Is my GM being a jerk?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

MY GM does not allow weapon enhancement to by pass specific material DR. It has started to hurt my character's effectiveness and quote "I think the weapon enhancement rule is bullsh$t and is a lazy persons way out of being perpared

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

He has made a houserule.

What is the rules question?


Have to agree with BBT - there's not really a rules question here. Your GM is house-ruling it. You can try explaining that this was done specifically to avoid "golfing adventurers", where you're carrying around a metaphorical golf bag of different weapons in order to bypass all the various DRs, but it sounds like he's aware of that and disagrees with it.


It's a bit unfair for melee characters over archers. You can't afford to keep duplicates of heavily-enchanted weapons for every type of obscure alchemical metal necessary to bypass DR, but an archer can easily carry a variety of variant ammunition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No he is being a GM...I know a lot of people that dislike the weapon enhancements bypass DR rule...he has every right to disallow it

Did you have a rules question or can we flag your thread to be moved?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weapon blanches...keep them on hand my friend


This is not a rules question. He houseruled it. I guess he is a fan of the golfbag mentality of carrying 8000 weapons that many of us don't like. I would just be an archer, and not deal with it. :)


"Golf bag" really? There are what, three possible materials? (Silver, Cold Iron, Adamantine) and then alignments which you can't have outside your own?

DR is important, its there to slow the ridiculous amounts of damage that martials pump out, just like SR is there to slow what spellcasters can do. . .

I don't see any problem, and certainly not something to the level of making your DM a "tool" for asking that DR matter.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes it is called the golf bag affect because in order to overcome DR you needed a weapon for every alignment(evil, lawful, chaotic, good). You also need one for piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing. You also need to over come silver, cold iron and adamantine.

Now some of these could be combined so you don't have to carry 8 or 9 weapons, but just like a golf bag you needed a different weapon(golf club) for what you need to do. It is less costly and more realistic to not have to carry so many weapons.

edit: As the rules are now one weapon can overcome almost all of them.


wraithstrike wrote:

Yes it is called the golf bag affect because in order to overcome DR you needed a weapon for every alignment(evil, lawful, chaotic, good). You also need one for piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing. You also need to over come silver, cold iron and adamantine.

Now some of these could be combined so you don't have to carry 8 or 9 weapons, but just like a golf bag you needed a different weapon(golf club) for what you need to do. It is less costly and more realistic to not have to carry so many weapons.

edit: As the rules are now one weapon can overcome almost all of them.

But, if you are Lawful good you cannot carry or use an evil weapon? And if you are NN you cannot carry/use any aligned weapon?

And when Mass Align Weapon is available it becomes even less of a hindrance--

Realistically even with removing the rule you need 3 weapons, one of each metal.

Or to do more than 5 or 10 damage in a swing, which you usually will do-- at its best all DR does is slow things down a round or two.


I'm a little torn on this one. On the one hand, I'm not a fan of the golf bag effect. On the other, I don't like how it makes anything short of DR/Epic as useless as having DR/magic.

That said, ultimately, did your GM tell you this before character creation or in the middle of the game? If before, then he was clear about his houserules and that's fine. If after, talk with your GM about it.


Nathanael Love wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Yes it is called the golf bag affect because in order to overcome DR you needed a weapon for every alignment(evil, lawful, chaotic, good). You also need one for piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing. You also need to over come silver, cold iron and adamantine.

Now some of these could be combined so you don't have to carry 8 or 9 weapons, but just like a golf bag you needed a different weapon(golf club) for what you need to do. It is less costly and more realistic to not have to carry so many weapons.

edit: As the rules are now one weapon can overcome almost all of them.

But, if you are Lawful good you cannot carry or use an evil weapon? And if you are NN you cannot carry/use any aligned weapon?

And when Mass Align Weapon is available it becomes even less of a hindrance--

Realistically even with removing the rule you need 3 weapons, one of each metal.

Or to do more than 5 or 10 damage in a swing, which you usually will do-- at its best all DR does is slow things down a round or two.

Who says you can not carry an evil weapon? That is NOT a rule. I am sure as a good character I can pick it(evil weapon) up and swing it.

