now the game becomes more intricate and shows some versaitility for DM's to challenge even the most experienced players. I always hated it that for everything in the game, there was a way too simple aproach to solve it or be prepared within a few spells cast...these times seem to be over, thats a good thing! *




As I pointed out before unless they remove any Transmute Materials spells, these spells will then work like GMW does now not realy solving the problem.


----------



## Trine (Jan 30, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *
> If my two-handed weapon fighter has to carry around half a dozen different swords just to be a playable character at high levels, the problem is even worse for dual-wielders. They'll have to carry around a dozen different swords. This will cost them more money, and there will be more time involved in changing weapons. That's not an advantage in my book. *



Large weapon wielders deal all of their damage in large potent hits. Since DR's are going to be reduced to much smaller numbers now, between 5 and 15, the two-handed wielder will almost always be able to just smash through it anyway.

It looks like it is going to hurt the two-weapon fighter even more though. They tend to have hit more for smaller chunks. More attacks means more times that DR will apply, which means less damage overall.

I'm still going to wait for the final rules to come out though, to see how well they work in practice.


----------



## LokiDR (Jan 31, 2003)

Trine said:
			
		

> *
> Large weapon wielders deal all of their damage in large potent hits. Since DR's are going to be reduced to much smaller numbers now, between 5 and 15, the two-handed wielder will almost always be able to just smash through it anyway.
> 
> It looks like it is going to hurt the two-weapon fighter even more though. They tend to have hit more for smaller chunks. More attacks means more times that DR will apply, which means less damage overall.
> ...




Under 2e, dual-wielding fighters were rabid.  Sword and board hardly gave you any AC, and two-handed was slow and not nearly as efficient.

Under 3e, I can see arguments for TWF, THF, and sword & board.  These DR changes could upset that a lot.  My point is that the folks at WotC should look at these aspects.  If it causes you to fix TWF folks, perhaps it would be better left alone.

I do think that what I have read of the revisions will cause TWF lots of problems.  If the rules then improve TWF to compensate, they might well knock something else out of whack.


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 31, 2003)

TWF is being greatly over emphaized here. Yes, it is arguably balanaced with other fighting styles at the moment. Will TWF do less damage with each attack? Sure, against DR targets. However, consider that a TWF that faces DR enemies often might want to invest in, say a Holysiver and Coldiron pair of weapons. I'd say that will negate most of the material DRs. I mean (95% of baddies have to fit some demographic). If anything, I'd say a properly equipped TWF would be in a position to better defeat DR enemies.

Edit: none...


----------



## Illuminae (Jan 31, 2003)

bret said:
			
		

> *
> Assume you use special materials.
> 
> Now, you are a fighter. How do you deal with this?
> ...





That is not by any chance what will happen.

You (all who believe the golf bag theory) are not considering the second aspect that changed: DR values.

With the new DR system, even if you don´t have the specific weapon, *YOU CAN* still beat them creatures.

And this *ISN´T TRUE * with the *CURRENT* rules.

With DRs like 30/whatever *then* you are required to have the beating stick of eternal doom.

Well, I guess having only 1 kind of weapon to affect is better for those of you who like random monster tables as opposed to a well created enviroment for the game, where it is possible to study it and and learn about its critters.

So, ranting that you will *NEED* a weapon with new rules is as broken as the current ranger.

With new rules, with DR caping at 15 or so, *YOU WILL * have freedom to choose weapons and still have a chance.


And I am sorry if my way of stress words sounded non-polite, that isnt the goal. I am just sleepy. And lazy


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 31, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> Under 2e, dual-wielding fighters were rabid.  Sword and board hardly gave you any AC, and two-handed was slow and not nearly as efficient.
> 
> Under 3e, I can see arguments for TWF, THF, and sword & board.  These DR changes could upset that a lot.  My point is that the folks at WotC should look at these aspects.  If it causes you to fix TWF folks, perhaps it would be better left alone.
> ...




An interesting point.

At high levels, I don't think there is a problem.  The TWF dude should have a spare weapon to swap anyway and he can sneak damage in with energy enhancement.  I think they will do okay.

My perceptive is TWF is a little weak at low and low-mid levels already, and the DR changes might exacerbate the problem.

(For the record, I think TWF is a very strong style a high levels.)


----------



## Illuminae (Jan 31, 2003)

/me takes stick

/me slaps hong a few times

/me smile

Illuminae "that was fun"  Ooi


----------



## shilsen (Jan 31, 2003)

Illuminae said:
			
		

> *That is not by any chance what will happen.
> 
> You (all who believe the golf bag theory) are not considering the second aspect that changed: DR values.
> 
> ...




Good point. This is another reason I believe I will like the change in the DR system. Either way, I'm not going to bother getting excited (unlike a lot of people in this thread and others on this board  ) until I actually see what the new rules are in their entirety.


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 31, 2003)

Rant / People seem to be upset because this unbalances things? If this is the case, was balance produced by the DR of baddies ALWAYS being defeated? What is the point of DR then, to keep low level guys from killing a certain baddie? Well that's kinda useless and very metagamed. Under this system, so what if DR happens... It will just make a fight a little longer. DR values have even been reduced. 

Just how many monsters with DR are there? Well, without Demons, Dragons, Celestials, Golems, and Devils, you've got a handful in the MM, say 15? Half of them I'd say I'd never seen. I think the aforementioned critters SHOULD be tougher to kill and require extra effort (weapons materials preparation) to kill. And really, if the Pit Fiend's formidable 25/+2 is going to 15, imagine what is happening to those 20/+1 10/+1 and 5/+1s.  Honestly I don't see this as a major issue. If a category of creatures above is a primary threat in your campaign world, you'll be equiped to handle them. If ALL of them are a constant threat, well I think you have some high-magic stuff flying around, and if that is the case, you'll have the holy-silver-myrhtil blend sword needed to kill stuff.  /Rant


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2003)

Illuminae said:
			
		

> *That is not by any chance what will happen.
> 
> You (all who believe the golf bag theory) are not considering the second aspect that changed: DR values.*




Even with lower DR values, it's still going to be a huge problem, and probably an insurmountable one for many types of characters. Even if we're talking about a big, beefy greatsword fighter who can punch through the DR with ease, he's still losing 10-15 points of damage off *each hit*.

At high levels, when you're getting four attacks (which is when you're most likely to run into creatures with DR), that amounts to 40-60 points less damage per round. Losing 60 points of damage per round will seriously impact a character's usefulness. And it has the potential to turn an encounter from a decent challenge into a situation that could easily cause one or more character deaths.

So now we're back to the golf bag of weaponry.

And for dual wielders, it's even worse. They'll be losing 60-90 points of damage per round. Even a 20th level fighter can't lose that much damage potential without his usefulness to the party seriously suffering.

The only way for fighters to stay viable at high levels will be to have at least one weapon of each material type.

And, even if they do, how likely is it that every single one will be enchanted? That would cost enormous amounts of money that most characters just won't have. So when the fighter has to sheathe his main weapon with the high enchantment bouns and all the extra powers and pull out his coldiron sword, his effectiveness drops then, too.

So what will end up happening, unless WotC has some stunningly brilliant way of implementing this that I haven't taken into account, is that the high-level game, which is already heavily weighted in favor of spellcasters, will tip even more in that direction. After all, this change won't impact spellcasters one bit.

So if I'm playing 3.5E, I'll just have to make sure I get a surestriking weapon as quickly as possible. And if the DM doesn't allow surestriking, it's a spellcaster for me, thank you.


----------



## Petrosian (Jan 31, 2003)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> Rant / People seem to be upset because this unbalances things? If this is the case, was balance produced by the DR of baddies ALWAYS being defeated?
> *



Hint: The bad guys are supposed to lose.
Hint: balance concerns are not usually about PCs beating the bad guys, because the PCs are supposed to beat the bad guys.
Hint: if your main character get killed off in chapter-3, thats a mighty short book.


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> What is the point of DR then, to keep low level guys from killing a certain baddie?`
> *



I think the purpose of Dr is to provide a tougher challenge without raising Hp beyond a preconcieved level. HP derive directly from HD but many other things do as well. So, adding in DR might mean you extend the beastie's toughness without increasing his saves and to hit and so on.

In 3.5e the purpose seems to be to encourage "porcupine" fighters who are armed with a silver axe, a golden mace, a wooden spear, a cold iron flail, a holysilver dagger, a blessed sap, a coppertop glaive, a bronze ranseur, and his buddy the sorcerer with the GMW for the needed weapon of the moment.


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> Well that's kinda useless and very metagamed. Under this system, so what if DR happens... It will just make a fight a little longer. DR values have even been reduced.
> *



Ok, it really sepends on whether you are playing a fantasy character or a DND character. In most fantasy novels i have read and fantasy movies i have seen the hero or heroes each carry one weapons, maybe two at most.

The new DR thingy will make it sensible to carry a multitude of weapons of different shapes and materials and rely on magic spells to boost the weapon de jour. this is done because of the game mechanic... not because it makes sense for our stalwart dwarven hero to walk around like the porcupine fighter of olden days.

of course, in 3e with the availability of hewaerd haversacks and such, he wont look like a porcupine.


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> Just how many monsters with DR are there?
> *



irrelevent. how many will be thrown at the party is what matters more.

What matters even more than that is the fact that the party, not knowing how many or what they are, will prepare for this by trying to cover all the bases. Even if the never encounter a werewolf, they will be stocking up on silver weapons... just in case.


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> Well, without Demons, Dragons, Celestials, Golems, and Devils, you've got a handful in the MM, say 15? Half of them I'd say I'd never seen. I think the aforementioned critters SHOULD be tougher to kill and require extra effort (weapons materials preparation) to kill. And really, if the Pit Fiend's formidable 25/+2 is going to 15, imagine what is happening to those 20/+1 10/+1 and 5/+1s.  Honestly I don't see this as a major issue. If a category of creatures above is a primary threat in your campaign world, you'll be equiped to handle them. If ALL of them are a constant threat, well I think you have some high-magic stuff flying around, and if that is the case, you'll have the holy-silver-myrhtil blend sword needed to kill stuff.  /Rant
> *




By 5th level or so it should be no great shakes of effort or imagination or ingenuity for a fighter to have his haversack and his collection of odd materials weapons and a variety of shapes.

We aren't talking rocket science or high end tactics here.

more like accounting or inventory control.

i dont see the benefits of this new Dr doing anything good. i definitely see bad sides.


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 31, 2003)

I hate to pick at this. I'm aware the badguys are suppose to lose. All I am saying is that for the bad guys to lose, DR doesn't NEED to be penetrated by EVERY character attacking with a weapon, every combat. This is my core point.

Yes, if every enemy fought had a DR that was unbeatable, the fighters are going to get hosed. But that isn't what is going to happen.



> In 3.5e the purpose seems to be to encourage "porcupine" fighters who are armed with a silver axe, a golden mace, a wooden spear, a cold iron flail, a holysilver dagger, a blessed sap, a coppertop glaive, a bronze ranseur, and his buddy the sorcerer with the GMW for the needed weapon of the moment.




That is what I find totally ridiculous. There is no way there is going to be nearly that big an array of monster that are going to be seen by ANY party at any level. Do you really think WoTC would introduce eight to twelve new materials that would varry across every DR creature? No way. You are going to see things like silver spread out across a huge array of these baddies.

WoTC didn't say they nixed the +1 requirement either. +1 might still be a very legitmate requirement for some DRs. I can also see having all Demons or all Devils weak against ONE type of material. In short. I don't think this materials thing is going to impact that many encounters.




> and rely on magic spells to boost the weapon de jour.




What do you think GMW is doing now?




> Ok, it really sepends on whether you are playing a fantasy character or a DND character. In most fantasy novels i have read and fantasy movies i have seen the hero or heroes each carry one weapons, maybe two at most.




Yes. I like this image too. This is also a fairly realistic style of play. D&D is not. D&D is not LOTR. D&D is D&D. I hate the fact that magic items make the character and not the character. But that is the way things are in D&D. Materials are just going to add another flavor aspect (that can be used to implement more of the above realism if done right).



> What matters even more than that is the fact that the party, not knowing how many or what they are, will prepare for this by trying to cover all the bases. Even if the never encounter a werewolf, they will be stocking up on silver weapons... just in case.




Metagaming of this kind is just silly. It assumes the characters know everything about everything.

People in this thread are worried about Fighters being out done by the wizards... People in the Haste thread are worried that the fighter is way too damage dealing and that he will easily out do the wizards... Hmmm, as you say it doesn't take "rocket science" to figure out these tactics. The system is being revised. You assume everything is out of balance, I say look at the big picture. Which we can't. Because we haven't seen everything. But even from these two vauge peices of information it seems they are keeping things balanced as is: take from spellcasters, take from fighters. Feel free to debate the effects of DR vs Haste and spell caster ruling... It won't matter, because something could enter the equation and totally change that argument.

Have faith people and paitence.


----------



## Rill (Jan 31, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *
> So what will end up happening, unless WotC has some stunningly brilliant way of implementing this that I haven't taken into account, is that the high-level game, which is already heavily weighted in favor of spellcasters, will tip even more in that direction. After all, this change won't impact spellcasters one bit.
> 
> So if I'm playing 3.5E, I'll just have to make sure I get a surestriking weapon as quickly as possible. And if the DM doesn't allow surestriking, it's a spellcaster for me, thank you. *




There is another entire thread decrying the haste change and that casters will now be useless in comparison to fighting types because they can only deal half their current maximum damage per round. Surely at least one argument (and in my opinion both) will fall flat.

I still am amazed that the fighters already using multiple weapons argue that they can't deal enough damage, and the fighters dealing massive amounts of damage argue that they will have to carry multiple weapons. You two factions should be tossing solutions to each other's problems back and forth like crazy!

I guess some fighters will have to learn a new trick or two. Much like how other classes develop strategies for dealing with different foes. When an opponent has elemental resistance, the evoker isn't decrying the game mechanics. When the rogue comes up against undead, does he rail against the broken rules that make him less effective? When your enchanter faces a golem, does he throw bricks at the WotC HQ in protest of a broken system? (Ok, some might, but there are much better reasons than that!) The game is all about overcoming challenges, and the changes seem to be a nice way for DMs to add flavorful combats. 

There are legitimate concerns about the DR changes, and legitimate questions as to whether the change was a necessary step. I just don't see how anyone can say that the changes as presented thus far create such game breaking imbalances. *shrug*

- Rill


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 31, 2003)

> There is another entire thread decrying the haste change and that casters will now be useless in comparison to fighting types because they can only deal half their current maximum damage per round. Surely at least one argument (and in my opinion both) will fall flat.




Praise Heaven! Someone is with me on this.



> There are legitimate concerns about the DR changes, and legitimate questions as to whether the change was a necessary step. I just don't see how anyone can say that the changes as presented thus far create such game breaking imbalances. *shrug*




Agreed!


----------



## Illuminae (Jan 31, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Even with lower DR values, it's still going to be a huge problem, and probably an insurmountable one for many types of characters. Even if we're talking about a big, beefy greatsword fighter who can punch through the DR with ease, he's still losing 10-15 points of damage off each hit.
> *




Hey, but that *IS* the point why *THERE IS* DR in the first place!!!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 31, 2003)

> *There is no way for a Wizard to perfectly penetrate spell resistance.*




Sure there is... crossbows work great 

-Hyp.


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2003)

Rill said:
			
		

> *I still am amazed that the fighters already using multiple weapons argue that they can't deal enough damage, and the fighters dealing massive amounts of damage argue that they will have to carry multiple weapons. You two factions should be tossing solutions to each other's problems back and forth like crazy!*




The dual-wielder's solution is to cart around a dozen different weapons. The two-hander's solution is to do a lot less damage. Some "solutions".



> *I guess some fighters will have to learn a new trick or two. Much like how other classes develop strategies for dealing with different foes.*




Fighters can't just "learn a new trick or two" as you suggest. They have a choice: either carry around a bunch of different weapons, or be drastically less effective against creatures with DR. I suppose relying on the transmute metal spell is the third option. They don't have any other options, unless you think a fighter should try to grapple a pit fiend.



> *When an opponent has elemental resistance, the evoker isn't decrying the game mechanics. When the rogue comes up against undead, does he rail against the broken rules that make him less effective? When your enchanter faces a golem, does he throw bricks at the WotC HQ in protest of a broken system? (Ok, some might, but there are much better reasons than that!) The game is all about overcoming challenges, and the changes seem to be a nice way for DMs to add flavorful combats.*




What an incredibly bogus argument. Bad rules are bad rules, regardless of whether you can find a way around them or not. And PCs having to carry around a dozen different weapons and pull out a new one every time they meet a different enemy doesn't add to the flavor of a heroic game. It detracts from it.

If you're walking around a building and reaching down to your belt and pulling out a different object every time you come to a new problem, you're not a warrior. You're a carpenter.



> *There are legitimate concerns about the DR changes, and legitimate questions as to whether the change was a necessary step. I just don't see how anyone can say that the changes as presented thus far create such game breaking imbalances. *shrug**




Well, obviously we haven't had a chance to see how the new rules play yet. But just going by what I've read so far, I don't see any benefit at all to the change, and I see a lot of detriments.


----------



## kreynolds (Jan 31, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *If you're walking around a building and reaching down to your belt and pulling out a different object every time you come to a new problem, you're not a warrior. You're a carpenter. *




Then what's Batman?


----------



## Illuminae (Jan 31, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Then what's Batman? *




UAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAH....


----------



## kreynolds (Jan 31, 2003)

Illuminae said:
			
		

> *UAHEUHAUEHUAHEUAHUEHUAHUAHEUHAUEHUA <snip>.... *




Illuminae, that's a new expression to me. What's it mean?


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 31, 2003)

> What an incredibly bogus argument. Bad rules are bad rules, regardless of whether you can find a way around them or not. And PCs having to carry around a dozen different weapons and pull out a new one every time they meet a different enemy doesn't add to the flavor of a heroic game. It detracts from it.




Why do they HAVE to do this? When the revised rules are changing the balance and flow of combat, why do they HAVE to do this? Why are they bad rules? What makes a combat system with variety and variation any different from one in which DR is always penetrated if the system is balanced either way? PCs pulling out a new weapon with every enemy ain't EVER gonna happen. Heroes aren't going to need to carry around 12 special material weapons, ain't ever gonna happen.

So what if they do less damage? What does it matter. Spellcasters are getting truncated too. So in 3.5E you do less damage. The monsters got hamstrung too, lesser DR, who knows what else. If everything is changing a favor of the balance who cares that you do less damage when everyone does?



> Illuminae, that's a new expression to me. What's it mean?




Some evil laughes begin with Uwaaa, as opposed to the more conventional form of Mwha. These then continue in a Uwa Uwa Uwa a a fashion.


----------



## Illuminae (Jan 31, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Illuminae, that's a new expression to me. What's it mean? *




That just an internet elaborated version of a laugh, HAHAHA!

Then you have HAHAHA plus an U:

UAHUAHUHAUHAUHUAHAUHAUHAUHAUHAUH!!

And then E added:

AUHEUHAUEHAUHEUAHUEHAUHEUAHEUAHUE!!

Some people will use even I and O:

UEHAIUEHUAHIEAUHOEIHOHOAUHIUHOIUAEHIOAHEOAIHEOUAHOEAUHEOUAHEIOUHIAHEOIHAOEUAHOEHAOUEHOAIHE!!!!

And yet, the SHIFT effect for extra laughiness/sillyness:

aiuehOIUHEAOIUehaiuheaiOUEHAEIUAHeoHaiheaoIUEhaoiuehahUeauhAOEOAUHeiaUhauheAIUEHAIUheiuaheaIUHeiuhehahAUHeiAUHeioAUHeiUAHeiuAHeiUAHEoiuhAOEiuhAOIEUhaOuehIOuehAIehIAUHeiAUHeiHAUeiuAHeouIAHeiouAHeiuHAE!!!!!!

All nonsensessly typed onto the screen...

heheehh, essentially, I was laughing a lot at your comment. 

I have just started believing this kind of "internet laughing" is a brazilian thing only.

Whenever I post a laugh here is someone who asks what it is.


----------



## Illuminae (Jan 31, 2003)

Shalewind said:
			
		

> * Some evil laughes begin with Uwaaa, as opposed to the more conventional form of Mwha. These then continue in a Uwa Uwa Uwa a a fashion.  *




Hey, I´m not evil!


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 31, 2003)

I got to hand it to you kreynolds. That Batman thing is the funniest thing I've heard all week! ::still laughing::  That lightened my mood. I can sleep happy now. Thanks! 

Sorry Illuminae...  I know you aren't evil. Well, unless you are a DM like me. Mhwhahaha....


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2003)

Shalewind said:
			
		

> *So what if they do less damage? What does it matter. Spellcasters are getting truncated too. So in 3.5E you do less damage. The monsters got hamstrung too, lesser DR, who knows what else. If everything is changing a favor of the balance who cares that you do less damage when everyone does?*




The problem is that not everyone is affected equally by the changes to DR. Dual wielders, archers, and finesse fighters will suffer more than big-ass sword wielders. And I think this change will result in the aforementioned golf bag of weaponry scenario, which I find annoying and silly.

Those are my objections. I'm willing to wait and see how it'll play out, but I definitely don't like what I'm hearing right now.


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Then what's Batman? *




Touche. But I don't play comic-book D&D.


----------



## Illuminae (Jan 31, 2003)

Strange thing, I just realized no one complains about being eaten by Cthulhu, before being able to act, but complaints about not being able to damage every creature the same way are all over.

Take the barbarian´s DR out, I say!

That´s no fair with the poor monsters!! They´ll have to take wizard levels to keep banging their most damage on the barbarians!!!

WAIT!! Haste has been nerfed!!!!

DANG! I HOPE THAT GEEKY LOOKING GUY DOESN´T ROLL MY NUMBER ON THE ENCOUNTER TABLE!!!!


C´mon, people, DR is an ability, like any other, PCs have to find a way through a monster´s defenses.

Gimme a silver bullet and I´ll show that werewolf!

To kill a werewolf with a +3 spoon of carving death is just not as fun as having your karate championship medal melt into a single silver bullet and shooting it through its head...

As I said before, those of you who like random adventures in random dungeons with random monsters should fear the golf bag effect.

Me? I´ll be just fine with the new DR.


----------



## kreynolds (Jan 31, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *Touche. But I don't play comic-book D&D. *




Hold up a second...

Batman...the guy with everything on his belt...

D&D...the game with magic, demons, devils, heaven, hell, teleportation, resurrection, push 1500 pounds with an 18 strength (slowly, but still, at least for 8 hours straight), vampires, ghosts, gods, planes of existence...

You know...D&D sounds a whole lot like Buffy and Angel, so I guess you do play a comic-book D&D after all.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 31, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *What an incredibly bogus argument. Bad rules are bad rules, regardless of whether you can find a way around them or not. And PCs having to carry around a dozen different weapons and pull out a new one every time they meet a different enemy doesn't add to the flavor of a heroic game. It detracts from it.
> *



*

Hear hear!  Its also stupid that character's should rely on multiple stats, skills, feats, and class abilities to overcome challenges.  I mean come on, is this D&D or The Pretender?

The game is designed for DM's to stupidly throw exactly one monster of each DR category at the players per session, to be rotated at the highest level of PC inconvenience, and I think the rules should cut the players some slack.

Because totally gay rotating DR monsters at set intervals in every session is what the game's all about.  Players can't expect to choose their weapons based on character theme or the style of the campaign, because that might be cinematic and cool.*


----------



## besnode (Jan 31, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *People were complaining about GMW disrupting the game by making it easy to get by DRs but all that was done now is changed the spell needed to do this and made it a cantrip. And yes cantrips by definition are pretty much totaly useless and shouldn't have a great impact against a CR10+ creature. The only cantrips I use at high level anyways are detect/read magic so yes I already have lots of unused cantrip slots. You might even see an unintended consequence of this now as many high level fighters start taking 1 level of sorcerer so they can fix thier own weapons on the fly as needed. For 1 less BAB and 3 less HPs you can now bypass material DRs.*




I don't think it's quite that bad.  First, the published cantrip affects only silver DR.  Cold iron, bronze, wood, or any other exotic material will require another cantrip.  This means that one level of sorcerer (4 cantrips known) won't do all that much good.  

In addition, each cantrip affects only one weapon.  So a wizard will have to somehow manage a 15 minute break from an encounter (once they figure out what that particular critter is vulnerable to) and prepare the right cantrip (assuming one exists for the necessary material) and only then will he be able to enchant one single weapon to bypass the monster's damage reduction.  

And if it's a mixed encounter with critters with different vulnerabilities, forget it.  

All in all, I like this change.  I hope others look as good.

--Paul


----------



## besnode (Jan 31, 2003)

> Grog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fenes 2 (Jan 31, 2003)

Sometimes I wonder. When I DM I try to carefully balance main encounters. When I design a BBEG I look over the PC's options, especially the weapons, and take care not to make PCs useless. If a foe has DR (3.0E) I take into account who among the party will be able to hurt it, adjusting it when neccessary. If the party fighter is relying on criticals I will not throw undead after undead at the group until the fighter "learns his lesson" and changes. If the wizard is a fire-specialist I will not use fire immune foes all the time until he takes energy substitution. In short, if you want to play a certain way I will accomodate it while trying to provide an exciting adventure.

This does not mean that the PCs will only encounter foes they can hurt with no problem, just that foes with exotic DR will not be so common as to force the PC's to prepare for them each day, instead remaining a special threat.
The new DR rules will offer me more options in that way. I can imagine a fight where the foe is barely held at bay by some courageous PC (or a sturdy door) while the others scramble to detect his weakness, flipping frantically through moldy tomes while the foe batters down the door to the library, or using that bardic knowledge for some clues, and then search through the abandonned keep for some (makeshift)weapons. 

IMHO, this is much better than just tell the bard/sorcerer/wizard/cleric to cast GMW and then whack the critter till it dies.

I cannot imagine playing in a game where the DM would be as callous towards his players as to render some of their PCs useless by using only immune or nigh-immune critters against them day after day.


----------



## Noldor Elf (Jan 31, 2003)

I think it's DM's duty to avoid that Golfbag o' weapons effect...

The new DR system will encourage speciality instead of generall kill 'em all groups... Your group can be dedicated to fight demons and devils, so most of you will have weapons made of holysilver, group of dragonslayers might have to rely on some other material. The key is that not anymore every group (with level high enough) is able to defeat monster UNPREPARED. Bring back those quests for the weapon capable to damage some legendary monster.


----------



## Aloïsius (Jan 31, 2003)

There are many things a fighter without the propre weapon can do to help : 
*flank, aid another (two version), trip, disarm, sunder, grapple, tank (expertise+defending weapon+fighting on the defensive), bullrush, overun, throwing holy water/alchemist fire, carry a wounded fellow to safety, creative use of the environment... Not just smash the beastie. OK, most of the time, these tactics are used by rogues or low-level characters. Why : because, with the old system, as soon as you had a + weapon, the best and simplest thing to do was beating with a stick...

So what ? The fighter type will now need to use their brain, even after they past level 5. That's really awful.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 31, 2003)

This is the problem I see.

Mr. Batman carries two weapons, a +3 cold-iron bastard sword and a masterwork silver weapon.

He runs into a lycanthrope. He can penetrate the DR, but suffers -3 to hit and damage. Maybe that was the point, I don't know.

The monk runs into a lycanthrope. Well, at least the monk can outrun the lycanthrope.

He runs into a balor. Oh dear, a paladin would actually have been useful in this encounter.


----------



## Petrosian (Jan 31, 2003)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> I hate to pick at this. I'm aware the badguys are suppose to lose. All I am saying is that for the bad guys to lose, DR doesn't NEED to be penetrated by EVERY character attacking with a weapon, every combat. This is my core point.
> *



then thats a pretty lame core point. has anyone explicitly disagreed with you on this ever? I do not see anyone here debating that DR SHOULD be beaten by "every character in every combat" so who are you disagreeing with.

The current rules do NOT make that a reality and the new rules do little if anything at all to cover it.


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> Yes, if every enemy fought had a DR that was unbeatable, the fighters are going to get hosed. But that isn't what is going to happen.
> *



We both agree. This is only going to marginally once in a while produce situations where DR isn't handled. 

Why?

because the "special materials" are (as currently listed) a lot cheaper and more mundane than magic items are now.

The only times the new DR will play a role beyond say 4th level will be when a new gimmick beasties with some new weirdo materials thing (a slahing weapon lathered with wolvebane oil and blessed by a druid of Boccob) is tossed in for ...ahem... "flavor".


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> That is what I find totally ridiculous. There is no way there is going to be nearly that big an array of monster that are going to be seen by ANY party at any level. Do you really think WoTC would introduce eight to twelve new materials that would varry across every DR creature? No way. You are going to see things like silver spread out across a huge array of these baddies.
> *



Sigh. An intelligent fighter, and intelligent party, will prepare not for what they are CERTAIN is ahead of them but also for those things that they might encounter.

Most of my parties leave on a mission that they expect to take two weeks with at least 4 weeks of supplies, simply because they would rather be safe (fed) than sorry (starving.)

In a world populated (for generations untold) by beasts which are dangerous and which require special methods to be dealt with such as silver weapons, cold iron weapons, holy weapons, blessed weapons, blunt only, slashing only, piercing only, and so on ad nauseum, then the inhabitants of that world would take precautions. 

An adventuring party trekking out into ancient ruins without a silver weapon set, a cold iron weapon set, a blunt and so on is just as ill equipped as the same group going out without ropes and tents and any other "in case of emergency use to break bad guy" equipment.

The catch is... it wont take the players or the characters long to figure this out, and unless the prices for silver weapons, iron weapons and such go thru the roof for some arbitrary reason, they can afford them too.


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> WoTC didn't say they nixed the +1 requirement either. +1 might still be a very legitmate requirement for some DRs. I can also see having all Demons or all Devils weak against ONE type of material. In short. I don't think this materials thing is going to impact that many encounters.
> *



It will impact many equipment lists. See, like extra rations and ropes, the extra weapons is common sense for the uncommon setting. There is NO REASON for the character not to take this reasonable precaution in their unreasonable line of work. So, they will.

So, if your estimation is true and they don't encounter this often then al that time and effort and character sheet inventory silliness is for naught in most encounters and in only rare encounters it comes in handy... kinda like road flares today. That doesn't make me think the rule is good. Quite the opposite in fact.


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What do you think GMW is doing now?
> 
> *



GMW right now is being used to add plusses to the specialty weapon. The new rule wont change that except that it will move the guy with the specialty flaming dwarven waraxe to put it down more often because he needs an absurdium bashing weapon against these new gimmick-o-duh-week beasties that masquerade under the banner "flavor".


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> Yes. I like this image too. This is also a fairly realistic style of play. D&D is not. D&D is not LOTR. D&D is D&D. I hate the fact that magic items make the character and not the character. But that is the way things are in D&D. Materials are just going to add another flavor aspect (that can be used to implement more of the above realism if done right).
> *



Its not flavor, its gimmick. There is a difference.

The flavor it will bring is not richer encounters, but of multiweaponed haversacks of "dial-a-hit" fighters.


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Metagaming of this kind is just silly. It assumes the characters know everything about everything.
> *



Who said know everything about everything? i didn't In a world where, for generations untold, dangerous threast exist and prey upon people who can only be hit by special materials weapons, where these are NECESSARY to combat them effectively, then those things would be part of that uncommon setting, not some abstract thing.

Sure, for some new type of creature requiring some special thing heretofore untold, then there wont be tools readily on hand to meet this new threat. But unless this new gimmick beastie of the week is to become your norm, it wont matter.

Ever see the movie Mummy? Remember the scene where the weasel guy when facing the mummy pulls out the cross and utters the latin trying to ward him off, the pulls out the other holy symbols one at a time with their own phrase... thats the exact same type of thing.

Have i heard of werewolves? Sure. if i thought they were real and an issue here in NC I would have some wolvesbane in my bag right by my laptop and a silver tipped cane or even a big silver ring. If i thought rakshasas were real and a threat here in NC i would be high tailing it to my local rabbi for assistance with this crossbow thing.

If i were a policeman or a soldier and these "legends" were potential enemies... i would absolutely be seeking out effective weapons. 

If i were a town mayor with paid guards for the city, i would arm them with such, or at least have "special weapons" on hand.

Its not metagaming to be reasonably prepared for your unreasonable setting. 

Now, you jump up and down and spit fire about my long list of things that wotc wont do. The key is in such a world... the notion that there might be a "needs copper weapons" beastie is a definite possibility, just like silver and cold iron and holysilver and holybrassballs and so on and I guarantee you any number of weapons merchants will be more than happy ro sell you copper plated axes for a "little extra cost."

The intelligent warrior, who has the money for this easily by 5th level, would be well served to go ahead. After all, one more mace in the haversack is no big deal and an extra 10 gold isn't going to hurt.


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> People in this thread are worried about Fighters being out done by the wizards... People in the Haste thread are worried that the fighter is way too damage dealing and that he will easily out do the wizards...
> *



Not me. balance is not a complaint i have made about this change. Frankly, i think after equipment lists have been successfully expanded, it wont be much of an issue beyond encouraging the "cannot be hit except by gnomish piercing weapons dipped in soggy fruit loops" style gimmick material of the week scenarios.


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> Hmmm, as you say it doesn't take "rocket science" to figure out these tactics. The system is being revised. You assume everything is out of balance,
> *



Uhh... I do? Where? When? 

Is it really so much easier for you to just make up your opponents's arguements and then "refute" them than to actually deal with what the opponent actually said?


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> I say look at the big picture. Which we can't. Because we haven't seen everything.
> *



Then why say "look at the big picture" if at the same time you admit we cannot? 

I could say "look at the blue snarfle rules and you will see I am right" but that would be rather silly if at the same time i admitted the blue snarfle rules were not available.


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> But even from these two vauge peices of information it seems they are keeping things balanced as is: take from spellcasters, take from fighters. Feel free to debate the effects of DR vs Haste and spell caster ruling... It won't matter, because something could enter the equation and totally change that argument.
> *



Ok...so pretty much you are saying we dont really know.

If you believe that, why then are you here arguing for the good of this new rule?

If those who don't like it dont know what they are talking about because of this lack of "the big picture" how can those who do like it be in a better bat?

Why does your "big pictue" idea only seem to you to cut one way?


----------



## Petrosian (Jan 31, 2003)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So what ? The fighter type will now need to use their brain, even after they past level 5. That's really awful.  *




I would hardly even call the haversack of weapon de jour using your brain.

its just common sense for an uncommon world.

Of course, this wont stop the Gms ability o throw in wonder-demon vulnerable only to "silver blunt weapons dipped in yak urine" weapons of the week... heck it practically encourages it.

other than lengthening characters equipment lists after even 4-5 levels, this wont do all that much. If you like making the haversack of exotic weapons into standard equipment for fighter types, then this new rule's "flavor" should taste just fine. 

Once the Gm sees that the new DR rules amount to an action or two delay in the combat while the weapon roulette figures out the material of need, he will have to think of another way to.. ahem... "challenge" the parties accounting and inventory skills.

"Only affected by blunt weapons dipping in spilt beer" might well become popular, since many players might see spilt beer as a sin and be more willing to just take the damage loss than commit such an atrocity.

*********************

In summary... trading one relatively simple and easily bypassed minor hindrance for a more complex but just as easily if not more byopassed minor hindrance is not a solution. 

if there was a problem with Dr in the first place, it will still be there after this rule change and after the PCs adjust their equipment and inventories the same issue will be there. The PCs will still move right by the DR, only the new answers require more weapons to be carried.

Who will be shafted?

Not fighter or barbarians or rogues or spellers...

The PLAYER who comes into this game wanting to play a "traditional dwarven fighter with his axes" or "a greatsword wielding barbarian" or "a master archer" who will rapidly find that their notion of a character which is derived from practically every page, scene, and video clip of fantasy fiction and media has been ruled out even worse than he was before.

The guy who makes weapon decisions based on character as opposed to based on what the "new world order 3.5" defines as intelligent is the one who is shafted.

For me, those are NOT the subset of players who i want to rules to work against. They are the ones i want the rules to work for.

The new rule rewards the character who does the haversack of exotic weapons ad nauseum. It punishes the other guy. 

That seems wrong to me.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Jan 31, 2003)

Seems we have the two opposite factions here. One faction expects the DM to regularily throw the "stupid DR creature of the week" against the party, and expects the party to prepare for any and all stupid DR cases after a few levels, ending up with a "haversack of the weapon of the day" mentality.

The other faction expects the DM to prepare adventures from time to time that center around meeting a creature with an exotic DR and then struggling to discover and exploit that weakness, without giving the PCs too much of a reason to collect exotic materials "just in case" by keeping such encounters rare.

I, personally, expect the average DM to handle the new DR in a way that does not lessen the fun of his players, either by houseruling it away, by giving out multimaterial weapon for the needy, or by using it in a way that adds to the game. If you can do it with SR and Resistancies/Immunities without frustrating your Spellcaster players, then you can do the same for your melee players.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Jan 31, 2003)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *Who will be shafted?
> 
> Not fighter or barbarians or rogues or spellers...
> 
> ...




Petrosian, not the rules shaft that player, but a DM that is unable or unwilling to adapt his campaign to his player's wishes. We can do it with SR, so we can do it with DR.


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 31, 2003)

> then thats a pretty lame core point. has anyone explicitly disagreed with you on this ever? I do not see anyone here debating that DR SHOULD be beaten by "every character in every combat" so who are you disagreeing with.




I believe DR to be a middle ground. Some people (read specialized) can penetrate it. Different monsters, different PCs. The rest of the group cannot. This doesn't change effectiveness. It certainly doesn't mean the other PCs can't hurt the baddie (reduced DRs...) People in this world (realisticly) would carry a single (maybe two) devoted weapons and maybe the ocassional (silver, holy, etc...) weapon for those rare "Oh #%#^!" situations. This seems like a far more real scenario than the "golf bag effect".

Petrosian, you say that the new materials will only encourage this "golf bag" behavior. That every "smart" gamer will have to use this option because it's the only way to be powerful enough to be effective in every situation.

Well, if that is the style of play you use. I am sorry. I conceed your point to you. If your DM throws the, what was is?, "slahing weapon lathered with wolvebane oil and blessed by a druid of Boccob" every week, I feel very very sorry for you. I would never stand to play in such a world. The world I play in would never have a DM throwing a minor rules point at us every week just to drive home the fact that we don't look like fantasy heroes... There are far better ways for a DM to make challenging encounters on a regular basis. As Fenes 2 said:



> not the rules shaft that player, but a DM that is unable or unwilling to adapt his campaign to his player's wishes. We can do it with SR, so we can do it with DR.




And this is exactly correct.



> I, personally, expect the average DM to handle the new DR in a way that does not lessen the fun of his players, either by houseruling it away, by giving out multimaterial weapon for the needy, or by using it in a way that adds to the game. If you can do it with SR and Resistancies/Immunities without frustrating your Spellcaster players, then you can do the same for your melee players.




I would agree.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 31, 2003)

Noldor Elf said:
			
		

> *I think it's DM's duty to avoid that Golfbag o' weapons effect...
> 
> The new DR system will encourage speciality instead of generall kill 'em all groups... Your group can be dedicated to fight demons and devils, so most of you will have weapons made of holysilver, group of dragonslayers might have to rely on some other material. The key is that not anymore every group (with level high enough) is able to defeat monster UNPREPARED. Bring back those quests for the weapon capable to damage some legendary monster. *




Right now our group has a sort of specialty like you want, however we still ocaisionaly run up against other types monsters to keep things from getting too repetative. I don't want to play a fight ONLY Deamons, or Dragons, or etc. campain and I don't want the rules to encourage it. Knowing that we do run into other things ocaisionaly means that I want to be prepared enough that we don't get our buts kicked when we run into them. It only makes sense therfore to have the golfbag of weapons under the new rules. Sure you can set up a quest for some specific weapon needed to handle a unique monster, but you can do that now under the existing rules. Running into Fey or Lycanthropes is not a quest though and the new rules will not encourage encourage running out to find a special weapon but to just have a weapon of every common material. Why run back to town if you run into something wierd when you can just carry your HHH golfbag of weapons (a minor cost by 4-5th level) or have your caster use his scroll of Transmute Metal that will be carried for just such an occaision (I don't memorize Remove Paralysys every day but I do always have a scroll of it).  The only thing this rule change seems to do is delay combat a round or two while the correct weapon is being prepared.


----------



## Technik4 (Jan 31, 2003)

I think you have it all wrong. New materials are more flavor for roleplaying and fit more in the "iconic" loop than a lot of things. 

Take the undead slaying X. She carries some blunt weapon, blessed and magical as her main weapon. But guess what, she knows that she may have to fight the people who make the undead, or the things they can summon. Her back-up weapon may be a slashing weapon she decided not to sell, because it may come in handy someday. If those 2 weapons are not effective against a beastie, as others have said, she will rely on the rest of the party to carry her through, be it with a spell to enhance one of her weapons, or maybe someone else just takes care of the beastie with a spell.

How is that not iconic exactly?

