I so very much don't like the retrogression in the DR mechanic where all you have to do is have a weapon with enough plusses to pretty much overcome anything. I think this is bad bad bad.
I like that different types of DR create tougher challenges. Some people used to complain about needing to carry a golph bag of weapons so they'd be ready for everything, but...
how many movies or shows have we seen or books read where a special weapon made from a special material was needed to overcome the monster?
I'm not just talking about werewolves either. What about Buffy episodes where they had to find just the right thing to take on Demon X? What would've happened to Conan in The Black Stranger if there hadn't been that silver chandelier?
I'd like DR to stay just the way it was in 3.5.
|
For me it's very, *VERY* good and a welcome change! I have been so frustrated -- both as a DM and a player -- with 3.5 DR, and the "Golf Bag of Weapons" has been a common problem in my group.
You see, it might work in stories or episodic TV series, but I don't see much sense in players retreating from every encounter and heading back to town, or embarking on a quest, to get the right weapon to hurt the monster. And let's face it -- the CR system only works if your PCs actually have those "right" weapons against each monster.
I remember one particular battle which involved *three* min-maxed 16th level melee-focused PCs against a CR 10 monster... the PCs got creamed, barely escaping with their lives, just because they didn't have weapons that would have let them fully bypass the DR (i.e. each attack inflicted 15 points less damage). It's ridiculous if you need to have Good and Adamantine and Magic weapon to hurt a monster...
So I'm whole-heartedly in favor of this change... :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
I think there's a common house rule that tons of people already use, that each + of an enchanted weapon overcomes five points of DR/Magic. I've been using that in my high-level game and it's worked perfectly. I keep all other forms of DR completely by-the-book.
If I had an idea of what goal was being achieved by allowing magic weapons to overcome material DR, I'd be in a better position to comment.
One additional point, is that the +2 damage bonus for having a weapon with both the magic and the material to overcome DR is a little too fiddly for my tastes. It's one of those bonuses that players (from a non-metagame POV) should not be able to know, and will thus not use consistently. And it's one of those things that the DM, assembling a host of Werewolves for battle, is not going to remember what weapons the PC's have, their materials, and their exact pluses.
|
|
I think there's a common house rule that tons of people already use, that each + of an enchanted weapon overcomes five points of DR/Magic. I've been using that in my high-level game and it's worked perfectly. I keep all other forms of DR completely by-the-book.If I had an idea of what goal was being achieved by allowing magic weapons to overcome material DR, I'd be in a better position to comment.
One additional point, is that the +2 damage bonus for having a weapon with both the magic and the material to overcome DR is a little too fiddly for my tastes. It's one of those bonuses that players (from a non-metagame POV) should not be able to know, and will thus not use consistently. And it's one of those things that the DM, assembling a host of Werewolves for battle, is not going to remember what weapons the PC's have, their materials, and their exact pluses.
I like that house rule...
I like 3.5 DR and dont like this at all
I agree this was Monte corrupting Jason with some of his ideas ( what hes paid to do I just dont like this one LOL)
One of the things I liked about 3.5 was that you could do the whole legendary thing with some monsters being harmed only by silver, or by blessed weapons, or whatever, and it wasn't trumped by the fact that you have a +5 sword, which has no meaning outside of game context (other than that the weapon is enchanted, in general).
By the time you get to a level where you have a +3 weapon, if you don't have the right one, you should be hoping you do enough damage to the thing to get over its DR . . . also, if the fighter or paladin or whatever doesn't have the right weapon, they can still grapple, trip, etc. the thing to slow it down while the cleric/druid/wizard/sorcerer blasts it with spells.
I'm not particularly thrilled with this. Obviously, its not a deal breaker for me, and I'll use it in my playtests, but I think it steals some of the thunder of the "flavor" DR, and I think overall that's not a plus for me.
|
|
I dunno, it looks like the 3.5 stuff is left more or less intact with the weapon bonus requisite as one additional option for overcoming a specific kind/level of DR. I might be inclined to just ignore that extra option, except for the additional damage you get from a weapon that meets both requisites ... that's interesting.