As for mass align weapon you are assuming a caster is around and has such a spell ready.
With that aside I could not find such a spell. Do you have a link?

You do not need a weapon of each metal with the rule.

Once you get to a +5 weapon the weapon overcomes the DR of all metal based DR types and all alignment based DR.

To be more specific at +3 it overcomes cold iron and silver. At +4 it overcomes adamantine. At +5 it overcome all alignment types. The only thing you have to cover is the damage type such as slashing.


Odraude wrote:

I'm a little torn on this one. On the one hand, I'm not a fan of the golf bag effect. On the other, I don't like how it makes anything short of DR/Epic as useless as having DR/magic.

That said, ultimately, did your GM tell you this before character creation or in the middle of the game? If before, then he was clear about his houserules and that's fine. If after, talk with your GM about it.

As for Epic I prefer it having to be a +6 enhancement, but I do understand why it is done the other way. That way nobody is forced to take a +6 enhancement based weapon. I thinking of making it into a ritual of sorts to make a weapon overcome epic damage, but I am not sure yet.


Sorry, Align Weapon mass was from a non-OGC 3.5 book so it doesn't exist in Pathfinder. . .

(even though Align weapon does, silly license)

So the rule basically puts us back to 3rd edition DR rules, but makes it DR/3 DR/4 and DR/5 instead of 1/2/3?

Those rules got changed because it was bland and because it put too much emphasis on just having the most magic weapon possible.

And outside of alignment issues in general you get a negative level for wielding the wrong alignment weapon?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am sure there is a developer comment on why this changed.

Anyways, this should be in the Advice Forum.


If you are evil and hold a holy weapon you get a negative level, but there is no general rule on picking up any weapon of an opposite alignment.

I don't understand what you asking about--> "what makes it DR/3 DR/4 and DR/5 instead of 1/2/3?"

"Those rules got changed because it was bland and because it put too much emphasis on just having the most magic weapon possible."<--Are you saying it is bland to have to carry multiple weapons?


Well it's a shitty houserule but I'm not sure I can agree with calling someone I know nothing about besides that he has this rule a tool.


Nathanael Love wrote:
And outside of alignment issues in general you get a negative level for wielding the wrong alignment weapon?

If it is opposed to your alignment, yes (contrary to your earlier statement, true neutral characters can wield any aligned-weapon without penalty. A NG character can use any non-evil weapon without penalty).

The negative level goes away when you put the weapon back in your weapon golf-bag, though, and martial characters are effected very little from a negative level, so there's nothing stopping a CG character from using a lawful weapon for one fight against some proteans.


wraithstrike wrote:

If you are evil and hold a holy weapon you get a negative level, but there is no general rule on picking up any weapon of an opposite alignment.

I don't understand what you asking about--> "what makes it DR/3 DR/4 and DR/5 instead of 1/2/3?"

"Those rules got changed because it was bland and because it put too much emphasis on just having the most magic weapon possible."<--Are you saying it is bland to have to carry multiple weapons?

In 3rd edition they just had DR/+1, DR/+2, and DR/+3-- the only thing that mattered was the + on your sword.

With this rule that +3 overcomes Silver/Cold Iron and +4 overcomes Adamantine and +5 overcomes alignment its moved it back to the 3.0 system but simply added an extra +2-- why bother writing monsters with a specific metal type if all that is needed is +3?

I am saying that DR was changed to be DR/silver and DR/cold iron because that is more flavorful than DR/+1 or DR/+2; it was a change from 3.0 to 3.5 that I liked a lot personally.

I find it a lot cooler to need Cold Iron to harm fey and silver to harm devils than to just need a +5 sword to win always.

And I guess if you are willing to suffer the negative level. . . but I still suspect that for story reasons the Paladin still shouldn't be grabbing an Anarchic Unholy weapon regardless of what he is fighting. . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
but I still suspect that for story reasons the Paladin still shouldn't be grabbing an Anarchic Unholy weapon regardless of what he is fighting. . .

...Hence the alternate method of overcoming that DR...

Oh and the problem is worse than what was initially said.

You do not need a weapon of each damage type (B, S, P), a Cold Iron weapon, a silver weapon, an adamantine weapon, and a weapon of each alignment type (Holy, Unholy, Anarchic, and Axiomatic) to overcome all types of DR.