I think most dissenters have forgotten what DR stands for ... "Damage Resistance". Peope have stated many times that 15 will be the upper end of the DR spectrum, so whos not paying attention? You may not ever even see a monster with 15 DR, but if you do, and if its the pit fiend, I'd say your job is protecting the members that can take out Mr Fiend or, if you have the appropriate weapon, to have the members protect you until said fiend is vanquished.

Isnt anyone else sick of parties where 1 or 2 characters outshine the rest? Ive played with fighters and barbarians that negate everyone else because they do so much damage or get so many attacks. Should they be optimized for EVERY fight? No. Challenges are meant for a party of 4 to take them down. How much work does a rogue do when sneak attack is negated?

I think the whole new DR thing is awesome. I thought it was cheesy my wizard could buy a +1 Sure Striking Dagger that would hurt anything in the MM. Heck, usually casting GMW on a mwk one would get the job done. I say reward the character that has special material weapons, its giving them more flavor.

As far as the golf bag theory I think its way off. A typical party consists of 3 characters who may or may not get into melee (could be ranged), but they all primarily rely on weapons to do some damage, only the wizard is the exception. So whats wrong with this (and please correct me if isnt "iconic").

Dwarf Fighter
Cold Iron Battle Axe
Blessed Holy Battle Axe
Silvered Warhammer
Bow and Magical Arrows

Human Cleric
Holy Blessed Deities Favored Weapon
Copper Lt Flail
Crossbow with Cold Iron Arrows

Halfling Rogue
Silvered Dagger
Blessed Dagger
Cold Iron Dagger
Short Bow and Silver Arrows

The list goes on, perhaps some of those weapons are magical, maybe some arent, depending on the DR (and therefore the monster) it may be better to go with a higher magical weapon than one without magic that wouldnt pierce DR. So far the only special materials I've really seen are Cold Iron and Silver. Naturally there may be more, but holy and blessed seem like enchantments. Maybe clerics can spend a turning attempt to make weapons "Blessed" for a certain number of rounds, or maybe they can just cast a spell on the weapon, or maybe some weapons are always treated as if blessed? Who knows, but dont assume the system "sucks" or "wont work" on the basis of you not appreciating some "needed" changes.

People speak of D&D not living up to fantasy novels yarns. This version is merely improving it. What about that story where the party fights the Iron Golem? Did the fighter with the +2 sword not win the day? Or did he get destroyed because not 1 point of damgae got through?

Whether you want to admit it or not, the OLD DR system is what was out of whack. DR did mean if you dont have this plus, dont even try to fight me. That is not the case anymore. Didnt your fighters ever have to fight a stone-skinned mage? Thats how damage resistance is supposed to be. Some things can resist damage unless you have a certain material. Its no longer, some things are invulnerable unless your plus is high enough.

This topic confounds me, as I can't understand people's consternation with it.

Technik


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 31, 2003)

I don't have the eloquence of Technik4. He had summed up point for point just about everything I have tried to iterate here. Thank you Technik4.



> This topic confounds me, as I can't understand people's consternation with it.




Nor can I.


----------



## Falanor (Jan 31, 2003)

"The current rules do NOT make that a reality and the new rules do little if anything at all to cover it." -- Petrosian

Actually that's incorrect.  If you would look at the Pit Fiend's new stats, you'd notice that it isn't anything but a 15.  If you can't penetrate that then you just ain't tryin'.  And according to Andy Collins this is considered "mighty", and how it keeps DR revised from being a hose job top fighters.  After all, the Iron Golem won't have his +3/50 DR anymore.  Sure it'll be tough to beat 'em, but it should have been that way to begin with.

"An intelligent fighter, and intelligent party, will prepare not for what they are CERTAIN is ahead of them but also for those things that they might encounter." -- Petrosian

Exactly how?  What, do they have a Tuesday plan action as opposed to a Wedensday plan of action?  If a party doesn't know how one day is going to be different from the next, then its going to be a bit difficult to actually do this.

"In a world where, for generations untold, dangerous threast exist and prey upon people who can only be hit by special materials weapons, where these are NECESSARY to combat them effectively, then those things would be part of that uncommon setting, not some abstract thing." -- Petrosian

Which is making the assumption that everyone knows how to defeat every beast.  Just cause one person figured it out doesn't mean everyone instantly knows it as well.  Sure there could be old wives tales about a Goblin being immune to silver on a Saturday at high noon, but that doesn't mean its true.  As it is, knowledge about higher CR critters is supposed to be more difficult to attain, seeing as only certain people ever meet them and survive.  Unless on your world there is a 'Daily Inquisitor' where adventurers report in and talk about the DR of the day, this really doesn't happen.

"Remember the scene where the weasel guy when facing the mummy pulls out the cross and utters the latin trying to ward him off, the pulls out the other holy symbols one at a time with their own phrase... thats the exact same type of thing." -- Petrosian

And remember that none of them worked?  Ever hear of Holy Symbols working something on a Mummy in ancient lore?  No, you got a curse, treasure, and not much else.  So why did he have all the Holy Symbols?  What, did he expect to run into a Vampire?  The only thing that did is that he spoke 'the slave tongue' and that's because the Mummy could utlize him for a moment.

I think what Shalewind is tryin to get across with his 'big picture' statement is that we don't know what everything is going to be like so its rather fallacious.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 31, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *I think you have it all wrong. New materials are more flavor for roleplaying and fit more in the "iconic" loop than a lot of things.
> 
> Take the undead slaying X. She carries some blunt weapon, blessed and magical as her main weapon. But guess what, she knows that she may have to fight the people who make the undead, or the things they can summon. Her back-up weapon may be a slashing weapon she decided not to sell, because it may come in handy someday. If those 2 weapons are not effective against a beastie, as others have said, she will rely on the rest of the party to carry her through, be it with a spell to enhance one of her weapons, or maybe someone else just takes care of the beastie with a spell.
> 
> How is that not iconic exactly?*




Someone can cast a spell to make her weapon work, sounds like now with GMW. Or she could carry a few more spare weapons in her HHH and be useful. Relying on the rest of the party because you are to cheep to carry a few spare weapons seems like bad tactics to me.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *I think most dissenters have forgotten what DR stands for ... "Damage Resistance". Peope have stated many times that 15 will be the upper end of the DR spectrum, so whos not paying attention? You may not ever even see a monster with 15 DR, but if you do, and if its the pit fiend, I'd say your job is protecting the members that can take out Mr Fiend or, if you have the appropriate weapon, to have the members protect you until said fiend is vanquished.*




If most things with DR are running around with DR 5 then what's the point of having DR. Even a 1st level commoner can do reasonable damage. This takes away the feeling of invincibility that these mythical creatures are supposed to have.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *Isnt anyone else sick of parties where 1 or 2 characters outshine the rest? Ive played with fighters and barbarians that negate everyone else because they do so much damage or get so many attacks. Should they be optimized for EVERY fight? No. Challenges are meant for a party of 4 to take them down. How much work does a rogue do when sneak attack is negated?*




They will still be optimized for every fight because the special weapons are so cheep they can afford to always have the weapon they need in thier golfbag. Before a high DR could make the party rely on the spellcasters and rogues sometimes. Now the Fighters for a small price can unleash thier damage on everything. seems to me it will be harder for the DM to come up with chance to let some people shine while reigning in others.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *I think the whole new DR thing is awesome. I thought it was cheesy my wizard could buy a +1 Sure Striking Dagger that would hurt anything in the MM. Heck, usually casting GMW on a mwk one would get the job done. I say reward the character that has special material weapons, its giving them more flavor.*




Since we are dealing with materials rather than magic the local law enforcement should be able to afford anything they need to fight the monsters. Why do we need adventurers when the local guard can afford weapons that can effect everything in the MM.




			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *As far as the golf bag theory I think its way off. A typical party consists of 3 characters who may or may not get into melee (could be ranged), but they all primarily rely on weapons to do some damage, only the wizard is the exception. So whats wrong with this (and please correct me if isnt "iconic").
> 
> Dwarf Fighter
> Cold Iron Battle Axe
> ...




Sounds like the start of a golfbag to me. 



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *So far the only special materials I've really seen are Cold Iron and Silver. Naturally there may be more, but holy and blessed seem like enchantments. Maybe clerics can spend a turning attempt to make weapons "Blessed" for a certain number of rounds, or maybe they can just cast a spell on the weapon, or maybe some weapons are always treated as if blessed? Who knows, but dont assume the system "sucks" or "wont work" on the basis of you not appreciating some "needed" changes.*




If the new system only has two materials and then magical enhancements you will then only have two types of "Magic" weapons as all magic weapons would be made of 1 or the other material. People will then be "blessing" them as they do with GMW. Now if thier are only 2 types of magic weapons, then everyone will certainly carry one of each and no real difference will be felt in the system other than everything will be weaker for peasant armies to kill.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *People speak of D&D not living up to fantasy novels yarns. This version is merely improving it. What about that story where the party fights the Iron Golem? Did the fighter with the +2 sword not win the day? Or did he get destroyed because not 1 point of damgae got through?*




What about Excalibur or Stormbringer, Do you belive that Arthur or Elric would have to swap out weapons because thier magical steel swords wouldn't hurt a monster. Glamdring seemed to have no problem with a Balrog and it was only magical. My view of fantasy yarns has always been that magic trumps materials.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *Whether you want to admit it or not, the OLD DR system is what was out of whack. DR did mean if you dont have this plus, dont even try to fight me. That is not the case anymore. Didnt your fighters ever have to fight a stone-skinned mage? Thats how damage resistance is supposed to be. Some things can resist damage unless you have a certain material. Its no longer, some things are invulnerable unless your plus is high enough.*




Now it will be if you don't have the right material don't fight me. The only thing we have done is add the THF to the mix and that only barely. It will still be the spellcasters doing all the damage unless the fighters carry thier golfbag.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *This topic confounds me, as I can't understand people's consternation with it.
> 
> Technik *




Part of my consternation is fixing something that wasn't broken in a way makes it broken and that make backwards compatability dificult at best. If this had been implemented in 3.0 it would have been ok at best but would have been one of the things that people were complaining about needing to be fixed in 3.5. Also 3.5 shouldn't invalidate what I bought before and force me to buy a Revised MMII, Revised Fiend Folio, Revised Manual of the Planes, Revised Savage Species, Revised FR Campaign Setting, Revised Creatures of Faerun. Seems more a like a chance to resell everything one more time.


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 31, 2003)

> Now it will be if you don't have the right material don't fight me.




That is quite simply, wrong.

This debate is formed on incomplete information. It is really pointless because whatever the revisions are, we can't say if they are good or bad without seeing the product as whole. I choose to belive in WoTC and that the changes are for the public as well as to make money. Others are always of course free to believe as they will. 

And just for the record, I thought DR was broken prior to these changes, so no, WoTC isn't just doing something to do it, they did listen to someone (and I am not the only voice in that crowd).

So I'm not commenting with the information we now have. No ground can be gained by arguing with a wall. And on that note, I'm outta here, following Icebear.


----------



## Chacal (Jan 31, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *Seems we have the two opposite factions here. One faction expects the DM to regularily throw the "stupid DR creature of the week" against the party, and expects the party to prepare for any and all stupid DR cases after a few levels, ending up with a "haversack of the weapon of the day" mentality.
> 
> The other faction expects the DM to prepare adventures from time to time that center around meeting a creature with an exotic DR and then struggling to discover and exploit that weakness, without giving the PCs too much of a reason to collect exotic materials "just in case" by keeping such encounters rare.
> 
> I, personally, expect the average DM to handle the new DR in a way that does not lessen the fun of his players, either by houseruling it away, by giving out multimaterial weapon for the needy, or by using it in a way that adds to the game. If you can do it with SR and Resistancies/Immunities without frustrating your Spellcaster players, then you can do the same for your melee players. *




Very well put !
Count me in the 2nd faction.
I like the fact that "whatever has the most plusses" isn't always the right answer.

Chacal


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jan 31, 2003)

Black Knight Irios said:
			
		

> *Something that is really bothering me, is the fact that even if I have a weapon made of nearly any material I can imagine, I still don't know which one to use.*




Players should already have to deal with that.  "Are these fiends vulnerable to lightning or is it cold?"  "Is this undead vulnerable to sunlight?"  

There's a knowledge skill in my game called "Bestiary."  It allows you to identify the tactics and weaknesses of creatures that can kill you.  It knows nothing of squirrels, mice, harmless fungus, or pretty flowers.  It doesn't tell you how long it lives or how it mates (unless that involves killing something in the process, that is).  It might tell you what it will/won't eat if it is relevant (i.e. rust monsters & bulettes).   It won't tell you which parts are worth money or can be used as magic items.  

It helps you kill things that will try to kill you.  While cross-class for most, it is a handy thing to have.  The mage has it at a high level and her first action is always to try and identify the beast and yell out the best "first-contact" advice she can.  (e.g. "Use lightning!" "They hate all light!" and the ever popular "Don't look in its eyes!")


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2003)

Falanor said:
			
		

> *Actually that's incorrect.  If you would look at the Pit Fiend's new stats, you'd notice that it isn't anything but a 15.  If you can't penetrate that then you just ain't tryin'.*




The issue is not simply whether or not you can "penetrate" a creature's DR. You actually have to do _enough_ damage in spite of the DR to have a chance of defeating the creature. If I can do 16 points of damage, I can penetrate the pit fiend's DR. Does that mean I have a chance in hell against it in a fight?



> *And according to Andy Collins this is considered "mighty", and how it keeps DR revised from being a hose job top fighters.*




It is a hose job to fighters, or at least, to fighters who don't have the proper weaponry. Again, the question "Can the fighter do any damage at all to the creature without the proper material weapon?" is the wrong question. The question should be, "Can the fighter do enough damage to have a chance of killing the creature before it kills him?" Or perhaps, "Can the fighter do enough damage to not be totally insignificant in the face of what the spellcasters are doing?"

Say I'm a fighter who does 20 points of damage per hit. That's 80 points per round with four attacks. By the current rules, I have a chance to kill the pit fiend before it kills me. By the revised DR rules, I'll be doing 20 points per round to the pit fiend instead of 80. The pit fiend would have me for lunch. My only chance is to pull out my cold iron weapon, or whatever it is that bypasses the pit fiend's DR.

Also, if I'm hacking at the pit fiend for 80 damage a round, and the party wizard blasts it for 100 damage, I'm holding up pretty well. If I'm doing 20 damage a round and the wizard is blasting it for 100, I'm basically irrelevant. Again, my only chance is the weapon that bypasses the DR.



> *Exactly how?  What, do they have a Tuesday plan action as opposed to a Wedensday plan of action?  If a party doesn't know how one day is going to be different from the next, then its going to be a bit difficult to actually do this.*




No it's not. The party will simply stock up on all the different kinds of weapons. Bags of Holding are cheap, silver weapons are cheap, cold iron weapons are cheap, etc. Maybe they've never run into a werewolf - but they'll want to be prepared just in case they do.

My group's DM doesn't get us lost in the woods very often - but we _always_ take extra supplies just in case.



> *Which is making the assumption that everyone knows how to defeat every beast.  Just cause one person figured it out doesn't mean everyone instantly knows it as well.  Sure there could be old wives tales about a Goblin being immune to silver on a Saturday at high noon, but that doesn't mean its true.  As it is, knowledge about higher CR critters is supposed to be more difficult to attain, seeing as only certain people ever meet them and survive.  Unless on your world there is a 'Daily Inquisitor' where adventurers report in and talk about the DR of the day, this really doesn't happen.*




That's up to you as a DM. If you won't let your players buy silver weapons, or you invent creatures that can only be hit by holy golden blades covered with cheese, then you're making a conscious decision to make the fighters in the party less useful relative to the spellcasters. If the fighters can't do enough damage to make a difference in the fight, all they can do is be meat shields for the spellcasters, who _can_ do enough damage to take the critters down. Playing a meat shield is not a lot of fun, and if that situation comes up often enough, you'll probably find that your fighters simply won't enjoy the game anymore. Not a desirable outcome for anyone concerned.


----------



## Simulacrum (Jan 31, 2003)

blablabla.....cry me river, write it in a book. sell it to someone who cares, really.
As if the game was just about bashing fiends & monsters ad infinitum and always winning in the process....


----------



## Petrosian (Jan 31, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *Seems we have the two opposite factions here. One faction expects the DM to regularily throw the "stupid DR creature of the week" against the party, and expects the party to prepare for any and all stupid DR cases after a few levels, ending up with a "haversack of the weapon of the day" mentality.
> *




Actually, to be more specific...

i feel the party IN CHARACTER would and SHOULD as part of common sense in an uncommon environment indeed work to have the haversack of exotic weapons or HEW.

They **should** do this for all the same reasons they carry vials of holy water, potions of cure disease and potions of slow poiison and so on... which is to say not because they KNOW there will be challenges that demand these in tomorrow's specific battle or because the are sure it will be needed but rather because they don't know that it wont be and it might be the difference between life and death if they are unprepared. For the same reason there is a first aid kit two doors down here at the office.

The beauty is... like the first aid kit, relative to other adventurer expenses...things like silvered weapons are cheap after just a couple of levels.

As for the Dm side, i don't think every Gm will buy into this mindset however i definitely think that it will be very easy for a GM to buy into "DR should be hitting them" and after the PCs have their HEW it will become necessary to create newer wierder requirements in order to maintain this notion of "DR is necessary" or that balance requires some DR to work against the party.

The Gm case is easily handled, after enough of the silliness the players will not be able to hold in their laughter.

The player side is tougher because it means those players who just decide to embrace the nonsense and get their HEW off the shelf like every other fighter will be fine, while those who stick to their character concepts will be harmed.

That is the exact opposite of how i want the rules to select players to harm.

YMMV


----------



## Petrosian (Jan 31, 2003)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> I believe DR to be a middle ground. Some people (read specialized) can penetrate it. Different monsters, different PCs. The rest of the group cannot. This doesn't change effectiveness. It certainly doesn't mean the other PCs can't hurt the baddie (reduced DRs...) People in this world (realisticly) would carry a single (maybe two) devoted weapons and maybe the ocassional (silver, holy, etc...) weapon for those rare "Oh #%#^!" situations. This seems like a far more real scenario than the "golf bag effect".
> *



If the character is cognizant enough to plan for a smaller set of the possibilities... maybe one or two exotics... but could prepare for the others, why is it reasonable to assume he shouldn't? Why should i choose between carrying some holy water, a silver weapon OR a blunt weapon when i can do all three? Why should i KNOWINGLY leave myself open to more problems in life ordeath situations than necessary?

The character doesn't know "because if we cover all of them the Gm will just invent more anyway because he has prejudged DR to be a middle ground."


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> Petrosian, you say that the new materials will only encourage this "golf bag" behavior. That every "smart" gamer will have to use this option
> *



More importantly every smart character. It makes common sense nowadays for me to take a first aid kit and reasonable materials (maybe a snake bite kit) when heading into areas where these MIGHT be a danager to my life and limb if i dont have them.

It makes just as much common sense for a fighter to fill an HEW before heading into his uncommon setting. It makes no sense for him to leave the life or death risk open.


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> because it's the only way to be powerful enough to be effective in every situation.
> *



Just for the record, there you go again making things up for other people to have said. 

to be precise.. i did not say this part. You just made it up.

it really must be easy to keep arguing points you make up for others to have said.

As i stated CLEARLY before... it makes good common sense from the character perspective to be so prepared.

Do you shake your head and go tsk tsk when your players buy rope in their character's inventory?


			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> Well, if that is the style of play you use. I am sorry. I conceed your point to you. If your DM throws the, what was is?, "slahing weapon lathered with wolvebane oil and blessed by a druid of Boccob" every week, I feel very very sorry for you. I would never stand to play in such a world. The world I play in would never have a DM throwing a minor rules point at us every week just to drive home the fact that we don't look like fantasy heroes... There are far better ways for a DM to make challenging encounters on a regular basis.
> *



the high and mighty act is cool. it would play better however if you did not start it off by inventing the opposing position.

if this half-coked rule gets put it, in wont affect my games at all because i wont use it.

But if it was in play, even if i never through DR creatures at the gang, i would expect the PCs to run their character appropriately and that would include intelligent character buying intelligent supplies... and that means prophylactic and curativepurchases for things such as poisons and  diseases and drains and climbing and even, yes, horrible as it may sound to those wanting to hoist dr onto some pedestal... anti-dr weaponry.


----------



## LokiDR (Jan 31, 2003)

I will only discuss what the changes might do.  Here are some thoughts.

I think the DR change can help focus a game.  If the party has invested in holysilver, then the DM might be more inclined to keep throwing demons in the game.  This can lead to the group being "demon slayers" and not just adventurers.

On the other hand, every DM throws different creatures in once in while.  At higher levels, those creatures have a good chance of having DR.  If the revision is 25 different materials/magic/damage types then the party will have a problem.  Unless you have the "golf bag" to have a good chance of getting by the DR, you will have to do lots of damage.  Only the THF has a good chance of doing that.  Since it is easier to get arrows than melee weapons, this situation puts the most burden on the TWF fighter.  

The less often this happens the less of a problem it will be.  So how often should the DM shuffle up the monster types?  Judging from City of the Spider Queen, every third combat.  That is lot: enough to make problems with a "lots of different DRs" revision.

If the revision is only a few different types of DR, and those types are separate by type (ie: undead only have DR blunt and/or magic) this will be less of a problem.  Then when the DM throws a different creature in for variety, the party has a good chance having something (extra weapon or spell) that can help them out.  Then it is more of a flavor, not just screwing fighters.

It could be really bad, or it could be a nice change.


----------



## Technik4 (Jan 31, 2003)

*Youve got to be kidding....*

On DR: I dont think its going to be some incredibly complex formula to figure out a creature's revised DR. Like if it was a fiend, the material will be holysilver or silver. So we can assume:

Lemure: DR 5/silver (as written in MM)
Imp: DR 5/silver (as written)
Osyluth: DR 5/silver (changed +1 to silver)
Kyton: DR 10/holysilver 
Hellcat: DR 10/holysilver
Barbazu: DR 5/silver
Erinyes: DR 5/silver
Hamatula: DR 5/silver
Cornugon: DR 10/holysilver
Gelugon: DR 10/holysilver
Pit Fiend: DR 15/holysilver

So, 5 or 10 damage reduction = 5
20  damage reduction = 10
25 or higher = 15

+1 or silver = silver
+2 or higher = holysilver

Note, this is just something I made in a couple minutes, the point being Im sure in one of the 3 revised books they will go into "Converting DR" from 3e to 3.5e. I'm equally sure it wont be difficult.


On GMW: Please. Dont insult anyone here, GMW is so much more than a spell to bypass DR. It makes archers sick, prevents fighters from needing any enhancements beyond +1 and sure striking, and lasts way too long.

On Cheap: Oh please. Whats your golfbag going to have? A +1 version of every material weapon? Then youll just about be able to afford +1 Armor and some potions. Its a game of choices, why dont you start statting up some fighters who buy HHH and a bunch of different weapons from different materials. It just wont fly. You might have 2 decent magic weapons, and a few masterwork versions, but at high levels youre probably better off having one maxed magic weapon with mods and a decent alternate, plus a ranged weapon. I dont think thats much more than people have now.

On Low DR: Whats the point? Are you kidding? You are arguing both sides of the argument. Either DR is so low that it doesnt matter to peasants (and therefore fighters) so you just use a couple weapons and suck up the few points per round, OR its a big pain and everyone will need a golf bag. Think of it like this, any +5 weapon essentially "negates" 5 DR. So your 20th level fighter has a +5 Flaming Keen Longsword. Its made out of Cold Iron lets say. You gonna switch to your golfbag to fight lyncanthropes, or accept a few points of damage less per round? If you accept the damage, that monsters power is keeping him alive a little longer, especially if its a werewolf with 15 class levels or something. See how the DR means something? In regular play, you just negate his DR because you have a magic weapon. And really, most characters get a magic weapon of appropriate level to deal with the monsters because DMs dont want to be too "hard" on the players. You wont have to worry "Oh my players havent persued silver weapons, maybe they cant take this werewolf" because his DR isnt too powerful, it will aid him in the fight, and the characters may afterward think about looking up some ways to fight lyncanthropes more effectively, but thats about it. 

On How many Materials: I said we only know about 2. These are actually referred to in the phb and MM now, they just dont come into play much. What other materials? Well adamantine, mythril, and dark wood are already referred to. Then theres the differentiation between slashing/piercing/blunt weapons. Theres a lot of room for different weapons even if the only actually add cold iron, silver, and holysilver. Plus theres the subject of "blessed weapons". I think this makes for plenty of options, and I think the whole golfbag scenario is still negated by PC wealth per level.

As far as your fantasy heroes, those swords are all at least minor artifacts. Who knows what artifacts will look like in 3.5? Regardless they are powerful enough weapons to still knock the crap out of things even if they do have DR. DR is an ability that can defray not having a huge hit die for some creatures, and coupled with regeneration or fast healing is still powerful.

As far as running away if you dont have the right material? Yeah right. Im a 10th level fighter and get caught up in a den of wererats. Am I gonna run away with my +2 flaming greatsword or start taking names? Yeah, its not silver, but hopefully Im not alone. I may not take the spotlight this fight, but so WHAT. Groups that work as a team are always more successful than those made up of power-gamers looking to tweak out their characters. And guess which one most resembles fantasy novels?

As I said earlier, you arent forced to buy anything. If you are the DM, use the SRD as you please and change what you like. No one is going to force you to buy anything. If you are a player, the DMs rules go. I cant think of many dms that would let a fighter run around with a golfbag (or sack as the case may be). Suck it up, now there are things to be afraid of besides will saves.

Technik


----------



## Petrosian (Jan 31, 2003)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Falanor said:
			
		

> *
> "The current rules do NOT make that a reality and the new rules do little if anything at all to cover it." -- Petrosian
> 
> Actually that's incorrect.  If you would look at the Pit Fiend's new stats, you'd notice that it isn't anything but a 15.  If you can't penetrate that then you just ain't tryin'.  And according to Andy Collins this is considered "mighty", and how it keeps DR revised from being a hose job top fighters.  After all, the Iron Golem won't have his +3/50 DR anymore.  Sure it'll be tough to beat 'em, but it should have been that way to begin with.
> *



Nice paragraph but what does everything after the incorrect have to do with my point? The rest of your paragraph seems to be dealing with how fair and balanced the new DR lesser scale is... yet i have not complained about its balance at all.


			
				Falanor said:
			
		

> *
> "An intelligent fighter, and intelligent party, will prepare not for what they are CERTAIN is ahead of them but also for those things that they might encounter." -- Petrosian
> 
> Exactly how?  What, do they have a Tuesday plan action as opposed to a Wedensday plan of action?  If a party doesn't know how one day is going to be different from the next, then its going to be a bit difficult to actually do this.
> *



OK since you ask... i will make these OBVIOUS examples of high level quixotic planning known to you.

My gangs knows that if they need to climb rope might be helpful. They buy some rope.
My gang knows some beasties use poison and that poison can be bad. They buy things to coutner poisons including but not limited to potions and the like.
My gang knows somethings breath fire ot use fire as a weapon... they buy anti-fire stuff.
my gang knows some things ignore or are less affected by non-blunt weapons... they make sure they have some blunt weapons.
etc...etc...etc...

purchasing small numbers of odd things that you might need is , well, common sense. For this to extend to silvered weapons and cold iron maces... is just a sign of what passes common sense in an uncommon world.



			
				Falanor said:
			
		

> *
> Which is making the assumption that everyone knows how to defeat every beast.  Just cause one person figured it out doesn't mean everyone instantly knows it as well.
> *



i made no such assumption. You will even note, if you read closely, that i included things like copper plated weapons and even noted that these might be the merchant's idea.

slow down and actually read the posts you want to jump all over. it might save some embarrassment.


			
				Falanor said:
			
		

> *
> Sure there could be old wives tales about a Goblin being immune to silver on a Saturday at high noon, but that doesn't mean its true.  As it is, knowledge about higher CR critters is supposed to be more difficult to attain, seeing as only certain people ever meet them and survive.  Unless on your world there is a 'Daily Inquisitor' where adventurers report in and talk about the DR of the day, this really doesn't happen.
> *



There is no daily inquisitor. There is also not the GM stomping in with 'you read the MM so now you have to pretend your character knows nothing" either. There isn't a world of npcs who have lived for generations dealing with these threats who remain so completely ignorant of them so that the Gm can fristrate the players ability to have their characters actually understand their world.



			
				Falanor said:
			
		

> *
> And remember that none of them worked?  Ever hear of Holy Symbols working something on a Mummy in ancient lore?  No, you got a curse, treasure, and not much else.  So why did he have all the Holy Symbols?  What, did he expect to run into a Vampire?
> *



He had them not because he knew he was going against a MUMMY but because he bleieved in dark forces and the tales which told him these were sometimes effective. 

thats the key. 

It makes sense once you know some of them are true to try and be prepared. That means adding to your inventory a whole lot of crap that will probably ever see the light of day. 

no one, and specifically not me, has said the HEW will contain only the right things. But, if you stop the knee from jerking long enough, you will realize that having it also contain a bunch of junk thats just old wives tales and merchants advantage taking is just a further example of how bad it can get.


			
				Falanor said:
			
		

> *
> I think what Shalewind is tryin to get across with his 'big picture' statement is that we don't know what everything is going to be like so its rather fallacious. *




That doesnt seem to be stopping anyone from DISAGREEING with the views which are opposed. That doesn't seem to be stopping anyone who likes the proposed change. 

Did you go post to those who came in and said "this is cool i like it" that they shouldn't rush to judgement?

or is "sit back and wait" only appropriate somehow for dissenters?


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2003)

*Re: Youve got to be kidding....*



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *I cant think of many dms that would let a fighter run around with a golfbag (or sack as the case may be). Suck it up, now there are things to be afraid of besides will saves.*




So your answer to the golf bag of weaponry is simply to have the DM metagame it out of existence.

Don't you think that, if a rules change requires some pretty insane metagaming on the part of the DM ("No, you can't find weapons made out of *silver* or *iron*, sorry.") to deal with the consequences of it, that's pretty clear evidence that it's a bad rules change to begin with?


----------



## Shalewind (Jan 31, 2003)

I'd hate to leave with bad blood on the floor...

Petrosian and Brown: I apologize for some of my comments, some were not needed and some were out of line. (I in no way meant to imply putting words in your mouth). And yes, some arguments can be made with the information at hand. I no longer wish to debate it on that level though without seeing the whole. Others seem to be far better equipped at making their points here. So again, my apology for any insults or "high horse" remarks I might have made. Good luck in the debate. 

::humbly backs out::


----------



## Simulacrum (Jan 31, 2003)

Ok I give the whole DR thing another shot:
I repeat I'm DMin for 13 years (I play much longer but 13 years as a DM). I dont complain I usualy have good players.
Still there were alot of silly things after a while (usualy when party reaches 10th level). 
It always struck me somwhere near the stomach when after describing the filthy demon pack that attacked the party everyone was just checking their inventory list to make sure they didnt forget to pack in the +3 weapons and checked their stats and HP and went like: ok were ready...bring them beasties on!
??? What a letdown...they knew from the beginning they would make it...why? Because they knew they were prepared, they knew they could beat them!
Thus reducing the whole MM just to comparing your stats to the Monster stat making sure you had that +3 weapon ready and possibly even starting to calculate exactly how much damage you will dish out per round and how long it will take you to beat it to mush.....wow what a challenge, how imaginative and fun, ...frankly those are the worst moments in the game.Ya, the 

DR changes does make something wonderful happen-->
From now on it wont be like: Sheesh cmon I'm beating that up in 3 rounds!....what was that monster again?

Now it will be more like: Yeah that beasty rules, just look at it's awesome defenses, this thing is quite a challenge, I wonder if I can ever beat that thing...Impressive.
Talk will be what the coolest monster and greatest challenge is in there in the new book...knowing that makes me all warm and fuzzy inside....that is the game I love!


copy pasted out of another thread


----------



## Technik4 (Jan 31, 2003)

*Golfbag Failure*

The golfbag might be a good way to go for a paranoid low level character who rolled high on their gold roll. But when it gets to the point where the character says "I can either afford to raise my sword from mwk to +1, or I can buy a few more mwk weapons..just in case".

As far as metagaming out of existence? No. As a DM I would simply try to explain to the player that I try to keep a reign on how much magic each character has, so that it does not become a monty haul campaign. As such, you will need to make choices. If you want to spend 2,000 gold on HHH instead of a +1 weapon, thats fine. But what if some of the monsters have DR 5/+1 (as Im reasonably sure they will)? The point is a fighter will NOT be able to cover every DR base in the MM (I fervently hope not at least, maybe at higher levels if they sacrifice a powerful weapon for many weak ones, which of course is a trade-off, an option).

If it is a DR 15 monster the characters will be high enough level to either cast a spell to improve the fighter, pool their resources to buy something new for the fighter, the fighter can maybe forge his own special weapons (!!!) and have the wizard enchant them. Theres a lot of possibilities, and it all just opens up the fighting classes that much more. People can compare their fighters at all levels, and not only will the race and feats be different, but what type of greatsword they chose, or what mods they chose to get on it as they progressed.

If you track PC wealth, the golfbag should not be an issue. Do I use my +2 greatsword of wounding, my +1 Cold Iron Maul, or should I go rooting through the "bag" will not be an issue, imo. Youll have 2 primary weapons and a ranged weapon, not a bag.

Technik


----------



## Simulacrum (Jan 31, 2003)

word!


----------



## Spatzimaus (Jan 31, 2003)

You know, I really like what this change does to each type of fighter.

Those guys who love using the One Big Weapon will consistently see the short end of DR.  Most of the time they'll just have to brute-force their way through the enemy DR.  But, on the flip side, they'll always be able to brute-force their way through the enemy DR.
Sure, you could also carry a specialty sword, but it's just not worth it in the long run.  Sacrificing a +3 enhancement bonus to bypass DR 5/silver just isn't worth it.

Sword 'n Board?  You're more likely to have a backup weapon available, but not by that much.

Two-weapon user?  They'll be just fine.  You already had to enchant two weapons anyway, right?  So now you have a +3 silver weapon in one hand and a +3 cold iron one in the other.  Unlike those people who use one weapon, you're practically guaranteed to have a weapon at hand that bypasses the DR; just put that one in your main hand.

Archer?  Okay, so 5 of the 50 arrows you had GMW'd this morning are silver.  If by some miracle you run up against a lycanthrope, you just pull out the right arrow for the job.  You can react to this sort of thing far more quickly than the fighters, and with less loss in power.

Let's also remember that DR doesn't stop extra damage dice like Flaming or Shocking.


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *The golfbag might be a good way to go for a paranoid low level character who rolled high on their gold roll. But when it gets to the point where the character says "I can either afford to raise my sword from mwk to +1, or I can buy a few more mwk weapons..just in case".*




By the time the PCs hit 5th or 6th level, they'll most likely have enough money to afford as many ordinary weapons as they want. Silver, iron, copper, blunt, etc. None of those things are particularly expensive.



> *As far as metagaming out of existence? No. As a DM I would simply try to explain to the player that I try to keep a reign on how much magic each character has, so that it does not become a monty haul campaign.*




Players having somewhere around the amount of wealth listed in the DMG =! a monty haul campaign. The whole CR system is balanced (rather poorly, but that's another issue) for PCs having something close to the amount of wealth by character level given in the DMG. If you want to run a campaign where PCs don't have as much money and magic, that's fine, but realize that you're not running a standard D&D campaign.



> *As such, you will need to make choices. If you want to spend 2,000 gold on HHH instead of a +1 weapon, thats fine. But what if some of the monsters have DR 5/+1 (as Im reasonably sure they will)? The point is a fighter will NOT be able to cover every DR base in the MM (I fervently hope not at least, maybe at higher levels if they sacrifice a powerful weapon for many weak ones, which of course is a trade-off, an option).*




But they *won't* have to sacrifice a powerful weapon for many weak ones. The "many weak ones" are fairly cheap. The problem is that when a fighter is forced to sheathe his powerful weapon and pull out one of those many weak ones, his effectiveness drops considerably, even if he is getting past the DR.

And the other problem is that a fighter that doesn't want to carry around a golf bag of weapons, who doesn't feel that particular play style suits his character, is punished. That is a bad decision IMO.



> *If it is a DR 15 monster the characters will be high enough level to either cast a spell to improve the fighter, pool their resources to buy something new for the fighter, the fighter can maybe forge his own special weapons (!!!) and have the wizard enchant them. Theres a lot of possibilities, and it all just opens up the fighting classes that much more.*




The new DR rules do *not* grant more options to the fighting classes. They *take options away*. That is the problem.

A dual wielder is going to have a very difficult time doing significant damage to creatures with DR if he doesn't have the proper weapon. Dual wielders are almost forced to go the golf bag route (and they need to carry twice as many weapons as anyone else.)

A finesse fighter is going to have a very difficult time doing significant damage through DR without a lot of Strength backing up his swings. He's almost forced into the golf bag route too.

I guess two-handed fighters have an option. They can carry around a lot of different weapons, or just do a lot less damage. There's an "option" for you.

I just don't understand why some people see DR as some sort of holy grail that needs to be protected at all costs, even when it results in a lot of problems, such as the aforementioned golf bag of weapons scenario. Were people really sitting around the gaming table saying, "Damn, but I wish I was required to carry a lot more weapons around!" Because that's what this change will amount to, for most fighter-type characters.


----------



## Petrosian (Jan 31, 2003)

*Re: Golfbag Failure*



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *If you track PC wealth, the golfbag should not be an issue. Do I use my +2 greatsword of wounding, my +1 Cold Iron Maul, or should I go rooting through the "bag" will not be an issue, imo. Youll have 2 primary weapons and a ranged weapon, not a bag.
> 
> *




You have somehow invented the presumption that the weapons in the HEw or golfbag are all enchanted and thus all cost enough money to be a competing element in the PCs wealth.

I don't know where you came up with this. It seems like you invented this notion so that your solution would seem on point.

As i have said, the issue is that the various weapons are cheap. They will easily be normal or masterwork at best. By even 5th level, the prices of an assortment of these will not be a significant hit into the PCs wealth. 

When enhancements are needed for these specialty weapons, the character will PLAN TO rely on magic weapons or GMW for these purposes. However, in most cases, he probably will just be planning on using them straight out.

Now, IF his main weapon is good enough that it makes more sense to use the weapon and just bull through, a sentient character will choose such. The fact that some of these cases will occur will not in and of itself lead most sentient characters to decide that he should thus not do the HEW route.

heck, most of my pcs go for HEWs anyway, even without the new "flavor" thing driving them to want golf bags of weapons, for the free action access to the porion, scroll, item they want.

YMMV.

Clearly, a Gm can add in his own house rules for magic items and special availability of materials weapons and so on to make sure that anyone who tries the new-rule-encouraged HEW or golf bag appraoch "gets their comeuppance" but, as the other poster observed... if it needs fixin, its broke.


----------



## Galfridus (Jan 31, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *The new DR rules do not grant more options to the fighting classes. They take options away. That is the problem.*




That's right, and it's a good thing. As a DM, I've frequently looked at monsters with DR and realized that except for the non-fighters who might get caught in melee, it simply wasn't going to make a difference. DR x/silver is a joke at present unless it's on CR 2 or less monsters, since everyone else will have +1 items and bypass it.

So yes, it takes away /options/, and it forces /choices/, in an area where the one right choice was all too clear. Choices are a good thing, and I look forward to seeing what happens with the DR rules.

This reminds me very strongly of Magic Missile vs. incorporeality: the fact that the most common and powerful 1st level spell can affect incorporeal creatures takes a tremendous amount of bite out of incorporeality. Something else I hope they "revise".


----------



## RigaMortus (Jan 31, 2003)

The more I read about this "revised" edition, the more it seems like 4E...


----------



## Technik4 (Jan 31, 2003)

*Pricing*

OK, I see why I havent really been connecting with some of these agruments. When I heard of special materials I immediately associated cost (and therefore the player must make a choice) with it. If you have looked at making mithril or adamantine weapons, you must know that these are expensive options. Also, if you have looked at MoF, sepcifically the exceptional materials section, these things are quite expensive. 

From MoF

Copper: Armor only. +2,00gp Cold Resistance 2
Darksteel: Armor +2,000gp Acid Resistance 2, or Weapon +1,500gp +1 electricity damage
Dlarun: Armor +2,000gp Fire Resistance 2, or Weapon +1,500gp +1 frost damage
Fever Iron: Armor +2,000gp Fire Resistance 2, or Weapon +1,500gp +1 fire damage
Gold (magically treated): minimum 5,00gp for armor and upwards of 2,500gp for a weapon. Armor gets Acid and Fire Resistance 2, weapons become 'heavy' and there is a table showing increased damage.

Ok, those costs are significant. Mithril and Adamantine are significant costs. We come to silvered. This is the excerpt from MoF concerning silver:

Armor +2,000gp Electric Resistance 2
Weapon +1,000gp +1 damage to creatures whose DR is silver

That is what I was basing my argument on. Once again, MoF refers to "magically treated" silver, not just ordinary silver. Ordinary silver from the PHB costs 20 times as much for arrows and 5 times as much for the only weapon listed, a silver dagger.

We have nothing to base cold iron on, but if its anything like fevered iron, it will be expensive. You cannot have a golfbag full of these items and hope to have a magically enhanced primary weapon as good as someone without a golfbag.