I think there's a common house rule that tons of people already use, that each + of an enchanted weapon overcomes five points of DR/Magic. I've been using that in my high-level game and it's worked perfectly. I keep all other forms of DR completely by-the-book.
I use the same house rule and will keep on house ruling it if Pathfinder keeps the current DR rules.
I like that house rule...
I think there's a common house rule that tons of people already use, that each + of an enchanted weapon overcomes five points of DR/Magic. I've been using that in my high-level game and it's worked perfectly. I keep all other forms of DR completely by-the-book.If I had an idea of what goal was being achieved by allowing magic weapons to overcome material DR, I'd be in a better position to comment.
One additional point, is that the +2 damage bonus for having a weapon with both the magic and the material to overcome DR is a little too fiddly for my tastes. It's one of those bonuses that players (from a non-metagame POV) should not be able to know, and will thus not use consistently. And it's one of those things that the DM, assembling a host of Werewolves for battle, is not going to remember what weapons the PC's have, their materials, and their exact pluses.
You know, it does accomplish the same thing as what Jason/Monte has suggested. it creates an alternative means of bypassing DR. So I don't see really where the difference is, or whether it makes that great of difference either.
While I don't really like the "golf bag" effect that the various DR types can generate, I can understand the desire and intent that this rule was meant to play. Although, I'm not completely in agreement with it also.
My personal thought would be to provide enchantments that could be applied to weapons...
1) Alter the shape of the weapon (within the same size category), so you could change your Longsword into a Heavy Mace or a Spear.
2) Transmute the material your weapon is composed of after making a successful attack, changing you steel weapon into Cold Iron, Silver, or Adamantium (as needed). Effect last X number of rounds, or until a new foe is hit.
3) Alignment Masking (same as above, only granting the weapon an alignment component when overcoming DR).
Pro "golf-bag". DR by type helps keep melee masters from becoming overly dependent on just one weapon.
However, there is something to be said for giving that mighty "Plus Five" weapon a bit of a bonus. Perhaps, similar to the house rule above, reduce DR by the Enhancement bonus of the weapon attacking. Basically doubles the damage bonus of it vs. DR. Or at most 2xbonus.
So +2 Sword vs. DR 5/silver = DR 3/silver.
or with 2x:
+3 Sword vs. DR 10/adamantine = DR 4/adamantine.
I remember one particular battle which involved *three* min-maxed 16th level melee-focused PCs against a CR 10 monster... the PCs got creamed, barely escaping with their lives, just because they didn't have weapons that would have let them fully bypass the DR (i.e. each attack inflicted 15 points less damage). It's ridiculous if you need to have Good and Adamantine and Magic weapon to hurt a monster...
I'm sorry, what CR 10 monster has DR 15/Good&Magic&Adamantine???
Looking around, I do see Rakshasa's at CR 10, with DR 15/good&piercing. Just can't quite imagine 16th level fighter types getting creamed by just one Rakshasa.
I like this change myself.Makes having a +2/+3/+4 something more then "eh it's just a +3 longword."
|
|
I can see some point to the "plus substitution" system. Kind-of like what somebody else said, it gives a plain-old '+3 longsword' some in-game flavor other than just "it hits better". Plus, it gives characters who just so happen to not have the required material some recourse. Note that the plus requirements are fairly high compared to the material/property.
I do have a bit of a problem with the particular plusses assigned. Doesn't seem right to me that adamantine, the supposed hardest/sharpest/all-around-coolest material is only a +3, and that cold iron and silver are as easy to get around as b/p/s.
I would suggest the following substitutions:
bludgeoning/piercing/slashing: +2
cold iron/silver: +3
alignment (chaotic/evil/good/lawful): +4
adamantine*: +5
(If I recall correctly, older editions of D&D [1st Edition, I think] pretty much said +5 weapons were automatically made out of adamantine, or something like that. If I'm wrong, please correct me gently. 8^)
|
|
They couldn't deal with 15 DR at 16th level? I don't think the problem is the DR here. I'm dishing out 2d4+10 on my level 3 Fighter. Unless the monsters were also fast healing or regenerating, I fail to see how 15 DR is much more than a speed bump.
