I realy like nearly everthing I have seen yet.
But why change the DR Rules? Now if you have a +2 weapon you can also get around DR/silver und DR/cold iron? Why? Yust make it easier for the Heroes to have the right weapon?
Thats realy lame. There should be some things where the heroes realy get trouble.If you have this rule nobody how has enough money will ever make use of a silver or cold iron weapon. I for myself would let DR like it is. But would change DR/magic zu DR/+1 DR/+2...(like in 3.0) So that the dragons get more evil again :) That you pass through a great wyrms with a +1 magic weapon I had always hates about D&D 3.5 (Yes I houseruled it back to 3.0 :))THX
I agree, it needs to be changed back, this vastly weakens the 2k gold I spent with every enhancement on my cold iron jovar.
I agree, it needs to be changed back, this vastly weakens the 2k gold I spent with every enhancement on my cold iron jovar.I realy like nearly everthing I have seen yet.
But why change the DR Rules? Now if you have a +2 weapon you can also get around DR/silver und DR/cold iron? Why? Yust make it easier for the Heroes to have the right weapon?
Thats realy lame. There should be some things where the heroes realy get trouble.If you have this rule nobody how has enough money will ever make use of a silver or cold iron weapon. I for myself would let DR like it is. But would change DR/magic zu DR/+1 DR/+2...(like in 3.0) So that the dragons get more evil again :) That you pass through a great wyrms with a +1 magic weapon I had always hates about D&D 3.5 (Yes I houseruled it back to 3.0 :))THX
I disagree. Having to have 6 different weapons in order to fight creatures with differing vulnerabilities gets really old, really fast.
|
I disagree. Having to have 6 different weapons in order to fight creatures with differing vulnerabilities gets really old, really fast.I agree, it needs to be changed back, this vastly weakens the 2k gold I spent with every enhancement on my cold iron jovar.I realy like nearly everthing I have seen yet.
But why change the DR Rules? Now if you have a +2 weapon you can also get around DR/silver und DR/cold iron? Why? Yust make it easier for the Heroes to have the right weapon?
Thats realy lame. There should be some things where the heroes realy get trouble.If you have this rule nobody how has enough money will ever make use of a silver or cold iron weapon. I for myself would let DR like it is. But would change DR/magic zu DR/+1 DR/+2...(like in 3.0) So that the dragons get more evil again :) That you pass through a great wyrms with a +1 magic weapon I had always hates about D&D 3.5 (Yes I houseruled it back to 3.0 :))THX
My thoughts exactly. As I explained on another thread, I lost a 20th level Paladin because I hadn't memorized 'Align Weapon' for the day, and 'Holy Sword' couldn't just do the job. I just hate to carry that golf bag of weapons with every character in the case that you need that Adamantine/Good/Magic/Cold Iron/Etcetera. weapon. If the PCs don't have the "right" weapon, monsters become tougher to beat than their CR rightfully implies (and unless they're of significantly lower HD/Level than the PCs, often leads to a TPK).
|
|
But different damage reductions is what made each creature unique. All the special materials were out there specifically for avoiding damage reductions. I feel it takes a lot of flavor out of the game, and from a ROLEplaying point of view I'd like it changed back.
Now the carrying 5 weapons problem isn't as big a deal in any of my games as people seem to have. I've never had a campaign that just threw monsters at the party with bizarre DR/types just for fun. Assuming that there are DMs out there (and maybe a few crazy modules) but even then I don't think the fighter really NEEDS to drop a lot of coin to avoid it.
Have a preferred weapon, and make it your cash cow. early in the game all the monsters have either DR/magic or type. having a silver sword, a cold iron sword, and you were fine for a long while. Eventually you might need to toss a +1 on your alternates and you're still fine.
The biggest Damage Reduction type is good and evil, which are ridiculously annoying to put on alternate weapons because of its steep price. Luckily there's spells that just fling this damage type on weapons so you're usually fine playing with these as buff effects and not paying a +2 cost on all your gear.