Concerning bypassing DR:

DR 5: Likely to be seen at lower levels. It is a benefit to have spare normal weapons to switch to, as 5 pts per hit is a lot at lower levels. At higher levels, you probably won't bother switching weapons, as 5 points is rather minor compared to your magical weapon + feats + buffs.

DR 10: Likely to be seen at mid levels. Now its more of a stretch, your primary weapon should have at least a +2 enhancement (not necessarily +2 to hit and +2 damage), by switching weapons you give up those benefits and you are likely switching to "at best" a mwk version that will get through the DR. Personally, I would act as meat shield if my primary weapon wasnt getting the job done, or perhaps the party would need to escape and fight another day.

DR 15: Likely seen at high levels. By now your primary weapon has some serious mods on it. Exchanging that weapon is not even an option anymore, you best pray for crits and start wailing, the rest of the party might spend more than 20% of its assets in this fight, but likely youll just be losing hp.

I hope this illustrates why I dont see anyone with a HHH and switching out weapons (very often) based on the encounter. I wouldnt disallow it out of hand (some people are putting words into MY mouth) but I would explain that it makes for a worse character, and comes off as paranoia while in character.

"Jozan, what do you mean you didnt bring a Cold Iron weapon? Didnt I tell you at the shop to make sure we have all of our bases covered? Granted the blacksmith mentioned that he hasnt had requests for it in years, but what if? what if man!!"

Technik


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2003)

Spatzimaus said:
			
		

> *Those guys who love using the One Big Weapon will consistently see the short end of DR.  Most of the time they'll just have to brute-force their way through the enemy DR.  But, on the flip side, they'll always be able to brute-force their way through the enemy DR.*




Everyone is too focused on the question of whether or not a character can get through DR. That is not the right question, people.

The question is, can the character get through the DR _and still do enough damage to have an impact on the enemy_? 

A 1st level rogue with a 10 strength and a shortsword can get through the DR of a skeleton with 5/blunt. That doesn't mean the rogue is going to be a factor when the party fights said skeleton.

If my damage is 2d6+8, I can get through 10 points of DR very easily. But look at the effect it has. My average damage is 15. Against a DR 10 creature, that drops to 5. My damage is 1/3 of what it normally is. Say I have two attacks. Against an enemy with, say, 100 hit points, I go from being a significant factor in the combat to being insignificant. And that happens despite me being able to punch through the creature's DR with ease.



> *Two-weapon user?  They'll be just fine.  You already had to enchant two weapons anyway, right?  So now you have a +3 silver weapon in one hand and a +3 cold iron one in the other.  Unlike those people who use one weapon, you're practically guaranteed to have a weapon at hand that bypasses the DR; just put that one in your main hand.*




That supposes that there are only two material types in question. It looks like there will be more. And even if there are only two, that means that you aren't a two-weapon user whenever you have to fight something with DR.



> *Archer?  Okay, so 5 of the 50 arrows you had GMW'd this morning are silver.  If by some miracle you run up against a lycanthrope, you just pull out the right arrow for the job.  You can react to this sort of thing far more quickly than the fighters, and with less loss in power.*




Yes - until you run out of arrows tipped with the proper metal type.


----------



## LokiDR (Jan 31, 2003)

*Re: Youve got to be kidding....*



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *On GMW: Please. Dont insult anyone here, GMW is so much more than a spell to bypass DR. It makes archers sick, prevents fighters from needing any enhancements beyond +1 and sure striking, and lasts way too long.*




I agree with all of that.  Changing GMW might go ways to fix the "DR Problem", or at least make archer less sick.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *On Cheap: Oh please. Whats your golfbag going to have? A +1 version of every material weapon? Then youll just about be able to afford +1 Armor and some potions. Its a game of choices, why dont you start statting up some fighters who buy HHH and a bunch of different weapons from different materials. It just wont fly. You might have 2 decent magic weapons, and a few masterwork versions, but at high levels youre probably better off having one maxed magic weapon with mods and a decent alternate, plus a ranged weapon. I dont think thats much more than people have now.*




I agree that price will keep the golf-bag down.  But if you don't have the weapons, and there aren't spells published, what you going to do?  If your answer is "the DR is lower, so suck it up" read on.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *On Low DR: Whats the point? Are you kidding? You are arguing both sides of the argument. Either DR is so low that it doesnt matter to peasants (and therefore fighters) so you just use a couple weapons and suck up the few points per round, OR its a big pain and everyone will need a golf bag. Think of it like this, any +5 weapon essentially "negates" 5 DR. So your 20th level fighter has a +5 Flaming Keen Longsword. Its made out of Cold Iron lets say. You gonna switch to your golfbag to fight lyncanthropes, or accept a few points of damage less per round? If you accept the damage, that monsters power is keeping him alive a little longer, especially if its a werewolf with 15 class levels or something. See how the DR means something? In regular play, you just negate his DR because you have a magic weapon. And really, most characters get a magic weapon of appropriate level to deal with the monsters because DMs dont want to be too "hard" on the players. You wont have to worry "Oh my players havent persued silver weapons, maybe they cant take this werewolf" because his DR isnt too powerful, it will aid him in the fight, and the characters may afterward think about looking up some ways to fight lyncanthropes more effectively, but thats about it. *



I don't like the "negate DR" swords any more than you do.  But losing 5 or 10 pts off every attack can have a HUGE effect on the outcome of the battle.  If they are killed just before the PC in front of them before, now they will live with HP to spare.  I used a DR 5/+2 against a party who didn't have +2 weapons.  If I had one more good shot, there would have been death.  Without the DR, I didn't have a chance in the world.  It was a 5th level druid vs an APL 9 party.  That little DR went a looong way.

NOTE TO WOTC: consider changing CRs for strange DR creatures.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *On How many Materials: I said we only know about 2. These are actually referred to in the phb and MM now, they just dont come into play much. What other materials? Well adamantine, mythril, and dark wood are already referred to. Then theres the differentiation between slashing/piercing/blunt weapons. Theres a lot of room for different weapons even if the only actually add cold iron, silver, and holysilver. Plus theres the subject of "blessed weapons". I think this makes for plenty of options, and I think the whole golfbag scenario is still negated by PC wealth per level.*




Assuming 2 different materials, 5 different levels of "plus", 3 damage types, and "with or without holy", you get 60 different types of DR.  Yes, WotC could do this and still agree with the DR material they have pre-published.

My point is that the number of different DR types should be kept fairly small, for those who like "monster of the week".  If you don't play that way, then DR under current or revised rules won't make much difference to you.  You will alread have what you need.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *As far as running away if you dont have the right material? Yeah right. Im a 10th level fighter and get caught up in a den of wererats. Am I gonna run away with my +2 flaming greatsword or start taking names? Yeah, its not silver, but hopefully Im not alone. I may not take the spotlight this fight, but so WHAT. Groups that work as a team are always more successful than those made up of power-gamers looking to tweak out their characters. And guess which one most resembles fantasy novels?*



If they have DR 10/silver, they have just gone from an annoyance to real threat.  That change has to be accounted for, either the golf-bag, DM choices, or CR.  And if they are going to ripple through that much, perhaps they should consider if they are making the best change.  Just because it can be better doesn't mean it must be changed in the rules for everyone.  So I question the change.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *As I said earlier, you arent forced to buy anything. If you are the DM, use the SRD as you please and change what you like. No one is going to force you to buy anything. If you are a player, the DMs rules go. I cant think of many dms that would let a fighter run around with a golfbag (or sack as the case may be). Suck it up, now there are things to be afraid of besides will saves.
> *



If this is your opinion, then you must not understand marketing much.  One or two changes to monsters, most people will use the SRD.  Changing CR, DR, and giving an explanation of the conversion only in the MM is another story.  Then most people will "have to" buy the new MM to stay current.  One chage costs WotC a lot of time and MONEY, with little money from sales.  The other costs slightly more, but they make a whole lot more money.

If I were them, I would choose option 2.  I don't fault them for it. I want the game to be around, and the company needs to be there to support it.  Then I would argue for the minimal change that gets the result (sales, more flavor in DR) with the minimal upset (balance between TWF/THF, backwards compatability, 3rd party compatability, golf bags)

As to whether golf-bags belong in D&D or not, along with "how close is D&D to fantasy stories" I say: Not A Rules Problem.  You change the flavor by house rules, or metagame disscussion.  These are different for every group.  The rules need to be balanced as RULES first, and flavor second.


----------



## Victim (Jan 31, 2003)

In case you didn't notice Tecknik, all those material costs are becaus the weapon actually does something.  You can get upgraded damage by using those materials.  Fever Iron isn't exclusively to penetrate the defenses of ice creatures, it adds a point of fire damage to every hit.  Silver, gold, etc weapons provide a significant boost to base damage.  

Those material types are expensive because they have inherent value, and not because they can be used to bypass DR.  It costs only a couple GP to get a silvered, werewolf beating weapon.


----------



## Technik4 (Jan 31, 2003)

Grog: Did you also have issues with wizards only having a certain number of spells per day? The classic wizard/fighter argument is that while the wizard can be much more spectacular, he eventually runs out of steam. The fighter however can fight all day, and then fight at night, and as long as he has hp. His classic flaw was the will save. If you remove will saves from the game, the fighter is equally good in all situations, now there are potential for situations where he is not at optimum levels.

I'll sidetrack here for a second. Did you ever play diablo 2? Ok, loaded question I know, but lets not get into rollplaying or roleplaying, its just a fun game. Well at some point they realized that it wasnt really fair making some of the monsters (and at higher levels, all of the monsters) have resistances to all the elemental spells, because you get to the point where the "wizards" are just too weak, even though they are at range and fighter types had to get in the monsters face. So they made Damage Resistance, which functioned exactly like the elemental resistances, there was no way to get around it, and ohhh, how those fighter types complained.

Sorry for the sidetrack, but that example illustrates an analogy between the d&d classes as well. Do you think rogues are happy about creatures with no critical places so they cant get sneak attacks or crits? No. Those encounters usually kind of suck for the rogue. How about for clerics when its NOT an enemy directly opposed to your deity and you prepared tons of stuff to hose evil doers? Well ok, the cleric is strong enough to still be integral, but lets not get into THAT debate. The point is, the fighter was overpowered in some respects. Primarily when it came to DR, which was more of a gauge of a creature, if the DR was too high, then do not throw it against the party.

Sub-optimal is fine. No one character deserves to shine in EVERY combat in d&d, even if you have taken many levels of a class called "fighter". So what if you fight 1 thing which reduces your damage by 66%? Do you hear wizards complaining when enemy's have SR, elemental resistances, high saves, and evasion? An opponent with DR can still be tripped, disarmed, grappled, or bullrushed. The game is forcing you to use more tactics and to make more choices as someone else said.

Wizards dont even get a chance to cast a spell with some freaky component that would negate elemental resistances, fighters can just suck it up, buy a golfbag (and, imo, sacrifice a substantial amount of gold into said golfbag (see earlier post)), or get lucky and have the appropo weapon.

If you dont like it, dont use it. But dont try and cry that its unnecessary or broken because you don't like it. It makes you sound narrowminded, among other things.

Victim: I wouldnt say those effects are very major. Silvered only gives a +1 damage vs creatures with silver DR. For 1,500gp. The other weapon bonuses give +1 damage, usually an elemental type. Those arent major bonuses, and I wouldnt be surprised if the old silver costs got raised *gasp*.

Technik

Edited to reply some more.


----------



## Aloïsius (Jan 31, 2003)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I would hardly even call the haversack of weapon de jour using your brain.
> 
> ...




 rant mode on//

So, confronted to an ennemy against whom your weapon is inneficient, you are unable to have another idea than seeking another weapon ? If you read my post, you will have a few suggestions. 

This exactly what I don't like with the current system : it's so easy to use the simplest way to kill things (just need a +x weapon, or the dreaded GMW) that people forget that there are other things to do. 

As I said  :


> flank, aid another (two version), trip, disarm, sunder, grapple, tank (expertise+defending weapon+fighting on the defensive), bullrush, overun, throwing holy water/alchemist fire, carry a wounded fellow to safety, creative use of the environment...



But no. All you want is slash, hack and smash. That's as boring as the Diablo game. I think the great advantage of tabletop RPG is that you may make any action you want. 

Back in ad&d2 planescape, I encountered a monster only wounded by +2 weapon, which I haven't. I used tapestry on the wall to blind and entangle it, so the fighter with the +2 sword has an easier time to cut it in pieces. 
Of course, I could have sit down, whining "what is this game, I can't kill the beast cause my sword is not big enough, I need more sword, more magical sword, boohoo, you silly DM"

I'm tired of this golfbag argument. The player who will use such a tactic already use it anyway :
one ghost touch, one dragon bane, one holy, one sure striking...


----------



## besnode (Jan 31, 2003)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *I would hardly even call the haversack of weapon de jour using your brain.
> 
> its just common sense for an uncommon world. *




Petrosian, I really think you're getting upset over nothing.  It seems to me that the creature that can be killed only by some exotic material is pretty standard in fantasy fiction, and even in D&D.  Heck, I'm old enough to remember when Gygax wrote an encounter with an Iron Golem that wielded a flaming sword in one hand and a whip of cockatrice feathers in the other, and that could be harmed only by one weapon, which it guarded.  

Does Conan carry around a golfbag of weapons?  I think not - yet he frequently ran into critters that had unusual vulnerabilities.  He figured out what they were and then found or developed a weapon to exploit them.  Likewise in D&D - creatures with regeneration can be a rea pain until you figure out what they're vulnerable to, but you don't carry around one of everything just in case.

What you're talking about it is the extreme end of munchkin powergaming.  To the extent that it happens at all, I expect most GMs will be able to discourage it if they don't want such things in their games.

--Paul


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 31, 2003)

With DR ratings going down, it is not as if a melee specialist can't just punch through the DR.  Once you have a +2 or +3 weapon, it is not that big a deal to ignore DR 5.  

The net effect is that we will see more variability in combat.  I don't think anyone will be hosed, but it is too soon to tell without real details.

Let's not say the sky is falling over one acorn.


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *Grog: Did you also have issues with wizards only having a certain number of spells per day? The classic wizard/fighter argument is that while the wizard can be much more spectacular, he eventually runs out of steam. The fighter however can fight all day, and then fight at night, and as long as he has hp.*




The key phrase there is "as long as he has hp". The fighter runs out of steam too. He is much more likely to take damage than the wizard, and he has to be healed. Healing is typically a limited resource, so the fighter will also reach a point where he can't go on. It simply happens in a different way than it does for the wizard.



> *His classic flaw was the will save. If you remove will saves from the game, the fighter is equally good in all situations, now there are potential for situations where he is not at optimum levels.*




That's ridiculous. If you think will saves are the only flaw fighters have, you simply don't have a very imaginative or creative DM.

For example:

Incorporeal and invisible/concealed creatures. A 50% miss chance cuts the fighter's damage in half. Magic hurts these creatures just fine, in most cases.

High AC creatures. The fighter can't damage what he can't hit.

Flying creatures. Sure, he may have a bow so he won't be totally helpless, but the fighter's big greatsword of doom is useless against them.

Enemies firing from behind arrowslits.

Enemies with a long reach and "stopping" feats, like Large and in Charge. Or, enemies with a long reach and improved grab.

Enemies who disarm the fighter.

Enemies who use magic to avoid letting the fighter close to meele range.

Enemies who attack from prepared ambush and have lots of obstacles and traps in place to stop charging fighters.

The list goes on and on. Fighters aren't equally good in all situations. Not even close. Sure, in a straight, stand up, bash the monster fight, fighters are great (though they'll most likely get bashed quite a bit in return). But if every single fight is like that, the game gets boring pretty fast.



> *Sub-optimal is fine. No one character deserves to shine in EVERY combat in d&d, even if you have taken many levels of a class called "fighter". So what if you fight 1 thing which reduces your damage by 66%? Do you hear wizards complaining when enemy's have SR, elemental resistances, high saves, and evasion? An opponent with DR can still be tripped, disarmed, grappled, or bullrushed. The game is forcing you to use more tactics and to make more choices as someone else said.*




Wizards, by their nature, usually have more options than fighters. If the enemy has SR, use buff spells on your party members. If the enemy has elemental resistsance or evasion, use a non-damaging spell like Polymorph Other or Hold Monster. If the enemy has high saves, use buff spells or spells that don't allow a save.

Fighters, on the other hand, tend to have more limited options and are more geared towards doing straight damage. Take away their damage dealing ability, and you cripple them. Sure, they can trip, disarm, grapple, and bullrush, but since it's common for them to fight things that are both larger and stronger than they are, those aren't always viable options. How do you disarm a dragon? How do you grapple a pit fiend? See the problem?



> *If you dont like it, dont use it. But dont try and cry that its unnecessary or broken because you don't like it. It makes you sound narrowminded, among other things.*




So everyone who disagrees with you is narrow-minded. Cute.

Again, I just don't see why DR is so important to some people. I find 3E to be perfectly enjoyable with it the way it is now. There are lots of things I'd rather see fixed before DR even enters into the picture.


----------



## besnode (Jan 31, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *If you won't let your players buy silver weapons, or you invent creatures that can only be hit by holy golden blades covered with cheese, then you're making a conscious decision to make the fighters in the party less useful relative to the spellcasters. If the fighters can't do enough damage to make a difference in the fight, all they can do is be meat shields for the spellcasters, who can do enough damage to take the critters down. Playing a meat shield is not a lot of fun, and if that situation comes up often enough, you'll probably find that your fighters simply won't enjoy the game anymore. Not a desirable outcome for anyone concerned. *




This is just nonsense IMO.  It's no worse than hitting the party with a critter with high Spell Resistance or with high resistance to the energy form(s) that the spellcaster can produce.  It's commonly assumed on boards like this that EVERY spellcaster has Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Mestil's Acid Breath, Cone of Cold, and Shout prepared at all times, just in case they run into a critter that is effectively immune to all but one energy form.  However in practice that is simply not the case.  In reality parties do run into monsters that the spellcasters can't damage effectively.  They deal with it.

Fighters can learn to do the same, without carrying a ridiculous assortment of oddball weapons.  

Even a 5/* DR will make a significan't difference in a fight - no, a 1st level commoner cannot deal effective damage to such a creature: their weapons do 1d6 or 1d8 by and large, and they tend to have STR in the 10-12 range, for average damage of 3-5 hp per attack.  So low DR is not useless.  High DR is rare, and it should make monsters truly fearsome.  I think we all know that the Pit Fiend was severely underpowered before.  Giving it DR15 with a vulnerability to something exotic (likely holy or blessed weapons) will make it more dangerous, as it should be.  

The amount of whining on this subject has been simply amazing.  I think it will work out just fine in-game.

--Paul


----------



## Technik4 (Jan 31, 2003)

No. Narrowminded people are closed to new ideas and cling to the way things have worked. I didn't say you were narrowminded. Regardless, most of this is conjecture without having seen the entire system. I just seem willing to give it a chance whereas you seem like its a non-issue, "it aint broke so dont try and fix it" kinda attitude. Just because it isnt quite broken doesnt mean it as as good as it could be, or even that it is as good as it was intended to be.

I think you took me a little too literally (or perhaps I was too literal). Hp are obviously a factor, as are the evasion qualities of his enemies, but by and large the cleric will heal him and the mage will insure he can get to the enemy. Since he will sport the most hp, nearly the highest AC if not the highest AC, and generally does not need a variety of "toys" (just upgrades on his standard equipment) if you take away will saves you make him the strongest character by far. Not that it was really my point.

I have seen very rare situations (usually very low level) when the fighter cannot hit the AC with a reasonable amount of ease. At high levels, its almost a guarantee that he will hit with at very least his first attack.

As another posted pointed out, sometimes a fighter may need to think outside the box. Its not a computer game, be unorthodox if your main and all of your secondary attacks wont work. 

My point about wizards vs fighters is that at some point the wizard is out of his 3 highest levels of spells. The dm pops another encounter. The cleric through wands or spells has ensured that everyone is at full hp. The fighter is ready to rock, 100% as if the day had just started. The wizard, is quite a ways from being as he was at the beginning of the day. Hes been using all of his touted "options" all day. He may be reduced to doing more menial work, like buffing characters in case the enemy cast dispel magic, or countering a dispel magic. He is running at sub-optimal level. Even worse for the wizard whose spells didnt even work that day because of SR, resistances, saves, etc. Poor wizard.

The fighter goes into every fight at optimum levels assuming his hp is decent. Yeah, there are incorpereal creatures, and guys behind arrow slits. My dm is imaginative to have thought of those things, but regardless those are advantages against the whole party, not just in the fighter's realm. DR is primarily a fighter's concern, though it affects clerics and rogues to an extent as well. The rogue can still try for a flank and hope to get some damage through with a good sneak and maybe a crit, the cleric of course has spells. The fighter can still try for a crit, or as has been pointed out, try a bevy of other things.

You flank a dragon for your rogue buddy. You grapple a pit fiend for your rogue buddy. You "take 1 for the team". Youre a fighter, part time asskicker, part time meatshield - full time party member.

Technik


----------



## Grog (Jan 31, 2003)

besnode said:
			
		

> *In reality parties do run into monsters that the spellcasters can't damage effectively.  They deal with it.*




Unless you're talking about unbeatably high SR, it'll be an extremely rare situation where a mid or high level mage can't do something effective. If it's immune to all energy types, confuse it. If it has a high Will save, polymorph it. Heck, even if you can't beat the critter's SR you have options. Stoneskin the fighter. Summon some monsters. You have lots of options.



> *Fighters can learn to do the same, without carrying a ridiculous assortment of oddball weapons.*




Yes, I know fighters have other combat options besides doing straight damage. But most if not all of those options involve making opposed rolls against monsters that very often have a big advantage over the fighter in both strength and size. Fighters simply don't have access to the same wealth of options that wizards do - so if you take away their mainstay, they suffer a lot more.



> *High DR is rare, and it should make monsters truly fearsome.  I think we all know that the Pit Fiend was severely underpowered before.  Giving it DR15 with a vulnerability to something exotic (likely holy or blessed weapons) will make it more dangerous, as it should be.*




Until the fighters reach into their golf bag and pull out the right club.



> *The amount of whining on this subject has been simply amazing.*




Here we go again. Can we please try to be a little more mature here?


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jan 31, 2003)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> rant mode on//
> 
> ...




If a fighter has to resort to overrun, bullrush, trip etc, the party is likely dead, and one thing should happen the fighter should get 8 skill points and 28 class skills.

Sorry but the fighter gets virtually nothing out of a fight.  So a fighter shouldn't have to take a back seat every time a DR creature comes up.


----------



## Petrosian (Jan 31, 2003)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> rant mode on//
> *



Ok i know its silly of me to even bother to reply to someone who declares themselves to be ranting, but hey... since we are starting with your own derision of you reasoning, why not expand its derision further?


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So, confronted to an ennemy against whom your weapon is inneficient, you are unable to have another idea than seeking another weapon ?
> *



no where did i say that. I am merely pointing out that it is silly to deliberately avoid giving yourself that option by doing a smidgen of planning ahead.

For instance, is anyone here ranting about the PCs carrying rope and how they don't ever choose to try free climbing or dont think to use gly spells when their "oh too simple minded rope" comes into play?

Why deliberately close off an option, by not carrying proper equipment?



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> If you read my post, you will have a few suggestions.
> *



Those are really neat ideas.

However, being sentient myself and frequently playing sentient characters, i would like to have those liksted things as options. I would  not like to have them as necessities.

See i would rather get to CHOOSE between bashing the skeleton with my very effective cold iron mace OR grappling him OR bull rishing him than to ever be in a position where the latter two are necessities because I for some numbskull reason did not bring an effective weapon.

See, its not EITHER carry the right equipment OR think and choose the correct action... i can have both.


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This exactly what I don't like with the current system : it's so easy to use the simplest way to kill things (just need a +x weapon, or the dreaded GMW) that people forget that there are other things to do.
> *



Perhaps this is true for your games. it isn't for mine or necessarily for anyone elses.

Personally i tend to think that the nature of the challenge dictates the nature of the solution. The challenge is determined by the GM.


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> But no. All you want is slash, hack and smash. That's as boring as the Diablo game. I think the great advantage of tabletop RPG is that you may make any action you want.
> *



Except "draw my cold iron mace" if you failed to plan and equip so you have one. :-0


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Back in ad&d2 planescape, I encountered a monster only wounded by +2 weapon, which I haven't. I used tapestry on the wall to blind and entangle it, so the fighter with the +2 sword has an easier time to cut it in pieces.
> *



but of course we all know that the + based dr system is so flawed and never matters, right? Thats the reason and the problem causing the fix?


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Of course, I could have sit down, whining "what is this game, I can't kill the beast cause my sword is not big enough, I need more sword, more magical sword, boohoo, you silly DM"
> *



indeed i do believe YOU could have.


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> I'm tired of this golfbag argument. The player who will use such a tactic already use it anyway :
> one ghost touch, one dragon bane, one holy, one sure striking... *




so, if i get you right, you are saying here that this new rule wont cause much difference from what happens already? is that right?

i tend to agree. other than encouraging the golf bag or HEW approach to character design and punishing those who don't... this rule will do little.

thats why i object to it.

with all your oh whiner moments... you did notice i have not said one iota about it causing imbalances, right? You did bother to read the ... oh wait... rant...right. Sorry for the overestiumation. Wont happen again.


----------



## Aloïsius (Jan 31, 2003)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If a fighter has to resort to overrun, bullrush, trip etc, the party is likely dead, and one thing should happen the fighter should get 8 skill points and 28 class skills.
> 
> Sorry but the fighter gets virtually nothing out of a fight.  So a fighter shouldn't have to take a back seat every time a DR creature comes up. *



As far as I know, overrun, bullrush are improved by *feats*, not skills. Guess, what are fighters good at ?


----------



## Aloïsius (Feb 1, 2003)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> However, being sentient myself and frequently playing sentient characters, i would like to have those liksted things as options. I would  not like to have them as necessities.



You don't alway have the choice. I think it's good when the PC are forced to seek something alse to do rather than using always the same routine. Huh, I even think it's good, and realistic, that, sometimes, the PC are just forced to flee. An opponent with the right DR (or regeneration) is exactly the type of monster that could be used in this way : a flight may be more tense as a fight.  



> See i would rather get to CHOOSE between bashing the skeleton with my very effective cold iron mace OR grappling him OR bull rishing him than to ever be in a position where the latter two are necessities because I for some numbskull reason did not bring an effective weapon.
> 
> See, its not EITHER carry the right equipment OR think and choose the correct action... i can have both.




So you can't bear to be unprepared to something ? If you play a wizard, do you ask the DM to have all the spells of the PHB in your spellbooks, and to cast them spontaneously ? No, for sure. 
I think it's normal that, sometime you won't have the right tool, and you will need to improvise something else. 




> Perhaps this is true for your games. it isn't for mine or necessarily for anyone elses.




I'm sorry if I didn't understood what you said, it looks like you refuse to be in a situation where DR is effective : if the rules are set so that it is easy for any fighter to allways have the weapon that bypass DR, what is the point of having a DR ? The new rules will just allow DR to be a real factor. 




> Personally i tend to think that the nature of the challenge dictates the nature of the solution. The challenge is determined by the GM.



By example : find a way past this monster which has damage reduction against your weapons ? Or is it an unappropriate challenge ?



> Except "draw my cold iron mace" if you failed to plan and equip so you have one. :-0



You failed to plan IF the dm gave you clue about the possible need of such a weapon, and IF he gave you the possibility to gain this weapon. If not, you didn't fail. If your PC has the mindset of "I can encounter anything, so I need all type of weapon available, just in case, such a character does not look like a hero. He looks like a CRPG character.




> indeed i do believe YOU could have.



So you don't understand me. What is great with RPG is to overcome *various* challenge, by *various* means. Using a tapestry to wrap it around the golem-like things was much more fun than asking a (hypothetical) priest to cast GMW on my weapon before proceeding with hack and slash.



> so, if i get you right, you are saying here that this new rule wont cause much difference from what happens already? is that right?
> 
> i tend to agree. other than encouraging the golf bag or HEW approach to character design and punishing those who don't... this rule will do little.



I'm just saying that the players with HHH or golf bag attitude may already have equivalent behaviour... 
For the others, the new rules give new opportunities to the DM, and thus, give them new opportunities to live different adventures. With it, you may easily design low to mid level adventure, where the PC will have to search the weapon they need to overcome the BBEG, by example. This is not possible without imbalance with the 3e edition (you don't want to drop a +3 or +4 weapon in the hand of level 6 characters, even if it is needed to kill the Night Hag ?)


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 1, 2003)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> You don't alway have the choice. I think it's good when the PC are forced to seek something alse to do rather than using always the same routine. Huh, I even think it's good, and realistic, that, sometimes, the PC are just forced to flee. An opponent with the right DR (or regeneration) is exactly the type of monster that could be used in this way : a flight may be more tense as a fight.
> *



New DR rules are not needed to make fights challenging or interesting or even difficult. 

if you believe it is, then that explains a lot.

I find personally "uncounterable" gimmicks such as "DR of type you cannot avoid" to be a rather vulgar tool, one easily overused and rarely worth its troubles.

i don't find situations where the fighter is "forced" into strange tactical choices to be clever or interesting. However, setting up situations where his normal routine works but where other tactics are better so that he and i can see if he gets it (and benefits) or if he misses it and stays "par normal" to be much more interesting.

Crossroads are more interesting to me than single sets of tracks.


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> So you can't bear to be unprepared to something ?
> *



I never said that.

Why is it one side has to keep trying to put words in the others mouths?

i cannot bear to be expected to deliberately be unprepared so my less than ambitous gm can make challenges simpler.


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> If you play a wizard, do you ask the DM to have all the spells of the PHB in your spellbooks, and to cast them spontaneously ? No, for sure.
> *



What an utterly absurd statement!?


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> I think it's normal that, sometime you won't have the right tool, and you will need to improvise something else.
> *




If that is what a Gm needs to make challenges, then i guess thats what he will have to settle for.



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> I'm sorry if I didn't understood what you said, it looks like you refuse to be in a situation where DR is effective :
> *



Why? What did i say that lead you inexorably to that conclusion?

Pay attention.

I haven't argued word one about how bad this is for balance. i haven't been on the 'it cripples fighters" bandwagon which seems to be the only thing you can wrap your noggin around.

Pay attention...

The new rule won't make DR more effective. it will simply expand the number of mundane items needed to be added to equipment lists for the possible occurances. 



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> if the rules are set so that it is easy for any fighter to allways have the weapon that bypass DR, what is the point of having a DR ? The new rules will just allow DR to be a real factor.
> *



Not unless the GM also drops in his own house rules to prevent purchase of these mundane items to counter the DRs. Not unless the Gm drops in his own house rules about carrying capacity magic item rarity.


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> By example : find a way past this monster which has damage reduction against your weapons ? Or is it an unappropriate challenge ?
> *



Its not an inappropriate challenge its just a vulgar and unimaginative one. its no more clever than just throwing a bigger monster with more HP but less gimmick.

You dont need DR to make a challenge interesting and you certainly dont need Dr to make challenges unique. 

You want the fighter to CHOOSE to do something other than "bash 'em"? give them a scenario where "bash 'em" is not the goal. give them a scenario where both bash 'em and "something clever" are there but where he has to choose. Do your players all need such blatent clues as "my axe did little damage" before you can get them to look at other possibilities? if so, you might NEED designer DR. Mine aren't, so i don't.





			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You failed to plan IF the dm gave you clue about the possible need of such a weapon, and IF he gave you the possibility to gain this weapon.
> *



Ok, so lets pretend for a moment that i buy into this whole notion of the GM not allowing the opportunity to have the needed weapons and such. 

So, why wasn't this same option available before now?

Why couldn't the Gm say "sorry no +x swords available" when he wanted to make monsters with +x "special."

Why is it that making silver weapons unfindable is OKEY DOKEY but the same could not be assumed or done with MAGICAL weapons?

Answer... no reason. 


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> If not, you didn't fail. If your PC has the mindset of "I can encounter anything, so I need all type of weapon available, just in case, such a character does not look like a hero. He looks like a CRPG character.
> *



I could care less what he looks like. if he prepares for potential life threatening issues ahead of time, he sounds like a sentient character.



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> So you don't understand me.
> *



Understanding? hardly. all i know is that when you say you could have whined that way IN GAME... I have no reason to believe you were lieing.


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> What is great with RPG is to overcome various challenge, by various means. Using a tapestry to wrap it around the golem-like things was much more fun than asking a (hypothetical) priest to cast GMW on my weapon before proceeding with hack and slash.
> *



What is not great is not preparing so that a rather simple scenario can be made challening with no reall effort or graymatter spent on it.

lack of preparation could add lots of drama to a scenario. but when is that last time your fighter deliberately left his armor and weapons at home so that he could add more drama to his next fight?



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> I'm just saying that the players with HHH or golf bag attitude may already have equivalent behaviour...
> *



yes... a notion of being prepared as any successful character would.

Would a cop today be considered more heroic without his vest or just foolhardy?


			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *
> For the others, the new rules give new opportunities to the DM, and thus, give them new opportunities to live different adventures. With it, you may easily design low to mid level adventure, where the PC will have to search the weapon they need to overcome the BBEG, by example. This is not possible without imbalance with the 3e edition (you don't want to drop a +3 or +4 weapon in the hand of level 6 characters, even if it is needed to kill the Night Hag ?)
> *



OK, i think i see your point. 

If, for games run by you, it is really NOT possible to construct such encounters without your designer DR that would be imbalancing, then yes by all means i understand YOUR need for designer DR.

But, just as a nudge towards what can be even possible, you might want to consider the possibility that the "special weapon" needed to kill the beast is indeed a potent magical item that will slay the beast but at the same time be consumed. A pc with a short term access to this weapon may indeed be imbalanced for a short period and then be faced with the.... watch for it my favorite word... CHOICE of slaying the beast and losing his new found power OR keeping the weapon for his own use and letting the beast continue.(this is ESPECIALLY potent if the PC has some unfinished business that the "special" weapon would help with but not enough time to do both ) heck, the beast might even try and make this argument to the PC, tempting him. 

See, the above scenario sets the same stages, gives the same search for puzzle scenario and resolutions issues but it did not require designer DR at all. As a matter of fact, the very "potent magic item" nature of the gimmick adds to the drama and tension, not subtracting from it. the "sacrifice" of the power adds to the heroic nature of the PCs choice.

for most of us, designer DR is not needed and it is INDEED very much POSSIBLE to run those things without it.

heck, instead of the vulgat designer DR, why not just roll a die each night and decide which player's character's kung-fu is nerfed each night so as to make him have a more interesting game?

But, all said and done, you tell me this is the type of thing you NEED, that its not possible for you to do those things without it in 3e, well... i see no reason to believe you are lieing, so i believe indeed that you do need it.

Now, can you stretch so far as to believe other GMs wont?


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 1, 2003)

*Getting Tired*

Petrosian: Ok, your argument is basically that you and your dm never had a problem with the way DR worked because your dm always made sure that the party had the appropriate spells/weapons to deal with any threat. You also dont like the new DR because it forces you to carry around a golfbag of weapons if you are conscious. Because thats the smartest way to play. 

Did you ever roleplay a whimsical fighter? How about a brash agressive one? A fighter with a low int or wis? A fighter who didnt always look to the future?

Point is theres plenty of fighters who wont have golfbags just by their very nature. I'm not trying to disrupt your strategist view of every character, Im just saying some people add some depth to their character, some faults that may end up coming in to play.

Will you at some point or another pay a price for not having every single special material weapon and at least one of each damage type? I guess. But only if you feel that if you are getting 5/10 or maybe 15 deducted from your attacks that you are useless. In that case a lot of your wizards might get put out by red dragons who pretend to be white dragons.

You think specific DR is "vulgar". Why? Its already in the MM in many places. The "change" proposed so far is that these things are not superseded by a +1 on your sword. One example is up and it isnt even in full.

Tell me truly, which is more fitting from a fantasy pov:

1) Monster is totally unaffected by your weapon because your weapon is +2 and his DR is 20/+3.

2) Monster can be damaged by your +2 weapon, but since your weapon isnt silvered, the first 10 points are negated.

In scenario 1, the best thing you can do is wrong. Somehow, despite your best efforts you were NOT prepared to fight the monster. In scenario 2 you can give it your best and pray for crits, at the very least doing some damage every round. If its AC isnt very high, perhaps quite a bit of damage every round.

I'll tell you which one I think is vulgar...

As far as you insulting people by saying that "why not just roll a die each night and decide which player's character's kung-fu is nerfed each night so as to make him have a more interesting game?". Thats pretty uncalled for.

You dont think that lyncanthropes have been getting shortchanged since the inception of 3e? Dont Iron Golems seem a "little" too powerful? How about that whole weird if you have DR then your attacks are effective against DR of equal strength? Wasnt that just a big load of bs?

DR has been clunky since it came out, not so clunky that its glaringly breaking down, but this isnt the first time anyones talked about it either.

If you think DR that is "gimmick" is undesirable than obviously someone is fixing all of your fights ahead of time. Because apparantly youve never run into the "gimmick" that your + isnt high enough. Or maybe you just always had a spare Sure Striking weapon, because it was the sensible thing to do and all.

The new DR is more effective, in many ways. Now a module can be written wherein the players need to recover magic item X with Y property in order to fight Z monster. Or is that not a crossroads? Lets just automatically assume the party has X, now they can just fight Z. Who needs adventure anyway? Ive got my handy +whatever weapon right here, I can take on the world as long as I make sure I get it upgraded every few levels.

Its an obvious difference of opinion, but your arguments are doing things that would get you upset. You put words in other people's mouths, you make lame scenarios as our arguments (Why dont I just not wear armor today as an analogy to DR/special weapons...sigh), and in the end it seems like YOU are the minority. The minority being, people who dont even want to give the new rules a chance in their games, because by virtue of their superior intellect and foreknowledge, they already know that the rules are bad.

Just try and be a little more openminded, the books are written by now anyway, whatever your point was is moot.

Technik


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 1, 2003)

*Re: Getting Tired*

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Petrosian: Ok, your argument is basically that you and your dm never had a problem with the way DR worked
> *



it is one realtively minor game element.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> because your dm always made sure that the party had the appropriate spells/weapons to deal with any threat.
> *



i never said this. You just invented it wholecloth. this seems to be a habit of the "pro-designer-dr" crowd.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> You also dont like the new DR because it forces you to carry around a golfbag of weapons if you are conscious. Because thats the smartest way to play.
> *



Actually i said it ENCOURAGES it, not forces it, iirc.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Did you ever roleplay a whimsical fighter? How about a brash agressive one? A fighter with a low int or wis? A fighter who didnt always look to the future?
> *



Yup.

i played an elven child of an exiled elven fighter who was raised by humans and who, when it came time to sign up with a troupe of all elves jumped at the chance. While he did plan ahead, his decisions were often severely colored by his desire to discover the elven heritage he had lost.

in the same game i played an elven sorcerer fascinated by music who maxed his perform skill and fancied himself quite the bard. he was relatively foppish and chose spells sometimes for their convenience... like MOUNT so that he didn't have to keep up and maintain a smelly horse and to allow him the freedom to 'take off" whenever he wished.

those are all well and good examples of a player deciding to play a character as opposed to playing a DND character. those characters are much more like the fantasy characters outside of DND who typically carry one weapon or one special family weapons and so on.

Unfortunately, these types of characters are the ones affected by the new designer-dr thingy. They are the ones who have their effectiveness to the party reduced by the new designer-DR.

The 'DND-based character" who knows a Haversack is cheap and readily available and who buys the golf-bag is the one rewarded.

get it! i said this several pages ago. i spelled it out. 

I dont like the new rule because it hits thw wrong players characters. i much prefer to have the guy who decides his dwarf uses axes because dwarves use axes be rewarded for limiting his character than punishing him for it.

The new rule discourages this.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Point is theres plenty of fighters who wont have golfbags just by their very nature. I'm not trying to disrupt your strategist view of every character, Im just saying some people add some depth to their character, some faults that may end up coming in to play.
> *



and those people will be adversely affected by the rule while those who do plan out will be rewarded. For those who feel golf-bags = munchkin, then this new rule rewards the mucnhkin and adversely affects the roleplayer.

this is a good thing? i think not.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Will you at some point or another pay a price for not having every single special material weapon and at least one of each damage type? I guess. But only if you feel that if you are getting 5/10 or maybe 15 deducted from your attacks that you are useless.
> *



Why does planning for a deficit or trying to not be adversely affected by it somehow equate to thinking in terms of useless or not. Its nit binary.

BTW... have you seen me say "useless" in regards to the effect designer DR has? Nope.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> In that case a lot of your wizards might get put out by red dragons who pretend to be white dragons.
> *



In my game it was a black pretending to be a red. My players thought it  clever.

Amazinglym i did it by the simple current rules with no need for designer dr to make it an interesting challenge.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> You think specific DR is "vulgar".
> *



I think designer DR is vulgar in specific when its arranged by the GM to be of a sort not countered by the players. See above the discussion of not allowing the PCs to have the counter weaponry.

its vulgar as in anything thats as simple as engineered to say "you cannot successfully choose this option...bam..i say so" in order to force the PCs to explore other options.

