Swapping DR for regeneration seems like a fine option, but there is a problem with that: energy attacks.
That would mean that you couldn't reduce a werewolf to charcoal with a fireball or turn it into a puddle of goo with an acid orb. It would simply take nonlethal damage and get up later unless you managed to coup de grace it once it was dropped, using that silver letter opener the bard has been carrying around as treasure for the last six levels...
So either energy attacks/spells would have to be exempt from the regeneration ability, or monsters would have an increased list of things that could bypass it, which makes the stat block clunkier.
On a side note, I'm finding this paragraph from the DR portion of the Alpha a bit vague:
Some weapons might meet both requisites for overcoming a creature’s damage reduction. For example, a
werewolf has DR 10/silver. While both a silver longsword and a +2 longsword can overcome its DR, a +2 silver longsword meets both requisites. Such weapons deal +2 points of damage on a successful hit against a creature’s whose DR they overcome. This bonus does not apply against creature’s with DR/magic.
So does this mean that when attacking a werewolf with a +2 longsword, you do not apply the enhancement bonus to damage because it gets used up overcoming the DR? Or does that mean that the +2 silver longsword does an extra 2 points of damage over the enhancement bonus? The text isn't specific either way...
I wouldn't mind an adjustment to the numbers for what you need to hit what I suppose, but the idea itself is solid in my mind. I don't know if such an adjustment is needed...I guess I would have to see something that shows this makes more than the odd monster way easier, because I think the old alternative was a good idea that then required constant usage which turned that good idea into a pain in the ass.
Unusual or rare DR requirements that are a specific adventure focus can be written in or Perhaps the stacking DR's can be different, but the general golfbag sillyness that took place after the 3.0 and 3.5 (worsened) change were not the desired effects of this rule I'm certain.
Swapping DR for regeneration seems like a fine option, but there is a problem with that: energy attacks.
That would mean that you couldn't reduce a werewolf to charcoal with a fireball or turn it into a puddle of goo with an acid orb. It would simply take nonlethal damage and get up later unless you managed to coup de grace it once it was dropped, using that silver letter opener the bard has been carrying around as treasure for the last six levels...
So either energy attacks/spells would have to be exempt from the regeneration ability, or monsters would have an increased list of things that could bypass it, which makes the stat block clunkier.
On a side note, I'm finding this paragraph from the DR portion of the Alpha a bit vague:
So does this mean that when attacking a werewolf with a +2 longsword, you do not apply the enhancement bonus to damage because it gets used up overcoming the DR? Or does that mean that the +2 silver longsword does an extra 2 points of damage over the enhancement bonus? The text isn't specific either way...Some weapons might meet both requisites for overcoming a creature’s damage reduction. For example, a
werewolf has DR 10/silver. While both a silver longsword and a +2 longsword can overcome its DR, a +2 silver longsword meets both requisites. Such weapons deal +2 points of damage on a successful hit against a creature’s whose DR they overcome. This bonus does not apply against creature’s with DR/magic.
Actually this is somewhat curious when I read it too. Does the magical bonus only get added if both prereqs are met?
If so, then it's interesting to see how that will play out, and still gives a significant value to having the actual material-type that's needed.
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.
This is by far my favorite option - reducing DR by a flat +2 for each plus. Easy to remember, encourages but doesn't mandate bumping up the enchantment bonuses on items, and the math isn't too tricky. There's a little bit of "oh, is that a +2 or +3 weapon?" but I think we can survive it.
My main objection to DR has been that it's so binary. Either it's on, in which case the critters are tough to damage, or it's off, and they're fragile. An intermediate stage, where lower DR creatures are fragile and higher DR creatures still have some resilience.
I don't think the "bonus for more than fulfilling DR" is workable to remember.
Also, I have a house rule for DR that I'd like to suggest - doubling or tripling DR to match critical hits or other multipliers. Before I started doing this, the two-weapon fighter was crippled by DR but the fighter with lance and spirited charge was essentially ignoring it.
Finally, I don't like the idea of magic spells that create or transmute cold iron. Cold iron is defined as unmagic, and having magic create unmagic seems very wrong to me. It's crept into the 3.x splatbooks, and I didn't like it then either.