All in all, I think the carrying different weapons of types can be annoying. However, the system as is with 3.5 didn't suffer any real problems for most groups, and if you did suffer a problem I'd prefer those groups play with this variant instead of making it a core ruling.
Just to reiterate: Leave it in, but make it a variant and give us the core mechanic back please.
Uh, maybe the DMs I played under were wacky enough to pick monsters out of MMs without taking a look at their DRs? For example, an evil religion's catacombs might hold different kinds of undead and demons with different kinds of DR. Thematically, they would fit together nicely, but mechanically it was always a nightmare due to DR.
Now, at least, I'll know that my fighter with a +5 Greatsword can punch through all DRs without desperately crying to spellcasters to align my weapon. Especially as most DMs won't allow you to carry five or six different Greatswords... unless you use a giant golf bag! ;)
Of course, you can choose to ignore the PF system and stick with 3.5 DR, if you want to. I kind of understood that it's "either-or"-type of rule tweak?
I'm on the fence with this one, except for weapon type. Magical plusses should not overcome the need for blunt/slashing/piercing.
I wouldn't mind seeing a return to the +1/.../+5 differences of 3.0, but it could be a pain for backwards compatability.
On another thread someone suggested a lessening of the DR for different types depending on the plus of the weapon. Maybe 2 less DR (or even 3 less) per magical plus of the weapon. What if the DR included magic/silver/good/etc. and a weapon type, reduction to the DR of the creature would max out at half if the attacker did not have the proper weapon type.
And a question: how does the new DR work for monsters with DR #/magic? How would their plus be determined? As a function of HD, their DR, or something else?
|
What the problem with that ? Even without damage resistence i am used to have a polearm&shield for fighting dragons, a crossbow to fight flyers, an axe for fighting humanoids, a mace to fight undeads, a rapier for city dueling, a knife for close-quarters and some spares granade-like for oozes or swarms.
I disagree. Having to have 6 different weapons in order to fight creatures with differing vulnerabilities gets really old, really fast.I agree, it needs to be changed back, this vastly weakens the 2k gold I spent with every enhancement on my cold iron jovar.I realy like nearly everthing I have seen yet.
But why change the DR Rules? Now if you have a +2 weapon you can also get around DR/silver und DR/cold iron? Why? Yust make it easier for the Heroes to have the right weapon?
Thats realy lame. There should be some things where the heroes realy get trouble.If you have this rule nobody how has enough money will ever make use of a silver or cold iron weapon. I for myself would let DR like it is. But would change DR/magic zu DR/+1 DR/+2...(like in 3.0) So that the dragons get more evil again :) That you pass through a great wyrms with a +1 magic weapon I had always hates about D&D 3.5 (Yes I houseruled it back to 3.0 :))THX
I'm really on the fence with this. I see both sides - yes it is a pain to have a golf bag of weapons. It's not so bad for the fighter because that's what a fighter does but other classes get hosed on this.
At the same time, having a +2 weapon negate so many types of DR seems a bit much. For monsters that have an unusual DR type (having 2 components such as silver and magic), having it be bundled up under one +2 weapon seems a bit unfair. I would think that a +2 would be good enough to substitute for silver but not stack with the magic. Perhaps if the weapon counted for negating 2 types, then you would have to increase the +1 for each.
For instance, a +2 weapon would negate the DR for silver. A +3 would negate the DR if it was silver AND magic.
I think it has been also proposed in other threads that the level of magic required for each bypassing of DR type be increased slightly. I think this would be a good compromise, as well.
I have a feeling that the DR issue will be house-ruled a lot. I don't think there is a single way that Jason (or anyone else for that matter) could fix this to make most people happy. I'm sure there will alway be a lot of folks on each side of the fence with this one.
I don't like the new system. If a monster is resistant to anything but a silver weapon, then silver it should be.
Any +1 on a weapon gives you more ability to punch through that DR - it's a reduction, and not an immunity, after all.
If you're really in a campaign where you switch from fighting demons and devils (really what we're talking about, aren't we?), then buy a cold iron greatsword and keep some Silversheen handy. If you put Holy on your weapon, you're pretty well covered.