If you want subtle, allow them the first option, their normal response works just fine, but also give them a BETTER out-of-the-box option and see if they can pry themselves away from the norm.

its vulgar to take away the box when you want them out of the box. its subtle to leave them in their box but leave something a little sweeter just outside for them to try and figure how to get to.

Thats the whole point of tough choices.

Giving a fighter a -10 damage due to designer-dr in a scenario where he might be able to bull rush the monster into a tarpit is like hitting him over the head with a anvil with "dont try just beatim him down" scrawled on it.

instead, give the monster no designer DR and see if the player figures out that rushing him off the cliff is stilla quicker solution. 


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Why? Its already in the MM in many places. The "change" proposed so far is that these things are not superseded by a +1 on your sword. One example is up and it isnt even in full.
> *



Its superceeded by a magic sword and that makes a magic weapon VERY SPECIAL. It means the character is much more likely, perhaps even encouraged, to wield the one magic weapon and not carry around the golf bag. the roleplayer who only wants elven longsword and longbow is not reduced in impact as compared to the golf-bag guy.

i personally see both the golf-bag guy (DND -style-character)and the family weapon guy (if you will... role player) as equally valid and i dont see the need to add a rule that hits one. if i had to hit one, it would be the golf baggie, but i dont feel i need to.

The hero that carries one special weapon is the very guy this designer-dr works against.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Tell me truly, which is more fitting from a fantasy pov:
> 
> 1) Monster is totally unaffected by your weapon because your weapon is +2 and his DR is 20/+3.
> ...



i prefer the former. The former establishs this creature is beyond you current capabilities due to his magic. The threat is not one handleable by force and must be sought as a puzzle. you must find a more powerful sword to beat this beastie yourself. of course, in a team game, you might be able to distract it while more magically endowed guys do the actual killing.

Another reason i am much more fond of having "magicalness" trump "materialness" is thats how it works elsewhere.

The werewolf with his 5/silver designer DR will give, under the new rules, +1 or even ++2 weapons a definite spot of trouble... but a cantrip like ray of frost is wholly unaffected. A magic missile is wholly unaffected. 

MAGIC bypasses DR all the time. Magic trumps DR all the time. this will continue to be the case once designer dr comes the norm.

If every spell ever built to affect the beastie can counter the DR, then i dont see it as a strech that enchanted weapons can too.

matter of fact, it seems rather silly that a mage could cast a spell to hammer the beats but not cast a spell to make an existing weapon do it.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> In scenario 1, the best thing you can do is wrong. Somehow, despite your best efforts you were NOT prepared to fight the monster. In scenario 2 you can give it your best and pray for crits, at the very least doing some damage every round. If its AC isnt very high, perhaps quite a bit of damage every round.
> *



So the proper solution in 2 is to just swing and hope you get lucky? pray for crits does not seem heroic or fantastic to me. 


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> As far as you insulting people by saying that "why not just roll a die each night and decide which player's character's kung-fu is nerfed each night so as to make him have a more interesting game?". Thats pretty uncalled for.
> *



If the gm has set as his goal to make sure a character is hit by designer dr, its every bit as vulgar as saying 'your stuff dont work tonight, even if only in part. i just didn't dress it up all pretty.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> You dont think that lyncanthropes have been getting shortchanged since the inception of 3e?
> *



uhh... no. lycanthropes are NPCS. They dont get shafted.

or.. is that what this new designer dr is for? people are hoping PCs get to be lycanthropes and so then mosnters cannot get arounf their fave PCs silver DR?




			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Dont Iron Golems seem a "little" too powerful?
> *



If an iron golem is too powerful i would look first to its massive spell immunities which have a whole lot more impact than their Dr does.

but again, since iron golems are not players... its not an issue. 

As GM i dont get upset when my monsters dont win.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> How about that whole weird if you have DR then your attacks are effective against DR of equal strength? Wasnt that just a big load of bs?
> *



Actually it seemed a very elegant rewrite of the old "so many HD meakes you +1 claws and then +2 and..." so on. it defined in a sense DR as also being a meter for the 'magical" level of a beastie.

i am not sure why you feel this is somehow wrong.

do you feel that, for instance, werewolves should not be able to kill each other since they both have silvered designer dr and no silver claws or teeth? the SRD werewolf does 1d6+1 bite. if he has to go thru 5 DR, then thats gonna be a long fight.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> DR has been clunky since it came out, not so clunky that its glaringly breaking down, but this isnt the first time anyones talked about it either.
> *



I haven't seen a problem with it. The times my players met a beastie with more DR than they had weapons for, it was a really tough fight. Then again, they have had a lot of really tough fights where DR wasn't an issue. its just one tool of many. I dont need vulgar designer dr to gimmick in "creature you cannot touch of the weeks".


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> If you think DR that is "gimmick" is undesirable than obviously someone is fixing all of your fights ahead of time.
> *



designer dr is a gimmick. dr is a moderately weak tool.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Because apparantly youve never run into the "gimmick" that your + isnt high enough.
> *



So if i dont believe designer dr is a good idea you somehow divine that this means i never fought things i didn't have the plusses to hit? 

your crystal ball needs cleaning.
your rune stones need polishing.
your ability to read minds and clairvoy others histories from afar seem lacking.

At least, psychic awareness is about the only thing that makes your conclusion seem plausible.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Or maybe you just always had a spare Sure Striking weapon, because it was the sensible thing to do and all.
> *



Actually, the first sure striking weapon appeared in my games just a few weeks ago. A thief got his hands on a sure striking sword of subtlety. he is quite happy with it. unfortunately, during the subsequent encounter where he and the gang ran into a nightwalker AFTER their GMWs were mostly down... he forgot the darned thing.

go figure.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> The new DR is more effective, in many ways. Now a module can be written wherein the players need to recover magic item X with Y property in order to fight Z monster.
> *



Did you even read my example above.

OK, lets try this again.

modules could be written that way before.

really they could.
heck, it might seem silly but even whole campaigns could be based on that very concept.

All this without designer dr.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Or is that not a crossroads? Lets just automatically assume the party has X, now they can just fight Z. Who needs adventure anyway? Ive got my handy +whatever weapon right here, I can take on the world as long as I make sure I get it upgraded every few levels.
> *



if you say so.

Somehow, i seem to see more options in my fantasy world.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Its an obvious difference of opinion, but your arguments are doing things that would get you upset. You put words in other people's mouths,
> *



thats rich, considered how many times i have had to point out that the points being argued against me are not the ones i made.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> you make lame scenarios as our arguments (Why dont I just not wear armor today as an analogy to DR/special weapons...sigh),
> *



if the gm feels its unreasonable to seek out ahead of time special weapons in case, that that level of preparation is somehow paranoid, then i have to wonder how far this goes. like i said, i routinely see people seeking scrolls of cure blindness and cure disease and the like just becasue they dont normally have the means to handle those threats easily.

When the sorcerer used his potion of cure blindness after failing his save vs the lich's spell, it surprised many of us and we thought it was a smart idea.

When the fighter pulled out his hammer instead of his axe against the skeletal figure, we thought it a smart idea.

We didn;t think it was something that should be pooh poohed or worked against by the GM any more than a fighter going out in armor was.




			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> and in the end it seems like YOU are the minority. The minority being, people who dont even want to give the new rules a chance in their games, because by virtue of their superior intellect and foreknowledge, they already know that the rules are bad.
> *



uhh... i ake rules decisions for my games all the time. just because a rule is NEWEST doesn;t mean a thing about its quality.

Matter of fact, i have to say, in my experience the NEWEST rules are frequently the worst. most NEW rules get amended by not too long after their release to mass market because the mass audience is a bigger playtest pool than the in house.

The best rules, from my experience, are more often the ones which have been out a while and used and had their kinks and crannies explored and reamed thoroughly. 

The notion of allowing a rule that looks bad, that promotes several thing quite obviously that you find unpleasent, just because ITS NEWER seems very silly to me.

I mean really, at work, i would not suddenly spring from my cvhair everytime a NEW VERSION1.0 product came out and say "Ok lets integrate this into our existing software right now." That would be reckless and stupid. instead, i would ask to be shown the benefits, i would suggest we analyze it, and then see if it makes its case. i would also typically insist on letting it run thru a period of evaluation where we waited and saw what other customers reactions were and analyzed its success stories anf failures.

i care as much about my game. Why would i do less?



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Just try and be a little more openminded, the books are written by now anyway, whatever your point was is moot.
> *




and yet another point towards the why are you bothering notion.

so once again i ask the unanswered question... why does "the books are already written" impact only the contrary side of the discussion and not the positive side?

Why doesn't "the books are already written" mean you should be a little more openminded?

Huh?


----------



## besnode (Feb 1, 2003)

Posts on this thread are getting so long that replying to them in toto is unweildy, so I'll try to summarize.

The basic "pro" argument is the new DR will add flavor to the game and discourage people from seeking out the highest possible enhancement bonus as the ultimate min-max solution to any DR challenge.  

The basic "con" argument is that the new DR will "encourage" people to carry a ridiculous assortment of weapons, at the expense of roleplay consistency.  A variant on this is that DMs will use this new rule as a way of screwing PCs with absurdly exotic DR vulnerabilities.

I favor the "pro" argument, and here's why:

There are already mechanics in the game that can be taken to extremes, or can be seen to "encourage" min-max behavior at the expense of roleplay.  Cleave and the bag of rats is an obvious example: as written, the Great Cleave feat "encourages" the bag of rats, because on its face it should be a highly effective tactic and there's nothing explicit in the rules to forbid it.  

In fact, almost any roleplay decision involves some departure from a cold, calculating min-max powergame approach.  DMs handle this by either metagaming or outright banning "bag o' rats" abuses, and by rewarding roleplay decisions.  DR is no different.  

As for the DM abuse argument, DMs can already abuse PCs nine ways from Sunday if that's what they want to do.  The solution is simple: Don't play with DMs who worry more about "beating" the players than entertaining them.

In the final analysis, I think that DR will indeed add flavor and mystery to the game, and that the "con" arguments don't hold water when examined in the light of common sense.

Best,

--Paul


----------



## Fenes 2 (Feb 1, 2003)

Petrosian, how do you handle SR and resistances/immunities? As far as I see it, DR is to fighters what SR/resistances/immunities are to spellcasters. Have you got complaints from the spellcasters about being forced into preparing a spell of each energy type in case they encounter a resistant foe, and then complaining that after casting that spell they were useless?


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 1, 2003)

*Re*

From a DM's perspective, the new DR will greatly improve the game. DR was a moot point once a person obtained a high enough plus weapon.

I just don't hope they go too wacky on materials. That will be the only downpoint of DR for me is they create too many creatures with wacky material requirements that require the carrying of an assortment of strange weapons.

I still think Holy swords should bust the DR of all evil outsiders. I don't care if they explain it as a mixing of materials into one blade or because the blade is infused with holy power, a person should not have to carry around a variety of holy swords for different enemies. That would be kind of stupid.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 1, 2003)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *I still think Holy swords should bust the DR of all evil outsiders. I don't care if they explain it as a mixing of materials into one blade or because the blade is infused with holy power, a person should not have to carry around a variety of holy swords for different enemies. That would be kind of stupid. *



At the very least, the Holy extra damage should bypass DR on account of not being physical damage, just like the fire damage of a flaming sword would.


----------



## Malin Genie (Feb 1, 2003)

Maybe I'm alone here, but I would have preferred to see just DR X/-.  Maybe 2/- or 3/- for lesser evils, 5/- or so for midrange, up to 10/- or so for the pit fiend.

You could introduce vulnerabilities - silver weapons deal +1d6 damage to lycanthropes; cold iron deals +1d6 to fey (or cold iron inflicts one negative level on fey, or cold iron forces fey to save or be stunned, etc) which gives a lot of room for creativity and variation, without interfering with the fundamental idea of giving creatures DR.

To me that makes DR significant, but not overwhelming.  Creatures with DR get some enhanced survivability, and you avoid the whole golf-bag-'o-weaponry.  No spell can get rid of DR, but it's not at the 15/ level where unless you have the right weapon don't bother coming to the party (yes, I realise 50/X was worse, but as rightly pointed out, many fighters will be able to penetrate 15/, few will be able to deal significant damage through it.)


----------



## Simulacrum (Feb 1, 2003)

Hehe, dont get me wrong here, but some of you guys are very dorky. The funniest thing is how some try to hide that behind trying to be VERY SERIOUS.
You shoud listen to yourselves, you are obviously all from the same pitty party mantra, "Thou who use the new rules are doomed, for ETERNITY (yes for ever and ever over and out ), thou shalt suffer from not sticking to the old and ONLY TRUE game ov 3E.
-
Yeah all the fun is gone...for EVER, and its never coming back again...NEVER. Thats it folks you heard it!

--->whine, sob, bitch, whatever......

[irony/ON] [irony/OFF]

(copy pasted out of another thread.)


----------



## Ferox4 (Feb 1, 2003)

Malin Genie said:
			
		

> *Maybe I'm alone here, but I would have preferred to see just DR X/-.  Maybe 2/- or 3/- for lesser evils, 5/- or so for midrange, up to 10/- or so for the pit fiend.
> 
> You could introduce vulnerabilities - silver weapons deal +1d6 damage to lycanthropes; cold iron deals +1d6 to fey (or cold iron inflicts one negative level on fey, or cold iron forces fey to save or be stunned, etc) which gives a lot of room for creativity and variation, without interfering with the fundamental idea of giving creatures DR.
> 
> To me that makes DR significant, but not overwhelming.  Creatures with DR get some enhanced survivability, and you avoid the whole golf-bag-'o-weaponry.  No spell can get rid of DR, but it's not at the 15/ level where unless you have the right weapon don't bother coming to the party (yes, I realise 50/X was worse, but as rightly pointed out, many fighters will be able to penetrate 15/, few will be able to deal significant damage through it.) *




I tried something like this out a few weeks ago with a Monster of Legend (MM2) and it worked out pretty well. The players were shocked that the creature was survivng all the damage they were leveling upon it and they kept reminding me of what weapons they were using (I gave it a straight DR 10)....I wanted to see if it "felt" better than the standard DR, and I must admit it made the combat a great deal more interesting.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 1, 2003)

Simulacrum said:
			
		

> *Hehe, dont get me wrong here, but some of you guys are very dorky. The funniest thing is how some try to hide that behind trying to be VERY SERIOUS.
> You shoud listen to yourselves, you are obviously all from the same pitty party mantra, "Thou who use the new rules are doomed, for ETERNITY (yes for ever and ever over and out ), thou shalt suffer from not sticking to the old and ONLY TRUE game ov 3E.
> -
> Yeah all the fun is gone...for EVER, and its never coming back again...NEVER. Thats it folks you heard it!
> ...




I support 95% of the new rules that have been previewed so far and was looking forward to what we were promised, minor tweeks, clarifications, and 100% backwards compatability. The only thing I am complaining about is this 1 change which is broken as a rule from my point of view and which at the same time makes many of the materials I have purchased for 3E no longer usable as is. I have spent a couple of thousand dollars on 3E material and will not be drawn into the CCG money pit with my roleplaying. If D&D is going to release  incompatable versions every 3 years I won't play that money game. If I am forced to switch to 3.5 to play with others (Its nearly impossible to find 1.0 or 2.0 games anymore) I can guarntee you that I will only be spending the $60 on a PH and DMG from now on. If I need anything else in a game I can borrow it from the person who owns it and wants to use it. Its been a fun ride, I don't regret it, but now it is time to get off.


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 1, 2003)

Malin Genie said:
			
		

> *Maybe I'm alone here, but I would have preferred to see just DR X/-.  Maybe 2/- or 3/- for lesser evils, 5/- or so for midrange, up to 10/- or so for the pit fiend.
> 
> You could introduce vulnerabilities - silver weapons deal +1d6 damage to lycanthropes; cold iron deals +1d6 to fey (or cold iron inflicts one negative level on fey, or cold iron forces fey to save or be stunned, etc) which gives a lot of room for creativity and variation, without interfering with the fundamental idea of giving creatures DR.
> 
> To me that makes DR significant, but not overwhelming.  Creatures with DR get some enhanced survivability, and you avoid the whole golf-bag-'o-weaponry.  No spell can get rid of DR, but it's not at the 15/ level where unless you have the right weapon don't bother coming to the party (yes, I realise 50/X was worse, but as rightly pointed out, many fighters will be able to penetrate 15/, few will be able to deal significant damage through it.) *




Nope... Definitely not alone.

I've been toying with the same idea of it for a while.

I always saw DR strictly as a way of making monsters harder to kill without increasing their damage output, saves, skills, etc., and never liked the idea of not being able to kills something unless you have exactly the right weapon to do it. 
Fixed DR, with values of, say, 2, 5 and 10 would do reasonably good job of making monsters tougher without being so noticeable people would immediately resort ot meta-gaming or using special weapons to get around it...

With the new rules, people seem to think that the whole idea of needing specific materials somehow encourages creative thinking, and that it's great and exciting because it's so prevalent in legend and fantasy... Bunk. 

The reason this works well in books and movies is because it adds to the drama, and because, for the most part, it's a situation that comes up *once* per story. If you're playing a D&D _game_, it's going to come up over and over, reducing it to being absurd. If you're just telling a D&D _story_, you don't need the new rules because that's not the point anyway. 
As for creativity, as someone said, the creative "option" of dealing with the enemy should be available even if you don't remove the standard one of just hitting it until it dies... Otherwise it's not an option, it's a puzzle.  

I'm all for special materials coming up, rarely, in climactic moments, and doing something interesting to the opposition, but making it commonplace doesn't strike me as a good idea.


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 1, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *Petrosian, how do you handle SR and resistances/immunities? As far as I see it, DR is to fighters what SR/resistances/immunities are to spellcasters. Have you got complaints from the spellcasters about being forced into preparing a spell of each energy type in case they encounter a resistant foe, and then complaining that after casting that spell they were useless? *




OK first to deal with the seemingly mandatory hyperbole the pre-designer-dr side has to engage in.

"useless" has not been a term used by me to describe the effects of the new designer-dr. While some of the pro-designer-dr crowd wants to see those who question the results of this new rule as people whining about overexaggerated penalties, thats not the point i have been arguing at all.

So now to deal with the specific "i missed the boat totally" questions you asked.

No, none of my players have complained about being useless after SR encounters.  Thank you for asking.

However, since no claim of the new designer-dr making anyone feel "useless" has been uttered by me, this question seems as relevent to this discussion as asking me what underwear i am wearing.

You seem to want me to defend a position i never took.

I wont bite.

How do my players, as well as I, handle SR heavy encounters?

The less imaginative players/characters throw spells and say "so what". They just slam into the wall hoping enough spells luck out and overcome the barrier. These guys will likely be the ones to eventaully spend feats on improving the spell chances. This is analogous to the simple fighter who just slams away with his main sword ...what was it the pro-designer-dr guy said... and "pray for crits."

Fortunately i have none of those routinely in my games as players. Sometimes my players have a bad night tho.  I most often encounter these in my fellow players when i play.

The players under me tend to take a different approach. When they prepare (choosing spells for sor or learning spells for others) they often choose spells (or items) that will be unaffected by SR. For example, the sor when facing a potent SR will switch from direct spells to buffing spells for the PCs (haste on fighters, endurances, stoneskins, etc) to enable them to kill it and survive it more quickly. They will also look to effective spells such as fog cloud (if the beastie is using targetted sla) or even dispel magics (if the beastie is buffed or if allies are under holds and the like) and so on. Their basic method, with good preparatory choices made in anticipation of this potential situation occuring, is to get around the SR so that it does not apply. This is analagous to the fighter who totes the haversack of exotic weapons so that he switches to different weapons that gets around the designer-dr instead of rushing uphill so to speak and just trying to bull through it.

The non-analogous parts comes from the cost. The sorcerer had to make his tough choice to decide whether to give up a precious spell slot on wall of fog or endurance and so on to help cover heavy sr encounters where the more direct spells are adversely affected. 

The fighter, on the other hand, has to give up very little given the cost of silvered weapons as an example, to get the golfbag to cover his arse against the designer-dr.

Its not a tough choice at all for the fighter. its just a sensible inventory control problem.

Giving the sorcerer a more complex and full of options spell choice makes his player typically have more fun. Giving the fighter a tougher inventory and accounting challenge usually wont.

Thats part of the downside of designer-dr. Its counters are simple no brainers. No tough choices. Just simple obvious bookkeeping.

its a yawner.

unless, you are the type who by character design wont gon in for those "gameisms" and in which case for that devotion to character concept... you will pay the price.

Again, this seems to be targetting for adverse effects the wrong guys. It appears to be a very inaccurately targetted rule. Unless the goal is to slap those silly role players upside the head and shout "what are you thinking? This is DND! We will have none of that "character" stuff here! Get a clue, play the GAME not the charactergeesh! Some people!"

If that is its gaol, it seems dead spot on target.


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 1, 2003)

Hey petrosian, you can stop harping on the symantics of what is being said. If you never said that specific material DR is "useless" you said it in between the lines. So get over it.

You still have never even taken the time to think that they may alter the economic element in the game, making silvered and cold ironed weapons more expensive, thus forcing the fighters to use different tactics. Many of which have been listed numerous times. No they can't just switch to their "sword of buffing" and help out in that way, but they can act as a shield for the party, etc etc. This argument is old, your position doesnt even have any passion in it. 

Youre fighting against "designer" DR (as you call it) because it rewards munchkins, assuming the cost of special material weapons is not taken into account. No, that isnt something you said, I paraphrased.

Well in your next point-by-point post (which gets rather tedious, rereading what everyone wrote a little further up the page) can you consider what they can do to make the new DR work? Or is it just impossible and not worth your time since you dont have any issues with the old DR (apparantly).

The new "tough choice" for fighters will be what kind of weapon they take all their feats in (at least, in my interpretation where special materials are expensive). This is analagous to the "tough choice" sorcerors have to make when choosing spells. The fact is, the "choice" now, is to merely get a weapon with sure-striking (if you are in FR or using one of many splat books) or to get GMW cast on your sword. Can you not see how the new DR encourages more "rolplaying" and "tough choices" for the fighting classes?

For instance, heres my example:

Weapon 1-150 gold, normal
Masterwork Weapon +300 gold
Silver Weapon +500 gold
Cold Iron Weapon +500 gold
Copper Weapon +500 gold
Holysiver Weapon +1,000 gold

And so on. You wont have a golf-bag of weapons at those costs for quite some time. And honestly, as I was trying to point out in a previous post, it wouldnt be worth it to switch in a lot of instances.

Example
Your main weapon is a +1 Flaming Lonsword, you are fighting a DR 5/something beast. Do you, start dropping and drawing weapons in an attempt to get the correct normal weapon to combat it, or do you activate the flame and fight on? Your flaming enchantment may get eaten up by the DR, but youre still going to punch through with almost as much damage as you would by switching to one of your other clu--swords.

In fact, your precious collection of weapons might have cost you another enhancement bonus you could have had on your sword.

I see it impacting characters regardless of munchkinism the same. Some things arent in your arena to be the spotlight when it comes to taking them down. But rest assured, with a spell from the wizard, a prayer from the cleric, or possibly some other mechanic we havent seen, youll still be a key player. Fighters get hp, one of their jobs is take some hits for the party, its not very fun or flashy, but its pretty important.

Technik


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 1, 2003)

Isn't Cold Iron just pure iron that is shaped on a cold anvil, as opposed to steel which is beaten while hot?

It's not as hard, it doesn't take as sharp an edge, but any blacksmith can manage the technique for no greater effort that forging a steel sword... they just don't normally bother, 'cos for everyday use, steel is better.

But a huge price hike for a plain iron sword seems unlikely.

And copper?  Good grief.

-Hyp.


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 1, 2003)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Hey petrosian, you can stop harping on the symantics of what is being said. If you never said that specific material DR is "useless" you said it in between the lines. So get over it.
> *



Well frankly, i prefer to read and iscuss what is in the lines, not what people want to invent between them. YMMV.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> You still have never even taken the time to think that they may alter the economic element in the game, making silvered and cold ironed weapons more expensive, thus forcing the fighters to use different tactics.
> *



There are a lot of things i haven't considered. I am limiting my discussion of the new rules to what we KNOW of the new rules, not what we may imagine might also be.

There are a gazillion things they might do.

They might give fighter's feats allowing them to transform their weapons into these types on demand.

they might give designer dr to goblins and orcs and other ubiquitous beasties.

they might decide that any number of other things make sense too, like changing the price ofn silvered weapons.

This level of discussion is pointless. Discussing the speculation is silly and a waste of time.

Discussing the new rules as we know them, what we know of them, is not.

if you wish to start a new thread where you speculate not about the new rules we have knowledge of, but what other possible rules there might be, that would be cool.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Many of which have been listed numerous times. No they can't just switch to their "sword of buffing" and help out in that way, but they can act as a shield for the party, etc etc. This argument is old, your position doesnt even have any passion in it.
> *



Do you often expect passion to be integral to rules debates?


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Youre fighting against "designer" DR (as you call it) because it rewards munchkins, assuming the cost of special material weapons is not taken into account. No, that isnt something you said, I paraphrased.
> *



good you are learning.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Well in your next point-by-point post (which gets rather tedious, rereading what everyone wrote a little further up the page) can you consider what they can do to make the new DR work? Or is it just impossible and not worth your time since you dont have any issues with the old DR (apparantly).
> *



I have no desire to discuss speculation about the vast and myriad possibilites of unknown rules changes. This discussion is about what we do know, what they have leaked and how it will impact play. Thats fairly specific.




			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> The new "tough choice" for fighters will be what kind of weapon they take all their feats in (at least, in my interpretation where special materials are expensive). This is analagous to the "tough choice" sorcerors have to make when choosing spells. The fact is, the "choice" now, is to merely get a weapon with sure-striking (if you are in FR or using one of many splat books) or to get GMW cast on your sword. Can you not see how the new DR encourages more "rolplaying" and "tough choices" for the fighting classes?
> *



No, as stated before, it encourages more accounting. 

it will devalue slightly the weapon specific feats such as focus, specialization and imp crit. The need to bropaden ones weapon collection will probably also make exotic weapons feat less desirable since you wont be planning on sticking to one weapon type as much.

I dont see these as that tough in the choice department.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> For instance, heres my example:
> 
> Weapon 1-150 gold, normal
> ...



nice fiction. nice imagination. nice theory.

Want to see mine...

normal weapon... 3 bunnies.
masterwork weapon... 7 bunnies.
silver weapon... 12 cunquats
cold iron weapon... seven sexual favors.
holysilver weapon... 3 robin's feathers.

now, please base your next few responses on a thoruough analysis of my notions.

or perhaps we could discuss what we know of the new rules and not some imaginative dream sequences.

should we discuss the fact that they might change fireball to do 12d6 per caster level and give it to monks as a first level free action?

or should we do as we have been doing... discuss what we know of their upcoming rules changes?




			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> In fact, your precious collection of weapons might have cost you another enhancement bonus you could have had on your sword.
> *



But since i might have 12d6 per level fireballs as free actions or i might have touch attacks that paralyze with will save dcs of 30 at second level... these might not be so important.

A whole of might be's exist... shall we start here or make a new thread?


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 1, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *Isn't Cold Iron just pure iron that is shaped on a cold anvil, as opposed to steel which is beaten while hot?
> *




not necessarily...

in the land of may be's and might's full of imagination and wonder...

cold iron may be, might be , iron extruded from the arse of a demon while mating with a undead under the dark of the new moon collectied by acolytes in a pure adamantium chalice.

if so it may be, could be, might be rather pricey.

Of course, we have no reason to imagine this will be the case and thus no reason to bring such silly notions into the discussion of what we know of the rules... but clearly that wont slow some people down.


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 1, 2003)

*Sheesh*

Well, I have been trying to stick to the subject of DR. How the DR relates to the balance of the fighting classes, especially the "fighter", and the respective balance between that class and the others in the phb. While taking slights against me by imagining things beyond the realm of said discussion may be gratifying, you arent really contributing either (12d6 fireballs..etc).

I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, hence when I "read between the lines" or infer based on numerous posts, Im not indulging in "pretend-time", rather I'm looking at the bulk of what you said. You can imagine the difference as wide as you want.

The thread is about the Revised DRs and we all take "might-be"s into account merely by speaking about something we dont know the entirety of. You think silver "might-be" priced exactly as it is now, I think it "might-be" a lot more expensive. Ive responded to what I think will happen in your case (silver weapons at 5x the cost in phb (based on silver dagger being 5x as expensive)) but you wont even consider mine. Please, I dont want to hear anymore fireball fantasies, if you want, you can start a thread about that.

Based on what we know we can't draw very conclusive arguments for or against a "golf-bag" fighter since D&D 3e is very much linked to your wealth. A 20th level fighter stripped of gear is not fit to take on challenges as if he were a 20th level fighter. In the same vein, if we can't determine the likelihood of poeple being able to cover all the bases when it comes to weapon buying we technically shouldnt even be talking about it (according to you) since we dont "know" the prices.

We do know that DR values have been drastically reduced across the board. We do know that an upper value of 15 has been set for non-epic play.

We dont know that players (munchkins) will be able to afford a golfbag.

We do know that the standard classes that have to fight these DRs are weakened whilst fighting against them. We also know that they can still be effective, in a myriad of ways. There already exists a cantrip which can change the material of weapons, thus negating DR/silver to some extent.

Your whole point is ... ? You want to keep pretending about golfbags or talk about what we know? I was prepared to indulge you, but if you cant offer the same respect, thats a shame.

As far as proposed prices, I was just pulling numbers out of my head. If a 1,500 gp special material out of MoF (a high-magic campaign) only gives you +1 elemental damage, or +1 damage against a specific DR, then it is not beyond the realm of possibility for 1/3 the price you can penetrate a certain DR. I am speaking from a rules perspective, not a "blacksmith making weapons" perspective.

Technik


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 1, 2003)

*Re: Sheesh*



> *We dont know that players (munchkins) will be able to afford a golfbag.*




Whoa, careful where you point the M word!

I happen to agree that the golfbag makes a lot of sense, and don't feel it has to be a munchkin tactic.

Bob the fighter's been adventuring for a couple of years, has a +2 sword, and meets a wererat.  He eventually hacks it down, but wounds that should have stopped it in its tracks hardly slowed it down, and Bob takes a few nasty bites.

When he gets back to town, someone points out that for werebeasts, you can't fight them properly unless you use silver.

So Bob buys a silver dagger, just in case.

A while later, he accidentally intrudes on a faerie ceremony, and the Sprite King's Royal Guards shrug off every blow Bob can swing.  He's Geased and released, eventually, and after fulfilling the Quest, he returns once more to his home tavern and recounts his tale.

"Aye," an old-timer informs him.  "Steel's no good against the Fey - Cold Iron is all they fear."

That's it, Bob decides, never again.  He tracks down a couple of bards and a sage or two, and systematically goes through every story of creatures with special vulnerabilities.  Trolls - fire.  Vampires - garlic, wooden stakes.  Basilisks - mirrors.  Rakshasas - blessed crossbow bolts.  Shambling Shoggoths - piccolos.

Some of the stories may be just that... but by Pelor, if they're true, Bob will never be caught unprepared again!

Is Bob a munchkin?  Or just a fighter who's been burned by DR a couple of times, and has decided to do something about it?

-Hyp.


----------



## Shalewind (Feb 1, 2003)

Ah-ha! Methinks I see were the “anti-designer DR” side is coming from now. Amazing what taking a long breather will do. And as it is getting a little toasty in hear might I suggest everyone just calm down a little.

Let me clarify a few things that I have now realized. Petrosian isn’t looking for new ways to be a Munchkin, nor is he a power-gamer. He isn’t trying to argue that the new rules upset the balance of the system (to my knowledge) nor do they create a large problem.

He is upset for the simple reason that this allows new areas for the Munchkins to prosper and encourages a more Munchkinesque viewpoint to playing. True, we haven’t seen if the wealth system will try and balance this, but knowing WoTC I don’t think they will. It is possible all this has been taken into account, but as it isn’t a balance issue, probably not.

Look at it this way, several players won’t need a golf bag, because they play character over a D&D stat-min-maxed player. Some will use this approach. And yes, with designer DR the golf bag becomes “more” likely for some gamers. Petrosian is pointing out that before this “designer DR” was introduced, it wasn’t as encouraged to carry around a bag of weapons (correct?). And he has got a point. Now, it won’t effect the way I play. Frankly, I don’t think it will effect the way Petrosian plays either. It’s not a big issue, but goading him into trying to “slip up” and defend a stance he hasn’t taken isn’t a very good idea either.

I think a lot of people are very passionate about defending the system because they want 3.5E to be good and golden and the new way of life. I do too. Everyone needs to show a little more respect of other people’s views and take a breather. There are up sides and down-sides to every change WotC going to make. “designer DR” is going to add some flavor (which I REALLY like, and why I defended it), but it may make a “golf bag” approach more realistic for some players as well. Take the good with the bad, I guess. Munchinkinsque behavior will always exist. In the end, the rules really don't matter. The Balance and FUN (remember, that's why we are here. ) is with the set of players and ultimately the DM.



> cold iron may be, might be , iron extruded from the arse of a demon while mating with a undead under the dark of the new moon collectied by acolytes in a pure adamantium chalice.




Hey you leave Gary G's porn out of this discussion.


----------



## Aloïsius (Feb 1, 2003)

Most of the time, Bob will not be alone. He has some buddy with him, such as Rob-magic missile-the wizard, Tob -flame strike-the cleric and Zob-hold monster-the sorcerer. So may be the DR trauma won't be so great as to justify the quest for the ultimate golf bag.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 1, 2003)

> *Most of the time, Bob will not be alone. He has some buddy with him, such as Rob-magic missile-the wizard, Tob -flame strike-the cleric and Zob-hold monster-the sorcerer. So may be the DR trauma won't be so great as to justify the quest for the ultimate golf bag. *




"I'm Bob!  The fighter!  I've cleaved my way through legions of orcs!  I cut a bloody swath through Skeletor's Zombie Army!  I single-handedly took down a cloud giant.  But when we met that Shoggoth, all my skill, all my strength, all my prowess... what did they mean?  Nothing!  I was useless!  I had to hide behind the gods-damned _bard_!  It's not right... whenever I look at him now, I see this little sneer.  Oh, he denies it... pretends he doesn't know what I'm talking about.  But it's there, I tell you.  So I talked to some people, and I got myself a list.  And with my trusty golf bag here, I'm _never_ going to feel that impotent, ever again!   Bob's back, baby!"

-Hyp.


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 1, 2003)

Hyp- I suppose youre right. But youre basing it on some assumptions. First, the old-timer that clued bob in, second the availability of said weapons. Im not saying theyre going to be hard to get mind you, but it may be too much trouble to get some silver so that someone can make you some silver weapons. Especially if you want to rinse and repeat for every material in the MM.

I think if Bob couldnt figure out what to hit the lyncanthropes with, he'd be patting Mr Wizard and Mr Cleric on the back after the fight. Despite spending many rounds fighting defensively and doing his part to hurt the lyncanthropes I dont think it would be necessary to go buy a silver dagger. After all, if bob uses a greatsword going from 2d6+1.5str to 1d4+str is a big change. And maybe bob was punching through that DR pretty well anyway, what with power attack and lyncanthropes not-too impressive AC. Naturally I'm going to assume these values arent changing too much in 3.5. In case someone decides Im fantasizing.

So while it seems possible, I dont see the golfbag. It sounds like a spare weapon, not a HHH filled with weapons of all type and sort. And what good fighters dont have spare weapons?

Technik


----------



## Aloïsius (Feb 1, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> "I'm Bob!  The fighter!  I've cleaved my way through legions of orcs!  I cut a bloody swath through Skeletor's Zombie Army!  I single-handedly took down a cloud giant.  But when we met that Shoggoth, all my skill, all my strength, all my prowess... what did they mean?  Nothing!  I was useless!  I had to hide behind the gods-damned bard!  It's not right... whenever I look at him now, I see this little sneer.  Oh, he denies it... pretends he doesn't know what I'm talking about.  But it's there, I tell you.  So I talked to some people, and I got myself a list.  And with my trusty golf bag here, I'm never going to feel that impotent, ever again!   Bob's back, baby!"
> 
> -Hyp. *


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 2, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Hyp- I suppose youre right. But youre basing it on some assumptions. First, the old-timer that clued bob in, second the availability of said weapons. Im not saying theyre going to be hard to get mind you, but it may be too much trouble to get some silver so that someone can make you some silver weapons. Especially if you want to rinse and repeat for every material in the MM.
> *




I keep hearing this line of reasoning and it keeps baffling me.

Remember where this started? People dont like the old DR because magicn weapons are prevalent enough to beat +1 -+3 Dr so often as to make it less than impressive.

Yet the presumption seems to be that silver weapons will be hard to come by and that cold iron weapons could be hard to come by and so on.

Why is it somehow reasonable to assume that MAGIC weapons exist in quantity enough to beat old style dr but that the rules or the gms wont allow MUNDANE non-magical weapons of special materials to be available?

Do you expect wotc to price these things higher than magic weapons so that the dnd standard "availability by price" makes them rarer than magic weapons?

No?

Then do you think that wotc is going to invent another whole new rarity meter other than price for these special materials weapons alone, leaving everything else such as including MAGIC WEAPONS on the normal "availability by price"?

NO?

Do you expect the requirements to make silvered weapons or cold iron weapons to be greater than those required for a magic weapon (which currently requires a spellcaster of appropriate feats and spell levels after a masterwork weapon is crafted)?

NO?

Me neither.


in another post...



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> The thread is about the Revised DRs and we all take "might-be"s into account merely by speaking about something we dont know the entirety of. You think silver "might-be" priced exactly as it is now, I think it "might-be" a lot more expensive. Ive responded to what I think will happen in your case (silver weapons at 5x the cost in phb (based on silver dagger being 5x as expensive)) but you wont even consider mine. Please, I dont want to hear anymore fireball fantasies, if you want, you can start a thread about that.
> *




There is a vast and sweeping difference between: 

taking two sets of info... the rules as they are now and the changes we know of... and analyzing those results (pointing out that silver weapons are cheap and thus not a hardship to acquire) 

and

taking the same two sets of info and fabricating a third possible set of information (maybe they will also change silvered weapons and make these others all expensive and such) in order to shift that analysis and result to a more favorable conclusion.

The former is ANALYSIS.

The latter is SPECULATION.

If you keep refusing to notice the difference and rely on speculation to make your points, thats a flaw you have to suffer.

I will stick with analysis.

As for respecting your position, well i give respect where it deserves to be. I don't usually respect speculation because it is of little substance. I respect analysis a lot more. YMMV

As for your speculative ventures into coulda-land...

INDEED YOU ARE DEAD SPOT ON...

IF wotc changes the cost of silver weapons to make them as expensive or more than magic weapons or even in the ballpark and does the same for cold iron wood, and whatever special materils they feed inti the designer-dr monster, then the golf bag solution will be rendered less sufficient.

IF wotc adds in some new rarity factor for availability and in doing so makes these special materials weapons more hard to acquire than magic weapons sufficient to bypass DR are now, then the golf bag solution will not be as possible.

There are a ton of IFS by which wotc can maybe make this not work out as it seems it will when we limit ourselves to ANALYSIS of what we know now.

But, until we are given some sign that those IFs are anything more than just wishes and hopes, those ifs and the "conclusions" derived from them fall squarely in the realm of SPECULATION not ANALYSIS.

And for one final note...

if, in order to make designer DR work, wotc needs to apply these increased rarity issues, then WHY wouldn't doing the same thing for magic weapons work without needing the designer-dr?

If the answer lies in restricting access by availability to weapons which bypass designer-dr, if that remains a key component to getting it to produce desirable results, then why is it not possible to just restrict access to MAGIC weapons?


Doesn't it make more sense to make magic weapons less frequent or available than silvered weapons rather than the reverse?

Doesn;t it make sense to not try and finagle "silver is rare so getting enough silver to make a magic dagger is hard" to control anti-designer-dr silver daggers when several spells such as holy water and iirc consecrate require 5 lb of silver for each casting?

If you plan on saying NO when your fighter seeks a few lbs of silver for his dagger are you also going to say NO when the cleric seeks 5lb bags of silver for his second level spells? 

or is silver for spells available because you dont need to worry about it trumping designer-dr?

The rarity argument does not have any substance unless and until wotc gives us some indication that it will be done that way... particluarly in light of how it runs contrary to the various examples already in the books.

YMMV and cleary does.


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 2, 2003)

I think your analysis in operating under a fallacy. 

The problem is not the "common-ness" of magic weapons, the problem is how easy it is to penetrate DR, or if you can't how impossible it is to be effective. In other words, if you have GMW then you dont even necessarily need magical weapons (although due to gold being part of the equation in character balance, you WILL have magical weapons) to beat DR. But, if your GMW spell is not enough to bypass DR AND your weapon doesnt have enough +s (probably because you got other mods, depending on GMW to beat DR for you, or because you just got the sure-striking mod) then you might as well run away because you will not be able to penetrate the DR. This is the problem with DR as it is now.