So does this mean that when attacking a werewolf with a +2 longsword, you do not apply the enhancement bonus to damage because it gets used up overcoming the DR? Or does that mean that the +2 silver longsword does an extra 2 points of damage over the enhancement bonus? The text isn't specific either way...Some weapons might meet both requisites for overcoming a creature’s damage reduction. For example, a
werewolf has DR 10/silver. While both a silver longsword and a +2 longsword can overcome its DR, a +2 silver longsword meets both requisites. Such weapons deal +2 points of damage on a successful hit against a creature’s whose DR they overcome. This bonus does not apply against creature’s with DR/magic.
It means you deal an extra 2 hp of damage.
Firmly against this change. I think it encourages players picking up +x weapons at the earliest possible opportunity, in order to overcome as many forms of damage reduction as they can, rather than going with properties. There's nothing quite so boring as a plain old +x weapon, and yet it would be even more of an optimal choice than it is already.
I do, however, feel that there is room for improvement in the current system, for the simple reason that while a typical party may well have a mix of different weapon types between them, they're less likely to have specific properties such as good/lawful/chaotic/evil.
Align weapon is the obvious fix, given a few moments to cast it (and a caster with it prepared), but others include a feat allowing characters to apply their own alignments to weapons for the purposes of overcoming DR, or counting any weapon sprinkled with holy/unholy water as good/evil for x minutes. I also feel that the phrase 'and' in a DR entry should be limited to unique creatures (specific demon lords, the tarrasque, etc).
I do like the current 3.5 DR system. It provides challenge for the players. Not every player is, or should be, perfectly prepared for every challenge that arises in the game. Keep the current 3.5 DR system.
I guess this almost seems to me almost like saying that you need to do something about letting wizards change their energy damage type on the fly, because they may not have the right energy type if they run into a red dragon, since they mainly have fire spells.
Granted, a lot of them aren't OGL, but there are many items that work on this issue, i.e. gauntlets that allow a weapon to strike as silver, rings of adamantine strike.
I know someone complained earlier about no one taking a weapon over +1 any more. Honestly, I kind of like that. A sword that bursts into flame feels more magical to me than one that only provides a mechanical bonus "in game," without much explanation other than that it is "magical."
Sounds like Monte's influence to me. He uses a similar system for Arcana Evolved. I'm with you in preferring that +s not count for DR in principle, but +s don't do a whole lot, compared to abilities, so maybe that's a tradeoff.
I remember he "ranted" a bit about that change. The gist was that:
In 3E, the price formula for the "plus" was calculated with the DR X/+X in mind, so a +2 weapon and a +1 flaming weapon had similar "appeal" - one does extra fire damage, the other negates some benefit. That made the +X weapons more important.
With the blanket DR X/Magic, that formula was thrown off. Now, it's much more interesting to get improvements like flaming or whatever you like, because one of the things used to balance the price of plain plusses was removed.
Personal opinion:
I'd rather see something like: DR 5/Silver(+2) or DR 10/Cold Iron(+3) and Good(+4), where you go after material, but list a magic item plus as replacement. This would keep the flavour and usefulness of specific materials, but magic items would "do in a pinch". Just not always.
Cheers, LT.
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.
Bad bad bad... I agree with this. Just last saturday I was creating a NPC Sorc for the game and taking the time to read through the new stuff and changes to Alpha 3 (this looks like Stree Fighter... alpha 1, alpha 2, alpha 3... lol), when I saw what they did to the DR rules I was very disapointed. 3.5 D&D changed the way DR worked from 3.0 for a reason, if they are going back to 3.0 style they are retrogressing which isn't a good thing.
Someone mentioned 3 "min-maxed" 16th level fighters getting creamed by a 15 DR monster coz they couldn't bypass the DR; this fact in itself is weird, the 16th level sorcerer in my group can deal more damage thaan that in melee. We play with Armor as DR house rule, so most monsters have very high DR (and I mean high, 25+), and although this makes combat a bit more difficult, it hasnt stopped a 12th level fighter-barbarian (completely unoptimized with a weak-ass +1 greatsword) from dealing some good damage to CR 12-14 monsters.
Having a +5 weapon bypassing anything takes away all the fun and the classic-fantasy feeling of the hero having to look for a specific weapon to slay a monster.
This does seem like Monte's stuff; if it is, then at least this time I hope Jason doesn't listen to him. Don't get me wrong, I like Monte's stuff a lot, his books and ideas are awesome, but in this case, I think he got it wrong.
I plan to retain the existing 3.5 DR rules. We've all heard people decry the 'golf bag' but I've never seen it be a huge problem. Unlike in 3.0 when DR was stupid high and you had little or no hope of bypassing it without the right weapon, an iron golem for example, a decent melee type can nearly always inflict damage even without the correct weapon. The +2 bonus for having the correct weapon seems to be a needless addition. The use of enhancement bonuses to substitute for weapon type makes no sense at all, eg my +2 arrow is blunt!