-Scott
All for the new system, although I´d tweak a bit on at which number certain DR's can be overcome. The "golfbag" syndrome really gets on ones nerves, fast.
How about this:
All creatures that have DR/"material" ATM,
get an equal DR/magic instead,
PLUS: A VULNERABILITY against the previous material!
This way, those creatures can be fought effectively without the golf bag weapon rack, but those how DO preper get still an advantage!
What do you think?
How about this:
All creatures that have DR/"material" ATM,
get an equal DR/magic instead,
PLUS: A VULNERABILITY against the previous material!
Bad idea.
Everybody has a +1 weapon pretty early. So what that means is "eliminate DR on all the monsters that currently have DR/material, then weaken them further by giving them a vulnerability."
Under this, an iron golem is more vulnerable to damage than a CR 3 huge fiendish monstrous centipede (both have DR/magic penetrated by a +1 weapon, but the iron golem has an adamantine vulnerability).
"Six weapons?"
Try two or three, plus a missile weapon. One weapon of each damage type (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing); bows and crossbows can fill the piercing type AND it's relatively cheap to have some arrows/bolts made with alchemical silver and cold iron (+2gp for alchemical silver, x2 normal cost for cold iron). Monsters that have DR based on BOTH damage type and another factor (i.e., clay golems or rakshasas) are rare.
Your primary melee weapon should be either cold iron or adamantine (when you can afford it) and you should have at least one backup weapon that does a different damage type made of alchemical silver or cold iron (you should carry around a couple of applications of silversheen, 250gp per application, if you don't have a silver backup weapon); monks do not need to invest in adamantine weapons, but should instead have them enchanted with ki focus ASAP. It's usually cheaper to have one +x enchanted weapon and two +1, +2, or +3 weapons (depending on level) than it is to have one +(x+1) enchanted weapon, so it's generally better to upgrade your primary melee, backup melee, and missile weapon than splurge on just your primary weapon. It also helps to have options if your primary weapon is disarmed or otherwise made useless.
A fully charged wand of align weapon (good) costs 4,500gp, which is not very expensive when you reach the point where you face foes that require good to penetrate their DR. Holy weapons are also good aligned for penetrating DR, so they are quite worth the +2 bonus adjustment when facing high-level evil foes.
Even if you need to deal with chaotic or lawful DRs, which aren't common unless you're facing specific monsters (i.e., slaadi) that you can usually plan for, you only need two or three (four at most) weapons.
Then there are the non-core options: blessed weapon enchantment (Book of Exalted Deeds, +1 enchantment that makes the weapon good aligned for penetrating DR and autoconfirms crits against evil foes), Glorious Weapons (Complete Divine, spend a Turn/Rebuke Undead attempt to grant all allies' weapons in a 60 foot burst a good/evil alignment for penetrating DR until your next turn), etc.
There's a long thread about the detailed pros and cons here. Specifically, the valuation of "+X" weapons became seriously out of whack in the change from 3.0 to 3.5 DR rules, unless some new balancing mechanism is introduced.
I myself hate carrying around more then one melee and one ranged weapon. If you play a character that needs a light load to function, multiple weapons can be a pain.
Short bow, 20 arrows, light mace or longsword, dagger. 10 lbs. Make the primary melee weapon a rapier or short sword and that's 8 lbs. Upgrading the bow to a longbow or the primary melee weapon to a warhammer adds 1 lb.
Maybe it is just my DM's, but I've also never had the money to spend upgrading more then one weapon unless I forget about my armor and supplies.
Is your DM making you sell your old stuff to get better stuff, or does he allow you to pay an NPC to improve existing magic weapons? Once you get an enchanted adamantine, cold iron, or alchemical silver weapon, you should pay to improve it, not sell it for half market price to buy a new one at full market price that's better.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
The golfbag of weapons IMO is a fallacy. You don't NEED every combination of weapon to DR in the game. DR does not hose classes other than fighters.