With the new DR, magic weapons (Im analyzing here) will not be any more or less common. However, they will not provide the ease to beat DR that they once did. Additionally, the spell GMW will not be an immediate DR beater, neither will "sure-striking". In addition to this "nerf", you will no longer have to run if your weapon isnt good enough (or in this case, if it isnt made of the right stuff) because DRs have been lowered across the board. You can still contribute at, albeit, reduced effectiveness. These are pretty tough blows to "the munchkin" or "the powergamer". Not that theres anything wrong with min/maxing, thats a different argument. The point is, it will be more sensible to carry a backup weapon. 1st level packages will probably include 2 melee weapons in addition to a ranged weapon. This is not a "bad" thing. At higher levels, yes the fighter may have more than just 1 backup weapon. Will you be punished for not having multiple backups? If you see it that way, or perhaps it will be a good experience so that in the future you WILL have a backup weapon (as Hyp pointed out).

Players and characters generally know that it takes fire or acid to kill a troll. Good players may try and work off the premise that they dont know, but by and large people just know, maybe they heard a children's tale about it (their character, not the player) or what-have-you but its common knowledge for most campaigns. It will be more or less the same with the low level DR. If you are playing in a low level campaign there will probably be hints as to what you are fighting and you will be able to comission an appropriate weapon. I just don't see what not to like except the golfbag approach some players may take.

Net Munchkinism: No more Sure Striking, No more GMW abuse, No more Invulnerable DR. Possible cheesiness due to fighter having 5+ weapons. I'll take the new DR any day.

All of these are true regardless of the rarity (or non-rarity) or price of said special materials.

As far as your analyzation vs speculation debate, I agree to a point. But something youre analyzing may well turn out to be speculation and something Im speculating may well come to pass. In that scenario, what difference did it make how we were arguing?

Technik


----------



## Fenes 2 (Feb 2, 2003)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *The non-analogous parts comes from the cost. The sorcerer had to make his tough choice to decide whether to give up a precious spell slot on wall of fog or endurance and so on to help cover heavy sr encounters where the more direct spells are adversely affected.
> 
> The fighter, on the other hand, has to give up very little given the cost of silvered weapons as an example, to get the golfbag to cover his arse against the designer-dr.
> 
> ...




So what is the problem there again? Under the current rules, the fighter has absolutely no choice to make - he can just swing his big sword, as long as it is powerful enough it will beat the DR. (If his weapon is not powerful enough, and he gets no GMW, then he will not hit for much though).

The new rules will add a choice. It may be, in some games, a small choice, easily solved by a golfbag of weapons, but even there it will be a choice to make at least until you can afford those weapons. Some choice is often better than no choice.

And if you don't want a golfbag approach, then can just rule that magic weapons of sufficient power still beat DR. Or you can introduce multimaterial weapons. Or you just don't use those DR critters that much. Problem solved, Bob the fighter does not need a golfbag of weapons, and has no in-character reason to get one.


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 2, 2003)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> I think your analysis in operating under a fallacy.
> *



no "fallacy" just a simplification.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> The problem is not the "common-ness" of magic weapons, the problem is how easy it is to penetrate DR, or if you can't how impossible it is to be effective.
> *



these are two separate issues... how easy it is to avoid and how serious it is when unavoidable.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In other words, if you have GMW then you dont even necessarily need magical weapons (although due to gold being part of the equation in character balance, you WILL have magical weapons) to beat DR.
> *



whether, in either idiom, the weapon plusses comes from being truely enchanted or spelled up is ireelevent. both affect dr the same. The issue remaisn the availability of such weapons. Whether they come from magic weapon at first, gmw at third, or even if the silveriness comes from a cantrip mentioned earlier... or these were bought in ye olde magic shoppe... is ireelevent. All that maytters is how frequently the players characters can get these items.

that was what i was discussing.

i didn't bother to break it down to the specific spell levels because the origin is irrelevent.

if your desired goal as GM/designer is to create more scenarios where DR is unavoidable and PART OF THIS INCLUDES restricting the availability of counter-dr weapons (whether they occur by spell or enchantment) isn't it more sensible to let "magic" be more rare than "mundane but of certain quality"?

It seems absurd to try and call SILVER some rare substabce that every third level cleric can get in 5 lb sacks ON DEMAND but which a fighter cannot get a couple pounds of for making a dagger and moreover it makes no sense to try and finagle this because "gee, magic weapons are too commonly available."

It seems equally absurd to do what so far seems to be the actual plan... to add all these designer-dr categories and then allow their materials-de-counter to be more available than the currently "too available so its breaking dr" magic weapons.




			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> But, if your GMW spell is not enough to bypass DR AND your weapon doesnt have enough +s (probably because you got other mods, depending on GMW to beat DR for you, or because you just got the sure-striking mod) then you might as well run away because you will not be able to penetrate the DR. This is the problem with DR as it is now.
> *



I actually have no problem with the plan of lowering DR levels. its the designer-dr part i am objecting too.

HOWEVER...

can we surmise from your observation of the problem of "you might as well run away" that it is correct to assume you then DISAGREE with the guys who posted how good DR making you go for aid other, trip and all those "not bash 'em" solutions?

Since you now embrace this as a "problem with Dr as it is now that you do not then endorse the following position as reasonable for this discussion? 


> There are many things a fighter without the propre weapon can do to help :
> *flank, aid another (two version), trip, disarm, sunder, grapple, tank (expertise+defending weapon+fighting on the defensive), bullrush, overun, throwing holy water/alchemist fire, carry a wounded fellow to safety, creative use of the environment...




Again, i do not object to their rule, or rather DESIGN reconsideration which will see them reducing the levels of dr they assign creatures.

I do still object strongly to the designer-dr, where materials de jour will trump magic... as long as that magic is wrapped on a stikc instead of a spell.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> * At higher levels, yes the fighter may have more than just 1 backup weapon. Will you be punished for not having multiple backups? If you see it that way, or perhaps it will be a good experience so that in the future you WILL have a backup weapon (as Hyp pointed out).
> *



i have no objection to the notion that, with this new rule, those who PLAY THE GAME will fare better than those who PLAY THEIR CHARACTER when the decision of being a porcupine of weapons golf-baggie type or being a more classic fantasy character who uses few weapons.

I do believe that adding more PLAY THE GAME benefits that depart from more traditional fantasy characters is BAD. 

By similar note, we should start seeing "i wanna be a mage who throws spell then bows then spells then bows then spells then bows alternating back n forth" because the new haste gives them an ATTACK action and not a move action. I really dont recall these character from anywhere else, but its what the new haste rule will make "better play" for the mass hasted mage. 

The more cases where "PLAYING THE GAME" moves the character away from anything recognixable as a fantasy character the weaker the game becomes to me and more importantly... the further the power gap between newbies or roleplayers (people who wont just give in and PLAY THE GAME for its obvious benefits) and those wonderful chaps (minmaxers or munchkins or whatever you want to call them) who do see PLAY THE GAME as an obvious and expected thing.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> As far as your analyzation vs speculation debate, I agree to a point. But something youre analyzing may well turn out to be speculation and something Im speculating may well come to pass. In that scenario, what difference did it make how we were arguing?
> *




Once the new rules are out, this entire discussion will be moot, if it isn't already.

that has nothing to do with this discussion however.


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 2, 2003)

I dont embrace that if you cant beat the DR you should run away BUT in the old DR system I would be much more inclined to simply because if the fighter cant get through that usually invalidates anyone else from punching through as well. After all, the only measuring stick is +s on your weapon. In the new DR, maybe someone else has the appropriate material, I can still meatshield for him and we still have spellcasters, or maybe he throws me a spare in that material that he keeps, maybe he has a silver fetish?. In a larger combat, the fighter would ignore the guy he couldnt hurt as effectively and go after ones he could.

There is also a large differentiation between power in the 2 editions (imo) just by looking at GMW. Presently it functions as a way to supercede ALL DR (with high enough levels) and it lasts for hours AND it gives you bonuses to hit and damage. Based on the evidence of the silver cantrip which is rounds duration, the spells which allow wepaons to penetrate new DR will NOT give additional benefits like bonuses to attack and damage and will NOT last for hours.

This means the powering down of a spell which is clearly too powerful for its level. Now you may be thinking, well why not just revise GMW, why muck up the whole DR system? Because it isnt working as its intended to. Especially with respect to most things that may only have DR 5/something. By the time you fight a low DR creature presently the fighter probably has a weapon to negate it. Or if a creature with a low DR has classes added its DR is for nothing because the party will definitely have at least +1 weapons by then.

Also, no one said silver would be a rare substance. In my earlier "proposed" cost I was assuming that it would take a substantial amount of silver to properly coat one weapon. Maybe it would take some sort of spell or require the feat "Craft Magic Arms and Armor". Maybe it wouldnt, I was just throwing that out there. Maybe its just a straight extra 50 gold to have a silver weapon and its as common as steel.

I'm wearying again. My position still stands, I like the change and am willing to try it. This does not mean I wont look back, it just means I'll give it a shot. If I find that fighters are upset over the changes or that it generally just makes play more cumbersome and less heroic than I will go back to the old system. I don't understand how you can eyeball the present rules and throw them out out of hand.

Technik


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 2, 2003)

Hey guys - please make sure you keep discussing the subject, and don't descend into bickering over semantics or perceived insults. 

Thanks!


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 2, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> I don't understand how you can eyeball the present rules and throw them out out of hand.
> 
> Technik *




"out of hand"?

More like, after consideration.

When i can see the obvious downsides, i need to see the good sides before implementation.

but in addition...

i dont have to expose my players to bad rules and make them suffer through some period of "perdition" to give them their due.

All i have to do is what i will do.

I told my players a couple weeks ago... we wont be implementing 3.5e in our current campaign.

it was that simple.

for this discussion, playtest is a valuable tool for analysis, but it is not a necessary one.

before beta testing aka playtest... there is the specifications step, where you examine whether the product has reached the desired goal. In this case, the analysis shows me that the new designer-dr portion of this rule does not meet any desirable goals for me.

I will look at dropping creature drs at some point possibly, or at least analyzing it to see if the current dr levels prove abusive.

As for GMW... yes my response would be to say FIX GMW to fix GMW dont REPLACE DR to fix GMW.

But following up further... if the problem with the current dr is that by the time you meet creature X you already have weapons to beat it, then maybe that is a case for ADJUSTING THE DRS.

If a Cr6 creature with dr10/+2 is either too strong (kills parties without +1) or too weak (most everyone has +2) then why not instead give it DR 5/+3? Why try and rejuvenate DR 10/+2 by changing it to DR 5/absurdium?


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Feb 2, 2003)

Hold on a second. Do you really think that GMW will become less popular or effective if it doesn't beat all magic resistance?

It seems to me that GMW becomes even more essential to PLAYING THE GAME (to use Petrosian's distinction) with special materials DR. A character can have a backup weapon or three. What a character can't readily have is a +5 backup weapon. So if fighter A has his primary weapon (+1 Adamantium Keen Greatsword of Speed) and his secondary weapon (+1 Holy Silver Heavy Mace) and his tertiary weapon (+1 Evil Outsider Bane cold iron Battle axe) it seems like he's still going to want GMW on whichever one he's using at the time so that he can actually hit reliably and deal 5 points more damage per hit.

Now, at the moment, the character might just drop everything onto a +3 holy keen greatsword of speed or a +5 Holy Evil Outsider Bane Greatsword or even just a plain vanilla +5 greatsword and count on that to be good against everything. Since he won't be able to afford high enhancement bonusses on multiple weapons, however he will be more reliant on GMW rather than less.

Say what you will, under the current rules a character can afford to eschew GMW. (Especially with Sure Striking). Under the revised rules, that will be much more difficult to pull off (especially with creatures that also resist damage not dealt by weapons with particular enhancements (Holy for instance).

It seems like your Net Munchkinism entry should read: "No more Sure Striking. Even more incentive for GMW use. Possible cheesiness due to fighters having 5+ weapons. Possible cheesiness due to monsters having DR x/Who'severheardofthatIdidn'tknowyoucouldmakeswordsoutoftoiletpaper!"



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Net Munchkinism: No more Sure Striking, No more GMW abuse, No more Invulnerable DR. Possible cheesiness due to fighter having 5+ weapons. I'll take the new DR any day.
> *


----------



## Derren (Feb 2, 2003)

*What are we arguing about?*

Ok, I will try to summarize this "discussion". I don´t try to twist anyones words in favor of one other. If you feel I did, please correct me in an non-aggressive, non-insulting way.

Petrosian, your arguments against the new DR are:

1. *The new DR encourages the carrying of "many" (exact number isn´t known) backup weapons which will resort in munchkines.*

Here I must ask why is carrying more than one weapon munchkin to you? (And the other way around, when you only carry one weapon are you a "True Roleplayer™"?) 

2. *It will encourage metagaming (Like everyone knows how to fight trolls)*

Here you are right. But an DM can always change the DR. Also it will take some time for the players to learn what is effective against who except they read the MM

3.*Flavor/Logic issue. Spells can penetrate DR but magic weapons not.*

Correct

4.* The lowering of DR allows partys who aren´t properly equipped still to fight against the monster and this takes away the "heroic" aspect of seeking a strong weapon because a monster is otherwise invulnerable. *

Like you said DR is only a minor issue so this didn´t happen often except when the DM engineers such an situation as plot hook. But this can also be done with the new DR. As DM you can always invent a new form of DR.

The others:

1. *The new DR adds flavor to the monsters.* 

Correct


2. *A strong enchanted weapon no longer makes DR useless*

Correct, but weapons will still be enchanted, mostly with abilities than with +es which. The only thing which requires a high + are sundering and old style DR (If it will still be in the book) 

3.*You aren´t useless anymore if you can´t penetrate the DR* 

Maybe not useless, but also aren´t very effective either.


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 2, 2003)

Petrosian: Well, as you say, YMMV. Maybe youll give it a chance if it proves to be more solid given the overall rule-set. At any rate, thank you for the discussion as it put me in perspective with the new DR. I think roughly half the time I was just playing devil's advocate anyway, but I will probably make my players go through the "perdition" of using all of the new rules, hey Im an evil guy  I was hoping to at least convince you that it may be a sound rule, but Im not sure I succeeded. At any rate, good gaming.

Elder-Basilisk: You analysis is correct. However, I fervently hope that GMW will be toned down a little, and that "Transmute Metal" or whatever spell is made will also be 3rd level. Then you have to decide, do you want to be able to buff the fighter's sword, or ready it against DR, IF you know what DR the monster you face may have.

Derren: The Golfbag of weapons can be roleplayed as Hypersmurf pointed out, or it can just be bought at early levels and relied upon. Additionally, evenutally dms (who also often times play) will know the specific DR of many creatures, as they now know some of the resistances. Hence, PCs will more often than not, after a period of playing with 3.5 at least have a 50/50 on what DR it is. Also Im not a stat guy, but I think youre far removed from "useless" or "not very effective" against DR 5/whatever. Against DR 10 its more dicey, and against 15 you better hope someone else has an answer for you.

I probably wont post to this thread much more; one final point I'll try is that under the core rules a dwarven defender can get DR 6/- and a barbarian can get DR 4/-. Would making this DR x/something diminish their abilities in an effective way? What about the monk, who at 20th level gets 20/+1. Wouldnt this ability be more powerful if it was 20/silver (although, to be fair, it would probably be 10/silver). At any rate, DR works for the players and the monsters (at higher levels).

Technik

PS- I dont think its out of hand PC, I just keep failing my fort saves when it gets late.


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 2, 2003)

*Re: What are we arguing about?*

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> *
> Petrosian, your arguments against the new DR are:
> 
> 1. The new DR encourages the carrying of "many" (exact number isn´t known) backup weapons which will resort in munchkines.
> ...



Nice spin but this was not my position. 

you will look up, if you read the posts and find i generally describe the more than one weapon approach as "common sense for an uncommon world." I do not generally refer to it as munchkin or as BAD play. Matter of fact, it is a good example of smartly PLAYING THE RULES or PLAYING THE GAME and those players who decide to design their character to match the things the RULES make sensible will reap the benefits thereof.

Those, however, are not the only player-types i have. Some like to emphasize character and frankly could care less about figuring out the minmaxing rules aspects of a DND CHARACTER as opposed to a FANTASY CHARACTER. 

For my Gming job it is better if i do't run a ruleset that makes the latter run "uphill" against the rules as much. The more cases where PLAYING THE RULES provides a significant advantage over PLAYING THE CHARACTER (example given is the golf-baggies weapons factory DND-type fighter as opposed to the more traditional fantasy novel/movie type with one or at most two weapons and where often one weapon is special) then the greater the problem exists in sustaining a campaign with both types.

See, you don't get it at all. its not that i think golf-baggie types are bad (insert your own selected "derogative" terms like munchkin or minmaxer or power gamer as you see fit) and that single weapon FANTASY-type characters are good (insert your own favorable terms like true roleplayers" as you see fit) at all. its that i do not want the RULES to favor one over the other any more than absolutely necessary. 

My game is a big tent, i just don't want player specific landmines in the rules to in and of themselkves discourage certain player types from my games.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> *
> 2. It will encourage metagaming (Like everyone knows how to fight trolls)
> 
> Here you are right. But an DM can always change the DR. Also it will take some time for the players to learn what is effective against who except they read the MM
> *



Actually this is not a point of mine at all. i never referred to the golf-baggie as metagaming and even defended it as reasonable due to generations untold and their stories of such beasts.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> *
> 3.Flavor/Logic issue. Spells can penetrate DR but magic weapons not.
> 
> Correct
> ...



i call this an inconcistency. the notion that magic SHOULD NOT trump DR... as long as the magic is in a weapon.... but in all other cases should...seems inconsistent to me.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> *
> 4. The lowering of DR allows partys who aren´t properly equipped still to fight against the monster and this takes away the "heroic" aspect of seeking a strong weapon because a monster is otherwise invulnerable.
> *



While i recall commenting on this aspect, i believe it weas a counterpoint. I would not liken this issue as as serious as the first one.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> *
> Like you said DR is only a minor issue so this didn´t happen often except when the DM engineers such an situation as plot hook. But this can also be done with the new DR. As DM you can always invent a new form of DR.
> *



of course, or i can invent new monsters or i can house rules it... all of which is irrelevent to the new rule and analysis of what it does. Every rule in the book can be changed.


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 2, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *Petrosian: Well, as you say, YMMV. Maybe youll give it a chance if it proves to be more solid given the overall rule-set. At any rate, thank you for the discussion as it put me in perspective with the new DR. I think roughly half the time I was just playing devil's advocate anyway, but I will probably make my players go through the "perdition" of using all of the new rules, hey Im an evil guy  I was hoping to at least convince you that it may be a sound rule, but Im not sure I succeeded.
> *




The reason i remain unfazed is that at the core i do not buy into making magic less special than mundane. i do not have a problem with MAGIC weapons tromping all over "mundane" defenses... so i do not see a problem with werewolves silver immunity being supplanted by magic. I do think that AT SOME POINT the holy avenger should be a potent enough special nigh artifact that it kinda of beats the fact that its not made of silver.

To the argument that the PROBLEM is that too many magic weapons of too high a plus are available and so Dr as is never really applies at all... i say that is a perfect justification for reducing the availability of magic weapons of sufficient plus (by spell or item is irrelevent) AS WELL AS reviewing monsters dr to make sure they are relevent and appropriate forn their CR and predicted opponents.

To the argument that the PROBLEM is that the high level of current dr makes it too onerous to use, i say the idea of reviewing the current drs and lowering them where appropriate seems fine.

Neither of these problems REQUIRES designer-dr and its problems as solutions. 

I do remain skeptical of making dr the mechanic for physical aspects. Unless they make further changes, DR is a supernatural ability. It does not work in certain environments, like antimagic fields. It seems silly to make arrows work well against skeletons in AMFs like designer-dr does (barring further imagined changes.)


----------



## Ancalagon (Feb 2, 2003)

Oh, let me tell you how "fun" special DR rules are!

I've talked about our "main campain" in the past, and before I go on, I would like to say that I think our DM is great. The adventures are interesting and chalenging, cool NPCs, good descriptions, great roleplaying and all that. 

That being said... he's extremely tight fisted as it comes to magical items. I'm a level 8 cleric. I have (besides a few scrolls I scribed myself and a few potions I found) a ring of protection +1 and a morningstar +1. Two of the PCs do not even have magical weapons. 

To "compensate" the DM does damage reduction differently. He feels that the simple "if DR is +2/x and you have a weapon of +2 and above, you ignore DR" is too mechanistic and not flavorful enough. A weapon has to have a "special quality", or "alergen" to be able to fully overcome the DR. This isn't too much of a big problem for the PCs who have hight strenght and power attack, but it makes those who relie on weapon-finess types of characters (constant barage of small hits) almost powerless. 

This means that my morningstar, the ranger-rogue's gost touch blade and the fighter-rogues enchanted battle axe are not especialy good at piercing damage reduction. Only the 2 handed sword wielded by the archer, a +1 hextor-temple crafted blade, has the "unholy" descriptor (not doing 2d6 against good creatures, just the origin of the magic coursing through it) that enables it to harm certain creatures. 

One campain detail: It is a major theme of this campain that "outsiders" are trying to get in. The cosmology has a very classical heaven earth hell aspect to it. Thing is, "outsidders" (demons from the abbyss) are trying to break into the world. Both heaven and hell opposes them. This is why the hextor crafted blade hurts them. 

Fast forward to the current adventure: An abandoned temple of Wee-Jass has a very powerfull demon imprisoned beneath it. Someone messed with the wards, and the church of wee-Jas has send a pilgrimage to re-strenghten the wards. The party (allong with wee-jas templars) is acting as gards for them. Lesser demons have been "seeping" through and are assaulting the convoy. (last fight: 10 ruttlekin, 4 baraluga (spelling?), and 10 rather dangerous "mounts" for the ruttlekin. I have no clue what the "skinless horses with beaks of doom" are, but the other 2 are in the book of vile darkness.) 

The temple of wee-jas agreed to lend us one magical item each to help us fight these demons. Great news no? well... 

The archer (fighter 8 ) got a periapt of wound closure, but he already has the hextor-blade so he is fine. His arrows are not working very well, only a critical hit allows him to do significant damage. 

I (cedric, cleric of st-cuthbert level 8 ) get Maxim's order, a lawfull +1 club. I've used it with decent success... but turns out that it does NOT penetrate the chaotic demon's DR even though it is lawfull! Only the high damage (caused by the extra 2d6) is compensating for the 5 or 10 DR 

The fighter/rogue (6/2) gets a necklace of fireballs. Demons are either resistant or imune to fire. 

The ranger/rogue gets (2/6) Wee-Jass lock (as in lock of hair, not sure of the spelling). It is a flaming burst short sword +1... and yes, demons are resistant or imune to fire! Oh, and it doesn,t have the unholy descriptor, so it doesn't benetrate the demon's DR. 

The wizard (level 8 transmuter evocation bared) gets a +1 demon bane dagger. He's polymorphing himself into an ogre and taking names, and the weapon is working like a charm. So one good weapon at least. However, all his damaging spells (burning hand, acid arrow and flame arrow) do nothing against the demons. 

The bard/sorceror (4/4 with no sorcery) got 10 bolts of demon slaying. Those bolts are the ONLY thing he can do to harm the demons. Success rate is 1/4 until now. Add 2 misses, and he only have 4 left. 

What to do? Well, the party wizard has the magic weapon spell, but it will not work. I do too, and I'm using it to even the odds. (it adds the "holy" descriptor, not causing extra 2d6 damage but it is overcoming the DR). Problem is, it only last a few minutes so I have to run around willy nilly (in plate armor) trying to get a few people powered up. with so many people to protect and so many demons, let's just say I don,t get the chance to help many party members. 

So I thought "well, I will use the spell greater magic weapons on a bunch of arrows, and spread them around the party". First of all the spell only last a third of a day. The demons have yet to attack at a time when the arrows were enchanted. Second of all, the DM have decided that, for some reason, the arrows are "linked" so if the demons hit someone with dispell magic (and some of them have that power and are using it often) and that someone is carrying some of the magical arrows, ALL the arrows enchanted by the spell would become disenchanted (if the dispel is successful). And to put the cherry on the sunday, the DM decided that greater magic weapon on missiles would only grant +2 to damage and not to hit... gaaah! 

In the meantime, 5 of the 6 templars are nothing but meatshields (3rd level fighters with good AC), and the clerics of wee-jas have to conserve their strenght for the ritual and only take limited actions in their own defence. 

I am feeling very frustrated by the whole situation. 

Ancalagon


----------



## Shalewind (Feb 2, 2003)

Ancalagon:

I have already conceeded the point about custom DR, and I feel your pain in the scenario listed. It sounds to me like there is alot more going on in your scenario than a bad DR rule, just MHO.

For instance "extremely tight fisted as it comes to magical items" is a break from the normal game balance, and must be compensated for on the DM side (i.e. not fighting demons all the time). 

The rest of the scenario sounds like it was custom crafted to make the majority of the parties resources, useless.

And this bit about the GMW 1) the arrows are "linked", and 2) only grant +2 to damage and not to hit is not Core rule and again in MHO a break in game balance that he is not compensation for.

Now, I'm not saying that the DR house rule isn't causing problems as well, but it does look like that there are too many other problem factors here for the argument to be made.



> am feeling very frustrated by the whole situation.




I would be as well. It sounds like your DM isn't interested in keeping fun challenges or encounters and is more concerned with streching you to your limit and beating you up.


----------



## Ancalagon (Feb 2, 2003)

Our DM believes in pushing us very far from times to times.  I had to do half a dungeon with no spell because we had to stop an evil ceremony of doom (time limit scenario)

Luckily for us, we have a fate point system similar to warhammer frpg.  If it wasn't for it, all but one character would be dead.

Yes, I agree there are other things going on here beside custom DR.  But the custom DR thing is making it a real pain.

Other argument:  what about creatures with natural attacks and DR?  Are they sudenly unable to harm one another?

Ancalagon


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Feb 2, 2003)

Ancalagon said:
			
		

> *
> Yes, I agree there are other things going on here beside custom DR.  But the custom DR thing is making it a real pain.
> 
> Other argument:  what about creatures with natural attacks and DR?  Are they sudenly unable to harm one another?*




The new DR system (as best as we can tell) would work better for you.  DR tops out at 15 and that is for exceptionally powerful beings.  At your level you should not see anything worse than DR 5.

DR 5 is inconvenient, but is not so bad that anyone needs to drop their favorite weapon.  You just need to Bull's Strength your best grunt.  Those that are too weak to punch through the DR reliably can Aid Another.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 2, 2003)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *The reason i remain unfazed is that at the core i do not buy into making magic less special than mundane. i do not have a problem with MAGIC weapons tromping all over "mundane" defenses... so i do not see a problem with werewolves silver immunity being supplanted by magic. I do think that AT SOME POINT the holy avenger should be a potent enough special nigh artifact that it kinda of beats the fact that its not made of silver.*




Petrosian, I think I see where you're getting at.  Would the new DR rules make you feel more comfortable if the "magic" portion of a weapon's damage always gets through DR?  For example, the damage of a Holy Avenger longword can be decomposed into 1d8 + Str modifier (weapon) + 5 (magic) + 2d6 (holy).  Against a wererat, it would do at least 5 (magic) + 2d6 (holy) damage, but the wererat's DR would be effective against the 1d8 + Str modifier (weapon) damage.

Admittedly, this would not address your point about Holy Avengers being powerful enough to get through any special materials DR, but a Holy Avenger weilding paladin can still count on at least 5 (magic) + 2d6 (holy) points of damage per round.


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 3, 2003)

No.

Why not?

This is a cosmetic feel good sort of illusory change.

By the time the magic plus and extra magic damage getting thru makes a difference, the character is already doing enough damage from weapon base and strength bonus (with enhanced from items) that this doesn't change the difference.

Say we are against DR10, the character's base weapon damage is about 5 and the strength bonus should be at the least in the neighborhood of 4 making 9.

The net effect of the proposal is to add 1 more point of damage, stopping only 9 not 10.

Thats no biggie.

you still have the same level degradation to those who do not try the golfie-bag approach with dial-a-weapon.





			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Petrosian, I think I see where you're getting at.  Would the new DR rules make you feel more comfortable if the "magic" portion of a weapon's damage always gets through DR?  For example, the damage of a Holy Avenger longword can be decomposed into 1d8 + Str modifier (weapon) + 5 (magic) + 2d6 (holy).  Against a wererat, it would do at least 5 (magic) + 2d6 (holy) damage, but the wererat's DR would be effective against the 1d8 + Str modifier (weapon) damage.
> 
> Admittedly, this would not address your point about Holy Avengers being powerful enough to get through any special materials DR, but a Holy Avenger weilding paladin can still count on at least 5 (magic) + 2d6 (holy) points of damage per round. *


----------



## Lousifer (Feb 3, 2003)

Hey, just getting back into the whole 3e online gig.  Where do you find these 3e revised rules?

Thanks


----------



## Shalewind (Feb 3, 2003)

New books hit the shelves and the SRD in July. Morris has a compiled information thread on these, Here:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/news...ns&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=37&page=1


----------



## LokiDR (Feb 3, 2003)

Ancalagon said:
			
		

> *Yes, I agree there are other things going on here beside custom DR.  But the custom DR thing is making it a real pain.
> 
> Other argument:  what about creatures with natural attacks and DR?  Are they sudenly unable to harm one another?
> 
> Ancalagon *




The quest of what DR creatures can hurt what is a very good question.  One I hope WotC figures into the revised rules.

In muchkin games, I have never seen DR matter.  In low power games, it can slaughter people.  A mummy has DR 5/+1 and takes half damage from weapons before DR.  If the party doesn't have magic weapons for one reason or another, they are down to torches.  In other words, they are dead.

Lowering DR seems to be a good idea.  I don't know about the designer DRs though.  Maybe I should try this for my next game.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Feb 3, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> In low power games, it can slaughter people.  A mummy has DR 5/+1 and takes half damage from weapons before DR.  If the party doesn't have magic weapons for one reason or another, they are down to torches.  In other words, they are dead.
> *



If they do not have access to turn undead, spells, Lay on Hands, flasks of oil or a way to escape, then they are dead indeed.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 3, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In muchkin games, I have never seen DR matter.  In low power games, it can slaughter people.  A mummy has DR 5/+1 and takes half damage from weapons before DR.  If the party doesn't have magic weapons for one reason or another, they are down to torches.  In other words, they are dead.
> 
> Lowering DR seems to be a good idea.  I don't know about the designer DRs though.  Maybe I should try this for my next game. *




This will be no different in the proposed changes only now you will need to have the DR weapon of choice instead of a +1 weapon. I refer to Petrosian who has been far more articulate than I could be for the explanations. Thanks Petrosian I agree with you 100%


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 3, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In muchkin games, I have never seen DR matter.  In low power games, it can slaughter people.  A mummy has DR 5/+1 and takes half damage from weapons before DR.  If the party doesn't have magic weapons for one reason or another, they are down to torches.  In other words, they are dead.
> 
> Lowering DR seems to be a good idea.  I don't know about the designer DRs though.  Maybe I should try this for my next game. *




IMO, this is simply a pair of cases of poor GM encounters.

Anytime you throw a monster with special qualities of any significant nature, you must assess its particulars against your party. The particular monster may be too fast, too hard to hit, or as in this case too hard to damage for your gang. If you select a creature to throw at your group that has special qualities that will hit them this severely, that was likely a bad GM call (if you did not provide scenario counters.)

That said...

IMO the notion of reducing some DR blocking values (the 20 in the 20/+1) seems appropriate. i don't know that i think that they all should cap at 15... i think there are some cases where higher values are acceptable. (this is espcially true if all the immunities are going to be turned into DR.)

IMO the problem of the Bypass numbers (the +1 in 2-/+1) being so low and so often bypassed as to make Dr less than a reality is simply a case of creatures assigned too LOW a bypass number for their CRs. its like the guys who did the MM did not pay attention to the wealth by level vs CR numbers or did not pay attention to the GMW scaling by level vs CR. Rasing the current bypass numbers on a case by case basis (and maybe adjusting some crs) to take wealth levels and GMW into account seems to be the precision or targetted answer to this "problem."

But regardless... even after they do 3.5e ad fix everything... the Gm will still have to stop and ask "is this beastie an appropriate challenge for my guys in this setting?"


----------



## Fenes 2 (Feb 3, 2003)

I would have thought that was common sense. 

I had an enconter where the barbarian had a +1 shocking burst magic weapon, no GMW was available, the creature had spell immunity and immunity to fire (leaving the sorcerer with magic missile) and the creature was immune to criticals from the duelist with the +3 rapier. In that case I did reduce the DR from 20/+2 to 10/+2 to give the party a good chance at killing the creature.

Are there really DMs out there who just plug a creature from a book without checking what it will do to a party first?


----------



## Ancalagon (Feb 3, 2003)

The DR these demons have is 10 and 5.  Do not say that is is not significant.  The transmutter's spells (fire and acid) do not affect the demons.  He has magic weapon as a spell.

Using the standart rules, he would magic weapon his rapier and be able to act.   Now, because it takes a "special something" (in this case, special magic as opposed to special material) his rapier does not bypass DR.  when you do 1d6+1 damage, DR 5 is a great obstacle and dr10 makes you want to cry.  Luckily for him, he has on lowner one of the few weapons that can affect them reliably, but if it wasn't for that, he would be screwed... or would have to rely on the cleric casting yet another magic weapon spell.  "excuse me mr demons, could you give us, oh, 5 rounds?  I need to enchant the party's weapons".  We have a convoy to defend, everyone needs to be able to act imediately when we are attacked.

I am telling you, what we are going through right now is EXACTLY what the new system will be.  (replace special material with special magic).  And let me tell you it is a great anoyance.

Ancalagon


----------



## Shalewind (Feb 3, 2003)

> But regardless... even after they do 3.5e ad fix everything... the Gm will still have to stop and ask "is this beastie an appropriate challenge for my guys in this setting?"




And when it comes down to it, that is the core of the issue. No matter what rules WoTC comes out with, it will all come down to what the DM is willing to use against the party and his ability to judge them and their resources. No level of rules tweaking is ever going to change this.

One of two things is going to happen. 1) You are going to ignore the new rules or 2) everyone will simply "shift gears", campaigns will change, attitutde will adjust and over a period of about two months, the new DR and a new set of "standard baddies" will be the norm.

New Info: "monks will have a couple of properties with unarmed attacks that will allow them to bypass certain sorts of DR."

"Magical weapons alone won't work, but only good-aligned silver ones. So, there will be DR bypass designations such as Silver, Gold, Cold Iron, Magical, Bludgeoning, etc."

"The "bypass mechanics" have generally proven very intuitive to players, meaning that they quickly figure out from context clues what they need to fight particular monsters (though I'm looking forward to their first fight with a lich...)"

I stand corrected. It does seem the play test team encourages (in at least some degree) and intended the carrying of multiple weapons. Good news for the Monks at least (well they are in a better position now) 

But again, it all comes down to the DM in the first place (and to some extent what his players are). I never use 80-90% of the published monsters anyway... But I can understand how this makes a problem for people that thought the system worked one way and now it has changed... Time to core dump, adapt, and re-init...


----------



## Ferret (Feb 3, 2003)

I won't complain So soon, it might not be like that. I'll start to whine when my epic +10 greatswprd doesn't penetrate a silver DR. This also brings up the point, most of the DR are lower, how hard will it be to get 10+ damage? And one last thing, wouldn't it make sense to have x+ weapons equal Y material?


----------



## Dursk Starkfire (Feb 3, 2003)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *
> IMO the problem of the Bypass numbers (the +1 in 2-/+1) being so low and so often bypassed as to make Dr less than a reality is simply a case of creatures assigned too LOW a bypass number for their CRs. its like the guys who did the MM did not pay attention to the wealth by level vs CR numbers or did not pay attention to the GMW scaling by level vs CR. Rasing the current bypass numbers on a case by case basis (and maybe adjusting some crs) to take wealth levels and GMW into account seems to be the precision or targetted answer to this "problem."
> *




Amen Petrosian. The first person to hit the nail on the head. You're the first to address the ROOT CAUSE of the problem, rather than point out the EFFECT. IMO, fixing the DR is the wrong way to go about this, fixing the DR for the monsters would be more appropriate.

I agree with changes like giving a skeleton 5/blunt damage reduction, but forcing a material is the wrong way to go about this. I have to say that this seems more a change for the sake of change... Of course WoTC realizes that you are now going to have to re-purchase the PHB, DMG, AND the MM because of all of these changes now. 

Dursk.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 3, 2003)

Dursk Starkfire said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I agree with changes like giving a skeleton 5/blunt damage reduction, but forcing a material is the wrong way to go about this. I have to say that this seems more a change for the sake of change... Of course WoTC realizes that you are now going to have to re-purchase the PHB, DMG, AND the MM because of all of these changes now.
> 
> Dursk. *




And how long until will will have to re-purchase the MMII, Fiend Folio, MotP, PsyHB, Splatbooks, Savage Species, FR materials, and etc. because they now will have so much errata that a revised version of all of them now be "neccesay" as well.


----------



## AuraSeer (Feb 3, 2003)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *
> Anytime you throw a monster with special qualities of any significant nature, you must assess its particulars against your party. The particular monster may be too fast, too hard to hit, or as in this case too hard to damage for your gang. If you select a creature to throw at your group that has special qualities that will hit them this severely, that was likely a bad GM call (if you did not provide scenario counters.)*



Following this argument to its conclusion removes the entire point of having special materials in the first place.

Say you, as DM, read about a new gigantic demon. It would fit perfectly into your campaign plans, and you want to use it, but it has DR x/silver. The party has no silver weapons, and you judge that if they can't penetrate its DR, they won't be able to defeat it.

You have four possible choices:
1) Let the party "randomly" find silver weapons (or hint that they need to buy some). 
2) Change the monster's DR to something the PCs can penetrate.
3) Don't use the monster, even though it would be the perfect fit for a certain situation.
4) Use the monster as is, even though it will cause a TPK.

If you use either of the first two options, it really doesn't matter what kind of DR the monster had in the first place. You are ensuring that the PCs will always be able to penetrate any DR they encounter, so why should they care about special materials at all?

Using either of the last two options is even worse, since you're allowing a minor rule to actually harm your campaign. A decent DM never allows that.


----------



## Shalewind (Feb 3, 2003)

> And how long until will will have to re-purchase the MMII, Fiend Folio, MotP, PsyHB, Splatbooks, Savage Species, FR materials, and etc. because they now will have so much errata that a revised version of all of them now be "neccesay" as well.




I don't think that will be needed. Most of the needed Splatbook material is being put into the revised editions. SS and FF are both suppose to be forward compatible (as is the Equipment guide). I don't see anything in MotP that could possibly need to be redone.

MMII, maybe...

And as they have just said: "Psionics handbook - "cannot say whether it will be revised" (It might not have been with this book, but they did comment a couple of times that they could only discuss items which were already "announced" in their catalog.)"

and...

"No plans to republish older products, and in fact, should not need to. Some tweaks will be necessary to use the Builder Books and other older products, but nothing fundamental."

I think the idea behind the revision was that no books would need to be bought besides the core 3. I don't buy into the whole (this is just to make money) theory. This doesn't mean I agree or disagree with DR though.


----------



## drnuncheon (Feb 3, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *If you use either of the first two options, it really doesn't matter what kind of DR the monster had in the first place. You are ensuring that the PCs will always be able to penetrate any DR they encounter, so why should they care about special materials at all?*




You compress a lot into "hint that they should get some" and ignore the possibilities when you do so.  How do you hint?  Well, you could say "As your DM, I advise you to buy silver weapons", but that would be lame.  Perhaps more subtlety is in order.

I'm assuming that this gigantic demon isn't going to be a wandering encounter.  So you put in little clues.  You hint to the players that they'll be fighting the terrible Nastyus demon.  Somewhere else you've placed a legend that talks about a mighty hero whose blade was turned aside by the Nastyus demon's hide, even though it was powerfully ensorcelled.  You know where there's a sage who's an expert on demonology who could help them.

If your players blithely ignore all of this and march in with their +3 weapons at the ready, you trounce them and hope they know when to flee, just as if they walked into an ambush.

If, however, they're smart, and they do their research, and they figure out that the Nastyus demon can be hurt by the wood of the holly bush, then it's a heck of a lot more interesting - your players feel good because they solved a puzzle and it helped them out, you feel good because you got to use the Nastyus demon, and everybody has a lot more fun than just saying "a demon?  Well, break out the _greater magic weapon_ spells..."

J


----------



## AuraSeer (Feb 3, 2003)

...all of which is just another "Hunt the McGuffin" adventure, which any half-decent DM could invent in his sleep, whether or not the new DR rules were ever conceived.

...and which would be entirely unnecessary if the players happened to buy silver weapons at the local blacksmith before setting out. (I know if I I had to play through a long multi-stage quest to learn a monster's weakness, only to find out that I was carrying an appropriate weapon the whole time, I'd consider that a huge waste of my time.)


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 3, 2003)

Shalewind said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't think that will be needed. Most of the needed Splatbook material is being put into the revised editions. SS and FF are both suppose to be forward compatible (as is the Equipment guide). I don't see anything in MotP that could possibly need to be redone.
> 
> ...




And they said 3.5 would be 100% backwards compatable, and they said Mastertools would be released 1 year after the PHB was released, and they said there would be a patch shortly for e-tools. I no longer believe what they say, I now wait for thier actions.