Skjaldbakka, I agree with all of your points.
The A3 system is a start, but could be tweaked:
1. Should need +5 to beat adamantine.
2. Can't beat slashing/piercing/bludgeoning.
3. Beating DR/alignment should be curtailed.
4. Greater magic weapon doesn't count as a permanent enhancement bonus.
|
My group used to houserule the old 3.0 system to something like 3.5, where every weapon counts.
The whole point of DR is that every once in a while, the monsters take less damage and are harder to fight.
Now, if you get stranded in Ravenloft with no silver weapons, that isn't fair, but a random encounter with a werewolf is more satisfying and scary if you have no silver.
Any adventure that seriously deals with DR-laden creatures, the players should make knowledge checks to figure it out and then procure the appropriate materials.
I recall a month back my character was like "Hmm, I have yet to procure some specialty arrows. I will buy some silver and cold iron if available." The DM said that was fine, but as we later discovered the adventure planned for that session involved werewolves. Normally, an archer would do jack-squat to lycanthropes, but I demolished them with an enthusiastic grin!
I think I would be happy with the idea that you subtract the amount of the plus from the amount of DR as a compromise. I understand the wanting to keep the purity of the need for a specific weapon, but it is also nice to have some use for those generic plusses you paid for.
I think I would be happy with the idea that you subtract the amount of the plus from the amount of DR as a compromise. I understand the wanting to keep the purity of the need for a specific weapon, but it is also nice to have some use for those generic plusses you paid for.
You already do subtract! See, a +4 weapon also does +4 damage and thus takes away 4 points from the DR!! :) :)
Except that you still aren't paying for those generic plusses, since the party cleric is justing casting Greater Magic Weapon anyway.
lol.. hahahaha..rsrs..
Now, seriously, the way I see it, both sides have talked, there's nothing new to say. One side defends +s bypassing DR (3.0 way) because it eliminates carrying a bunch of weapons, melee fighters always deal buncha damage, facilitates gameplay, etc... The other side defends the classic flavor of having a specific weapons to combat a specific monster (3.5 way), the realism of skeletons not having organs to cut or pierce, etc... Unless someone has something new to add, why don't we vote and hope Jason sees it? It could get hard too keep track of counting but well... in any case I'm in for 3.5, fighting a Werewolf? Get a Silver Sword, it'd be too weird for me to see someone smacking a Werewolf with a stick (even a magical +3 stick...)
I definitely am voting for the 3.5 rules for DR.
I have many reasons why, but here are only a few:
1. I do not understand why so many people consider making monsters easier to kill a way of improving game play. If characters can't handle a monster because of its DR, then they probably shouldn't be fighting it. Actually, when it is too easy for players to kill an important monster, it can be pretty annoying for a DM who wanted a climatic battle. A good DM can take in consideration the likelihood of the PCs having the resources to kill the monster; with the A3 version, it is safe to assume that the players will have the +x weapon appropriate for their level, so it almost doesn’t matter. After certain levels, the DR of many creatures will no longer be relevant at all.
2. I have been both a player and DM since 2nd edition. Since 3.5 rules came out, I have played with three separate gaming groups (I was DM for two, a player for the other) and we have never fallen in the "golfbag" of weapons problem. The other times we made sure we had special materials is if we had a general idea of what we were facing. If there was a battle that we were not prepared for, then it turned into a memorable battle (even though it can be frustrating damaging the creature) that we did not repeat if we knew we were going to be face more of that creature. It comes down to this: if players think that the "golfbag" is ridiculous and a burden to the party, wouldn't the characters think it is ridiculous too and feel that it was not worth their effort to spend money on assortment of weapons that they may never use?
3. If we did have weapons of multiple materials, usually they were spread out among the group. As a DM, the players once found a silver dagger that they were going to just sell for gold, but the wizard in the group decided to keep just in case. A few sessions later, the dagger came in handy against a werewolf. The wizard actually passed it to the rogue so he could hurt the werewolf as the wizard cast spells. If it wasn't for DR rules, the group might as well have sold it and used the gold toward the purchase of some generic +x weapon; it’s almost like weapons of special materials or alignments are obsolete with the A3 rules.
4. A +x arrow or +x sword being equivalent to a bludgeoning weapon? That is just absurd and defeats the purpose of the whole slashing/piercing/bludgeoning classification.
lol.. hahahaha..rsrs..