I have yet to encounter the golf-bag problem, so I can't really speak for it. Especially with that magic item that transmutes an item temporarily to silver.
I don't like the change to DR. I won't be using it. It isn't a big deal for me.
Well, since we don't have all 3.5 accessories in my group, we don't have access to anything other than 'Align Weapon' (NOTE: and the PCs in question couldn't cast even that). And you're correct about Fast Healing there... whatever damage you inflicted with your best attacks was almost completely regenerated on the monster's turn. So it was definitely also that, too -- plus the monster's ability to give negative levels, to boot. Most of the PCs carried +5 Weapons, so it definitely felt unfair. In fact, the party retreated from the dungeon and decided to return *only* when they've found "right" weapons to defeat the monster. Kind of frustrating for the DM, too, right?
I think the "golf bag" is just silly, but I don't like the new system either. Magic +s makes it too easy to have a tactical solution.
Maybe the problem with DR is too many options?
Silver
Good
Evil
Cold Iron
Lawful
Chaotic
Adamantine
Magic
Piercing
Slashing
Bludgeoning
... and any mix you can come up with.
Is there a better way than the actual PFRPG proposition to avoid the golf bag?
... we don't have access to anything other than 'Align Weapon'
This right here could also be a reason to have an arcane spell (transmutation), that would allow a caster to temporarily alter a weapon to a different material (silver, cold iron or adamantium).
I know, a slight derail, but hey. ;oP
I like the new rule. In recent sessions, my party have some brushes with quite a few constructs with X/adamantine DR and the whole deal is purely frustrating (specially with immune-to-magic golems). My players are getting completely sidetracked as they devout more "town time" to do shopping for all kinds of weapons than to follow investigation leads.
I still don't get how magic cannot bypass most things. Only the most exceptional monsters should get something like X/Adamantine AND magic, whereas your average DR folk could be X/Adamantine OR magic.
The problem is in game balance, ie, in how many magic weapons PCs are getting their hands on. If you can buy alchemical silver at your average-big-city market or alchemy dealer, a DR/silver monster should be less grievous than a DR/magic one. Then, a magic weapon (especially when over +2 or so) should be something pretty hard to acquire.
The new mechanic does away with Enchant Weapon being a cure for most DRs (as it would give the equivalent of a +1), but it does acknowledge the power of higher enchantments.
Now it's a matter of DMs being restrictive in their players' access to magic weapon stashes.
And, if you want to make a really exceptional monster, make the whole "quest for killer weapon" into a story itself, give it DR X/- and specify that only a particular weapon with a particular crafting process (like a special potion to bathe it in or consecration ceremony with rare ingredients) is what bypasses the DR. That should give some appreciation for getting cold iron, basilisk blood and the hair for seven virgin priestesses.
I'm in that funny camp of liking both DR versions, and can see where both could be implemented.
For example:
A true lycanthrope could have DR 10/silver or +2 weapon, while a cursed lycanthrope could have DR 5/silver or +1 weapon. Similarly, an iron golem could be DR/adamantine and +1 weapon or simply +3 weapon, while a balor could have DR 15/good and +2 weapon or simply +4 weapon.
It's interesting to note that 4e has almost completely done away with DR and replaced it with a new mechanic altogether.
I don't like the rule either, but its not a deal breaker. If anything I always thought DR for most critters were too low. I can't think of of anything with say DR 20 or higher off the top of my head, though I sure there are some. Keep it as it was, makes monsters scarier.
On the subject haven't had a chance to realy go go over the latest rules; has sunder changed? I never like how a dagger in theory could sunder a greatsword. I've always housed ruled that a weapon could only sunder another weapon if they were the same size (GM's descrition) and/or had at lest a +1 over the opposing weapon. This goes for armor too. Not that Pathfidner has to be realistic persay, but historically speaking sundering really never happaned. Lest I know of no ture accounts of it off the top of my head. Disarming yes, sundering only in lit.
Back on subject as I said before the new system isn't a bad thing, but I'll stick to the old method.