No, you need a weapon of each damage type, OF each material type (since there are creatures with, say, Piercing and Silver DR), and then the aligned versions of each (for creatures with DR/Good and Piercing for example, like Rakshasa).


Nathanael Love wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

If you are evil and hold a holy weapon you get a negative level, but there is no general rule on picking up any weapon of an opposite alignment.

I don't understand what you asking about--> "what makes it DR/3 DR/4 and DR/5 instead of 1/2/3?"

"Those rules got changed because it was bland and because it put too much emphasis on just having the most magic weapon possible."<--Are you saying it is bland to have to carry multiple weapons?

In 3rd edition they just had DR/+1, DR/+2, and DR/+3-- the only thing that mattered was the + on your sword.

In 3.0 they had DR 20/ +3 meaning you had to have a +3 weapon or deal with DR 20. In 3.5 they got rid of those. You did not need to have a +3 weapon to overcome a really high DR number.

Quote:


With this rule that +3 overcomes Silver/Cold Iron and +4 overcomes Adamantine and +5 overcomes alignment its moved it back to the 3.0 system but simply added an extra +2-- why bother writing monsters with a specific metal type if all that is needed is +3?

+3 weapons are expensive and not every group goes for the specific number enhancement. Some players like the special abilities, and a monster such as an outsider might have cold iron and evil as an example, so having a +3 weapon will not overcome the alignment if both are required.

Quote:


I am saying that DR was changed to be DR/silver and DR/cold iron because that is more flavorful than DR/+1 or DR/+2; it was a change from 3.0 to 3.5 that I liked a lot personally.

Ok, I get it. The change was also made because requiring a +3(just an example) or dealing with DR 20 or higher was a PITA.

Quote:
I find it a lot cooler to need Cold Iron to harm fey and silver to harm devils than to just need a +5 sword to win always.

This requires a player to have all types of weapons, and that was annoying to many of them. They don't want to have to carry a weapon for every occasion.

And I guess if you are willing to suffer the negative level. . . but I still suspect that for story reasons the Paladin still shouldn't be grabbing an Anarchic Unholy weapon regardless of what he is fighting...

That is why the other method is nice, and using an unholy weapon is less evil than being proud and letting innocent people die IMHO. If he is using an unholy weapon, he is probably already fighting a good outsider anyway so he might as well make sure he defeats it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
but I still suspect that for story reasons the Paladin still shouldn't be grabbing an Anarchic Unholy weapon regardless of what he is fighting. . .

...Hence the alternate method of overcoming that DR...

Oh and the problem is worse than what was initially said.

You do not need a weapon of each damage type (B, S, P), a Cold Iron weapon, a silver weapon, an adamantine weapon, and a weapon of each alignment type (Holy, Unholy, Anarchic, and Axiomatic) to overcome all types of DR.

No, you need a weapon of each damage type, OF each material type (since there are creatures with, say, Piercing and Silver DR), and then the aligned versions of each (for creatures with DR/Good and Piercing for example, like Rakshasa).

I guess I just disagree that its a problem to need a specific solution to a specific problem.

I can recall several incredibly enjoyable games that hinged on figuring out what was killing the sheep/villagers/ect then tracking down the information of what you need to battle it.

If the answer is +5 weapon for everything I just feel like something is being lost.


Ironically, the tax he's imposed on you is likely to have the exact opposite effect he wants it to unless he's increasing you're funds for the extra weapons so you can still afford healing, utility, and protection items and whatnot. Otherwise the end result is that you will be less prepared not more.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
but I still suspect that for story reasons the Paladin still shouldn't be grabbing an Anarchic Unholy weapon regardless of what he is fighting. . .

...Hence the alternate method of overcoming that DR...

Oh and the problem is worse than what was initially said.

You do not need a weapon of each damage type (B, S, P), a Cold Iron weapon, a silver weapon, an adamantine weapon, and a weapon of each alignment type (Holy, Unholy, Anarchic, and Axiomatic) to overcome all types of DR.

No, you need a weapon of each damage type, OF each material type (since there are creatures with, say, Piercing and Silver DR), and then the aligned versions of each (for creatures with DR/Good and Piercing for example, like Rakshasa).