Laugh it up, but it doesn't change the validity of my statement. I vote that the current DR/+X mechanic be thrown out in favor of something that actually makes sense.
Oh no man, you got me wrong, I wasn't mocking you or your statement, I'm not even contesting its validity, I just found funny the way the conversation went... something like:
> "I deserve to get my money's worth! I wanna be rewarded for my efforts, for what I paid for!!"> "Yeah.. well.. actually you didn't pay for anything, you got it for free..."
---
Ok, 'till now we got 2 votes for 3.5 DR style and Skjaldbakka who apparently went for a 3.12 way...
Ok, 'till now we got 2 votes for 3.5 DR style and Skjaldbakka who apparently went for a 3.12 way...
I'm more or less with Skjaldbakka on this one. And it's 3.35, at least... ;D
The bludgeoning/slashing/piercing should be unchangeable by magic, because it is a function of construction, not magic (and special materials are about magic, imo)
Obviously I vote for 3.5 DR as it stands.
I'm not above compromise however. Skjaldahowisitspelled?'s suggestion was pretty reasonable.
-The OP (yeah you know me!)
|
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?
Yes. First of all, the DR/Magic is plain silly. It basically never provides a benefit to the monster, since by 3rd level characters will have a magic weapon if they are a fighter type. If they're not, they probably have spells which bypass DR anyway. So, I do like a rule that allows each +1 to overcome 5 DR of /magic. So, if a creature has DR 10/magic, and you have a +1 weapon, it effectively has DR 5/- against your weapon (10/magic, +1 ignores 5 points)...
As far as reducing the types of DR, yes, I think that would be a good thing. I think that you can say Cold Iron counts as Lawful, Silver counts as Good - essentially the material counts as an alignment to overcome DR. This would eliminate DR of 'good and silver' for instance. Creatures (like angels) could have their weapons treated as silver for the purpose of overcoming DR....
To make this really work, there should be one item that 'fits' for every alignment. I don't think there are many other metals that have a historic 'benefit' against particular monsters in D&D.
Ok, so thats 2 votes for 3.5; 2 for 3.35 (sorry, didn't see that bludgeoning/piercing/slash don't change) and DeadDMWalking who now either came up with a new 3.21 way or it's still 3.35 :p :p
Anyway, I hope this keeps up and 3.0 I-got-a-+5-sword-I'll-hit-anything goes away.
One common argument in favor of the 3.5 system seems to be that "+5 weapons are boring." Personally, using those rules, we found the opposite to be true. Energy weapons became boring. EVERYONE had a flaming sword or a frost dagger or whatever. It was like the whole world was carrying around a bunch of multi-colored light sabers. Then, when I introduced a +5 sword (no other abilities) as treasure, and as an experiment ruled that it could beat DR/material (as in 3.0), it was greeted with wonder:
Player: "What is the blade made of? I need a cold iron sword to complete my collection."
Me: "You don't know. It's some kind of metal you've never seen before."
Player: "I cast identify."
Me: "The sword has a +5 bonus to attacks AND damage, and can beat any material DR."
Player: "Whoah! AWESOME! How much is it worth?"
(Rolls Appraisal): "At least 50,000 gp."
Player: "Yeah, a weapon that bad-a$$ must be worth a fortune! I'm keeping it! This is so cool! No one else in the world has a weapon like mine!"
Me: "The sword has a +5 bonus to attacks AND damage, and can beat any material DR."
Player: "Whoah! AWESOME! How much is it worth?"
(Rolls Appraisal): "At least 50,000 gp."
Player: "Yeah, a weapon that bad-a$$ must be worth a fortune! I'm keeping it! This is so cool! No one else in the world has a weapon like mine!"
I can't speak for your players, obviously, but I'd still rather have a +1 adamantine holy, evil outsider bane sword (~35K gp) and a plain ol' cold iron sword (< 100 gp) [that can both be imbued with Greater Magic Weapon, Align Weapon, Silversheen, etc.] with 15K gp left over for some "walkin' around money" (and/or buying a Pearl of Power 3 for the party cleric or wizard to cast Greater Magic Weapon).
when I introduced a +5 sword (no other abilities) as treasure, and as an experiment ruled that it could beat DR/material (as in 3.0), it was greeted with wonder:
Player: "What is the blade made of? I need a cold iron sword to complete my collection."
Me: "You don't know. It's some kind of metal you've never seen before."
Player: "I cast identify."