> _Originally posted by WotC's Rich Baker on "forwards-compatibility"_
> -- "Races of Faerun and Unapproachable East will be somewhat "forward-compatible" to 3.5, in that we've taken steps to incorporate some of the most "topic-sensitive" 3.5 changes in those books. For example, the lycanthrope is changing significantly in the upcoming Revised Monster Manual, so Races of Faerun anticipates those changes in its Lycanthrope section. (In that specific instance, we summarize the new rules for the lycanthrope template, so you can see what's going on with the race. Other changes are a lot more "transparent," and don't require explanation.) The first designed-from-the-ground-up 3.5 Realms product will be coming out toward the end of this year. We're working on it right now. 'Fraid I can't say more than that right at the moment."




So according to this Savage Species and Fiend Folio are not forward compatable. MII and BoVD certainly are not, and PsHB is being hintted already that it might be revised. MotP has many races, spells and PrCs. Only parts of the Splatbooks are being reprinted (the most popular PrCs and feats). Enimies and Allies will be all wrong. Creatures of Faerun will be hit hard as well as Magic of Faerun. The FRCS will have many problems. At least the Hero Builders Guidebook and the Stronghold Builders Guidebook will be OK. If they do start reissueing revised versions of all of these I don't want to hear any complaints from those who are praising 3.5 now.


----------



## IceBear (Feb 3, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> Following this argument to its conclusion removes the entire point of having special materials in the first place.
> 
> Say you, as DM, read about a new gigantic demon. It would fit perfectly into your campaign plans, and you want to use it, but it has DR x/silver. The party has no silver weapons, and you judge that if they can't penetrate its DR, they won't be able to defeat it.
> ...




Question - what do you do now if the monster is DR30/+3 and the players only have +2 weapons and no access to GMW?  Isn't it the point of the new DR system that even if they don't have the right weapons they could still, eventually, defeat the creature - it just would take a lot longer?

I'm not saying I'm a big fan of the new system, it's just you seem to be saying you have 4 options - none of which are any good, but those 4 options would exisit today too.

IceBear


----------



## Trine (Feb 3, 2003)

What you quoted from Richard Baker was from the Realms mailing list. Why would he mention non-Realms products on the Realms mailing list? There are better places than that. Not mentioning them in saying they are somewhat forward compatible does not mean that they won't be.


----------



## Kraedin (Feb 3, 2003)

I think I'll buy a _+5 holy, silvered, cold iron, heavy mace_.


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 3, 2003)

FWIW...

my disagreement, strongly voiced disagreement, with some of the decisions released for 3.5e (specifically the new haste and new designer-dr) should not be misunderstood as being against 3.5e in general. 

I think its a very good idea to do 3.5e and believe the notions of how it should contain and be limited to "revision" and not "new edition" and done so as not to require the new repritns of everything else.

I personally find the new designer-dr, if taken as an example, to be exemplary of a change not fitting firmly within this goal as well as i would have hoped.

I wont be implementing 3.5e for my current campaign, so it wont be an impact of any real significance to me... i will just have to adjust any published materials back to my own 3.1e campaign. Since i always tweak things anyway, thats not a problem.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Feb 3, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Question - what do you do now if the monster is DR30/+3 and the players only have +2 weapons and no access to GMW?  Isn't it the point of the new DR system that even if they don't have the right weapons they could still, eventually, defeat the creature - it just would take a lot longer?
> 
> ...




I think the idea is with only 1 DR penetrating thing to worry about, it's a lot easier for the party to have it.  And as a general rule if you are powerful enough to face the CR, you will usually have access to the level of + necessary to penetrate the DR.  Where as with the need swords made of calcified butter DR system parties who normally are of the right powerlevel to tackle the CR, aren't much more likley to have the right equipment than too weak parties, or parties that outclass the CR.   IOW with multiple DR types the party is less likely to have the needed item unless they play smart and buy the golf bag.


----------



## IceBear (Feb 3, 2003)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think the idea is with only 1 DR penetrating thing to worry about, it's a lot easier for the party to have it.  And as a general rule if you are powerful enough to face the CR, you will usually have access to the level of + necessary to penetrate the DR.  Where as with the need swords made of calcified butter DR system parties who normally are of the right powerlevel to tackle the CR, aren't much more likley to have the right equipment than too weak parties, or parties that outclass the CR.   IOW with multiple DR types the party is less likely to have the needed item unless they play smart and buy the golf bag. *




Understood about the golfbag - which is why I'm not thrilled about it.  The thing was AuraSeer mentioned a scenario in which a DM wanted to use Monster X, but Monster X had a DR that the party could not, currently, overcome.  He then listed 4 ways to deal with this and, more or less, said that to do any of them was bad.  My question was, what is his fifth option (assuming one exisits) as that same scenario could occur with 3.0E.  I understand that this scenario would be more likely to occur with the DR in 3.5, but I still think it could happen now and since all 4 options are bad, what's the good one?

IceBear


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 3, 2003)

Trine said:
			
		

> *What you quoted from Richard Baker was from the Realms mailing list. Why would he mention non-Realms products on the Realms mailing list? There are better places than that. Not mentioning them in saying they are somewhat forward compatible does not mean that they won't be. *




I just reread ENWords 3.5 comelation page and could fnd nothing that even hinted that SS and FF would be forward compatable.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 3, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Understood about the golfbag - which is why I'm not thrilled about it.  The thing was AuraSeer mentioned a scenario in which a DM wanted to use Monster X, but Monster X had a DR that the party could not, currently overcome.  He then listed 4 ways to deal with this and, more or less, said that to do any of them was bad.  My question was, what is his fifth option (assuming one exisits) as that same scenario could occur with 3.0E.
> 
> IceBear *




Your right, the 5th option is not there under 3.0 either, so the "Fix" does not realy fix anything. So if you are going to Fix a problem then please do so, don't make a change that is so sweeping, but dosen't realy solve anything.


----------



## AuraSeer (Feb 3, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> Question - what do you do now if the monster is DR30/+3 and the players only have +2 weapons and no access to GMW?  Isn't it the point of the new DR system that even if they don't have the right weapons they could still, eventually, defeat the creature - it just would take a lot longer?
> 
> I'm not saying I'm a big fan of the new system, it's just you seem to be saying you have 4 options - none of which are any good, but those 4 options would exisit today too.
> *



I think you've expressed my point better than I did. Good show. 

The same problems do exist in the current system, and changing to special materials does not fix it. If you're about to go against a high-DR monster, the problem may become "find our first holysilver weapon" instead of "find our first +3 weapon", but it's still exactly the same problem.

The actual fix, which they have done, is to lower the amount of damage that DR absorbs. This seems to be a good idea, and it will usually prevent monsters from being immune to normal weapons. Really powerful monsters will still not be killable with rocks and sticks, but that's good, because they're the powerful monsters.

Once they have lowered the numbers, the current issues with DR are mostly fixed. The special materials thing is a completely independent change, which seems not to fix any problems at all. IMHO it won't add flavor either, and in the worst case, it may detract from the game by needlessly increasing complexity. It strikes me as purely gratutious, change for the sake of change, and there's really no point to it.

IMHO, that is.


----------



## Grog (Feb 3, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Question - what do you do now if the monster is DR30/+3 and the players only have +2 weapons and no access to GMW?  Isn't it the point of the new DR system that even if they don't have the right weapons they could still, eventually, defeat the creature - it just would take a lot longer?*




Do you think the creature is going to just stand there while the players bash it over and over and over again until it finally falls down?

Lots of times, the players can't afford to have it take a lot longer to defeat a creature - because every extra round it takes is a round that the creature is doing damage to the PCs. If the players had trouble beating a creature when its DR wasn't a factor, that same creature is going to become extremely deadly when given DR that the PCs can't bypass. A fight that the players just barely survived under the old DR rules could very well end up in TPK under the new rules.

The golf bag is the only way around this.


----------



## IceBear (Feb 3, 2003)

AuraSeer - don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the new rules, I was just curious as to what the "answer" was to your question.  I can appreciate that this is a charged thread, but I really was wondering what the "answer" was - it wasn't to defend the 3.5 DR rules.  I, too feel, that the DR "fix" was something that didn't need "fixing" - other than lowering the numbers.



> Do you think the creature is going to just stand there while the players bash it over and over and over again until it finally falls down?
> 
> Lots of times, the players can't afford to have it take a lot longer to defeat a creature - because every extra round it takes is a round that the creature is doing damage to the PCs. If the players had trouble beating a creature when its DR wasn't a factor, that same creature is going to become extremely deadly when given DR that the PCs can't bypass. A fight that the players just barely survived under the old DR rules could very well end up in TPK under the new rules.
> 
> The golf bag is the only way around this.




Again, not defending the 3.5 DR, but I don't understand this point.  In the current rules, you'd probably have 30/+3 so NO ONE is going to hurt it unless they have the correct weapons.  If they lower the DR to 10 or something (like they said) then even without the correct weapons then the party has SOME chance to inflict damage.  Isn't it MORE likely to have a TPK in the old rules than the new?


----------



## Grog (Feb 3, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Again, not defending the 3.5 DR, but I don't understand this point.  In the current rules, you'd probably have 30/+3 so NO ONE is going to hurt it unless they have the correct weapons.  If they lower the DR to 10 or something (like they said) then even without the correct weapons then the party has SOME chance to inflict damage.  Isn't it MORE likely to have a TPK in the old rules than the new? *




Well, by the current rules, the party would most likely already have +3 weapons (or a GMW good enough to make +3 weapons) by the time they fought anything with DR 30/+3. But under the new DR rules, they might not have the holy platinum weapons dipped in cheese needed to penetrate the monster's DR.


----------



## IceBear (Feb 3, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, by the current rules, the party would most likely already have +3 weapons (or a GMW good enough to make +3 weapons) by the time they fought anything with DR 30/+3. But under the new DR rules, they might not have the holy platinum weapons dipped in cheese needed to penetrate the monster's DR. *




Sigh - you didn't even read my original post.  AuraSeer said that the DM put in a monster because it was cool and fit the scenario, but the party had no way of overcoming the DR.   He then gave 4 options on this (one of which was, not to use the monster).  I said, well, what if I want to use a 30/+3 monster in my current game and I know that my party don't have +3 weapons and don't have GMW.  That was my point about the same problem exisiting in the current rules.

So, with the new DR rules, yes, the chances of the party being in that scenario where they can't overcome the DR might become more frequent (without the golfbag), but WHEN it does occur, there is less chance of a TPK occuring in the new rules than with the old.  That was what I was trying to say.  Yes, TPKs (because of DR) might be more frequent in 3.5, but in my SPECIFIC scenario, the chance of a TPK is higher with the old rules than the new.

And, yes, I'm well aware that the CR of a 30/+3 monster is probably sufficient that the appropriate party WOULD have +3 weapons or GMW.  I was going with the flow here and assuming the DM was picking the monster based on flavor than balance.

IceBear


----------



## Grog (Feb 3, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *And, yes, I'm well aware that the CR of a 30/+3 monster is probably sufficient that the appropriate party WOULD have +3 weapons or GMW.  I was going with the flow here and assuming the DM was picking the monster based on flavor than balance.*




Well, if the DM wants to pick monsters based on flavor, he can simply adjust their DR to give the party a chance, if that's what he wants to do. We don't need a brand new DR system just to allow that.


----------



## IceBear (Feb 3, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, if the DM wants to pick monsters based on flavor, he can simply adjust their DR to give the party a chance, if that's what he wants to do. We don't need a brand new DR system just to allow that. *




But AuraSeer didn't like that option - which was why I asked what he thought the correct option was (and I think what he's saying is keep the right side of the DR slash the same, but lower the value on the left, so DR 30/+3 becomes DR 10/+3 or something similar - which I like too.)

I was just pointing out that the same problem exists in the current system and you jumped in with a point I couldn't understand - in this SPECIFIC case, so let's not go back in a circle on this now 

IceBear


----------



## Grog (Feb 3, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *I was just pointing out that the same problem exists in the current system and you jumped in with a point I couldn't understand - in this SPECIFIC case, so let's not go back in a circle on this now *




Well, I've heard the argument advanced that players will be okay under the new DR rules even without a golf bag, since DR values are being lowered. I was pointing out that that's not true. If that's not the argument you were making, I apologize for the misunderstanding.


----------



## IceBear (Feb 3, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, I've heard the argument advanced that players will be okay under the new DR rules even without a golf bag, since DR values are being lowered. I was pointing out that that's not true. If that's not the argument you were making, I apologize for the misunderstanding. *




Nope, I was just asking for AuraSeer's input on the post he made without reading all the backstory in this thread (I left on page 2 or 3 ) I was hoping that maybe he had a better way of dealing with DR that he might share. 

IceBear


----------



## AuraSeer (Feb 3, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> But AuraSeer didn't like that option - which was why I asked what he thought the correct option was (and I think what he's saying is keep the right side of the DR slash the same, but lower the value on the left, so DR 30/+3 becomes DR 10/+3 or something similar - which I like too.)*



Yes, exactly. The revision will apparently make two independent changes to DR, one of which appears to be pointless.

The first change is that they are lowering DR values across the board. The current leak says that only a few of the biggest nasties, like the pit fiend, will go as high as DR 15/something. This is good IMO, because it makes monsters far less likely to be invulnerable. By the time the PCs should be facing monsters of that power, the meleers should be able to get past the DR by brute force. They'll be less effective, but not entirely useless. (You might call this "option 5" in my scenario above; the rule change will remove the great majority of places where that situation could come up.)

After that change has been made, I think DR works fine. 

Then the designers make a second change, the whole "special materials" thing. This is what bugs me; DR is already fixed by this point, and these rules don't fix it any better, so I fail to see any reason they included special materials in the first place.

(Some folks complain is that GMW makes it too easy to bypass DR. I'd argue that this is an issue with the spell, not with the DR rules.)


----------



## Shalewind (Feb 3, 2003)

> If they do start reissueing revised versions of all of these I don't want to hear any complaints from those who are praising 3.5 now.




Whoa, there Brown. You seem to have a lot of anger over this whole revision = buy new books thing. I'm not trolling for an argument here. I just believe the whole spirit of the 3.5 rules was to improve the system, not create more revenue by re-releasing all 12-20 core products that have come before it.

As to what wizards says and then doesn't do??? The whole master's tools issue and pushing back release dates in a totally different animal than talking about the motives and speculated plans. Release dates are always variable, as is any computer product. WoTC has regularly maintained both an Errata and FAQ and SRD with a signifigant ammount of speed given their staff (and guys Hasbro is the real money behind the scenes, budget cuts and staff cuts at WoTC come from higher up, IMO).

So when people like Anthony Valterra and Andy Collins take the time to respond to this board and say they are attempting to do no harm and have no plans for republishing and that is shouldn't be neccessary... All I have to say, I believe they aren't lying.

The PHB, DMG, and MM are all core products, of course they will be reprinted. As for the BoVD and MotP, a web enhancement can easily fix the converstion issues (I would think) for those products, the few that they will have. MMII, a bit more of a problem yes... Reprint? Probably not. They'll probably either release a conversion guide or a quick web thingy. (Is all this speculation, yes? But then again, I trust what they say... )

I'm not saying I like all the changes. I just disagree with decrying WoTC as villanous and ONLY trying to make money with the changes. And to making comments (veiled as they are) that they are trying to screw me out of my money.

Call me a WoTC fanboy or supporter or whatever. I've been too statisfied with their work so far to be so negative. But, as I said before, I'm an optimist by nature.


----------



## Shalewind (Feb 3, 2003)

Graaa! I hate double posts!


----------



## IceBear (Feb 3, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *
> Yes, exactly. The revision will apparently make two independent changes to DR, one of which appears to be pointless.
> 
> The first change is that they are lowering DR values across the board. The current leak says that only a few of the biggest nasties, like the pit fiend, will go as high as DR 15/something. This is good IMO, because it makes monsters far less likely to be invulnerable. By the time the PCs should be facing monsters of that power, the meleers should be able to get past the DR by brute force. They'll be less effective, but not entirely useless. (You might call this "option 5" in my scenario above; the rule change will remove the great majority of places where that situation could come up.)
> ...




Well, I have a house rule that GMW doesn't count for purposes of bypassing DR and sundering, so that takes care of that problem.

As for the 3.5 DR, I think what I'll probably do (that opinion could change once it's released) is to use the DR from the 3.5, but to substitute the material required to overcome the DR with the old value from the original MM (except for stuff like skeletons with DR 5/blunt which I like).  I do like the flavor idea of the different materials, but I'd rather have a unique monster show up from time to time that needed a special material to defeat it (with the quest to obtain said weapon being part of the adventure) than to require the PC to carry around golfbags of weapons.

IceBear


----------



## Surefoot (Feb 3, 2003)

Im all for the new DR system. As it was it wasn't any good. This is a good change because it lowers all the damage resistance across the board, giving a party without the right tools still a fighting chance. Or more of a fighting chance than they had in the first place.

But I also like the haste revision. And i play a spellcaster!


----------



## Andion Isurand (Feb 4, 2003)

I'll say again, that I like the new DR.

By succeeding at knowledge checks, PCs can 'remember' what materials damage what monsters...

Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Nature) can provide some good answers.

  ...and this will provide Bards with another opportunity to step forward and tell the rest of the party something useful by using Bardic Knowledge.

Now, combat classes can rely on their wits by picking the right masterwork weapon, rather than having to rely on uber-powerful magic weapons and GMW to overcome DR.  Especially since the amount of damage reduced by DR has been decreased overall.

*******

AS for the new haste spell, I feel that they should reduce the ""extra partial action"" to an ""extra move-equivalent action""....

that way, Fighters can move thier speed and still make a full attack.... 

and Sorcerers can move thier speed and cast a metamagic spell that takes 1 round....   etc. etc.


----------



## Surefoot (Feb 4, 2003)

GMW still is good because it penetrates by 5 points the damage resistance of every monster!

As for haste, if spellcasters can't cast 2 spells, fighter shouldn't get a full attack action anymore if they stand 'in reach', so to speak. but that's a totally other discussion.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re*

Now being a vampire or lycanthrope hunter will actually mean something. Before you could just carry a single high plus weapon, but now you will truly have to come prepared. 

Same thing with demon and devil hunters. Pretty awsome in my opinion.


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *Now being a vampire or lycanthrope hunter will actually mean something. Before you could just carry a single high plus weapon, but now you will truly have to come prepared.
> 
> Same thing with demon and devil hunters. Pretty awsome in my opinion. *




Yes it will mean something. it will mean you, lkike every other intelligent fighter, spend time researching monsters and buying lots of exotic weapons for your magical haversack.

Just like most fantasy heroes of myth, legend, fiction and cinema we have read of for all these years


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 4, 2003)

Ok here is a wierd idea...

DR currently has two values, a blocking value (the 20 in 20/+2) and a bypass value (the +2).

The bypass numbers are currently deemd a problem because they are so low that with normal wealth levels and gmw they are beaten against good cr beasties. So it seems the answer there is to raise those values somewhat. The chosen answer is to add the flavor of the week designer dr.

The big problem with the block numbers is that in some cases they seem too high and stop the attackers cold. The chosen answer seems to be to rescale these values but that still leaves manay worried about the change and dr lethal scenarios.

So what if the problem is the "blokc" mechanic itself?

What IF...

DR reduced the damage done in some proportional method?

What if it was DR +2/half or DR +1/two-thirds or DR+3/one-third?

this way, DR would have a proportional effect across the board.

if it is DRZ +1/10 then it means the mage's staff and the druid's scimitar are practically eliminated from consideration, because those classes wont have the strength and specialization and power attack benefits to beat it at all except on a critical. The fighter is hurt but he still gets damage thru. It also makes TWO HANDED fighting even better over the top of TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING.

it seems to me that there is nothing about the axe wielded 2h style by the fighter than means it should get damage thru while the axe wielded 2w style by the ranger is impotent.

So, why not make DR reduce the total damage of an attack by a set value, so that every attack gets something thru?

For monsters "immune" to certain levels, you give them a fast healing or regen that would take care of those normal damage levels.

this change would make dr more universally balanced, as it would not be as dependent on campaign specific issues such a minmaxing and the availability of strength boosting and the comparative frequencies of TWF styles vs THF styles.

Of course, in 3.5 they seem to be going the opposite direction... taking the guys with "1/2 from" and turning them into blocking drs.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 4, 2003)

> *it seems to me that there is nothing about the axe wielded 2h style by the fighter than means it should get damage thru while the axe wielded 2w style by the ranger is impotent.*




Really?

Go take an axe and chop down a big tree one-handed, then two-handed.

Take a sledge and demolish a concrete wall one-handed, then two-handed.

Hardness and DR (without the right bypass-weapon) act approximately the same, so your empirical observations of the effect of one-handed vs two-handed swings on the hardness of the tree or the wall should give you a fair idea of the effects of those same swings against DR.

Big difference.

-Hyp.


----------



## Madriver (Feb 4, 2003)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, I have a house rule that GMW doesn't count for purposes of bypassing DR and sundering, so that takes care of that problem.
> 
> ...




Why would you need a golfbag full of weapons? With the DR for these creatures being lowered, the party can defeat them by overcoming the DR through brute force.

I like the new DR system, it gives the creatures that have the "special" materials DR that much more flavor. What is the point of the DR in the old system if everyone had the weapons to overcome it by the time they met? At least this way, these few creatures will become a little more dangerous, and will provide a more challenging fight.

In the old (current really) why give werecreatures a DR of silver if everyone has magical weapons by the time they fight them?


----------



## Spatzimaus (Feb 4, 2003)

I really don't think it'll devolve to the Golf-Bag-o-Doom.  It's just not worth it in the long run for many characters, especially once you get to a decent level.

Let's say I'm a 10th-level Fighter and have a +3 sword.  I find out I need to hunt a pack of werewolves (DR 5/silver).
Comparing the effectiveness of my +3 sword versus a masterwork silver sword, my sword has an attack bonus two higher (+3 enhancement vs. +1 masterwork), and does two points less damage ((+3 enhancement - 5 DR) vs. +0).  Power Attack for 2 and they're equal.

At mid/high levels it wouldn't be worth it to use a specialized weapon when confronted with DR 5/material.  Sure, you could GMW the silver sword, in which case it'd now be superior, but GMW's faults are an entirely different discussion.
Against DR 10/whatever or 15/whatever you're better off finding the right material, but from the sound of it DR this high will be less common.  So, the result is that in most cases the Fighters will just brute force through the DR.  It's like having Fire Resistance 5; it won't keep people from casting Fireball at you, but it WILL make it slightly less effective.

Personally, I like that.  Spellcasters are constantly having to adjust their tactics to their enemy's capabilities.  Sometimes it's a question of saves, sometimes it's SR, sometimes it's resistances.  But melee people?  The only strategy I've ever seen some of them do is figure out how much to Power Attack for based on the enemy's AC.

Or, look at the Skeleton (DR 5/blunt).  If I'm a Fighter with a longsword, I'll probably have Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization.  Maybe Improved Critical, too, but let's assume not.  Is it worth it for me to pull out a blunt weapon in this situation?  This sort of DR adds some flavor to the fight, but it won't cause anyone to switch weapon types.

Now, it'd be nice if there was some sort of equivalence system.  Like, saying that if a silver weapon bypasses the monster's DR entirely, a +2 or higher weapon bypasses half of it.  That is, DR 5/silver would also mean DR 2/+2.  But, I'd rather see how their existing system works out first.


----------



## IceBear (Feb 4, 2003)

Madriver said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Why would you need a golfbag full of weapons? *




I don't know, but that seems to have been the conclusion of the other 8 pages of this thread by people who are a lot smarter than me.  I think their point was need = no (unless you're a low damage person); want = yes.

IceBear


----------



## BeauNiddle (Feb 4, 2003)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *Ok here is a wierd idea...
> 
> What IF...
> 
> ...




Because a titan loses 30 points of damage from his 60 point hit and the pixie only loses 2 points from it's 4 point hit. For the player who likes getting really high point crits implementing this rule will get you dead DMs 

The main reason against the golf bag is quite simply wealth.

Presuming special materials cost 200gp each you have a choice between a +1 weapon or 10 weapons for your golf bag. Do you get a +3 weapon or upgrade all your weapons to a mere +1 (for the times when you need magical materials but still leaving you incapable of hurting +2 creatures)?

If you have a +3 weapon and you meet a werewolf with 5/silver is it a better choice to just except the -2 to hit from power attack or should you spend extra money and effort carrying a second/third/twentith weapon all the time. [presuming you check encumberance at least occasionally]

The golf bag is one solution but it is not the most cost effective or intelligent. However it does provide one more option for the players rather than merely HAVING to get the highest plus weapon they can.


----------



## pontus (Feb 4, 2003)

All I want to know is this: If you need a holy silver weapon to deal real damage to a pit fiend, what will the tanar'ri do?

a) Resort to their natural weapons

b) Power Attack like mad

c) Do nothing but cast Chaos Hammer

or

d) Set up a smuggling operation bringing in holy silver weapons from the prime

Somehow, none of these options feels right


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 4, 2003)

You miss the point.

I KNOW how the current mechanic works and why using the current mechanic the two handed axe is better at beating the werewolf's silver immunity than the one handed axe.

i dont need any object lessons or real world physical tests to show me that a double wielding axe should be a lot better at crunching thru a tree.

What i am questioning is is the tree a good model to use to mimic the effects of a werewolf's immunity in the first place.

When somone asks you how the werewolf's immunity to silver works in legend do you start with "well imagine the werewolf was a tree"... do you?

if the answer is "no" then maybe you are near the edge of the cliff which asks "if the current dr makes trees a valid comparison to a werewolf, maybe the current mechanic is flawed."

My point was... "SHOULD the DR system work like HARDNESS at all? 

or using your example, it sounds better "should the dr system make a werewolf like a tree at all."




			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 4, 2003)

BeauNiddle said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Because a titan loses 30 points of damage from his 60 point hit and the pixie only loses 2 points from it's 4 point hit. For the player who likes getting really high point crits implementing this rule will get you dead DMs
> *




Or looked at another way, the titan does 30 damage and the pixie does 2. That sure doesn't look bad for the titan?

Is a 10d6 fireball which does 35 damage a worse choice against some one who makes their save than a 6d6 one that does 21? NO, even though the 10d6 fireball losesd 17 as opposed to 11, it still does more damage.

how much damage dr makes attacks lose is unimportant. No creature ever lost because it avaoided more damage.

The only aspect for how it affects a battle is how much damage is DONE.

A titan doing 30 to a pixie's 2 means the titan will bring down the beast far more reliably.

that doesn't seem like a problem to me.


----------



## coyote6 (Feb 4, 2003)

You know, the "everybody carries a golfbag of weapons" idea is really inefficient, in terms of resources. You'll have several lower-powered weapons of various types.

Instead, use a team approach. Split up the materials. Person A has their primary weapon made of material X, person B's is material Y, etc. Each of those weapons will be more powerful than any of Golfbag Guy's weapons. Then, when you meet a monster that's vulnerable to material X, person A is The Man, and gets the buffs, the Aid Another actions, the extra healing, etc.; when the beast's weakness is Y, B is the go-to guy. Ta-da, rotating spotlight time.

And be smart about who gets what -- e.g., don't give the rogue the weapon of the material that penetrates most undeads' DR; the cleric gets that. 

Depending on the number of characters and the number of materials, you might need each person to carry an alternate/backup weapon of a different material -- but then, real combatants need to have backup weapons anyways. 

It's basically the golfbag idea, but with the bag's contents, costs, and cheesiness divided up amongst the whole party.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 4, 2003)

> *And be smart about who gets what -- e.g., don't give the rogue the weapon of the material that penetrates most undeads' DR; the cleric gets that.*




I'd be inclined to give it to the fighter or the paladin.  The rogue is definitely a sub-optimal choice, because his Sneak Attacks don't work... but so is the cleric, because he's the one who is most likely to have other anti-undead options (spells and turning) at hand... and while he's busy chanting and waving his holy symbol, the undead-piercing rapier is hanging around idle...

-Hyp.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 5, 2003)

There was a request that those of us complaining put forth alternate sugestions as to what to do that would work. The answer I came up with is based off an article just published in Dragon #304 "Guardians of the Wild." In the article they give a template for Seelie and Unseelie fey. as part of the template is:


> *special quality: * _Iron Vulnerability (Ex)_ The mere touch of iron (including steel) deals 1 point of damage to the (Un)Seelie fey. A hit with an iron or steel weapon deals an additional +1d6 points of damage. (Un)Seelie fey with more than 6 Hit Dice gain damage reduction, which protects them from most of this vulnerability. When a (Un)Seelie fey of 6 or more Hit Dice is hit with or touched by an iron weapon, calculate damage including the bonus for iron vulnerability (1 point for a touch or normal damage +1d6 for a successful attack) and then apply the creature's damage reduction.




Granted this does not solve the problem right away as the extra damage is hit by the normal DR. 

---------------------

Now for the solution:

All monsters with DR would be given this (Ex) special quality that would also apply to polymorph.

*special quality: * _(instert material of choice) Vulnerability (Ex)_ The mere touch of (instert material of choice) deals 1 point of damage to the (insert monster name here). A hit with an (instert material of choice) weapon deals an additional +xd6 points of damage. (insert monster name here) with more than 6 Hit Dice gain damage reduction. When a (insert monster name here) of 6 or more Hit Dice is hit with or touched by an (instert material of choice) weapon, calculate damage for (instert material of choice) vulnerability (1 point for a touch or normal damage +xd6 for a successful attack) as if the creature did not have damage reduction, and then calucate the rest of the damage applying normal DR as appropriate.

In addition to this change:
*Greater Magic Weapon*
Duration: 1(0) minutes/level

Leave all DRs as before.

I believe this would solve everyones problem. Creatures are resistant to damage from normal weapons, but will take damage from special material weapons as approriate to the creature's flavor. A golf bag of weapons would not be needed since a character can still rely on his favorite magic weapon. If the DR is still to high for him he can go get a special material weapon that he may have to find out about or quest for. The specialist is still rewarded for having a magical special material weapon to hunt his favorite monsters with. GMW by being limited to 1(0) minutes/level will prevent groups from relying on casting it every morning but instead it will take up valuable spell slots if you need it more than once a day and will slow down an unprepared party in combat while it is being cast. 

If WotC wants to use this I give it to them freely to use as they wish.

So any comments.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 5, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *There was a request that those of us complaining put forth alternate sugestions as to what to do that would work. The answer I came up with is based off an article just published in Dragon #304 "Guardians of the Wild." In the article they give a template for Seelie and Unseelie fey. as part of the template is:
> 
> (Plenty o' stuff snipped)
> 
> So any comments. *




I dunno, Brown Jenkin.  The real change in your suggestion seems to be reducing the duration of _greater magic weapon_.  A magic weapon with a high enough plus would still make DR irrelevant.  Moreover, I believe some posters have commented that by the time a party meets a DR creature, it would have enough weapons with a high enough plus so that it's no longer an issue.  Giving DR creatures an additional vulnerability on top of that seems to be weakening them further.

Perhaps what could be done instead is to give a magical weapon "phantom damage" equal to twice its plus that negates DR.  For example, a +2 Longsword would have 4 points of phantom damage.  Against a normal creature, it would only do 1d8 + Str modifier + 2 damage.  However, against a DR5/silver creature, its 4 points of phantom damage would negate 4 points of DR.  The net amount of damage done would then be 1d8 + Str modifier + 2 - 1 for the remaining point of DR.

In this way, a mighty +5 weapon would blow through practically every creature's DR, except for the rare, powerful monsters that have DR 15/whatever.  Even then, the remaining 5 points of DR would be covered by its inherent +5 to damage.

To balance _greater magic weapon_, perhaps this phantom damage property should be tied to the actual (normal) plus of the weapon.  Hence, a normal weapon GMWed to +5 would not have any phantom damage, rendering it less useful against DR creatures.


----------



## Malin Genie (Feb 5, 2003)

Above in the thread I suggested that there be (*gasp*) no way to bypass DR - i.e. that it worked identically to item hardness.  So there would be no DR 5/+1 or DR 15/peanut butter but just DR 2/- or 3/- (for weaker opponents) up to maybe 10/- for the pit fiend.

Then you could add in vulnerabilities - special materials don't bypass DR but have extra effects (+1d6 damage, or inflict a negative level, or save or be stunned for a round, etc etc)

It gives a lot of room for creativity, and with no simple spell able to just bypass DR, allows DR to work as intended - protect the creature from physical damage just like SR protects it from magic.  (I haven't seen mentioned yet the asymmetry of the fact that the DR models proposed so far all allow bypassing, by magic or materials or both, but there is no corresponding way for spellcasters to ignore the magical defences of their targets.)


----------



## Surefoot (Feb 5, 2003)

Cool! A 16th lvl fighter with 32 str would do about 45 damage each turn against a DR 15 creature with ac of 40.

Of course, using a greatsword (the only way to go) 2 handed, with +5 and keen properties.

This is of course without taking into account:
- Rhino Hide armor
- Rigeous Wrath of the Faithful
- Recitation

Long live the cleric.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 5, 2003)

FireLance said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I dunno, Brown Jenkin.  The real change in your suggestion seems to be reducing the duration of greater magic weapon.  A magic weapon with a high enough plus would still make DR irrelevant.  Moreover, I believe some posters have commented that by the time a party meets a DR creature, it would have enough weapons with a high enough plus so that it's no longer an issue.  Giving DR creatures an additional vulnerability on top of that seems to be weakening them further.
> 
> <Snip>*




I was trying to deal with the complaints with the current system as I understand them.

1. Current DR is useless because people cast GMW that lasts all day.

By reducing the time of GMW it becomes a combat spell instead of an all day buff. As a combat spell it takes extra slots if you are going to fight more than once a day, and if you are unprepared it slows down combat while you buff. While I can't be sure that a "Transmute Metal" spell or spell family will be implemented (I believe they will), if they do my suggestion will have the same meta-effect. If you believe that GMW as an idea to bypass DR is the broken part, then similarly any "Transmute Metal" spell will be equally broken. I personally feel that a bypass DR spell is ok as long as it is not an all day thing. If you feel there should be no DR bypass spells then house rule them out. 

2. Current DR is to high so if you don't have a high enough plus you are worthless.

This sort of contradicts number 1, but we will work under the assumption is correct. By adding special material vulnerabilities any high DR monster can be partialy damaged for only the cost of a special material instead of the high cost of a high plus. By the time you are facing monsters with high plus DRs, you can certainly afford a mundane special material weapon. In the new proposal DRs are lowered so much that any THF of even 1st level can get through ANY DR with a mundane weapon, even that of the Pit Fiend (I am not saying they will live past round 1) which seems wrong to me. I think high level beasties should be immune to normal weapons and this is a common fantasy element. I am responding to the complaint though by allowing anyone to deal limited damage if they know the monsters weakness, again a common fantasy element. If no-one has either a high enough plus, or the right material, then yes the party may be outmatched, but then an option exists that many seem to forget. Retreat and regroup, only now it will be much easier to get ahold of a special material than a high plus, and the pary can go back and fight the challenge when they are ready (as opposed to not being able to afford high plus weapon as it currently stands).

3. Magic weapons trumping special materials in the DR hierarchy causes a loss of flavor that is common in fantasy materials.

This is a valid complaint and I tried to deal with it. I am giving each creature a vulnerability that would match with thier fantasy flavor. These creatures would be able to be damaged by anyone who knows thier weakness and can get ahold of the right weapon. This flavor would be kept at all levels of play. At low levels a party can get ahold of the special materials far easier than they can get ahold of a magic weapon, so the importance of special materials lasts longer. You can bypass DR 5/+1 almost as well with an extra +1d6 of damage if you are using the right special material weapon and can do it at a fraction of the cost. I think this makes special materials a viable option. At mid levels if you run accross a monster with a DR to high to effect with your magic weapons you can still damage it if you know its weakness. This would cut down on the golf bag effect though as your favorite special weapon will work most of the time. At mid and high levels the special materials also come back in as flavor. Sure you may not need them, but if you choose to play with the flavor you can have your +x weapon of special material and do more damage to the bad guy than the person you chooses not to play with the flavor, once again enhancing the value of special materials as part of the fantasy element. 

4. There is no incentive in the current system for players to have to quest for a special weapon to defeat a foe.

Yes the new system may encourage going looking for the special weapon to defeat a foe, but the current system does not prevent it. Right now anyone can place a monster that a quest for a special weapon is needed. I feel though that the new system goes to far making a quest seem needed for every Xth encounter. This however is also the flaw that many people see with the new system. Under the new system a golf bag aproach seems to be the easiest solution to this problem. Sure it can be banned from play by the DM, but I feel any rule that relys of the DM arbitrarily banning the easiest solution is broken. You could counter it more subtlely by making the special weapon rare to find, but if you do this often it looses its fun to play the campaign as you are always on a McGuffin hunt. Or you can use it sparingly to make it special, which is no different than what we have now. I feel that this is mostly a DM issue and not a rule issue, but my sugestion will ad a little more of needing to fnd a special weapon, without requiring the extreme of a golf bg to survive in the world.

This may not be a perfect solution (and there probably isn't one that some minority doesn't like) but I think it is a far better system than either the current or proposed ones are.


----------



## Surefoot (Feb 6, 2003)

What do you propose for a 'better' DR system?

Right now DR is pretty much useless in almost all cases. In a very few (far too few) cases parties need to flee and regroup with a better weapon.

DR 20/+1, the monk's 20th power, is useless in most cases.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 6, 2003)

*Uhm...*

...I don't know if this has been mentioned already, and please don't ask me to quote the source, because right now I couldn't if my life depended on it, but...as far as I remember, under the new DR system, a magical weapon that is NOT of the needed quality to completely ignore the DR of a creature reduces the DR rating by 5 for every +1 bonus it possesses?


----------



## IceBear (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Uhm...*



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> *...I don't know if this has been mentioned already, and please don't ask me to quote the source, because right now I couldn't if my life depended on it, but...as far as I remember, under the new DR system, a magical weapon that is NOT of the needed quality to completely ignore the DR of a creature reduces the DR rating by 5 for every +1 bonus it possesses?   *




Wow...that would be great if it were true, if not, I'll snatch it as a house rule for 3.5 

Edit: Changed my mind   Given that a DR of 15 is going to be a rare and high value, this would make DR useless.  By the time the PCs are fighting pit fiends I would suspect +2 and +3 weapons will be quite common, so why bother with even giving it DR 15/cold iron?

IceBear


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Uhm...*



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> *...I don't know if this has been mentioned already, and please don't ask me to quote the source, because right now I couldn't if my life depended on it, but...as far as I remember, under the new DR system, a magical weapon that is NOT of the needed quality to completely ignore the DR of a creature reduces the DR rating by 5 for every +1 bonus it possesses?   *




I was going to suggest for a "better" DR ssytem instead of the current or the special materials to have special materials/+neeeded system.  When a special mateial with a +, and for each + it was DR5.  So silver for a weak wear creature might be the special material so it would look like silver+1/5.  Cold iron fr a moderate FEY would be cold iron+2/10.  Ad that every + you had in your weapon reduced the DR by 5 points.

This way special materials still had a use since they could penetrate even the hardiest DRs, without magic, but a magical + could reduce DRs and eventually if powerful enough ignore them.

Me I could care less about the special materials, but I undesand other people like them so I can see them ebing in the system.

Edit: in cas eit wasn't clear in this case it could get up to holysilve+5/25


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Uhm...*



			
				IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Wow...that would be great if it were true, if not, I'll snatch it as a house rule for 3.5
> 
> ...




To enable the characters to fight low-level demons better on levels where +2 or +3 weapons aren't so common yet?


----------



## IceBear (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Uhm...*



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> *
> 
> To enable the characters to fight low-level demons better on levels where +2 or +3 weapons aren't so common yet?   *




Ah yes, so the skeleton's DR 5/blunt is overcome by the 2nd level mage with the +1 dagger.  That's really going in the wrong direction with the DR changes.  A pit fiend being fought by a 5th level party?  Right.  Remember, DR 15 is going to be the high end of the spectrum now.  Most stuff will be DR 5 or 10.  I would imagine in many cases that DR 5/silver will be even more useless than it is now if the DR is reduced by 5 per plus.  A low level demon would probably be DR 5/cold iron.  A +1 weapon negates it.  Sure, that's probably how the system is now, so, why change it?

It sounds like they should have either just lowered the DR amount and left the "plusses" the same, or left the DR amount the same, used the special material, and use this idea that - the plus of the weapon reduces the DR by 5.

Edit: Shard's idea is better.  I know it's basically the same, but at least the DR cap is raised to 25.

IceBear


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhm...*



			
				IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ah yes, so the skeleton's DR 5/blunt is overcome by the 2nd level mage with the +1 dagger.  That's really going in the wrong direction with the DR changes.  A pit fiend being fought by a 5th level party?  Right.  Remember, DR 15 is going to be the high end of the spectrum now.  Most stuff will be DR 5 or 10.  I would imagine in many cases that DR 5/silver will be even more useless than it is now if the DR is reduced by 5 per plus.  A low level demon would probably be DR 5/cold iron.  A +1 weapon negates it.  Sure, that's probably how the system is now, so, why change it?
> 
> ...