I guess I just disagree that its a problem to need a specific solution to a specific problem.

I can recall several incredibly enjoyable games that hinged on figuring out what was killing the sheep/villagers/ect then tracking down the information of what you need to battle it.

If the answer is +5 weapon for everything I just feel like something is being lost.

By the time +5 weapons are in play all you need are casters to use divination spells, and then teleport to the nearest city to buy the right weapon so the +5 weapon is not an issue. Now before you ask why is it(the new rule) needed then. It is because always having to carry all those weapons around is annoying. The way the game is now you still need more than one weapon, but you don't need to worry about 10+ combinations of weapons that you might need. The weapon can be a +5 and still not work if the damage type is wrong. So once again you are off to town to get the correct one. It is not a fix-all. It just makes things a lot easier as you get higher in level.


wraithstrike wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


I guess I just disagree that its a problem to need a specific solution to a specific problem.

I can recall several incredibly enjoyable games that hinged on figuring out what was killing the sheep/villagers/ect then tracking down the information of what you need to battle it.

If the answer is +5 weapon for everything I just feel like something is being lost.

By the time +5 weapons are in play all you need are casters to use divination spells, and then teleport to the nearest city to buy the right weapon so the +5 weapon is not an issue. Now before you ask why is it(the new rule) needed then. It is because always having to carry all those weapons around is annoying. The way the game is now you still need more than one weapon, but you don't need to worry about 10+ combinations of weapons that you might need. The weapon can be a +5 and still not work if the damage type is wrong. So once again you are off to town to get the correct one. It is not a fix-all. It just makes things a lot easier as you get higher in level.

It just feels cooler to have monsters with specific weaknesses. If you ever read The Name of the Wind its cool the reaction that the fae character has to iron, and I feel like the rule eliminates that kind of coolness.

And you say its annoying to carry around a bunch of weapons, but is it really that much of a hassle to have more than a single weapon written on your character sheet?

I mean, how much extra work is it to not erase the +1 silver sword you have the second you get a +3 sword?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unlike a spellcaster, the Fighter can't just wait a day, and prepare a different spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:


And you say its annoying to carry around a bunch of weapons, but is it really that much of a hassle to have more than a single weapon written on your character sheet?

I mean, how much extra work is it to not erase the +1 silver sword you have the second you get a +3 sword?

"Not erasing it" would require me to have one in the first place.

So, it will either have dropped (severely unlikely) or I bought it (eating into limited WBL on the off chance we fight something with DR/Silver).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Unless a monster is completely immune to other types of damage, I see no real need for efficient fighter to carry a golf bag. Just a day before I was reminded of our past adventure, where our minotaur friends were surprised, when we told them that magical apes which lived nearby had DR/silver :).
The problem is that players tend to absolutely hate when they are not 120% efficient against every monster in Bestiary.


Nathanael Love wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


I guess I just disagree that its a problem to need a specific solution to a specific problem.

I can recall several incredibly enjoyable games that hinged on figuring out what was killing the sheep/villagers/ect then tracking down the information of what you need to battle it.

If the answer is +5 weapon for everything I just feel like something is being lost.

By the time +5 weapons are in play all you need are casters to use divination spells, and then teleport to the nearest city to buy the right weapon so the +5 weapon is not an issue. Now before you ask why is it(the new rule) needed then. It is because always having to carry all those weapons around is annoying. The way the game is now you still need more than one weapon, but you don't need to worry about 10+ combinations of weapons that you might need. The weapon can be a +5 and still not work if the damage type is wrong. So once again you are off to town to get the correct one. It is not a fix-all. It just makes things a lot easier as you get higher in level.

It just feels cooler to have monsters with specific weaknesses. If you ever read The Name of the Wind its cool the reaction that the fae character has to iron, and I feel like the rule eliminates that kind of coolness.

And you say its annoying to carry around a bunch of weapons, but is it really that much of a hassle to have more than a single weapon written on your character sheet?

I mean, how much extra work is it to not erase the +1 silver sword you have the second you get a +3 sword?