In general every character should have a primary melee weapon, a backup, a light weapon, and a missile weapon. Occasionally you will be disarmed, your weapon sundered, stunned or panicked (i.e. drop weapon in hand), and/or grappled. A light secondary weapon made of Cold iron or adamantine is the most beneficial in a core game because of silversheen. It's also good in a grapple.
DR at any given level is not hard for a frontline warrior (Ftr, Pal, Bbn, Rgr) to overcome, at all. Power attack, smite, rage, higher crit threat ranges, favored enemy... all things frontliners should have.
Skirmishers like monks and rogues that can't overcome DR need to c hange tactics. Trip, stun, disarm, grapple, bola, net, tanglefootbag, alchemists fire or acid (bypass DR). Plenty to do even if you can't get over the DR.
Spell aren't affected by DR. Casters shouldn't worry about it unless the frontliners are not doing their job.
I like to play front liners, and I've run plenty of adventures. I can't say as the golf bag of weapons syndrome has ever come up. I played a character once who did own several weapons, but it was due to desire for different attack modes, not because I was really desperate for different damages. I used my primary weapon (slashing), had a light mace for back up against skeletons, and a bow for piercing attacks. Would up with a greatsword as treaure, but I never felt that I needed all these different weapons just to deal with every DR out there.
And I liked 3.5's DR. It made monsters interesting, and if you can't overcome DR 15 at 20th level without a specific weapon, you're really doing something wrong.
The "golfbag" (or lack thereof) is a non-issue. The real problem is that +5 weapons still cost 50K gp, but are actually (in terms of usefulness) worth very little more than +1 weapons. This problem is exacerbated by the greater magic weapon spell.
This completely breaks the "wealth = power" paradigm that 3.0/3.5 are in part based on. If they can't beat DR, they need something else to re-valuate them. The link I posted above has the discussion.
i personally liked the type and material DR the most it made sense that some monsters needed special weapons. however DM's that constantly throw you against random DR monsters without special reasons are just being jerks. adventures featuring special DR types should be something characters are encouraged to research and get to know before they encounter. the DM should keep those monsters around and create a theme around just that type of DR, let the fighter and rangers develop habits to fight them, maybe once or twice throw the players a curve ball. you shouldn't have to carry around a golfbag of weapons (thinking Casey Jones) if you have a fun good DM who is there to entertain and not frustrate the players. but all in all i agree DR/magic was a disappointment stick with the +1-+5 range but keep silver, cold iron, adamantine, etc and definatly slashing, piercing, bludgeoning. it adds depth to monsters that have it. another option i've used, letting some weapons be able to switch their types (great sword becomes bludgeoning when hitting with the flat of the blade, short sword becomes slashing when you strike with the edge and not the point, long sword deals piercing when you strike with the point) but you have to take a penalty to hit when you use it in an awkward manner
|
I also can see both sides.
However, if the DR is DR/Silver or DR/Iron or DR/Magic and by 5th level most PCs have some magic weapon, why bother with the DR at all. This is a way to give the monster a really cool, totally useless ability. Kind of like giving all PCs DR/unless you get hit by a weapon. COOL! I have DR as long as I don't get hit!
The 3.5 system of DR makes it completely irrelevant to the game. The 3.0 system makes you want to carry the golf bag (or do some research before you go charging into the lair- lord forbid PCs do research).
Neither system is optimal.
Do away with DR all together. 3.5 has effectively already done that.
|
|
You know what though, DR never suited me as a mechanic in the first place. Some creatures it works for, but for most it was just something to either carry a golf bag of weapons or ignore. Some creatures totally lost all flavor like were-creatures (granted were-creatures lost flavor when it became possible to make were platipy but whatever). So for the most part I think it's a good thing that this option is there. Personally my next game monsters are gonna get a lot of changes from what people know.
I prefer the golf bag of weapons. If all damage reduction can be beaten by a better enchantment, you can basically assume that what will happen is that the Martial Characters will overcome it, and the casters won't. That both makes DR less interesting and recreates the problem 3.0 had with CRs in relation to DR. If higher enchantments beat it, it's just a way to screw NPCs over, since PCs will always have the right enchantment.