Well, if you really have a +1 dagger as 2nd level wizard...why not say that the magic power of the dagger is enough to overcome the DR of a creature with, let's say, 5/silver?

Fiends usually get X/holysilver, as far as I remember, and I'm NOT sure 15 is the upper cap of DR either...I for my part would guess around 25 to 30 for high-power devils, for example. And well, of course a low-level group shouldn't actually FIGHT a pit-fiend    but who says they can't at least bluff it a bit by being able to hurt it with holysilver weapons without having to resort to high-magic weaponry? Same goes for a low-magic/low-level group that needs to clear out a minor demon from an old ruin..they can attack it without the NEED for magical weapons.

Edit: And by the way...I guess you have the old MM, so there's no problem of simply adding the old DR ratings to the new DR system?


----------



## IceBear (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhm...*



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, if you really have a +1 dagger as 2nd level wizard...why not say that the magic power of the dagger is enough to overcome the DR of a creature with, let's say, 5/silver?
> 
> Fiends usually get X/holysilver, as far as I remember, and I'm NOT sure 15 is the upper cap of DR either...I for my part would guess around 25 to 30 for high-power devils, for example. And well, of course a low-level group shouldn't actually FIGHT a pit-fiend    but who says they can't at least bluff it a bit by being able to hurt it with holysilver weapons without having to resort to high-magic weaponry? *




Skeletons are going to have DR 5/blunt instead of slashing and piercing weapons causing half damage.  I was just pointing out at a weak wizard with a +1 dagger was suddenly going to have the capability of blowing skeletons apart.

Hmmmm - Andy Collins has said that DR 15 was going to be at the upper end of the DR scale (I could see some golems with more, but for the most part it's going to be 15).

BTW - here is the stats for the revised pit fiend:



> Devil, Pit Fiend
> Larger Outsider (Baatezu, Evil, Extraplanar, Lawful)
> Hit Dice: 18d8+144 (255 hp)
> Initiative: +12
> ...




See - DR 15/holysilver.  Now, honestly do you think PCs without being at levels where +2 or +3 weapons are common will be fighting it?  If so, then it makes the new DR system useless.  If not, well, they're going to die anyway.

Edit: And here's a quote from Andy Collins on this too:



> That's the fact that DR *values* are going down, almost across the board. As I shared at Winter Fantasy, the vast majority of monsters will have DR 5 or 10 (a few, such as the mighty pit fiend, creep up to 15). That means that the fighter who doesn't have the right weapon can still dish out damage to a DR monster, just not as much. (Can you say Power Attack?)




See, 15 sounds like it's going to be the upper limit and only on powerful monsters (normally fought by powerful PCs who are going to have +3 weapons and thereby negating the DR anyway.  Since this simple fact is going to negate the special materials requirement that they're adding I just don't see this "every +1 negates 5 DR" as being true.  If it is true, then it makes this DR change even more silly, just make everything DR 5/+1, 10/+2, 15/+3, 20/+4 and 25/+5 and get rid of all the special materials).

IceBear


----------



## Teleri_mm (Feb 6, 2003)

The amount of posts on this subject shows how hard it is to come up with a good system for DR... but from what I have read about the new system and what I have seen here I think it will be VERY good.  The point of the whole system is not to force every fighter to carry every type of weapon but to give monsters flavor.  So what if it has DC 10/silver ... if you don’t have any silver weapons you will just do less damage that fight and maybe just maybe the players will have to be creative to deal with the encounter.  Even if they just charge right in and the DM is using the right CR monsters for your group you will survive.

I have run 3 campaigns since 3e came out one to 18 and two to 12 and the DR system now is totally flawed… this change brings the monsters with DR closer to there CR levels…  I am happy WotC has the balls to change it!

Basically: Stop complaining till you have used the system for 3 years and then make a judgment.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 6, 2003)

*Well...*

...no...but what Pit-Fiend will be able to immedeately ascertain that his "puny" opponents will only keep up for two rounds of combat once the elven ranger has peppered him with two arrows that hurt him all the way through his damage resistance? And can you imagine the tales a group can tell about "facing off a terrible demon from the nether hells"...actually living to tell the tale, because the pit-fiend thought caution the better part of valor for once..or simply didn't want to bother that much damage in wiping out a low-level group?   

In the end, as far as I see it, the new DR system is meant to add flavour and potential for memorable scenes.


----------



## IceBear (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Well...*



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> *...no...but what Pit-Fiend will be able to immedeately ascertain that his "puny" opponents will only keep up for two rounds of combat once the elven ranger has peppered him with two arrows that hurt him all the way through his damage resistance? And can you imagine the tales a group can tell about "facing off a terrible demon from the nether hells"...actually living to tell the tale, because the pit-fiend thought caution the better part of valor for once..or simply didn't want to bother that much damage in wiping out a low-level group?
> 
> In the end, as far as I see it, the new DR system is meant to add flavour and potential for memorable scenes.   *




And I wasn't arguing that.  I was just stating that your rumor of "each +1 your weapon has will negate 5 DR" doesn't make sense given the current information (especially since you were unaware the 15 was going to be the upper cap of the DR).  That's what I was pointing out.

That pit fiend has 255hp.  That 5th level ranger isn't going to hurt it enough to make it run.  And it's from hell - why wouldn't it enjoy killing some mortals for fun.  Yes, I can forsee circumstances were the party will fight something well beyond their capabilities, but my point is that it's not a common occurence (and the EL/CR system tries to keep it rare).

Anyway, unless you can provide a credible for that rumour, I don't buy it.  It is just contrary to what they were trying to do with the whole special materials and lower DR in the first place.   Maybe a variant rule in the revised DMG with some more rules?  I just think it completely does away with the who special material thing that was the purpose of the change.

IceBear


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Well...*



			
				IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And I wasn't arguing that.  I was just stating that your rumor of "each +1 your weapon has will negate 5 DR" doesn't make sense given the current information (especially since you were unaware the 15 was going to be the upper cap of the DR).  That's what I was pointing out.
> 
> ...




Heh, yeah, I wish I could remember right now...until that, I fear it'll have to stay an unbased rumor.

But if the idea is not making sense within the new DR system is another matter. It sure does something for people who will wonder why their priced +1 or +2 sword that helped them kill off a lot of nasties doesn't do anything against a lowly shapeshifter that can *only* be hurt by silver all of a sudden? Or do you fancy starting all your games anew because of a new DR system?    

EDIT:  By the way...the old Pit-Fiend DR was 25/*+2*...so where's the problem with a +3 weapon negating the new Pit-Fiend's DR under new rules? Except for the difference in the DR amount...?


----------



## IceBear (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Well...*



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Heh, yeah, I wish I could remember right now...until that, I fear it'll have to stay an unbased rumor.
> 
> But if the idea is not making sense within the new DR system is another matter. It sure does something for people who will wonder why their priced +1 or +2 sword that helped them kill off a lot of nasties doesn't do anything against a lowly shapeshifter that can only be hurt by silver all of a sudden? Or do you fancy starting all your games anew because of a new DR system?    *




GUY - READ THIS THREAD 

The whole debate here is just that.

I'm going to post Andy's quote again and I'll highlight the key point:



> That's the fact that DR *values* are going down, almost across the board. As I shared at Winter Fantasy, the vast majority of monsters will have DR 5 or 10 (a few, such as the mighty pit fiend, creep up to 15). *That means that the fighter who doesn't have the right weapon can still dish out damage to a DR monster, just not as much.* (Can you say Power Attack?)




Now, what he's saying here is that if you're fighting a werewolf with a DR of 5/silver, they still believe that you could hurt it without silver weapons (you just wouldn't do as much).   Other's on here argue that people will just start carrying around magic weapons, silver weapons, cold iron weapons, etc.

The reason your rumor doesn't make sense is because they WANT you to use special materials now.   If a +1 sword blows through DR 5/silver then it goes against this new principle.

Here's the quote from Andy to prove that point:



> The change from a strict hierarchy to a single specific quality, damage type, or material of the weapon (or in very rare cases, a combination of two) is indeed an attempt to recapture the "flavor" of damage reduction: werewolves are resistant to non-silver weapons, fey are most vulnerable to cold iron, skeletons are resistant to piercing & slashing weapons, demons are vulnerable to good-aligned weapons, and so on.* As a number of people have pointed out, it's lame that all the flavor of the "special material" DR is completely lost once the party has +1 weapons at hand (or even ready access to the magic weapon spell). And the hierarchy of pluses introduces the ugly metagame element of characters rating weapons (and monsters) by plus rather than by the actual qualities of the weapon (magic, silver, piercing, holy, whatever).*




See, they DON'T want plusses negating DR anymore.  This thread is debating whether or not this is a good idea.  Your rumor flies completely in the face of this, and thus I believe it false or misinformed.

IceBear


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 6, 2003)

*So...*

...you wouldn't mind your +1 magical sword being useless against a Pit-Fiend, even though it's magical? Just curious...and yes, I'm aware it trashes the "special material" concept at lower DR values...


----------



## IceBear (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: So...*



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> *...you wouldn't mind your +1 magical sword being useless against a Pit-Fiend, even though it's magical? Just curious...and yes, I'm aware it trashes the "special material" concept at lower DR values... *




Holy crap man...if you read this thread you'd see where I stand.  This is what this thread is about.

I said I liked the idea of the lowering of the DR, but I wasn't a fan of the special material (I could see a unique monster needing a special material from time to time), but I like magical weapons being magical.

My plan is to use the DR value from the revised MM and the old plus value from the old MM.  Thus, my pit fiends would be DR 15/+2.  Given the current DR rules, your +1 sword is even MORE useless against the pitfiends DR 25/+2.  At least with 15 you might hurt it with a power attack or a critical.

I'm not arguing that I like the change, I'm just arguing with YOU, that given the evidence (WotC wants special materials to be special and feel that the DR will be low enough that you can bypass it even without the special material) your rumor doesn't seem likely.  Understand now?

IceBear


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 6, 2003)

*Ice Bear...*

...you don't have to repeat yourself twice or more to make me understand why you think that "rumor" I brought along is not in the line of the new DR system. Probably should take it and wait until it fits in the "House Rules" section anyway.   

Don't mind discussing with you, though...but I guess the thread's not for that either


----------



## IceBear (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Ice Bear...*



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> *...you don't have to repeat yourself twice or more to make me understand why you think that "rumor" I brought along is not in the line of the new DR system. Probably should take it and wait until it fits in the "House Rules" section anyway.
> 
> Don't mind discussing with you, though...but I guess the thread's not for that either   *




I'm sorry, but I really didn't think you were getting it as after I said it the first time you said you disagreed 

I think your "rumor" would be a fine house rule with the existing DR levels.  Just don't think it would work well for stuff like /blunt or with the new DR levels.

BTW - I will concede the point that your rumor may be true, it's just that if it is, and given Andy's points, it seems really dumb for WotC to do that 

IceBear


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 6, 2003)

*Re: Re: Ice Bear...*



			
				IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm sorry, but I really didn't think you were getting it as after I said it the first time you said you disagreed
> 
> ...




Nah, that's okay, happens too often around here...I just usually try to understand someone's arguments before I try to disagree with him   

And I have to admit that it would make a better house rule with the current DR values AND special materials ruling...hmmm, all those possibilities...


----------



## Grog (Feb 6, 2003)

Teleri_mm said:
			
		

> *The amount of posts on this subject shows how hard it is to come up with a good system for DR... but from what I have read about the new system and what I have seen here I think it will be VERY good.  The point of the whole system is not to force every fighter to carry every type of weapon but to give monsters flavor.*




And why exactly is a new DR system needed to give monsters flavor? D&D already has hundreds of different monsters and a huge amount of flavor among them. Are you telling me that the only difference in flavor between an ogre and a pit fiend is the fact that the pit fiend has DR?

And while the point of the system may not be to force every fighter to carry every type of weapon, that is exactly what the system will do.



> *So what if it has DC 10/silver ... if you don’t have any silver weapons you will just do less damage that fight and maybe just maybe the players will have to be creative to deal with the encounter.  Even if they just charge right in and the DM is using the right CR monsters for your group you will survive.*




I love the way people say, "No big deal, you'll just do less damage that fight" like all it is is some kind of minor inconvienence.

People, when your damage is reduced to one-third or less than what it usually is, that is not a minor inconvienence. That is a *drastic* reduction in your combat capability. It has the potential to turn an encounter that was only meant to be fairly challenging into a very lethal one.

If someone is playing a fighter, and his party is facing a dangerous monster, and he finds himself unable to deal significant damage to said monster through its DR, then one of two things will happen:

A) The rest of the party will defeat the monster without any help from the fighter, which will make the player feel useless - which is no fun for the player;

or

B) The rest of the party _won't_ be able to defeat the monster, and the group will have to flee for their lives, leaving a couple of dead bodies behind, or possibly end up in a TPK - also no fun for the player(s).

Of course, the fighter's player won't want either of these things to happen, so he will carry around as many different weapons as he needs to deal with monster DR - and thus, we have the golf bag of weaponry scenario.

And yes, I know players can sometimes find creative ways to deal with encounters. But sometimes they can't, and I don't want the players' fun to be smothered in those situations.



> *Basically: Stop complaining till you have used the system for 3 years and then make a judgment. *




This is a ridiculous statement. I could just as easily tell you to stop praising the system until you've used it for 3 years.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Feb 6, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I love the way people say, "No big deal, you'll just do less damage that fight" like all it is is some kind of minor inconvienence.
> 
> ...




This is one of the big issues I have.  Some have basically said, well other people in the aprty will pick up the slack, so what if you do a little less damage this fight.  And sure if your the rogue I'm with that statement, but if your the fighter, what a bunch of crap.  All the fighters class abilities do is help him fight, he basically sucks at everything else. (hopefully this will change somewhat)  A fighter should in his career from level 1-20 have to take a backseat in a fight and let someone else pick up the slack at most the number of times i can count on one hand wihout using a finger more than once.  Unfortunately this isn't so in the current system and it will be even less so in the new DR system witout the golf bag of weaponry.(or some silly buff spell that makes this pointless)


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 7, 2003)

IF the special material DR comes up often enough that fighters feel they arent getting their slice of pie, than I would say there is a problem. But not with special material DR.

The new DR WILL add flavor to certain monsters, flavor they once had and presently dont. Its not some willy-nilly decision to just scatter DR around, there are some monsters that traditionally have different ways of hurting them. Lyncanthropes and Skeletons spring to mind. I think if the system is overused it will be unpopular, but if it is used with discretion it will be a lot of fun.

If your fighter has never had a special DR fight, and he does have one, that the DM didn't drop some hints that were coming, AND the fighter doesnt have any sort of interesting utility combat feat (Expertise, Power Attack, Improved Disarm, Improved Bull Rush, etc etc) THEN all the fighter will be able to do is think of something ingenious and meatshield for the party. Afterwards, if the party manages to determine what kind of monster it was, and what sort of weapon would have penetrated its hide, then the fighter may go and buy such a weapon.

At the end of a long career (level 20) you could easily have not fought more than 1 or 2 special material DR creatures, which means unless youre a paranoid min/maxer you only have about 3 weapons, at least one of which you probably havent used for a long time as you fought the special material monster when you were a lower level.

Can the scenario easily be switched to one where the fighter constantly feels a little left out by the massive amount of special material DR hes facing? Yes, but at that point its a conscious decision by either a module designer or a dm. And if its the SAME kind of special materials DR, the fighter may decide that his main weapon will become a weapon made from that material, and it will be something associated with him to give him prestige, people will know the fighter who carries a dark red sword named Fairy Bane.

The rules can twist and contort as you and your dm are willing to twist them. Some people see golfbags, and some people see more opportunity for individual fighters.

Technik


----------



## Grog (Feb 7, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *If your fighter has never had a special DR fight, and he does have one, that the DM didn't drop some hints that were coming, AND the fighter doesnt have any sort of interesting utility combat feat (Expertise, Power Attack, Improved Disarm, Improved Bull Rush, etc etc) THEN all the fighter will be able to do is think of something ingenious and meatshield for the party. Afterwards, if the party manages to determine what kind of monster it was, and what sort of weapon would have penetrated its hide, then the fighter may go and buy such a weapon.*




Exactly! (Assuming the party survived the encounter, that is).

In fact, the fighter would have to be an idiot to _not_ go and buy such a weapon at his earliest opportunity.

But let's take this example a step further. Wouldn't the fighter, knowing he was going into a dangerous situation, and not knowing what kind of creatures the party might run into, research what kind of weapons he might need _before_ going on the adventure?

Of course he would. So he finds out that different creatures have a variety of damage resistance, and he finds out that there are half a dozen (or however many there are) different types of weapons that will penetrate the various resistances. So he goes out and gets those weapons, because he doesn't know what he'll be facing on the adventure, but he wants to be prepared.

Which gives us the good ol' golf bag of weaponry.



> *At the end of a long career (level 20) you could easily have not fought more than 1 or 2 special material DR creatures, which means unless youre a paranoid min/maxer you only have about 3 weapons, at least one of which you probably havent used for a long time as you fought the special material monster when you were a lower level.*




I strongly doubt this would ever happen, but for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and assume that the DM only used 1 or 2 special material DR creatures over the course of a 20 level campaign.

I bet that most players would _still_ have a golf bag of weaponry, even in the above scenario. Because, even though they've only met 1 or 2 special material DR creatures, there could be one right around the next corner for all they know. And they'd want to be able to deal with such a creature if they do happen to run into one.

After all, lots of people will go their entire lives without ever getting in a car accident, and yet they'll still buckle their seat belt every time they get in a car.

It's just common sense.


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 7, 2003)

Its common sense true, but lots of people DONT buckle their seatbelts as well. Not that I really like that analogy. Most people lock their doors at night, but lots of people dont have quadruple locks, an alarm system, a neighborhood watch program, a dog, a robotic dog in case the real dog dies, a live-in security guard, etc in their house in case they get robbed.

Personally I would rule that any such golfbag thinking by the fighter is metagaming, and metagaming has a habit of getting the whole party in trouble.

Everyone that supports the golfbag theory seems to think that every fighter is some conscientious really reliable person who has a checklist of things to bring before going to the dungeon. What about the "slow" barbarian? Or the over-zealous (and overlooking) paladin? These *characters* wouldnt think to buy every weapon under the sun, even if their more paranoid players might.

I like the idea someone else was talking about, how each character sortof covers one type of special materials. The rogue has silver daggers and a silver short sword, the cleric has a holy mace and a holy sword, the wizard has a cold iron quarterstaff (the tips anyway), and the fighter wields whatever the heck he wants. If trouble comes he just requisitions whatever weapon he needs from the party "Gimme that staff...QUICK", etc.

By high levels there will almost certainly be some kind of spell to enhance whatever the fighter is using to fight any given DR, as long as the party has knowledge of what the DR penetration is. Therefore, as I said before, fighters wont "need" a golfbag, though I dont doubt paranoid fighters will have them. I just know I never wanted to play a fighter before now, but Im actually considering because the fighters job got a little trickier.

As far as what someone else said about fighters not having skill points, well look at sorcerors and clerics. If you want skill points then sacrafice AC (dex), HP (con), or something else for int.

Just as people found ways around old DR, so will people find ways around new DR, have no fear. I like to think these golfbag theories will never come to pass and one day I will make a post titled "Remember when we thought there would be golfbags on every fighter?".

Technik


----------



## Teleri_mm (Feb 7, 2003)

Grog:

If you notice my statement relies on the DM understanding how the encounter should work... if the DM does not understand how to use DR (meaning he/she throws them in with out thinking of the consequences) then yes your are right the party will be screwed or the fighter will be made 'useless'.  The point of DR is to make the players think twice before attacking that loan wolf… not kill them.  If your DM uses them to try to kill you then I guess you need to find a new DM... ether way I think if it is used the way it is intended the new DR will make a great addition to the game.

*shrug* but then again I could be wrong… I will get back to you in 3 years.

Teleri_mm


----------



## Andion Isurand (Feb 7, 2003)

how do natural attacks get affected by this new DR?


----------



## Grog (Feb 7, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *Personally I would rule that any such golfbag thinking by the fighter is metagaming, and metagaming has a habit of getting the whole party in trouble.*




It's _not_ metagaming. It's _common sense_.

In a fantasy world, people are going to know that things like werewolves exist and they are going to know that you need silver weapons to hurt them. So even adventurers who don't expect to run into werewolves will probably get themselves some silver weapons just in case.

It is common sense to plan ahead and be prepared.

If your players were going on a journey in the wilderness that they expected to take two weeks, and they decided to take four weeks worth of food with them in case they got lost, would you accuse them of metagaming?

The golf bag is exactly the same concept. It is being prepared for potential complications.



> *Everyone that supports the golfbag theory seems to think that every fighter is some conscientious really reliable person who has a checklist of things to bring before going to the dungeon. What about the "slow" barbarian? Or the over-zealous (and overlooking) paladin? These *characters* wouldnt think to buy every weapon under the sun, even if their more paranoid players might.*




You're right. And you know what? The new DR rules _punish_ those types of characters. They punish players who roleplay in-character reasons for not acquiring a golf bag of weapons. In short, the new DR rules punish good roleplaying, rather than encouraging it.

And anyway, all we're talking about here is delaying the aquisition of a golf bag. Because, after enough run-ins with creatures his weapon can't hurt, even the slowest barbarian is going to get it eventually. Assuming he survives long enough, that is.



> *Just as people found ways around old DR, so will people find ways around new DR, have no fear. I like to think these golfbag theories will never come to pass and one day I will make a post titled "Remember when we thought there would be golfbags on every fighter?".*




You may be right, but I really doubt this will come to pass.


----------



## Grog (Feb 7, 2003)

Teleri_mm said:
			
		

> *If you notice my statement relies on the DM understanding how the encounter should work... if the DM does not understand how to use DR (meaning he/she throws them in with out thinking of the consequences) then yes your are right the party will be screwed or the fighter will be made 'useless'.  The point of DR is to make the players think twice before attacking that loan wolf… not kill them.  If your DM uses them to try to kill you then I guess you need to find a new DM... ether way I think if it is used the way it is intended the new DR will make a great addition to the game.*




The actions some DMs may or may not take really have no bearing on whether or not this is a good rule change. Sure, if you have a good DM you'll probably be fine - but that will be in spite of the new rule, not because of it.


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 7, 2003)

*Preparation vs Paranoia 101*

Its common sense to take 4 weeks of food if you know you are going to be traveling for 4 weeks. Preparation

It is paranoid to travel with 4 weeks of food at all times IN CASE it turns out you need it. Paranoia

Its common sense when you know you will be fighting lyncanthropes to buy a silver weapon, and perhaps keep it at the ready (ie- not in a HHH or some dimensional space). Preparation

Its paranoid to always carry every kind of weapon, just IN CASE you fight something that requires a special condition to beat it. Paranoia

These are generally PLAYER attributes, not CHARACTER attributes. A good dm does not punish a good player (ie- a player who plays a character well), but I may punish a metagaming caddy. As hyp pointed out a few pages ago, you CAN have a non-metagamed golfbagger, I personally think it will be rare, simply because special DR should not be common, and therefore it wont come up enough to warrant it. YMMV.

Technik


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 7, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> At the end of a long career (level 20) you could easily have not fought more than 1 or 2 special material DR creatures, which means unless youre a paranoid min/maxer you only have about 3 weapons, at least one of which you probably havent used for a long time as you fought the special material monster when you were a lower level.
> *




Going through the MM and MMII I checked on the number of creatures with DR. The Monster Manual has 30% of its creatures with DR while the Monster Manual II has 40% of its creatures with DR.  If a character meets only 1-2 monsters with special material DR then the DM is choosing to pull from only a limited selection. If a character meets a diversity of encounters 1 in 3 encounters will be with a creature with DR. If one third of my encounters require a special material weapon, you can be darn sure I will have the weapons I need on hand in my golf bag. If you choose not to use 1/3 of the monsters availible because it causes people to use a golf bag maybe something is wrong.




			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> Personally I would rule that any such golfbag thinking by the fighter is metagaming, and metagaming has a habit of getting the whole party in trouble.




In my opinion any rule that requires the DM to Rule 0 the most obvious and logical solution to a problem is a broken rule.


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 7, 2003)

Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The new DR WILL add flavor to certain monsters, flavor they once had and presently dont. Its not some willy-nilly decision to just scatter DR around, there are some monsters that traditionally have different ways of hurting them. Lyncanthropes and Skeletons spring to mind.
> Technik *




Ok so the flavor for the werewolf and skeleton is now going to be "he is only killable with silver weapons... or magic missile, or ray of frost, or melfs acid arrow, or fireball, or...."

the werewolf flavor is not lost because a MAGICAL BLADE can hurt him even if it is not silvered.

To pretend that the werewolf is having a booster shot of flavor because the character who needs to rely on weaponry has to find a special rarest of rare silvered blade because his MAGICAL AXE wont work when all the other MAGICAL methods for killing a werewolf remain just fine is rather silly.

If you want the werewolf to have flavor, don't give him the "tree-like" DR/hardness except vs silver. Give him regeneration or fast healing with "not vs damage caused by silver weapons."

***************

the designer-dr encourages the golf-baggie PLAY THE RULES character types, makes their design even more sensible (common sense in an uncommon world) and punishes those who do not want to buiuld their characters in a PLAY THE RULES mindset but rather like more traditional fantasy characters. 

Evenm if somehow a GM sees this as flavoring up the monsters, doing so at the expense of unflavoring the PCs is a bad notion, IMO.


----------



## Andion Isurand (Feb 7, 2003)

I think that the changes to DR are a good thing because it is more honest to the classic creatures of old and their respective mythologies.

Within the context of the d20 3rd Ed D&D system, this change helps the mythical and bizarre creatures that color the fantasy genre to regain some of the flavor they once had.

Now, the classic creatures of old that decide to make appearances in the new novels written about the campaign settings of today, will remain closer to same old staples we have come to know and love them as.

The new DR does not feel so.........  Generic


----------



## Coredump (Feb 7, 2003)

people talk about 'research' like it is a forgone conclusion of a scientific community.

How well will the fighter be able to gather info? He isn't very trained at research to begin with. And which info will he believe? He 'learns' that to hurt werewolves, you can only use two handed weapons. (afterall, the guy using a dagger did no damage at all, yet the halberd seemed to hurt it.) Maybe he hears that silver will do it, or maybe he hears that silver is an old wives tale, and only steel quenched in belladona, or wolf's blood, will work.  Maybe he hears that all this 'special weapon' stuff is malarky, and started by old ladies and wimply fighters.  Or maybe the area he is in doesn't really have many were creatures, so little is known...until he travels to the far off land...
The point is, yoiu can't just assume you can have an encyclopedia of all monsters, and assume that all info is there, and assume that the info is complete, accurate, and not misleading.
Or could you also 'research' all the strengths and weaknesses of all monsters, maybe even how many hit points, what their tactics were, all their special abilities, etc. etc.

Second, is it worth it to carry all those weapons?  How often will they be needed? how does that compare to the hassle of carrying them?

Lets think of current... did all fighters carrya  slashing *and* bludgening weapon. Plus a melee *and* a range weapon? Did they always carry a fly potion? and water breathing? And a silver weapon? etc. etc.
These are all things that will make the fighter more effective in certain situations; so does every fighter carry them all now?

.


----------



## RigaMortus (Feb 7, 2003)

Grog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's not metagaming. It's common sense.
> 
> ...




To a certain extent.  Unless their characters have a Monster Manual in their possession, they aren't going to know EVERY kind of monster in the world, or their weaknesses.  Heck, I'd be surprised if they were even aware of all the different types of weapon materials that are available.  You know what?  I've never even heard of Cold Iron until this thread came up, so it would be very presumtuatous that my character would know what it is.  Maybe he would, but I am sure he wouldn't know what all the other types of "rare" materials are as well.  Common sense is about in-game knowledge, not metagame knowledge.  I've played characters that had no idea what Mithral or Admantine was, and I've played characters that knew what Nephelium was.  Have you never played a character that DIDN'T know what something was?



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> *
> It is common sense to plan ahead and be prepared.
> 
> If your players were going on a journey in the wilderness that they expected to take two weeks, and they decided to take four weeks worth of food with them in case they got lost, would you accuse them of metagaming?
> *




Knowing travel time in-game and knowing what monsters are out in the dark world along with all their powers and weaknesses are two ENTIRELY different things.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> *
> The golf bag is exactly the same concept. It is being prepared for potential complications.
> *




If that is truly the way you play your character, you must carry at least one of EVERY item in the PHB.  A 10 foot pole (you never know when you are gonna need to pole vault over a small pit), a 10 foot ladder (you never know when you're gonna need to climb out of the pit you fell into while pole vaulting), vial of holy water (never know when you are gonna run into a vampire inside a pit you tried to pole vault over), a monk's outfit (never know when you may find yourself in a monastery and need to dress like the locals), and so on...  No harm in being prepared, right?



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> *
> You're right. And you know what? The new DR rules punish those types of characters. They punish players who roleplay in-character reasons for not acquiring a golf bag of weapons. In short, the new DR rules punish good roleplaying, rather than encouraging it.
> *




Interesting thought process here...  So if I decide to NOT take any ranks in Escape Artist, because role-play-wise that isn't something my character would take, wouldn't the rules be _punishing_ me when a Dire Lion Improve Grabs me?  After all, if I took that skill I would have a better chance to escape the grab than my current BAB allows.  Just as, if I took golf bag full of weapons would have improved my chances against creatures with DR.  I guess in both cases I would be getting _punished_ because of my roleplay choice, right?

I mean come on.  I can come up with a a dozen (ok, maybe half a dozen, I am tired right now) reasons why my character would and would not choose certain things in game (feats, weapons, spells, skills).  And when I choose not to pick something that would otherwise become handy later on down the road, have I been punished?  Did I punish myself for the choices I made roleplay-wise?



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> *
> And anyway, all we're talking about here is delaying the aquisition of a golf bag. Because, after enough run-ins with creatures his weapon can't hurt, even the slowest barbarian is going to get it eventually. Assuming he survives long enough, that is.
> *




I can agree with this.  If you continually run into the same type of creature or even different creatures that have the same DR vulnerabilities, maybe you'd be wise to pick up a weapon made of the special material.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Heck, even the first time you meet the creature you may want to go ahead and get said weapon.  But to do so in advance doesn't make much sense IMO.  It is all on how you approach it.

Now when creating higher level characters, it would be acceptable that you have some more knowledge about DR of certain monsters, but you still don't know it all.  Heck, even at level 20 there are still some things your character might not know about monsters and materials.


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 7, 2003)

. [/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> people talk about 'research' like it is a forgone conclusion of a scientific community.
> . *



No they are not.


			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> How well will the fighter be able to gather info? He isn't very trained at research to begin with. And which info will he believe? He 'learns' that to hurt werewolves, you can only use two handed weapons. (afterall, the guy using a dagger did no damage at all, yet the halberd seemed to hurt it.) Maybe he hears that silver will do it, or maybe he hears that silver is an old wives tale, and only steel quenched in belladona, or wolf's blood, will work.
> . *



If you look back 3-4 pages you will see this very thought gone over once or twice. Given the presence of even nominally greedy merchants, the golf-baggie of weapons will indeed be a full sack, filled with various weapons that end up not being very special at all. 

This is old news.

No one describing the golf-baggie of weapons is claiming it will be a representation of flawless creature knowledge at all. that nonsense is being created and tossed in by those who hope to convince people the golf baggie is wrong even if it is encouraged by the rules.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> Maybe he hears that all this 'special weapon' stuff is malarky, and started by old ladies and wimply fighters.  Or maybe the area he is in doesn't really have many were creatures, so little is known...until he travels to the far off land...
> . *



Maybe its a secret conspiracy caused by bunnies.


			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The point is, yoiu can't just assume you can have an encyclopedia of all monsters, and assume that all info is there, and assume that the info is complete, accurate, and not misleading.
> . *



Ok, so are you just arguing with yourself or did someone actually claim this was what was expected in the golf-baggie scenario?

When someone says "a smart adventurer will carry extra food" do you jump up and down frothing about how they cannot assume they know exactly how long they will be out?


			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> Or could you also 'research' all the strengths and weaknesses of all monsters, maybe even how many hit points, what their tactics were, all their special abilities, etc. etc.
> . *



you seem to be railing against a mythic beast "perfect flawless knowledge of monsters" that no one has claimed to be. You are arguing against a phantom of your own devising.

That of course is a valid lifestyle choice, and maybe once you are done you could join the rest of us here for the discussion perhaps?


			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> Second, is it worth it to carry all those weapons?  How often will they be needed? how does that compare to the hassle of carrying them?
> . *



Same as every other piece of gear. it has an encumbrance value and is most likely stored in the cheap haversack or bag of holding.


			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> Lets think of current... did all fighters carrya  slashing *and* bludgening weapon. Plus a melee *and* a range weapon? Did they always carry a fly potion? and water breathing? And a silver weapon? etc. etc.
> . *



Except for the silver weapon, most prepared fighters carry what they think they will need. The exceptions are those for whom the character concept is not amenable to such. Fortunately most character concepts are not wholly impractical. The key becomes when the rules change to increase the punishment factor for a very common character concept... the warrior with one or at most two weapons, often just one special weapon.


			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> These are all things that will make the fighter more effective in certain situations; so does every fighter carry them all now?
> . *




Most do. (Though of course the magic side is wholly dependent on what magical support is within the party itself.)


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 7, 2003)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *
> To a certain extent.  Unless their characters have a Monster Manual in their possession, they aren't going to know EVERY kind of monster in the world, or their weaknesses.  Heck, I'd be surprised if they were even aware of all the different types of weapon materials that are available.  You know what?  I've never even heard of Cold Iron until this thread came up, so it would be very presumtuatous that my character would know what it is.  Maybe he would, but I am sure he wouldn't know what all the other types of "rare" materials are as well.
> *



yes, but he would know what was being sold in the weapon shop he is standing in and if he sees a "cold iron mace" and he knows that some materials are needed for some magical beasts, why would he not inquire?

The key is, by even low lecvels the prices of these things (using the current silver weapons as a guideline) is so low that it is silly to not take advantage of the opportunity. Encumbrance is not an issue and certainly wont be by the time the first couple of haversacks or bags of holding walks into play.

This is not a case of why but rather "why not"?


			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *
> Common sense is about in-game knowledge, not metagame knowledge.
> *



The tired old refrain. I knew that blessed crossbows killed rakshasas long before i played DND. I knew werewolves were hurt by silver long before i played dnd . i knew that vampires hated garlic and cast no reflections long before i played dnd. In the world of my characters, these things are not just legends but are real honest to god life threatening things.

Just because it is written down in  a gaming manual does not mean the notion that it exists in the world as an even rumored quality is metagaming.


			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *
> I've played characters that had no idea what Mithral or Admantine was, and I've played characters that knew what Nephelium was.  Have you never played a character that DIDN'T know what something was?
> *



yes, none of my characters know what metagaming is.


			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *
> Knowing travel time in-game and knowing what monsters are out in the dark world along with all their powers and weaknesses are two ENTIRELY different things.
> *



And please, point to the post where the latter was claimed by anyone?


			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *
> If that is truly the way you play your character, you must carry at least one of EVERY item in the PHB.  A 10 foot pole (you never know when you are gonna need to pole vault over a small pit), a 10 foot ladder (you never know when you're gonna need to climb out of the pit you fell into while pole vaulting), vial of holy water (never know when you are gonna run into a vampire inside a pit you tried to pole vault over), a monk's outfit (never know when you may find yourself in a monastery and need to dress like the locals), and so on...  No harm in being prepared, right?
> *



The holy water is dead spot on. Don't your characters get holy water? Ever? My guys will also tend to do things like get cure disease stuff, anti-poisons stuff, alchemist fire, tanglefoot bags and so on. They dont get them because they KNOW they will be needed in the next adventure but because they dont know they wont.


			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *
> Interesting thought process here...  So if I decide to NOT take any ranks in Escape Artist, because role-play-wise that isn't something my character would take, wouldn't the rules be punishing me when a Dire Lion Improve Grabs me?  After all, if I took that skill I would have a better chance to escape the grab than my current BAB allows.  Just as, if I took golf bag full of weapons would have improved my chances against creatures with DR.  I guess in both cases I would be getting punished because of my roleplay choice, right?
> *



In a sense yes, except that skills are a too few element. You cannot get them all or even close so its a matter of which holes will you leave open not "will you leave any." 

The golf baggie is so cheap that its not a case of choosing to leave one open because you cannot cover them all, its just a roleplaying issue. With skills you spent those skills elsewhere and presumably got benefits. 

There are always going to be cases where those who PLAY THE GAME win out over those who PLAY THE CHARACTER. The key is, lets not add more of them. lets not make it something that will figure directly into the character's main focus... being a fighter and doing damage to the bad guys.



			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *
> I mean come on.  I can come up with a a dozen (ok, maybe half a dozen, I am tired right now) reasons why my character would and would not choose certain things in game (feats, weapons, spells, skills).  And when I choose not to pick something that would otherwise become handy later on down the road, have I been punished?  Did I punish myself for the choices I made roleplay-wise?
> *



the more cases and ways we add to make the PLAY THE GAME guy win out over the PLAY THE CHARACTER guy the worse this gets.


			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I can agree with this.  If you continually run into the same type of creature or even different creatures that have the same DR vulnerabilities, maybe you'd be wise to pick up a weapon made of the special material.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Heck, even the first time you meet the creature you may want to go ahead and get said weapon.  But to do so in advance doesn't make much sense IMO.  It is all on how you approach it.
> *



Well it seems to me that after seeing silver needed here and iron needed there when i next go into a weapons shop and see iron weapons and silver weapons and brass weapons and wolvesbane scneted weapons i am pretty stoopid if i just decide" nah, probably not real." if by expending a few coins, at the level when i am looking at easily handing over thousands for magic weapons and such, i can provide some cover to this issue, why wouldn't i?




			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *
> Now when creating higher level characters, it would be acceptable that you have some more knowledge about DR of certain monsters, but you still don't know it all.  Heck, even at level 20 there are still some things your character might not know about monsters and materials. *




Does the fact that my character decides to carry or even decides it makes sense to carry some extra rations mean to you that I MUST BE CLAIMING total knowledge of every food in the world, every way of cooking it, and precise knowledge of every travel time from here to there?

No? 

Then why does my character wanting to carry a silver, a blunt an iron a piercing a brass and so on weapon collection make you jump up and down about all this perfect knowledge nonsense?

Just curious?

If the MM included rules on rations and quality of cooking would you be jumping the metagaming bandwagon everytime the pCS bought food?


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Feb 7, 2003)

*Re: Preparation vs Paranoia 101*



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *Its common sense to take 4 weeks of food if you know you are going to be traveling for 4 weeks. Preparation
> 
> It is paranoid to travel with 4 weeks of food at all times IN CASE it turns out you need it. Paranoia
> 
> ...




This would make sense if we were playing turnips and cows the life of farmers in a fantasy world.  But no we're playing D&D, and we're playing adventurers.  The guys and gals who go into dank dungoens fighting whooseits and whatsits, traveling into forbidden forests, over graveyards, and bumping into god knows what.  These are the special forces the cops of the fantasy worls.  And they will have a utility belt just like a cop will, with a spare clip even though most cops never have to draw their gun in their entire carreer.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Feb 7, 2003)

Coredump said:
			
		

> *people talk about 'research' like it is a forgone conclusion of a scientific community.
> 
> How well will the fighter be able to gather info? He isn't very trained at research to begin with. And which info will he believe? He 'learns' that to hurt werewolves, you can only use two handed weapons. (afterall, the guy using a dagger did no damage at all, yet the halberd seemed to hurt it.) . *




I'd suspect after hudreds of years of fighting these things most monsters that aren't rare have weaknesses that are somehat commn knowledge.  Hec if you want to play the ignorant savages campaign go for it, but me I think INT 10 as the average means most people can figure things out after a couple hundred/thousand years of being chomped on by the beasties.

Now ifyou bump into the rare celery monster only hurt by peanut butter weapons, well yeah maybe you wont know.  But I suspect major classes of creatures like undead, wear, fey etc is common knowledge.


----------



## Grog (Feb 7, 2003)

*Re: Preparation vs Paranoia 101*



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *Its common sense to take 4 weeks of food if you know you are going to be traveling for 4 weeks. Preparation
> 
> It is paranoid to travel with 4 weeks of food at all times IN CASE it turns out you need it. Paranoia*




Obviously you have never gone on an extended camping trip.

Go talk to some experienced campers. They will all tell you that you *always* take extra food with you when you're going on a long trip away from civilization.

Yes, it would be paranoid to take four weeks worth of food with you if you were going on an overnight camping trip 15 miles from town. But if you were going on a 2 week river trip WAY out in the wilderness? Any experienced camper would tell you that he'd take *at least* 3 weeks worth of food for a trip like that, and 4 weeks probably wouldn't be totally out of the question. Stuff like beef jerky and dried fruit is easy to carry.

Because, as anyone with an ounce of common sense will tell you, it's better to get back to town with some extra food than it is to have something go wrong and be stuck out in the middle of nowhere with no food at all.

Even the Boy Scouts understand this.