It is not that simple. As an adventurer my life is on the line. I need to be able to overcome as many things as possible. Writing on a character sheet takes a few seconds of real life time, but that is not the issue. In fantasyland in 3.5 I either needed to carry more than 10 weapons all the time, and I still have to account for times when creatures have two elements such as good aligned and slashing to overcome DR. If I make the 2-handed fighter that DR 10 might not matter much, but if I am a TWF fighter who is already sacrificing power for flavor taking 10 points of each of my attacks is not fun, especially if I went with a dex build. At that point I am basically sitting around and watching the fight, and if it has DR 15 or higher then annoying is on the low end of words players want to use.

Just to be clear it is not about the character sheet, but how many weapons you have to find and have ready. Not only that many GM's will restrict how many weapons you can have on you. So even if you are willing to buy every weapon type your GM might say no. That means you are now forced to buy a bag of holding, and even then you might not be prepared.

Now you might say, well go back to town. If the adventure is on a timer, or the GM says rare metals are too hard to find or you need a quest to get the metal so someone can craft the weapon then you are jumping through more hoops.

Basically it causes more problems by requiring all of those weapon types than it does to drop it down to a smaller number. I would have having 2 or 3 weapons cover all of the damage types, and then enhance those weapons at various strengths such as 1 being a +5 and another being a +3, while carrying a few weapon blanches than to try to get every weapon type needed. Most people don't mind being challenged, but this is more like book keeping than challenging me.


Bakenellan wrote:

Unless a monster is completely immune to other types of damage, I see no real need for efficient fighter to carry a golf bag. Just a day before I was reminded of our past adventure, where our minotaur friends were surprised, when we told them that magical apes which lived nearby had DR/silver :).

The problem is that players tend to absolutely hate when they are not 120% efficient against every monster in Bestiary.

No the problem is what I said it was. Carrying all those weapons is annoying. I am sure if you have a TWF fighter(not just the class) based on dex, and you are having to bypass DR 10 you wont like it. Sometimes adventures have lots of monsters of the same type so it not like it is just one fight where it might be an issue. Everyone has single fights that are nonrecurring that they don't like. You may those fights keep happening and you start to get evil looks.

Now if your reply is well dont build dex based TWF fighters, I will say if you are forced to not play that way the game had a problem, and now it has a solution.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

He has made a houserule.

What is the rules question?

More specifically, he has used "Rule 0" which allows him to change any rule at any time to any thing he would like.

Think of it less like a house rule and more like "in his game the rule book says this instead".

As to the golf bag model, ignore it. Just go with the "deal enough damage that DR isn't relevant when you don't bypass anyway."


wraithstrike wrote:


Now if your reply is well dont build dex based TWF fighters, I will say if you are forced to not play that way the game had a problem, and now it has a solution.

Maybe. Probably depends on GM style. In my homebrew campain, there is only two types of DR commonly encountered, everything else is very exotic and reserved for special monsters. Never needed that particular solution.


Useful stuff to carry, some other people will probably complete the list:

UEquipment, Wondrous items wrote:

Silversheen

Price 250 gp; Aura faint transmutation; CL 5th; Weight —

This shimmering paste-like substance can be applied to a weapon as a standard action. It gives the weapon the properties of alchemical silver for 1 hour, replacing the properties of any other special material it might have. One vial coats a single melee weapon or 20 units of ammunition.

Construction Requirements
Cost 125 gp
Craft Wondrous Item

UEquipment, alchemical tools wrote:

Weapon Blanch

Type...............Price.....Weight
Adamantine.....100 gp..1/2 lb.
Cold iron.........20 gp...1/2 lb.
Silver..............5 gp....1/2 lb.

These silver, alchemical powders have a gritty consistency, appearing at first glance to be simple metal shavings. When poured on a weapon and placed over a hot flame for a full round, however, they melt and form a temporary coating on the weapon. The blanching gives the weapon the ability to bypass one kind of material-based damage reduction, such as adamantine, cold iron, or silver. The blanching remains effective until you make a successful attack with the weapon. Each dose of blanching can coat one weapon or up to 10 pieces of ammunition. Only one kind of weapon blanch can be on a weapon at one time, though a weapon made of one special material (such as adamantine) can have a different material blanch (such as silver), and counts as both materials for the first successful hit.