It's interesting to note that 4e has almost completely done away with DR and replaced it with a new mechanic altogether.
That's because 4th is very much a whole new game. The thinking behind it was not how do we improve 3rd, but lets destroy it and come up with something new and non-OGL. Differnt subject for a differnt board but thats why.
Not too big a fan of this, either. It's basically the old system again, which I didn't like too much.
Special materials should be special materials. The DR values are usually low enough to overcome the hard way, which sounds like a good alternative to either the "golfbag syndrome" or the old system.
I love it! I was vocal earlier in advocating a Monte-like system, and it's really refreshing to see it in place. I HATED the golf bag syndrome, in part because of a series of totally unavoidable TPKs (like one in "Mud Sorcerer's Tomb" that stemmed solely from a lack of adamantine weapons, or another in an encounter with a mud monster that had DR /bludgeoning, etc.). I also grated at the fact that, in 3.5e, no one wanted a weapon with an enhancement bonus higher than +1. They took the +1 grudgingly to gain access to other powers; without DR dependency as well, there was no reason in the world to take a +2 weapon or higher. That has all changed now, for the better, in my opinion.
Yes, I understand perfectly well that Power Attack overcomes DR by sheer damage output. And that's the absolute best thing about the Alpha 3 DR system: Power Attack is now optional, rather than required!
It should be pointed out (in Monte's defense) that Monte doesn't in fact use this system. Rather, all his works (pre-Ptolus) had DR values for both 3.0 and 3.5 systems in case some were still using 3.0. His goal there was full compatibility with either system.
I would suggest the following substitutions:bludgeoning/piercing/slashing: +2
cold iron/silver: +3
alignment (chaotic/evil/good/lawful): +4
adamantine*: +5(If I recall correctly, older editions of D&D [1st Edition, I think] pretty much said +5 weapons were automatically made out of adamantine, or something like that. If I'm wrong, please correct me gently. 8^)
I like that, will use it probably in my games. thanks.
On a different note:
I wouldn't bother at all about the +2 to damage if both prerequisites are met, though - that's overkill, imho.
(And I think you recall correctly ;-) )
I would suggest the following substitutions:
bludgeoning/piercing/slashing: +2
cold iron/silver: +3
alignment (chaotic/evil/good/lawful): +4
adamantine*: +5(If I recall correctly, older editions of D&D [1st Edition, I think] pretty much said +5 weapons were automatically made out of adamantine, or something like that. If I'm wrong, please correct me gently. 8^)
No, you're right on for 1e. And all +3 weapons were assumed to be of "special meteorite iron," so assigning "+3 = cold iron" makes sense as well.
If they do this, they might as well up the DR again to the astronomical amounts from original 3.0e.
When they took away +'s in 3.5e, they severely reduced the DR for every single creature.
A Balor only has DR 15. A Tarrasque only has DR 15. What made them stronger was that they had more difficult requirements for bypassing it (good AND cold iron/silver... or epic bonus requirements).
By 20th level, anything going up against the Balor should have well and beyond more than 15 damage per hit. It's meant to be a speedbump that makes researching your targets pay out in the form of killing it quicker (for the physical attackers).
I can't think of anyone I've ever run into that insisted on having a weapon of each type of combination DR he "might" run into. He dealt with doing a bit less damage, or sought ways to temporarily gain the needed requirements (align weapon, silver wondrous item, etc).
I'd be totally for creating a Transmutation spell (or series of spells if necessary) for Wizards to create silver, cold iron, or adamatine temporary effects on your weapons.
I'd also be okay with a weapon enhancement that allowed changing your weapon into a different one, or gave it alternative damage types (give your sword bludgeoning damage capability, or changeable into a flail, etc).
The main problem with this rule is that it makes the Barbarian's DR useless as a class feature. By the time he gets to 7th level, most of his enemies will have magical weapons.
The main problem with this rule is that it makes the Barbarian's DR useless as a class feature. By the time he gets to 7th level, most of his enemies will have magical weapons.
Actually, this rule would have no effect on DR/--, which the barbarian has. It's basically an "untyped" DR with nothing to overcome it.