For those who don't remember, in 3.0, creatures with heavy damage reduction frequently had no correct CR. At a lower level than the CR, they couldn't be killed because of high DR. But once you got the right weapon, they had major glass jaws. Go back to DR that actually means something.
Sorry, I'm still of the mindset that DR should always apply if the monster has it, and the weapon doesn't meet the given type. Magic ability should NOT be a substitute for weapon type. If you want magic to trump all, then don't bother me with the rules for all the different materials - they're just taking up space in the rulebooks when every fighter just wants a +3 steel sword instead.
The change from 3.0 to 3.5 was a needed change. It strongly encouraged players to have their weapons enchanted with various benefits besides just another +1, and this added a lot of flavor and variation to the fighter-types.
With the new (3.0) rules, you now have a good reason for a "demonbane" sword to be cold iron, holy, +1, rather than just a "+3 sword". I think the former is much more interesting.
Also, at mid-to-high levels, overcoming the DR is really not an issue. Solid fighters over level 12 kick out 60-100+ HP per round, and DR 10 or 15 is not a big deal. Yes, you can have a swashbuckling fighter who deals low damage, but that guy should NOT be out demonhunting - he should stay in court. Rogues easily get around DR by using Sneak Attack (working on many creatures in PF), and monks have other options (always have).
Also, in PF: Damage to weapons and items is significant. Basic bonuses add to your weapon Hardness and HP, where alternate abilities do not. There are better reasons for having a +3 weapon in PF than there ever were in 3.5 already. If that weapon also trumps DR, there there is not much point in offering any buth the most powerful of special weapon abilities - no one would want them.
DR should mean something. Let's not go back to the days where magic was the trump card for all DR.
-Scott
|
|
You know what though, DR never suited me as a mechanic in the first place. Some creatures it works for, but for most it was just something to either carry a golf bag of weapons or ignore. Some creatures totally lost all flavor like were-creatures (granted were-creatures lost flavor when it became possible to make were platipy but whatever). So for the most part I think it's a good thing that this option is there. Personally my next game monsters are gonna get a lot of changes from what people know.
for were beasties I would prefer to give fast healing or regeneration. Perhaps the regen is negated by silver weapons.
Same for vampires, use wooden weapons.
Otherwise I can't think of any off the top of my head that it makes any real difference for.
What if each +1 of the weapon allowed you to overcome 5DR of the appropriate type?
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Another option to throw into the mix is to keep the current 3.5 DR system, but add a few more options of how to get silver, cold iron, or adamantine weapons. What I'm suggesting are spells that would work similar to align weapon, that would temporarily grant a weapon the DR penetrating qualities of a special material.
This would help prevent the need for the golf bag of weapons, but still require the expenditure of resources to bypass DR, and would only really be useful when there is advanced knowledge of what you'll be fighting. Since silver sheen already exists, having spells that duplicated that effect don't seem unbalancing, especially if they had a material component, maybe 100 gp for a silver weapon or cold iron weapon spell, and 250 for an adamantine weapon spell?
for were beasties I would prefer to give fast healing or regeneration. Perhaps the regen is negated by silver weapons.
I've considered doing werewolves with Regen over silver, except that Regeneration has it's own huge problems as a mechanic.
Another option to throw into the mix is to keep the current 3.5 DR system, but add a few more options of how to get silver, cold iron, or adamantine weapons. What I'm suggesting are spells that would work similar to align weapon, that would temporarily grant a weapon the DR penetrating qualities of a special material.
This would help prevent the need for the golf bag of weapons, but still require the expenditure of resources to bypass DR, and would only really be useful when there is advanced knowledge of what you'll be fighting. Since silver sheen already exists, having spells that duplicated that effect don't seem unbalancing, especially if they had a material component, maybe 100 gp for a silver weapon or cold iron weapon spell, and 250 for an adamantine weapon spell?
Yes.
|
|
Count me in as another one of the "don't muck with DR too much" crowd.