A potion or scroll of Align Weapon, so you or someone else can apply it to you, if your cleric/similar don't want to prepare it.

Keep in hand some arrows/javelins of special materials, and take a weapon with 2 or 3 types of damages.
The monk spade can be a good safety weapon because one head is S+P, and the other S+B. When you need to find the type of DR without knowledge, it's pretty cool. I would keep two with different combo on each head.

...Or, as James Risner, play big damages. Or mix.


Honestly I'd imagine that you can likely make up a lot of the damage loss and beat much of the DR anyhow with a holy weapon. If it is cold iron and you have some silver sheen you've got a lot of bases covered.

You could also be subversive and use the Clustered Shots feat to nearly bypass DR and or play a Paladin and defeat the DR of any evil creature. The latter option includes a chance to see whether your GM is really trying to be a jerk or not by seeing if all foes suddenly stop being evil (like even demons and devils are "special" neutral ones who "aren't quite as bad")

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just be a spellcaster, and not worry about being fantastically rich, or hauling mass amounts of gear, just to get by.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, your DM is a huge tool.

Look, people here are right, he is within his rights to houserule things.
But if he does it on the fly, just because he doesn't like you being effective, he's a huge knob. If this wasn't told to you before rolling up your character or the first session, he's a huge knob.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is that like a door knob or a knob on a cane or a...oh I see.


meatrace wrote:

Yes, your DM is a huge tool.

Look, people here are right, he is within his rights to houserule things.
But if he does it on the fly, just because he doesn't like you being effective, he's a huge knob. If this wasn't told to you before rolling up your character or the first session, he's a huge knob.

Thing is, we don't know if this is a new houserule or if this was made before the game started.

One house rule I've seen is that a Gm allows the +X to bypass DR, but it has to be purely +X, not an equivalent. So like, you need a +3 longsword to bypass whatever, instead of, say, a +1 flame burst weapon (which would be a +3 enhancement). The former would work, while the latter wouldn't. Unsure how I felt about it, but it certainly was interesting.


Odraude wrote:

I'm a little torn on this one. On the one hand, I'm not a fan of the golf bag effect. On the other, I don't like how it makes anything short of DR/Epic as useless as having DR/magic.

That said, ultimately, did your GM tell you this before character creation or in the middle of the game? If before, then he was clear about his houserules and that's fine. If after, talk with your GM about it.

I agree with this. Without the rule you have to lug around 6+ (as in six or more) weapons to be prepared for anything, with it, most DRs are just automatically bypassed by the time you encounter them and become pointless.

I think the only way to do this is perhaps to reduce the number of different types of DR.

But honestly I think DR originally existed specifically so that some creatures take less damage unless the PCs just happen to have appropriate weapons. Not to encourage having a golf bag full of swords.


it's unfair to fighters, and other martial characters, especially fighters whom have one weapon they specialize highly in. it doesn't do much to archers, but it cripples melee builds, especially 2WF fighters.


2WFers are even at a disadvantage WITH the rule, since they have to pay for two enchanted weapons, so they will not get to the required enhancements nearly as fast.

And it's not like archers couldn't circumvent most of a creature's DR by virtue of Clustered Shots alone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to dissent a bit here. I've considered similar house rules for particular campaigns. At the kind of level where you're dealing with +3 or higher weapons, DR 5, 10 or even 15 isn't much of a hindrance to most front line characters.

As a GM, this seems like it could be a bit more about giving certain creatures a but more survivability, rather than forcing combatants to keep a weapon of every type on hand to absolutely maximize damage dealt by PCs.


Odraude wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Yes, your DM is a huge tool.

Look, people here are right, he is within his rights to houserule things.
But if he does it on the fly, just because he doesn't like you being effective, he's a huge knob. If this wasn't told to you before rolling up your character or the first session, he's a huge knob.

Thing is, we don't know if this is a new houserule or if this was made before the game started.

One house rule I've seen is that a Gm allows the +X to bypass DR, but it has to be purely +X, not an equivalent. So like, you need a +3 longsword to bypass whatever, instead of, say, a +1 flame burst weapon (which would be a +3 enhancement). The former would work, while the latter wouldn't. Unsure how I felt about it, but it certainly was interesting.

...huh. That's how i have always read it working actually. Are you saying it doesn't?