I would suggest the following substitutions:bludgeoning/piercing/slashing: +2
cold iron/silver: +3
alignment (chaotic/evil/good/lawful): +4
adamantine*: +5
I do like this arrangement better than the alpha, personally.
If I were to look at and tweak the house rules reducing DR with magic weapons, I'd start the reduction only with +3 weapons. +3 weapon reduces DR xx/substance by 5, +4 reduces it by 10, +5 by 15.
Yes, a character with a +5 weapon pretty much ignores all DRs that can be overcome (DR > 15 being so rare I can't even think of an example), but the weapons are pretty expensive by that point. So I think it's fair.
So why not any benefit for +2 weapons? That just doesn't seem powerful enough for my tastes. I also like the DR bottoming out as the bonus tops out.
The main problem with this rule is that it makes the Barbarian's DR useless as a class feature. By the time he gets to 7th level, most of his enemies will have magical weapons.Actually, this rule would have no effect on DR/--, which the barbarian has. It's basically an "untyped" DR with nothing to overcome it.
Oh yeah, you're right about that. I misread the rule.
Chalk me up as happy with this change. It really is the best of both worlds. I'll post more when we've fully road tested it. ;o)
Peace,
tfad
I don't like the revision on many levels.
First, as a long-time Ravenloft player and DM, I've grown accustomed to the idea that magic doesn't automatically capitalize on allergen. Just because I have a magic weapon does not mean it's going to bypass your resistance to blunt force trauma. If it did, then I'd like my keen vorpal quarterstaff, please.
Second, as a DM in general, it means that DR is completely irrelevant to high-level parties. Since high-level parties can usually deal out enough damage to overwhelm the DR of the monsters they face, making it so that they just never have to pay attention to DR really weakens higher CR monsters.
Third, a +5 longsword is the most boring, stupid thing on the planet. There's a lot of ink on paper to make it so that you don't need to have every item slot on your body be an "item of ability score, armor class, or saving throw bonus". Why are we backpedaling on that and saying "but you can't have the snazzy boosts on your weapon, you've just gotta take a flat bonus that in-game just means it's magical magic of magicalness with no cool points whatsoever"?
Some very good points here. Perhaps the best of these is: it makes bypassing DR a generic thing. Generic = boring = bad.
|
I'm pretty in favor of this rule as well, though balancing it out the way that was mentioned above could make it easier to remember.
I think this will add a lot to the game really, as normally people put a +1 on their weapon, and unless they are going defending, they are better off adding flaming/holy/whatever instead of further pluses. A high bonus weapon should feel pretty legendary, and as it starts to be able to slice through just about anything this gives that feel.
-Tarlane
I would suggest the following substitutions:bludgeoning/piercing/slashing: +2
cold iron/silver: +3
alignment (chaotic/evil/good/lawful): +4
adamantine*: +5
I too would like to put in a vote for this change. I don't have a problem with bringing back the + method to overcome DR but I think it could stand a little higher threshold which this suggestion does nicely.
At this advancement rate, it also keeps pace with the CR of the monsters likely to have these DR and the likelyhood* of at least one character in the party to have spent his money on a powerful enough weapon.
*(not accounting for evil DMs who throw Balors at 10th level parties)
No, you're right on for 1e. And all +3 weapons were assumed to be of "special meteorite iron," so assigning "+3 = cold iron" makes sense as well.I would suggest the following substitutions:
bludgeoning/piercing/slashing: +2
cold iron/silver: +3
alignment (chaotic/evil/good/lawful): +4
adamantine*: +5(If I recall correctly, older editions of D&D [1st Edition, I think] pretty much said +5 weapons were automatically made out of adamantine, or something like that. If I'm wrong, please correct me gently. 8^)
This would be a simple implementation of both rules. I am going to use it (with maybe a slight revision)!
|
Monte Cook had these rules which I have used to good results. I have not noticed the change in the Alpha rules, could someone please post the pages that they are on.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I'm pretty in favor of this rule as well, though balancing it out the way that was mentioned above could make it easier to remember.