The very reason it changed from 3.0 was because an extra +1 trumped everything else, always. A +2 magic dagger was dramatically better than a +1 magic dagger because of those DR 10/+2's out there. It meant that half of the magic items you got, even if they had a nifty ability, were useless at high levels fighting high DR ratings. And forget silver or cold iron; who cared about that crap!
The current DR system works out fairly well. I'd hate to return to the days of the 3.0 DR system in any capacity: it sucked.
The current system works well with requiring special materials to overcome foes. It's boring if all you ever need is your +4 greatsword of ultimate doom.
I also can see both sides.
However, if the DR is DR/Silver or DR/Iron or DR/Magic and by 5th level most PCs have some magic weapon, why bother with the DR at all. This is a way to give the monster a really cool, totally useless ability. Kind of like giving all PCs DR/unless you get hit by a weapon. COOL! I have DR as long as I don't get hit!
The 3.5 system of DR makes it completely irrelevant to the game. The 3.0 system makes you want to carry the golf bag (or do some research before you go charging into the lair- lord forbid PCs do research).
Neither system is optimal.
Do away with DR all together. 3.5 has effectively already done that.
I'm not sure if there's a bit of a typo here or not, but you *seem* to have the revisions and their approaches to DR backwards. In 3.0, your +x was the be-all and end-all of DR trumping. 3.5 FIXED this by making sure you needed different types to overcome different creatures. 3.5 never did away with DR, as your last statement implies. It made it more meaningful while preventing it from being the game stopper that it could be in 3.0. Pathfinder's the game that seems intent on effectively removing DR again (or, at least, with reinstituting the "You must be this tall to ride" style of DR again).
In 3.0, your +x was the be-all and end-all of DR trumping. 3.5 FIXED this by making sure you needed different types to overcome different creatures.
But that fix in turn broke the whole wealth-as-power paradigm, because it totally devalued +X weapons. If that's OK with people, just get rid of +2 to +5 weapons entirely; remove them from the charts, and stick with the 3.5 system. For me, though, a useful +5 sword is a "sacred cow" of D&D dating all the way back to 1e. I'd like to see it remain, and I'd like to see it live up to the 50,000 gp price tag, rather than (as in 3.5e) being actually worth about a tenth of that, as near as I can tell.
I've never had issues with +5 weapons not living up to the price tag. All that has changed is that people are likely to want a +5 cold iron sword instead, which is fine.
But that fix in turn broke the whole wealth-as-power paradigm, because it totally devalued +X weapons. If that's OK with people, just get rid of +2 to +5 weapons entirely; remove them from the charts, and stick with the 3.5 system. For me, though, a useful +5 sword is a "sacred cow" of D&D dating all the way back to 1e. I'd like to see it remain, and I'd like to see it live up to the 50,000 gp price tag, rather than (as in 3.5e) being actually worth about a tenth of that, as near as I can tell.
That's why I'd rather see a +5 weapon doing more damage (e.g. +5 on attack rolls and +15 on damage, say). By the time you can afford a +5 weapon, the +5 damage is practically irrelevant.
I've never had issues with +5 weapons not living up to the price tag. All that has changed is that people are likely to want a +5 cold iron sword instead, which is fine.
You've actually seen characters go out and buy a plain, vanilla +5 sword? That's unusual, in my experience.
In 3.0 and 3.5, I never saw a character keep a +2 or better weapon because of one factor: the Greater Magic Weapon spell lasts 1 hour/level. So you can take your +1 holy keen flaming longsword and bulk it up to +3 or +4 no problem. In 3.0 this would go through all DR you'd expect to meet. In 3.5, it wasn't necessary for DR but the bonus to hit and damage was nice.
I think the problem with 3.5 DR is it seems that every monster gets it. While I want to be able to run an adventure where a werewolf is effectively immune to everything but silver, I don't want every adventure to devolve into a game of find the correct weapon.
My suggestion: Go through the monsters and remove DR from those creatures that don't need it.
My suggestion: Go through the monsters and remove DR from those creatures that don't need it.