Me: "The sword has a +5 bonus to attacks AND damage, and can beat any material DR."
Player: "Whoah! AWESOME! How much is it worth?"
(Rolls Appraisal): "At least 50,000 gp."
Player: "Yeah, a weapon that bad-a$$ must be worth a fortune! I'm keeping it! This is so cool! No one else in the world has a weapon like mine!"
Another scenario:
Player: "What is the blade made of? I need a cold iron sword to complete my collection."DM: "Steel"
A spellcaster Player: "I cast Greater Magic Weapon."
DM: "The sword has a +5 bonus to attacks AND damage, and can beat any material DR."
Player: "Whoah! AWESOME! How much is it worth?"
(Rolls Appraisal): "About 500GP without the enchantment if you can talk the buyer into it... the sword is pretty well crafted"
Player: "Yeah, a masterwork steel sword ain't worth nothing at this level, but with my pal casting Greater Magic Weapon why would I bother with anything else, I can kill anything! This is so cool! No one else in the world has thought of it! They waste fortunes on magic swords!
-- Please take it as a joke Kirth, no offense. :-)
Again, I don't know if voting will accomplish much, but if Jason stops by he can get an idea of what people prefer.
So.. continuing... converting 3.35 to 3.5 (since the point is that it still makes the weapon material and the creature's body structure important) we got 6 votes for 3.5 and 1 for 3.0.
Edit: Sorry hogarth, hadn't seen your post before, I take it you prefer 3.5
My ruling is, and always has been, that greater magic weapon provides a "temporary enhancement bonus" (as opposed to a permanent one) that does NOT overcome DR. Otherwise, you are both correct; I can't see any way to make it work (unless you raised the spell level and decreased the duration). Even if you let it overcome DR (which I don't really recommend), under my proposal a caster would still need to be 12th level to bypass DR /cold iron, and 20th level to bypass DR /adamantine, so the problem, while definite, isn't quite as bad as it's made out to be.
The thing is, with the 3.5 system, bonuses of +2 or greater should be summarily stricken from the magic items tables. That irks the hell out of me. If you can think of some other redeeming value for spending that much gold on a higher bonus, please let me know -- someone once recommended that a weapon or armor would have to be at least +n in order to have +n worth of other properties: so that an icy burst weapon had to be at least +2, and a keen icy burst weapon at least +3. Otherwise, eliminating the "+x" nomenclature (and property) entirely would seem a logical next step.
Edit: Sorry hogarth, hadn't seen your post before, I take it you prefer 3.5
To be specific, I don't think the new system would change anything for me. I'd still rather walk around two +1 holy swords of different metals (and a backpack full of oils of Align Weapon/Silversheen/Greater Magic Weapon/etc.) than a single +5 sword.
The thing is, with the 3.5 system, bonuses of +2 or greater should be summarily stricken from the magic items tables. That irks the hell out of me. If you can think of some other redeeming value for spending that much gold on a higher bonus, please let me know[.]
That's a good question, and one I don't have an answer to. Maybe a +X magic sword could have a +3X bonus to damage? Or even +X^2? (So a +5 sword would have +5 to hit, +15 or +25 damage, for instance.)
Maybe a +X magic sword could have a +3X bonus to damage? Or even +X^2? (So a +5 sword would have +5 to hit, +15 or +25 damage, for instance.)
You know, I really like that. But +X^2 would mean that, in essence, a +5 sword overcomes DR 20/Y (+25 damage minus the +5 you already get). That would work really nicely if we went back to the large DR amounts in 3.0 (DR 50/adamantine or whatever), but ruins the effect if DR 10/adamantine is more or less a cap.
Maybe a +X magic sword could have a +3X bonus to damage? Or even +X^2? (So a +5 sword would have +5 to hit, +15 or +25 damage, for instance.)You know, I really like that. But +X^2 would mean that, in essence, a +5 sword overcomes DR 20/Y (+25 damage minus the +5 you already get). That would work really nicely if we went back to the large DR amounts in 3.0 (DR 50/adamantine or whatever), but ruins the effect if DR 10/adamantine is more or less a cap.
How does it ruin the effect? I didn't mean "do +X^2 damage if your opponent has DR", I meant "do +X^2 damage all the time, 24/7". That means your +5 sword wielder scoffs at a measly -10 damage from DR because he's doing gobs of damage** anyways.