> *Its common sense when you know you will be fighting lyncanthropes to buy a silver weapon, and perhaps keep it at the ready (ie- not in a HHH or some dimensional space). Preparation
> 
> Its paranoid to always carry every kind of weapon, just IN CASE you fight something that requires a special condition to beat it. Paranoia*




Again, this is not paranoia, no matter how much you try to claim it is. It's just common sense.

A silver weapon doesn't cost very much money and it's easy to carry because you can just put it in your haversack, so it's perfectly reasonable for characters to carry them around.

Because as anyone with an ounce of common sense will tell you, it's better to carry around a silver sword that you never use than it is to be attacked by a werewolf and have no way to defend yourself against it.



> *These are generally PLAYER attributes, not CHARACTER attributes. A good dm does not punish a good player (ie- a player who plays a character well), but I may punish a metagaming caddy.*




If a DM punishes a player who takes the perfectly reasonable step of preparing for the unknown by arming himself with special material weapons he knows he might need, then it is the DM who is metagaming. Not the player.

Would you also punish your players for taking extra rations when they went on a wilderness trek? Because it's exactly the same concept at work.



> *As hyp pointed out a few pages ago, you CAN have a non-metagamed golfbagger, I personally think it will be rare, simply because special DR should not be common, and therefore it wont come up enough to warrant it. YMMV.*




In your campaign, that may be the case. It doesn't mean it'll be the case in every campaign, and it doesn't mean that your players won't take the reasonable and sensible step of getting anti-DR weapons just in case.


----------



## Left-handed Hummingbird (Feb 7, 2003)

Boy, people have really worked up a sweat about this. Ten pages? I hope some of the middle ones weren't that important. 

Personally, though I agree that simplicity is best (or simply the easiest?), I think the focus on weapon of a certain type or material adds extra flavor to the monsters.

I don't think high level fighters will carry golf bags with different weapons - a magic weapon in the hand of a fighter will probably be able to punch through the reduced damage reduction most of the time. A good magic weapon and a few secondary weapons (thus, in fact no more than what is often in a typical fighter's inventory) will probably give him (or her) the best bang for his (or her) bucks.

Of course, the fighter will also now have the opportunity to prepare for certain encounters - should he know what he might face. This, I think, is only going to add to the player's satisfaction, when he is able to take down the baddie by exploiting its weakness.

My worry is not with the fighters. If anything they'll shine even more. I'm more worried about the secondary fighters - they lack the brawn the typical fighter has to punch through DR - silver, holy or frozen concentrated orange juice be darned - and thus, they might find themselves lacking any real part in the combat.

But then OTOH - is that really a result of the changed DR-rules? Weren't that the same before - perhaps even more so?


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 7, 2003)

I think that's a valid point.  The fighters benefit from these rules, IMHO, they aren't being punished.  Since we can reasonably assume that most creatures will have DR5/X, and a lesser number DR10/X, the fighters will be just fine.  A +1 Sword, power attack, weapon specialization, and you'll be doing plenty of damage at the appropriate level.  Bards, rogues and clerics won't be doing as well, but they have other skills to help them, and probably will change somewhat under 3.5e.

My problem with DR is that under the current system, it's not just flavorless, it usually not terribly effective for the monsters in question.  Scrolling down the SRD, the first monster (animated objects notwithstanding) that meets my eyes that has DR is the Barghest.  CR4, with DR 15/+1, average of 33 hps.  Horribly dangerous bugger.  Unless you have a +1 Sword, Magic Weapon memorized, or some offensive spells memorized.  Give the fighter a magic or enchanted sword, and it's over in two turns, maybe three if he's unlucky and no one else contributes.

How about the Bodak?  A CR8 creature that kills with it's gaze attack, the terror of many a party.  DR 15/silver, 58 hps.  Immune to electricty, 20 resistance for fire/cold, and vulnerable to light.  _Whoopee._  Why even bother GIVING him DR?  If a party facing a CR8 creature doesn't have a fighter with a +1 weapon or a weapon with GMW running on it, something's out of whack.  Otherwise, it's a waste.  It's flavorless, dull, and if it's there to simulate something via a game mechanic, it's not working.  He's there to be killed by the cleric or mage, not the fighter....unless he has the right weapon, in which case he fall like a tentpeg unless the fighter fails a DC 15 FORT save (which he has a better than 50% chance of doing at 8th level with no buffs).

The current rules punish a party for not having the mage or cleric memorize Greater Magic Weapon more than the proposed version would, IMHO.  Mind you, I'm not even certain that forcing the players to carry more than one weapon is such a terrible thing, to begin with.  The archer would normally carry several types of arrows, and the average fighter would usually carry more than one weapon.  Rogues and rangers commonly have more than weapon, often wielded together or situationally.  Wizards, Clerics and Druids have to select the optimal spells for the future, why not warriors selecting weapons?  Adherence to the cost limitations mean that the players will make a choice: variety versus power.  Either get three swords with special qualities, or one powerful one.  Get a +1 Silver sword, +1 Cold Iron Mace and +1 Gold Sword....or get a +3 Flaming Scimitar.


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2003)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> *Interesting thought process here...  So if I decide to NOT take any ranks in Escape Artist, because role-play-wise that isn't something my character would take, wouldn't the rules be punishing me when a Dire Lion Improve Grabs me?  After all, if I took that skill I would have a better chance to escape the grab than my current BAB allows.  Just as, if I took golf bag full of weapons would have improved my chances against creatures with DR.  I guess in both cases I would be getting punished because of my roleplay choice, right? *




Nah, you're not getting punished for anything. You knew going in that your character was deficient in that area, and when the time comes you have to deal with it.

*LISTEN UP, FOLKS!* I'm going to make it real easy for everyone to understand. Contrary to the notion that ten pages of posters on this thread seem to have gotten into their head, the new DR rules aren't about forcing characters to carry around golfbags full of weapons. That's just how some characters will choose to deal with it.

THE WHOLE POINT of the new DR rules is this: sometimes when you encounter an opponent with damage reduction--now you may need to brace yourselves here-- some of the damage *will be reduced*! Yes, you heard it here first! Damage reduction that actually reduces damage! 

I know it's a radical concept to accept for the poor warriors out there who do a mere 2d6+15 damage or so per greatsword swing that they might have to shave off 5 points of damage once in a while, but I think most of you will adapt quite admirably. Take heart! This is why the designers are lowering the amount of DR for most monsters, because now they're working under the assumption that DR isn't inherently irrelevant.


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 7, 2003)

*Sigh*

From the MM, creatures with DR:

Aboleth/no
Achaierai/no
Allip/no
Animated Objects/no
Ankheg/no
Aranea/no
Arrowhawk/no
Assasin Vine/no
Athach/no
Azer/no
Barghest/yes 15/+1
Basilisk/no
Behir/no
Beholder/no
Belker/no
Blink Dog/no
Bodak/yes 15/silver
Bugbear/no
Bulette/no
Carrion Crawler/no
Celestials/yes 10/+1 - 35/+4
Centaur/no
Chaos Beast/no
Chimera/no
Choker/no
Chuul/no
Cloaker/no
Cockatrice/no
Coutal/no
Darkmantle/no
Delver/no
Demon/yes 5/silver - 30/+3
Destrachan/no
Devil/yes 5/silver - 25/+2
Devourer/no
Digester/no
Dinosaur/no
Dire Animals/no
Displacer Beast/no
Doppleganger/no
Dragon/yes 5/+1 - 20/+3
Dragon Turtle/no
Dragonne/no
Drider/no
Dryad/no
Dwarf/no
Elemental/yes 10+1 - 15/+3
Elf/no
Ethereal Filcher/no
Ethereal Marauder/no
Ettercap/no
Ettin/no
Formian/no
Frost Worm/no
Fungus/no
Gargoyle/yes 15/+1
Genie/no
Ghoul/no
Giant/no
Giant Eagle/no
Giant Owl/no
Gibbering Mouther/no
Girallon/no
Gnoll/no
Gnome/no
Goblin/no
Golem/yes 15/+1 - 50/+3
Gorgon/no
Gray Render/no
Grick/yes 15/+1
Griffon/no
Grimlock/no
Hag/no, see Steely Skin slashing and piercing -1 dam, Bludg +1
Halfling/no
Harpy/no
Hell Hound/no
Hippogriff/no
Hobgoblin/no
Homunculus/no
Howler/no
Hydra/no
Invisible Stalker/no
Kobold/no
Kraken/no
Krenshar/no
Kuo-Toa/no
Lamia/no
Lammasu/no
Lillend/no
Lizardfolk/no
Locathah/no
Magmin/yes 15/+1
Manticore/no
Medusa/no
Mephit/yes 5/+1 - 10/+1
Merfolk/no
Mimic/no
Mind Flayer/no
Minotaur/no
Mohrg/no
Mummy/ 5/+1, see Resistant to Blows Phys Attack only 1/2 dam
Naga/no
Night Hag/yes 20/+3
Nightmare/no
Nightshade/no
Nymph/no
Ogre/no
Ooze/no
Orc/no
Otyugh/no
Owlbear/no
Pegasus/no
Phantom Fungus/no
Phase Spider/no
Phasm/no
Planetouched/no
Pseudodragon/no
Purple Worm/no
Rkshasa/yes 20/+3
Rast/no
Ravid/no
Remorhaz/no
Roc/no
Roper/no
Rust Monster/no
Sahuagin/no
Salamander/yes 10/+1 - 20/+2
Satyr/no
Sea Lion/no
Shadow/no
Shadow Mastiff/no
Shambling Mound/no
Shield Guardian/no
Shocker Lizard/no
Skeleton/no, see Immunities only 1/2 dam from pierc or slash
Skum/no
Slaad/yes 10/+1 and 20/+2
Spectre/no
Sphinx/no
Spider Eater/no
Sprite/no
Stirge/no
Tarrasque/heh, yes 25/+5
Tendriculos/no
Thoqqua/no
Titan/yes
Tojanida/no
Treant/no, see Half Damage from Piercing
Triton/no
Troglodyte/no
Troll/no
Umber Hulk/no
Unicorn/no
Vampire Spawn/yes 10/silver
Vargouille/no
Wight/no
Will-o'-Wisp/no
Winter Wolf/no
Worg/no
Wraith/no
Wyvern/no
Xill/no
Xorn/no, see Half Damage from Slashing
Yeth Hound/yes 10/silver
Yrthak/no
Yuan-Ti/no
Zombie/no
Animals/no
Vermin/no
Celestial Template/yes 5/+1 - 10/+3
Fiendish Template/yes 5/+1 - 10/+3
Ghost/no
Half-Celestial/no
Half-Fiend/no
Half-Dragon/no
Lich/yes 15/+1
Lycanthrope/yes 15/silver
Vampire/yes 15/+1

Ok, 20 creatures (yes there are various demons, devils, and dragons) and 4 templates. That aint a whole lot folks. I stand by my statement that you could adventure to level 20 and only see a couple of creatures with DR, it isnt overwhelmingly likely because dms traditionally enjoy messing with creatures with DR, but its certainly possible. As far as how the DRs will be, weve heard that fey may pick up a cold iron DR, skeletons will get blunt DR, Pit Fiends will have holysilver, and Lyncanthropes will still have silver.

I noticed a few creatures with just silver for their DR already, but I bet since magic trumps silver it was a rare thing for people to actually have to break silver out on them. Seems like a shame. I'll lead someone else to speculate on this data, I wasted most of my lunch break getting it, though anyone with a MM1 could have done it just as easily.

Also note, they did (I think) say that some monsters will still have a magical DR requirement. My vote would be dragons, golems, elementals, and the mighty Tarrasque. Which means in the grand scheme of things, some templates, a couple of handfuls of outsiders, some fey, and lyncanthropes are getting different DR. And we argued about it for almost 11 pages now.

I also still believe that if you buy every weapon you possibly can IN CASE you fight something that needs it, your are paranoid. Its not common sense, on the contrary it would appear to be uncommon sense, or as I like to put it, metagaming. Please dont confuse this with a dm cleverly leaving clues that you may need silver for an upcoming fight, or that its rumored the foul denizens of far off planes can not be injured by mere steel. I am talking about the guys who at first level will buy 1 of every weapon type and material, just in case. It is NOT the same as someone buying some food for an extended adventure. 

Technik


----------



## AuraSeer (Feb 7, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> THE WHOLE POINT of the new DR rules is this: sometimes when you encounter an opponent with damage reduction--now you may need to brace yourselves here-- some of the damage will be reduced! Yes, you heard it here first! Damage reduction that actually reduces damage! *



Have you even been reading the thread?
Go back and try again.
Look for all the various explanations of why it will NOT necessarily reduce damage.

If you're going to act superior and condescending, it'd be a good idea to know what you're talking about first.


----------



## coyote6 (Feb 7, 2003)

FWIW, one anecdotal perspective...



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Lets think of current... did all fighters carrya  slashing *and* bludgening weapon. *




Yes, though sometimes the bludgeoning weapon was their shield. 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> Plus a melee *and* a range weapon? [/B]




Absolutely. Every _character_ carries a melee and a ranged weapon, and has since level 1. 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> Did they always carry a fly potion? [/B]




No. But they all seem to try to have _levitate_, _spider climb_, _fly_, or the like. One party chipped in and bought the sorcerer a _wand of spider climb_; I expect they'd commission a _wand of fly_, if they had the money and felt the need (e.g., lots of flying opponents with ranged attacks in outdoor encounters). Of course, _fly_ potions might yet become ubiquitous. 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> and water breathing?[/B]




No, though many of them do have that or a _potion of swimming_. OTOH, only one group has really had to deal with unexpected and unavoidable swim-or-die situations. The other groups have been able to rely on clerics with time to prepare _water breathing_, and/or having time to strip off armor (and sometimes get _mage armor_ from an arcanist).



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> And a silver weapon? [/B]




No. They all got magic weapons, so they don't need silver weapons.  Even so, though, I do recall seeing a lot of silver daggers and silver arrows/bolts on character sheets.

Note that the above answers are to the best of my recollection, and may be off (for example, I'm not positive the half-orc barbarian/fighter replaced his mace after being shipwrecked; he may be depending on doing ludicrous amounts of raw damage to carry him through battles with skeletons).


----------



## kigmatzomat (Feb 7, 2003)

Coredump said:
			
		

> *people talk about 'research' like it is a forgone conclusion of a scientific community.
> How well will the fighter be able to gather info? *
> 
> I think he'll do it using something called "role playing" or he'll rely on the other members of the party (bards & wizards) to give him advice.
> ...




I don't see a hassle, really.  I can't talk about the value since I don't know how many beasties will acquire special materials vs. +1-type DR.  Sure, 30% of the creatures use DR but I doubt half of them will use special materials and a proper selection of weapons will cover the blunt/slashing/piercing factor.  

Sure, it adds complexity, but I don't see it being that much of an issue.


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2003)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> *Have you even been reading the thread?
> Go back and try again.
> Look for all the various explanations of why it will NOT necessarily reduce damage.*




Well, I've sifted through this thread, although I'm not reading every darn post. Sorry. I just don't have five hours or so to devote to reading posts from people making a mountain of a molehill. It's a new twist that will keep warriors from tearing through opponents that are supposed to by tough as hell. To be honest, nothing I've seen has been terribly eye-opening; the concept's not that high-brow. I knew before this thread started that damage reduction will only sometimes actually result in damage being reduced. If there's some major potential problem with damage reduction, why don't you go ahead and spell it out for the folks just tuning in?

*



			If you're going to act superior and condescending, it'd be a good idea to know what you're talking about first.
		
Click to expand...


*
Lol, I was just being a tad facetious. I see all these people expressing the opinion "These new DR rules are stupid! I'm going to have to carry around a golfbag fulll of weapons to make sure that I can bypass every opponent's DR!", rather than realize that the whole point of revised rules is that you're not supposed to bypass *every* opponent's DR.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 7, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *Lol, I was just being a tad facetious. I see all these people expressing the opinion "These new DR rules are stupid! I'm going to have to carry around a golfclub fulll of weapons to make sure that I can bypass every opponent's DR!", rather than realize that the whole point of revised rules is that you're not supposed to bypass every opponent's DR. *




If your not supposed to bypass them then why have a bypass at all. Just go with 5/- and be done with it. If there is a bypass why should some complain if people use it. Those who like the new rules seem to be complaining about those of us who follow them to thier logical conclusion.


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *If your not supposed to bypass them then why have a bypass at all. Just go with 5/- and be done with it.*




Oh, I suspect that will be the case with some opponents, oozes and golems being the most likely candidates for all-purpose DR. But to answer your question, I suspect the intention is to emphasize the special qualities of different types of weapons, the same way energy resistance makes it relevant that a fireball and a cone of cold do different types of damage. 



> *If there is a bypass why should some complain if people use it. Those who like the new rules seem to be complaining about those of us who follow them to thier logical conclusion. *




Go ahead and use the bypass. Carry around the golfbag instead of just one uber-weapon. Works for me. But I'll bet there's some monster out there with an unusual bypass that you're not prepared for.


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2003)

By the way, has anyone here ever read Karl Edward Wagner's _Dark Crusade_? The whole golfbag o'weapons issue reminds me of Kane's plans to assassinate Orted Ak-Ceddi, a seemingly invulnerable avatar of a shadow god. Since Orted never rode at the front of his army, Kane reasoned that he must be vulnerable to something. So he had a team of assassins set to creep into Orted's bed chamber with wooden stakes, stone-headed hammers, silver blades, and other implements of death, just to figure out which one would do the trick. Ah, if only more warriors had the spirit of experimentation, instead of expecting everything to be made easy for them...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2003)

> *Go ahead and use the bypass. Carry around the golfbag instead of just one uber-weapon. Works for me. But I'll bet there's some monster out there with an unusual bypass that you're not prepared for. *




Well, the point is that a true golf-bagger will do everything in his power to learn what special materials might be required for anything he's likely to encounter.  There might indeed be a unique monster out there vulnerable only to obsidian spears, that none of the sages the golf-bagger consulted knew about, and when he meets it, he won't have an obsidian spear in his golf-bag.

_But if he doesn't know about it, *nobody* will!_  And so we're back to "What's the point of giving it a bypass mechanic if nobody in the world knows what it is?" - it may as well be 15/-, since nobody will ever use an obsidian spear on it.

-Hyp.


----------



## Felon (Feb 8, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *Well, the point is that a true golf-bagger will do everything in his power to learn what special materials might be required for anything he's likely to encounter.*




OK, characters doing research instead of just barreling into every baddie. So far so good...



> *There might indeed be a unique monster out there vulnerable only to obsidian spears, that none of the sages the golf-bagger consulted knew about, and when he meets it, he won't have an obsidian spear in his golf-bag.*




WHAT? Who doesn't carry on obsidian nine-iron? Inconceivable!

Look, if we're talking about a monster that's virtually unassailable without a specific weapon, then we're either talking about a plot device that the players have to figure out, or one heckuva crappy adventure, right?

*



			But if he doesn't know about it, nobody will! And so we're back to "What's the point of giving it a bypass mechanic if nobody in the world knows what it is?" - it may as well be 15/-, since nobody will ever use an obsidian spear on it.
		
Click to expand...


*
OK, some monsters may well have 15/- DR. They'll be a pain to fight, but hardly invincible. If the monster has a bypass, then at the very least you're no worse off than before. There really is no big deal here, IMHO.


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 8, 2003)

Brown Jerkin: First of all, your %s are way off, as I learned when doing a little research for myself. See my list of monsters with DR. Factor in that some will retain a special material of "magic weapon". You are left with a handful of creatures, and a few templates, mostly thematically linked.

So why does not being able to penetrate DR the first time you encoutner something NOT equal it might as well just be DR X/-. Because, after that first encounter Im sure if the party lives (the EL is determined on whether or not the party has learned of the enemy's weakness yet) they will do everything in their power to FIND OUT what it is. And on subsequent encounters, they will be better prepared. However, its fun having that FIRST encounter where nobody knows how to kill it, it seems invulnerable, and the party may just end up fleeing.

So enough with "why have a bypass at all?". Its clearly to make for an interesting first battle with your first lyncanthrope or what have you. Afterwards, you may realize something you did not during the first encounter, which makes subsequent encounters less difficult.

Hyp: Just because noone alive knows of the special obsidian spear doesnt mean its stupid. If a module or a campaign is created with the intent that characters find out that it does have a vulnerability to the obsidian spear, then the party may well have to overcome a more challenging opponent (if they did not learn) or with the knowledge they found out, they will have a more evenly matched fight.

And just to throw another foil out to you golfbaggers, Im sure a half-way intelligent monster who sees a normal or mwk weapon which CAN hurt him wont have any qualms about sundering it at the first opportunity. Another point for the roleplayers who choose their primary weapon to be silver (and thus have a decent plus) and rely on maybe only one backup melee weapon.

Technik


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 8, 2003)

Why have it at all?  I thought we'd already established that Flavor was a significant reason.  Take a look at the Coin Golems from Piratecat's story hour.  The Defenders had no idea how to harm them, but they figured it out, and then the monsters were easily defeated.  That makes for a fun game, and a good story.  If the story had been, either we can hit a +4 or we can't, it's neither exciting nor interesting.

As it stands right now, DR doesn't really meet that requirement, and IMHO doesn't really fulfill it's design intent.


----------



## Storminator (Feb 8, 2003)

I love how you can walk away from a thread like this for 200 posts and come back right where you left off. 

Its like watching baseball on TV. Fall asleep in the 3rd inning, wake up in the 7th, and its still 4 to 3. 

PS


----------



## Speaker (Feb 8, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> *I love how you can walk away from a thread like this for 200 posts and come back right where you left off.
> 
> Its like watching baseball on TV. Fall asleep in the 3rd inning, wake up in the 7th, and its still 4 to 3.
> 
> PS *




I jumped from the fifth page to the tenth and as far as I can see, nothing has changed.

You can't have a debate where one or both sides refuse to budge.

Hence, although I truly love speech and well reasoned arguement in every form, and thought for the first few pages that I would just HAVE to join in...  I won't.

I am really dissapointed about this, hence this self-absorbed message that is ultimately pointless.

Bye now.

EDIT:  That's not to say that I am disdainful of all the points made in this thread.  Some of you have put a lot of thought into your posts.  Well done.


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 8, 2003)

*Re: Sigh*

Option 1: DR is so rare that its not an issue worth consideration for equipping characters. 

Option 2: DR appears frequently enough to be an issue hen equipping characters.

Corollary to option 1: if its rare enough not to be an issue, why in the world go to all the trouble needed to change the rules for something that wont matter enough to provoke reaction?

Corollary to option 2: See golf-bag

You cannot have it both ways. designer dr cannot at the same time be a wondrous injection of flavor and story and at the same time be trivial to those it affects.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *From the MM, creatures with DR:
> Ok, 20 creatures (yes there are various demons, devils, and dragons) and 4 templates. That aint a whole lot folks. I stand by my statement that you could adventure to level 20 and only see a couple of creatures with DR, it isnt overwhelmingly likely because dms traditionally enjoy messing with creatures with DR, but its certainly possible. As far as how the DRs will be, weve heard that fey may pick up a cold iron DR, skeletons will get blunt DR, Pit Fiends will have holysilver, and Lyncanthropes will still have silver.
> 
> Technik *


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 8, 2003)

*Re: Sigh*



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Ok, 20 creatures (yes there are various demons, devils, and dragons) and 4 templates. That aint a whole lot folks. *




That's nice... Now if you just didn't ignore how much these "various" dragons, demons, devils, other outsiders with multiple creatures per entry, elementals and golems inflate the number quite a bit beyond 20, things would be perfect.

Not to mention considering how often those "4" templates are going to come up in adventures, or the way the likelihood of fighting somethig with DR will drastically go up in anything but low-level games.


----------



## Felon (Feb 8, 2003)

I imagine DR will be every bit as common as it is now. Of course, it's been pretty much irrelevant and nobody bothered to take note of it, so it will certainly _seem_ much more common now


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 8, 2003)

Petrosian: Special Materials DR can at the same time be a wonderful injection of flavor and story and not affect the majority of creatures in the MM.

Per my post, from what we know now, only feys will have DR that dont already.

Actually going through the MM I was a little surprised, I would guess just by looking at the pictures whether or not a creature would have DR (Im not one of those that remembers all of these things) and I was right in all but 1 or 2 cases. The grick surprised me based on the name and the picture, but I must admit Ive never fought one.

Remember, according to what we know there will still be magical DR.

"Thursday morning, Mary Elizabeth Allen from WoTC Marketing; Anthony Valterra, the Category Manager for D&D; and Andy Collins, D&D R&D spoke to an invitation-only meeting of judges and volunteers about the upcoming D&D revision, which they called 3.5."

<snip>

"DR (Damage reduction) is being changed. Today it's hierarchical - a monster with DR 10/+1 can be hit by +2 weapons, for example. The change is to be more specific - DR 10/holy silver means just that. Magical weapons alone won't work, but only good-aligned silver ones. So, there will be DR bypass designations such as Silver, Gold, Cold Iron, Magical, Bludgeoning, etc. The DRs are also being lowered to make them more reasonable, and monks will have a couple of properties with unarmed attacks that will allow them to bypass certain sorts of DR. "

It was also stated that demons and devils would require holysilver. Both of them, and that probably includes the Fiendish template. Bludgeoning we know comes into play against a few monsters and skeletons. Cold Iron is vs Fey (as of yet, undetermined quantity, but there arent that many fey in the MM period). Silver is presently against many creatures in the MM. That leaves "gold" unaccounted for.

I speculate that golems, dragons, and elementals will retain magical DR with reduced values (for the amount reduced, not the plus required). I would furthermore speculate that Gold is the necessary ingredient to hurt celestials (dont have any of my older MMs so I cant look up if they were vulnerable to something in earlier editions). If gold does not do this, then maybe "evil-aligned" silver is required to hurt celestials. At which point I have no idea what gold would be for, possibly some of the creatures that presently use silver, so silver would be recognized as "the" material to fight outsiders.

So, yes this will inject some story into those said monsters. No, it does not appear rampant enough (imo) to justify a golfbag of weapons at almost any point.

The changes are not meant to be sweeping, rather they are supposed to do exactly what DR appears to be doing, injecting some needed (as in, was designed to work one way, worked one way in earlier editions, hence it is NEEDED in this edition) alterations.


Technik


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 8, 2003)

[/B][/QUOTE]



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> Petrosian: Special Materials DR can at the same time be a wonderful injection of flavor and story and not affect the majority of creatures in the MM.
> *



Now here we have you becoming somewhat evasive and very misinformayive.

The percentage of creatures in the MM is an irrelevent stat. This comparison you now seem to make is meaningless, unless one tries to parlay that into a reflection of how frequently it is seen in play.

Which is of course, exactly what you did above in earlier posts but which you are carefully sidestepping now with this extremely limited scope comment.

lets look above to the followup in your post.




			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> I stand by my statement that you could adventure to level 20 and only see a couple of creatures with DR, it isnt overwhelmingly likely because dms traditionally enjoy messing with creatures with DR, but its certainly possible.
> *



And here is where the cat is out. 

This is what my comment stems from.

If one wants to downplay the seriousness or impact of the new change by harping on how few AND how rarely they can be encountered, then at the same time the purported benefits are also diminished, which leads us to this being an unnecessary change.

If one believes the benefits will be seen and a wonderful injection of flavor and story... is one crowing about that happening rarely, only a couple of times in levels 1-20, a campaign stretching years? 

I dont think so.

Put simply, the "benefits" and the "downsides" will appear proportionally, based on how often the Gm decides to use them AND how well he uses them in scenarios. There is one exception... the preemptive effects, the things it encourages the characters to do to prepare for the potential encounter, will be pervasive and be seen every adventure.



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> So, yes this will inject some story into those said monsters. No, it does not appear rampant enough (imo) to justify a golfbag of weapons at almost any point.
> *



Would you suspect that disease causing monsters outnumber, either in play or in MM accounting the number of DR monsters in the MM? i wouldn't. My PCs often seek out cure disease items (usually expendable and cheap) ahead of time. It seems reasonable to them to take these out on adventures in case they get such an encounter, just like modern day people have first aid kits.

Would you suspect the number of level draining creatures to be more numerous (in actual play or MM accounting) than those who have DR? No? Me niether. However, my players often seek out restoration devices (scrolls or potions typically) and carry them around when they go adventuring just in case they have such an encounter. It seems reasonable, just like auto drivers often have road flares or an emergency flasher in their trunk... just in case.

Similar comparisons can be shown with creatures vulnerable to holy water, blunt weapons, and so on.  heck the same sort of thing can be done with things like healing potions for that matter.

Do none of your PCs take these precautions? Do they find them all unjustified?

Your attempt to spin up the positives so that somehow with only a few instances over several years a wondrous injection of story and flavor will be added, and spin down the downsides so that the negatives wont be seen more than a few times in a 20 level campaign, and so on is rather transparent.

In a given campaign, either designer will be seen often enough to have a significant impact or it wont. this will apply to both the good and bad elements. However, the party preparations and considerations of these events will be in effect all the time.


			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> The changes are not meant to be sweeping, rather they are supposed to do exactly what DR appears to be doing, injecting some needed (as in, was designed to work one way, worked one way in earlier editions, hence it is NEEDED in this edition) alterations.
> Technik *




The changes made are not needed, they are just changes. The changes which needed to be made include reducing DR blocking numbers for a few beasties AND raising the DR bypass numbers in some cases where the values were so low as to be silly. If this was done, the problems mentioned with Dr could have been addressed without the designer dr overhaul.

Didn't you say several pages ago that part of your arguments were just devil's advocating? if so why are you back in force once again? Boredom overtake you?

Do you actually mean what you are arguing this time, as opposed to last time, or is this again just arguing for its own sake?

Either way, you seem to be much more in spin than substance mode with trying to trump a MM accounting into a statement about frequency in play.


----------



## Left-handed Hummingbird (Feb 8, 2003)

*No golfbags...*

Even if every darn monster the characters met had DR, I wouldn't expect any of them to tug the golf bag. Why would they? A magic sword of plain ol' steel would be sufficient to deal with most of them.

Compare a +5 steel long sword to a +2 nutella (whatever) long sword - when faced with the Gazebo with a DR of 5/nutella. The nutella sword with a +2 bonus to hit will damage for 3 to 10 HPs while the plain vanilla sword - using Power Attack to turn the to hit bonus down to effectively +2 - is going to hit for ...wait for it... 4 to 11 HP even though it doesn't bypass the DR!

Thus, it would be better to have a single +5 weapon than a +2 special weapon when faced with DR 5 monsters.

When the DR is very high - 10 for instance, the advantage of special weapons are higher, obviously. But that doesn't mean vanilla weapons will be useless: Consider the typical fighter fighting DR 10 monsters, he'll undoubtedly have +4 damage bonus from strength, and using the same comparison as above, that fighter would damage for 3 to 11 HP. Meager, compared to the special weapon wielding fighter who deals out 7 to 14 hp per hit - but not too shabby, considering the universality of the vanilla weapon. In most other cases (when fighting DR 0 monsters) it would be the other way around.

Now, if the DR is exceptionally high (15) the vanilla wielding fighter has a hard time making dents - hitting only for 0 to 7 HPs per hit. He is, however, still damaging the creature, but he is clearly undermatched by the special material guy whom does double damage, compared to the vanilla guy.

Yet this is most certainly the exception, and even if it isn't prepared for in advance - by bringing the weapon to defeat that particular foe with - it is still managable (if harder) to defeat the monster using your +5 weapon instead of your golf bag of +2 weapons.

The cost/benefit of the golf bag just isn't high enough that you would wish to divide your costs among seven or eight weapons, when you can make do in all but the rarest cases by pooling most of your costs into an uber weapon.

And probably those cases are even fewer if you chose to have +5 weapon of silver (or another special material the campaign monsters are susceptible to).

Now, just because it will be better most of the time to carry a single +5 weapon than to carry around six or seven +2 weapons doesn't mean the DR change isn't substantial or important, because WHEN the fighter - by good fortune or because she knew she were going to fight a Pit Fiend - happens to have the proper special material weapon she'll have a great time *flavorwise*.

As I said above. There is no need for the fighter to carry a golf bag. The problem is for the secondary fighters - though I agree with WizardDru that they have other powers. But just because there is no need for the golf bag, doesn't mean the change is irrelevant at all.


----------



## Petrosian (Feb 8, 2003)

*Re: No golfbags...*

Again, i do not think anyone is claiming there will be golf-bags filled with expensive +2 weapons, except the side arguing how silly that would be.

The argument is they will buy very inexpensive mundane or at beast masterwork weapons of the special materials and types to fill the golfbag.

if they need them and want them magical, they will just cast GMW on the one desired, just like they do now.

so this "bunch of +2 weapons " vs " one +5 weapon" is a rather pointless example.


----------



## Technik4 (Feb 8, 2003)

*I enjoy arguing*

I like playing the arguing game, and I don't think minds can't be changed. While I was playing devil's advocate at points earlier in this thread, at other points I wasn't. The reason I started replying again is because of a statement about 30-40% of encounters containing DR. I did my own research and find those numbers highly misleading.

You seemed to want this comment:

"...you could adventure to level 20 and only see a couple of creatures with DR, it isnt overwhelmingly likely because dms traditionally enjoy messing with creatures with DR, but its certainly possible."

to read like this:

"...everyone will adventure to level 20 and only see a couple of creatures with DR."

Which wasn't my intent. I merely stated it was possible, and indeed if you are in one of many "low-magic" campaigns where the PCs spend the majority of their time fighting against orcs, drow, or another humanoid race, you may only very rarely see DR. Such as when the dm throws in a Dragon or has someone summon a fiend or elemental. The rules change is for all people who play D&D, not just certain subcategories, I was just pointing out that to a great many people it will be a welcome change.

I think its very reasonable to state that something can be more flavorful even if it does not necessarily come up a lot. I think its a good change for Role-players. It doesnt have to be some huge sweeping change, a slight change in the rules for some creatures, it will make said players appreciate those monsters.

You seem to think that if a change is small it is also unncecessary, maybe youd like to start a thread on 4e?

I agree with your statement about porportionality. I think modules are usually written with this in mind to some extent, to make every encounter interesting. Maybe a fire immune monster here, then a creature with high hp, then a creature with DR, etc.

Your comparisons to disease and level-draining are poor, imo. Those things are debilitating effects, and yes I have seen some very anxious players that make sure to stay stocked on those things. It also applies to poison. These are effects that could knock out a party character, these are not effects that cause them to be less successful in damaging an opponent. 

I think it does NOT apply in cases with blunt weapons. In my experience (YMMV) most characters only take blunt weapons as a style decision, or if they are limited to simple weapons. For instance, a dwarf fighter who "sees" dwarfs carrying a warhammer. Or a cleric whose best weapon option is a morningstar. Someone who thinks the flail is a cool idea, or someone who wants to break the spiked chain. None of these people chose a blunt weapon for blunt damage, they chose it for other reasons.

Your attempt to convulute my words to your liking is very transparant. When I use the words "could" and "possible" I dont mean "extremely likely" and "always", though it does make your stance look better if you argue as if I did.

I explicitly stated that I wasnt much of a stats guy, I printed that list mostly for my own curiousity, but also so that people could get a look at the monsters that are really being affected. As far as spin versus substance, thats certainly your opinion, but Im stating the case as I see it. I'm not a lawyer, I just think people are looking at the change the wrong way. Maybe I can help people see my side of the story, maybe I will just get ignored.

As I said before, I plan on giving the new rules a chance, and I dont mind defending "changes" no matter how small or "unncessary".

Technik


----------



## Left-handed Hummingbird (Feb 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: No golfbags...*



			
				Petrosian said:
			
		

> *if they need them and want them magical, they will just cast GMW on the one desired, just like they do now.*



Oh, but if he is bringing a spellcaster, they can just cast Golden Weapon on the weapon. No need for the golf bag, then.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2003)

*Re: I enjoy arguing*



> *I think it does NOT apply in cases with blunt weapons. In my experience (YMMV) most characters only take blunt weapons as a style decision, or if they are limited to simple weapons. For instance, a dwarf fighter who "sees" dwarfs carrying a warhammer. Or a cleric whose best weapon option is a morningstar. Someone who thinks the flail is a cool idea, or someone who wants to break the spiked chain. None of these people chose a blunt weapon for blunt damage, they chose it for other reasons.*




My mileage _does_ vary 

In the game I run, the paladin and cleric, from creation, carried longsword and morningstar.  (They didn't believe in ranged combat  ).  Any time anything looked vaguely undead, they switched to the blunt weapon - it cost them one point of attack bonus from weapon focus (longsword), but the characters knew from their Smite Evil 101 classes at Heironeous College that some undead are resistant to slashing weapons.

From second level, every character carried at least some silver - dagger, arrows, or silver-tipped spear.  They asked around in town, and were told that most adventurers who went into the Old Forest bought something silver before they left.  It certainly stood them in good stead when they met the Giant Black Carnivorous Flying Weresquirrel (who incidentally bit and infected the monk).  Since then they've met one or two monsters with silver DR - mostly undead and outsiders, from memory - and there are still only a couple of magic weapons in the party at level 5, so they're glad of the silver they picked up early on.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: No golfbags...*



> *Oh, but if he is bringing a spellcaster, they can just cast Golden Weapon on the weapon. No need for the golf bag, then. *




Oh, I _see_!

So instead of the golf bag - a one-time outlay of a few thousand gold pieces that the fighter can carry around and never think about again unless the situation comes up - the spellcasters should either a/ waste precious slots each day preparing Silver Weapon, Golden Weapon, Holysilver Weapon, and Cold Iron Weapon instead of Fireball, Dimension Door, and Hold Person... or b/ carry around a golf bag of one-use scrolls of Silver Weapon, Golden Weapon, Holysilver Weapon, and Cold Iron Weapon... which likely cost more than the weapons would!

Good plan 

-Hyp.


----------



## Left-handed Hummingbird (Feb 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: No golfbags...*



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *Good plan *



Compared to casting GMW on everything, I think it is. Still, my point would is that you don't need either.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No golfbags...*



> *Compared to casting GMW on everything, I think it is. *




GMW is rarely a wasted spell, though - it has benefits whether or not you meet anything with DR.

Golden Weapon, most of the time, would be a waste of a slot.

-Hyp.


----------



## Left-handed Hummingbird (Feb 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No golfbags...*



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *GMW is rarely a wasted spell, though - it has benefits whether or not you meet anything with DR.
> 
> Golden Weapon, most of the time, would be a waste of a slot.*



But you don't know whether or not you are going to meet anything with DR till you've gotten back to safety: You won't use it on a DR 0 critter 'cos what are you going to use if the DR critter attacks? And if it doesn't - which you'll only know when you're back to base - it is a wasted spell..

But it is true: GMW has more uses than Golden Weapon. But then Golden Weapon is a Level 0 spell, and GMW is a level 3 spell. Thus, you might lose out on a Ray of Frost because you prepared Golden Weapon, but at least you didn't lose out on a Fireball.

And as to cost... 13 GP per scroll of Golden / Silvered / Nutella Weapon is hardly going to break anybody's budget.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2003)

Well, hey, if we're assuming level 0 (I must admit, I was envisioning Golden Weapon as level 2 or 3, for no particular reason), forget the golf bag... a modified _scabbard of keen edges_ that can zap a sword with a Golden, Silver, Holysilver, Cold Iron Weapon cantrip three times per day should be... what, 5k gold?

-Hyp.


----------



## Left-handed Hummingbird (Feb 8, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *Well, hey, if we're assuming level 0 (I must admit, I was envisioning Golden Weapon as level 2 or 3, for no particular reason), forget the golf bag... a modified scabbard of keen edges that can zap a sword with a Golden, Silver, Holysilver, Cold Iron Weapon cantrip three times per day should be... what, 5k gold?*



Sounds reasonable. 

(BTW here's the link to the _Silvered Weapon_ spell, if you or others missed it: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/mc/mc20020130a)


----------



## Merlion (Feb 10, 2003)

*Hello All*

Greetings all. I just joined this board I've been reading the thread for the past couple of hours. its very interesting.
  I have two things I would like to say.
I agree with RigaMortis that everyone saying that the new DR rules "punish" people who decide not to carry a large assortment of weapons for roleplay reasons is, in some ways a bit silly. Many, many things in the game...especialy monster abilities are made to "punish" the players. As in make there lives diffacult. Because, thats what the monsters are there for. Now yes if it renders fighters so reduced in power that the fighter dies in every encounter with such a creature, thats a bit much...but I dont really see that happening. Yes, others will outshine the fighter at times...just as the fighter will outshine other party members at other times. I see the new rules as an attempt to better reflect myth and literature...a few creatures of myth could only be hurt by certain things...lycanthropes and especialy fey being good examples. Now yes I think they should perhaps also do something that makes spells less effective against such beings, if weapon-magic isnt going to get past there DR. Also no where has it been said that ALL creatures with DR will be getting special matrial DR. My guess is many will still be bypassed by a certain enhancement bonus. So only encounters with certain special, mythic beings will really be altered by the new special-material aspect....not all encounters with beings with DR.
   Also everyone seems to have forgotten that in the case of the pit-fiend, this is all largely moot anyway since even if you have a plain old +2 sword and get past its DR you still have to have a holy or blessed weapon to do true damage to it due to its regeneration ::
  Overall it might have been better as an optional rule, but I understand and largely agree with there reasons for putting it in.

Merlion


----------