I think this will add a lot to the game really, as normally people put a +1 on their weapon, and unless they are going defending, they are better off adding flaming/holy/whatever instead of further pluses. A high bonus weapon should feel pretty legendary, and as it starts to be able to slice through just about anything this gives that feel.
Except all you need to do is throw a GMW on your +1 weapon, and it gains all the nifty DR-piercing powers that you're supposed to shell out top bucks for. Not wowed by this change, it takes away the specialness of both DR and weapons of non-standard materials.
I find this change solid.
I do very much like the concepts of a creature immune to all but specific weapons...it adds plenty of flavor, but I can do that already and it would probably only be for a specific part of the adventure where I wanted the players to seek out a specific sort of item.
This would be a rarity.
Having players constantly going out shopping for items and carrying a horde of multiple weapons around gets old. I don't like having the PC's carry around 20 different weapons so they can overcome DR, I don't like them having to search for these arbitrarily every time a new encounter rears it's head, or worse yet doing something very cheezy that I've seen more than once...drop some kind of improvised weapon in the monsters lair that's made of the specific material needed to damage it, because it would make sense that the only weapon capable of dealing lethal damage to a creature would be something he collects in rampant abundance and then leaves it lie around on the floor.
I like the change, for day to day fights it does eliminate the needs for one of every type of weapon, and it gives generic plus weapons a reason to exist and to cost what they do in relation to "flashy" enhancements. Now if I were making my own game from scratch, there would be no generic pluses, but they do exist and so this is a nice compromise.
As for the super epic creatures where you want to make the search for the weapon part of the story, then I guess you can give them special DR, like DR 25/Glamdring.
But I do agree with the previous posts of upping the threshold for what plus trumps which DR type.
On the 1st edition materials (Go go searchable PDF from Paizo!!):
Armor of +3 bonus is of special meteorite iron steel, +4 is mithral alloyed steel, +5 is adamantite alloyed steel. (Page 164)
No mention of adamantine weapons, other than the "Saw of Mighty Cutting" (which I swear I never saw! - must be the Scarab of Death right below it).
While, I'm still not quite in favor of this change, here are a few thoughts on how I would modify this, so it would be a little more pallatable.
1) Drop the overcoming buldgeoning/piercing/slashing mechanic.
I'm don't think a +X magical enhancement bonus should compensate for how a weapon delivers it's damage mechanically. Damage caused by blunt-force trauma, is certainly delivered differently than a weapon capable of severing off a limb.
2) Alignment requirements should be two tiered.
I'd say that if a creature has a single alignment needed for overcoming it's DR (Good, Eveil, Law, or Chaotic), should be easier than one with two requirements (Good AND Law, Evil AND Chaotic).
3) Slightly higher qualifications to overcome DR.
The enhancement bonus should start at +3 for when determining how effective a weapon is when overcoming DR. To use a current weapon enhancement available to players now, in 3.5 -
Transmuting: A +2 enhancement that allows a weapon to overcome all forms of DR.
This would make a weapon the equivallent of a +3 weapon, and as such, where I think the chart should start.
4) Drop the damage bonus.
This part of the rule is just a bit wonky, and doesn't really add anything to the game.
So, how I would build the chart would look like the following:
Enhancement
Bonus______DR Overcome_
+3 = = = = = = Cold Iron, Silver
+4 = = = = = = Single alignment (Good, Evil, Law, Chaotic)
+5 = = = = = = Adamantium, Double alignment (For Example: Good AND Law)
I so very much don't like the retrogression in the DR mechanic where all you have to do is have a weapon with enough plusses to pretty much overcome anything. I think this is bad bad bad.
I don't like the new DR rules either. They don't really solve anything, since (a) at low levels you'll still need a golf bag of weapons (since you can't afford a +3 sword) and (b) at higher levels different types of DR will become meaningless if you can just get your friendly, neighbourhood wizard or cleric to cast Greater Magic Weapon on your sword.
So it fixes nothing at low levels, and eliminates 95% of DR at high levels. Ho hum.
How about getting rid of the different types of damage reduction entirely?
Just make all DR like the Barbarian's.