I would agree with this except for backward compatibility.
Also, is it too late to restate my belief that Alignment based DR should be tied to an axis, rather than extreme? It doesn't make sense that demons can't maul each other.
I've never liked that some of the most powerful swords in the game don't get around DR because they were made with the wrong kind of metal.
Do you think Excalibur cares if the enemy is Mordred, Dracula, or a Werewolf? It should slice them all up equally well.
So long as Excalibur was made out of Silver, it'd do fine against all three :P
The +5 weapon value being less useful than a Flaming enhancement or what have you is a valid concern. Myself, I do appreciate the increased accuracy that such an enhancement grants, but I could see a case for it increasing in damage... maybe a weapon adds its inherent enhancement bonus (that is to say, the bonus you paid for, not one from Greater Magic Weapon) to attack rolls and the bonus squared to damage rolls. So a +2 magic weapon gives a +2 attack, +4 damage, and a +5 weapon deals an extra 25 damage. This makes the upper echelons of enhancement extra potent. In addition, it helps to offset odd damage reductions. If you don't have the right type to overcome DR 15/Silver, say, your +25 damage is effectively reduced to +10, making you just a little less damaging.
I actually rather like the idea of this. I'm not sure how super-powerful it'd be, though... I seldom play at high enough levels that a +3 weapon is common place, let alone +5-10.
Do you think Excalibur cares if the enemy is Mordred, Dracula, or a Werewolf? It should slice them all up equally well.
Do you think Merlin needs to study a spellbook in order to cast Control Weather?
And do you think that Moses needs to make a Concentration check to cast Sticks to Snakes without provoking an attack of opportunity? :-)
maybe a weapon adds its inherent enhancement bonus (that is to say, the bonus you paid for, not one from Greater Magic Weapon) to attack rolls and the bonus squared to damage rolls. So a +2 magic weapon gives a +2 attack, +4 damage, and a +5 weapon deals an extra 25 damage. This makes the upper echelons of enhancement extra potent. In addition, it helps to offset odd damage reductions. If you don't have the right type to overcome DR 15/Silver, say, your +25 damage is effectively reduced to +10, making you just a little less damaging. I actually rather like the idea of this.
I like it, too. I liked it when Hogarth proposed something similar on the other thread, too. I'd be very happy with that solution.
maybe a weapon adds its inherent enhancement bonus (that is to say, the bonus you paid for, not one from Greater Magic Weapon) to attack rolls and the bonus squared to damage rolls. So a +2 magic weapon gives a +2 attack, +4 damage, and a +5 weapon deals an extra 25 damage. This makes the upper echelons of enhancement extra potent. In addition, it helps to offset odd damage reductions. If you don't have the right type to overcome DR 15/Silver, say, your +25 damage is effectively reduced to +10, making you just a little less damaging. I actually rather like the idea of this.I like it, too. I liked it when Hogarth proposed something similar on the other thread, too. I'd be very happy with that solution.
Except that under this system, +X bonuses become just plain better than 'flaming', which isn't good either.
I'd like to chip in a word for leaving Damage Reduction as it is in the 3.5 version of the rules. There are two good reasons for this:
1) Backwards compatibility
2) It already (and still!) works
3) DR isn't a problem for canny adventurers and well-designed scenarios, it's an opportunity.
QFT.
Except that under this system, +X bonuses become just plain better than 'flaming', which isn't good either.
Then scale the damage down a bit. Or give +X something else entirely, instead (maybe bring back the 3.0 sunder resistance they used to have, as was also discussed on the other thread). SOMETHING.
Then scale the damage down a bit. Or give +X something else entirely, instead (maybe bring back the 3.0 sunder resistance they used to have, as was also discussed on the other thread). SOMETHING.
How about breaking DR/Magic back into categories, since it rarely, if ever, matters that a Ancient Wyrm has DR over magic? There are creatures where DR/+3 might make sense. Heck, DR/Epic is the same as DR/+6. It's just that it's bad if ALL monsters have DR in that model, because it makes DR not matter.