** Well, "gobs of damage" for a non-spellcaster.
How does it ruin the effect? I didn't mean "do +X^2 damage if your opponent has DR", I meant "do +X^2 damage all the time, 24/7". That means your +5 sword wielder scoffs at a measly -10 damage from DR because he's doing gobs of damage anyways.
Right; I think we're agreeing, but on different tracks so that we keep missing each other. What I meant was, if the +5 sword does that much more damage (all the time), most 3.5e DR is a drop in the bucket in comparison; it might as well not be there.
Example: DR 10/silver is a big deal, percentage-wise, if you're dealing 1d8+5 damage on a hit that's subject to reduction; it says "get a silver weapon or die!" But the same DR 10/silver is really sort of lame if you're dealing 1d8+25 damage on a hit. Which would suit me just fine, but the people who don't want the +5 sword to be able to damage a wererat, for example, are likely to be miffed at that sort of a ruling.
So with Jal Dorak now, it's 7x1 to 3.5.
Kirth and Hogarth, you guys are complicating things too much.. damn.. I'm having a hard time understanding all those principles of reduction.
Simplifying things: Werewolves can only be hurt with silver, if you use normal steel you'd have to deal massive amounts of damage to actually accomplish something, like ripping the thing open, stabbing it with dozens of blows really hard and deep.. otherwise, a common slash will accomplish nothing. Translating in game terms, he's got DR 15/Silver, that means, if cut/pierce it with anything that is not made of silver, you reduce your damage by 15. That's simple and works...]
"But my sword is magical, it's even electrical and it glows so beautiful!"
"Good, but it's still steel (rhymes), and he's vulnerable to SILVER, not glowing steel"
"Good, but it's still steel, and he's vulnerable to SILVER, not glowing steel"
OK; I won't necessarily disagree. But I will say that you should then remove +2, +3, +4, and +5 weapons from the weapons tables. If they can't do anything except add a "plus," they are obsolete, obscenely overpriced, and a drain on the entire system.
Or, if you retain them, then for the love of Gygax, make a +5 sword able to do SOMETHING to justify its 50K gp price tag, something a normal sword with greater magic weapon can't do. In my view, the ability to penetrate DR is one ability that would justify that kind of cost. If you can recommend another, I'm all ears. If not, get rid of +5 swords altogether. Seriously.
|
How about coming at this from another angle. If you had a straight magic weapon that is not comprised of the material the creature is vulnerable to, IE: Silver. Than the weapon rolls straight dmg with no bonuses. So a D8 weapon only rolls D8 and receives no str bonus, training bonus or any other bonus. In early CR encounters it should not hurt the players too much as most of the creatures will have low HP. Later however it should make the players keep a "couple" of items close at hand to deal with nastier CR creatures with more HP but if a melee guy didn't have the DR weapon he would still be able to inflict decent dmg each turn. This way has less math and would make combat a little quicker.
One other solution that would make life easier is potions that are essentially poison to the creature. Alchemical silver mix poured on the blade, for silver attacks. A nice cheap solution to packing a variety of weapons. 3 successful hit potions.
Although, if you want +X weapons to have a unique value, you could have the enhancement bonus be non-magical, and thus work in an AMF, dead magic zone, not be subject to dispelling, etc. I could see good IG justification for that.
That's something along the lines of what I was asking. But as far as the specifics go, how is a +5 sword worth 42,000 gp more than a +2 sword, then? The lousy +3 to attacks and damage still just doesn't cut it.
Sure, they might not exist in an actual game world- but not all item crafters are canny enough to realize that adventurers will just get a GMW spell, and some of the ones that are just make the +X swords to hand out to goblin kings for random low level people to find.
In my view, if a +5 sword is worth 50k, it should be worth 50k. To say it blatantly isn't worth much more than 2,000 gp, but should be listed at 25 times that amount (and still cost a fortune to make) because some item crafters (mostly high-Int wizards) are stupid is like saying we should list a small sack at 1 cp value, and a medium sack at 5,000 gp. It makes no sense to me. Low-level people WON'T find a +4 sword, because it would break the whole gold-scaling-with-level model the game is built on.
If we list +2 weapons at 8,000 gp, +3 at 18,000, etc., then there should be some reasonable explanation for the exponentially-increasing cost. All the way back to 1st edition, bypassing DR was that explanation. But then 3.5 eliminated the explanation and failed to provide another one. That's inconsistent, short-sighted, and just all-around bad design.
Along the lines of your original thought, though... what if the +5 were an inherent bonus (not an enhancement bonus) and could thus stack with greater magic weapon? Then I could certainly see paying 50K for it.