Interesting!(on a side note, i prefer it working that way honestly.)


Rathendar wrote:
Odraude wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Yes, your DM is a huge tool.

Look, people here are right, he is within his rights to houserule things.
But if he does it on the fly, just because he doesn't like you being effective, he's a huge knob. If this wasn't told to you before rolling up your character or the first session, he's a huge knob.

Thing is, we don't know if this is a new houserule or if this was made before the game started.

One house rule I've seen is that a Gm allows the +X to bypass DR, but it has to be purely +X, not an equivalent. So like, you need a +3 longsword to bypass whatever, instead of, say, a +1 flame burst weapon (which would be a +3 enhancement). The former would work, while the latter wouldn't. Unsure how I felt about it, but it certainly was interesting.

...huh. That's how i have always read it working actually. Are you saying it doesn't?

Interesting!(on a side note, i prefer it working that way honestly.)

I'm with rathendor on this, I thought that's how it worked as well.


Who cares DR 20 if a martial character can do 40+ damage with a normal hit?

Ok .. your 'max DPS' are reduced due to DR but if you use the term 'max DPS' then quit PF and restart playing WOW.


Part of the kerfuffle over the mythic rules is they said a +4 holy weapon is a +6 weapon and overcomes DR/Epic.


Volaran wrote:

I'm going to dissent a bit here. I've considered similar house rules for particular campaigns. At the kind of level where you're dealing with +3 or higher weapons, DR 5, 10 or even 15 isn't much of a hindrance to most front line characters.

As a GM, this seems like it could be a bit more about giving certain creatures a but more survivability, rather than forcing combatants to keep a weapon of every type on hand to absolutely maximize damage dealt by PCs.

Except the hindrance is one sided. Most front line characters includes those who use a 2hander. That's it. To everyone else DR is really irritating. If you TWF, its a huge chunk of your damage gone. If you use a one hander and shield, you may as well not even bother. So really most front liners aren't getting through DR easy.

Archers get around DR through another method but they're hardly front liners till point blank master comes online.

As a GM, this seems like it would simply push your players from dealing physical damage and accept casters are simply better that way too since admixtured fireballs don't really care about dr and bypass resistances and immunities.

As a GM, there are better methods of increasing the survivability of your creatures than hamstringing your players.

As a Player, I dont know if theres anything more irritating than hearing, "Oh you hit, but dealt absolutely no damage." Especially when the alternative is tearing your WBL in half.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Just be a spellcaster, and not worry about being fantastically rich, or hauling mass amounts of gear, just to get by.

That is what I would do if golfbagging was mandatory, or I would just be an archer and handle it with different arrow types and blanches. That is a lot easier than dealing with a lot of different weapons.


Odraude wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Yes, your DM is a huge tool.

Look, people here are right, he is within his rights to houserule things.
But if he does it on the fly, just because he doesn't like you being effective, he's a huge knob. If this wasn't told to you before rolling up your character or the first session, he's a huge knob.

Thing is, we don't know if this is a new houserule or if this was made before the game started.

One house rule I've seen is that a Gm allows the +X to bypass DR, but it has to be purely +X, not an equivalent. So like, you need a +3 longsword to bypass whatever, instead of, say, a +1 flame burst weapon (which would be a +3 enhancement). The former would work, while the latter wouldn't. Unsure how I felt about it, but it certainly was interesting.

That is the actual rule. A +3 weapon is a +3 weapon. A +1 holy weapon is a +3 equivalent for pricing, but it is not a +3 weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my home game, +x weapons don't exist--the enhancement bonus is a feature that the characters pick up, not their weapons.

Under this rule, special material DRs never go away -- but you also don't have to worry about getting magic versions of each material. (I find the golf bag effect much truer to the source folklore than the big 6 Christmas tree effect.)

At any rate, it's a house rule, and its fair game for the gm. Ideally, it's something that's written and available before the game, but house rules have to come from somewhere, and often that somewhere is the middle of a campaign where the problem the gm is trying to solve rears its ugly head. In that case, it's reasonable to ask that he let you finish out the combat / session / until your next shipping trip under the rule you thought you were using.

1 to 50 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is my GM being a jerk? All Messageboards