Disciple of Sakura |
Kirth Gersen wrote:Except that under this system, +X bonuses become just plain better than 'flaming', which isn't good either.Disciple of Sakura wrote: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.
This is something I was concerned about, too. Just throwing out ideas. Honestly, when you're 20th level, do you really have a problem having a standard +5 Holy Flaming Shocking Bane Longsword? Is that +5 really so completely worthless at that level (vs 20th level ACs and HP) that you'd stick with a +1 Holy Flaming Shocking Bane longsword instead? Seems to me that the other +x is nice for filling in the gaps and making your strikes just that much more accurate.
Keneto |
the regen idea is pretty good. More paperwork for the DM, I fear, but workable.
As for the "golfbag of items", I'd suggest the DM should theme his encounters differently. For example, in the last 10 years of DMing, I've not thrown out a "DR/silver" monster. If I ever did now, I'd make sure it was mentioned somehow in the story, and I'd be certain there was no "DR/carrot" monsters. In otherwords, if the next ten missions of my campaign had lycanthropes, there would be a theme across them. Presumably by the end of the story-arc, the player no longer values the "+1 vs carrots" item and sells it off.
In summary, I'd keep the monsters intersting with fanciful DRs
0gre |
Well I saw this mentioned in the other thread but not so much here. The biggest problem with DR is that there are so so many different types of DR..
Cold Iron
Silver
Adamantine
Good/ Evil/ Lawful/ Chaotic
Pierce/ Bludgeon/ Slash
Rock/ Paper/ Scissors
Carrots
Magic
If you were to just boil it down to 2 materials plus Pierce/ Bludgeon/ Slash then it would make a lot more sense. I would suggest Silver or Magic for undead and lycans and Adamantine or Cold Iron for Fey, golems, and Demons/ devils. I'm not too picky about how you split it up but just collapse the number of different types of DR into a few smaller groups.
Then you could have 2 weapons, a Adamantine Longsword, and a Silver warhammer and you could fight 90% of the baddies out there.
In general I agree that just getting a bigger '+' should not be the solution but the current slate of 6+ different special qualities of weapons is silliness.
-- Dennis
SarNati |
I just have to add my 2 cp to this discussion. In all the games I've run or played in, I've never ever had trouble with golf bag syndrome. A competent cleric, or a rogue using use magic device for scrolls and wands, and simple planning can overcome DR easily. At least they always have in my games. Sure fighters/barbarians/Paladins tend to loose a little damage if they cant get the right weapon at the right moment, but thats never resulted in TPK if the rest of the party steps up. With Power Attack and other such damage boosters, loosing 15 dmg to each swing amounts to nothing. My groups always have a primary, secondary (usually light), and ranged weapon. The front liners might add an extra light/secondary weapon to that group. 4 weapons isn't a golf bag. Look at the iconics. They carry at least 4 weapons each. Thats just part of being prepared. Even a pally caries his longsword, a bow, and a dagger. Add to that a shield, and you have slashing, Ranged (lots of options for arrow types), Piercing, and blunt. And then he can get materials, oils, and eventually his own spells to align them. No issue at all. I like the 3.5 way of DR. Made players think. Its a role playing thing, and a DM thing. Is it annoying to not get to use your uber-demon-slaying-sword-of-doom on that dragon? yes. But thats life. I dont think thats any reason to make +# weapons override everything else. It makes them far to powerful. Might as well forget having special materials at all.
If we need to change it somehow, i vote for having the +# of the weapon reduce from damage reduction. +1/+2 = -3DR, +3/+4 = -6DR, +5 = -10 or something to that effect. Or better yet IMHO, straight 1=1 ratio. +1 weapon = -1DR, +5 weapon = -5DR. The +# of a weapon should never, even at +5 completely negate damage reduction. That doesn't fit with the stories/fluff, and i don't think it makes sense even from a rules perspective. Just overly simplifies it.
*Takes a deep breath, letting it out slowly* Sorry. I feel better now. Don't mean to troll, I just honest feel that there are valid reasons to keep DR meaningful.
Kirth Gersen |
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.
I agree 100%. This suggestion would work quite well for me. DR remains meaningful, and so do +N weapons. Everyone is happy!
Kirth Gersen |
Is that +5 really so completely worthless at that level (vs 20th level ACs and HP) that you'd stick with a +1 Holy Flaming Shocking Bane longsword instead?
Yes! I've noticed that, ever since the 3.5 shift, no PC EVER buys an enhancement bonus above +1. No PC ever crafts a magic weapon above +1. +2 to +5 weapons have more or less ceased to exist, except then they pop up in prewritten adventures, and the characters want to sell them, and I refuse to introduce block-headed NPCs who would buy something worthless for 10x its actual value when in fact no PC is willing to pay even half that.
Dan Davis |
What if each +1 of the weapon allowed you to overcome 5DR of the appropriate type?
That's a really good idea, with a little more work:
A +1 enhancement is good for hurting a creature with DR/magic. Each +1 enhancement above that negates 5 points of DR of ONE type. A +2 weapon vs. a creature with DR 5/silver would negate it. A +2 weapon vs. a creature with DR 10/silver would negate only 5 points of DR. Likewise a creature with DR 10/good & silver would require a +5 weapon.
Drakli |
I'm going to weigh in for keeping DR the 3.5 way, I think.
The problem doing it otherwise is... as I see it... two-fold.
Problem the first is that it's kind of weird to imagine PCs ICly knowing how many pluses their sword has and how many a monster needs. Pluses of magic seems like an out of game definition and it seems a bit tacky to be stated IC, and any other ways of expressing it had best be careful or risk sounding cheesy as heck.
Problem the second is that the easier it is for PCs to overcome Damage Reduction, the less meaning it has. Some might call me a (sado)-masochist, but I think sometimes a fighter /should/ have to come crying back to the cleric or wizard to get an align weapon. That's what the spells are there for. Why give monsters Damage Reduction at all if players of a level to fight them are likely to have weapons that bust through it (unless it's part of the players' specific quest/shtick/etc, like a Demonslayer, that they've put serious effort into specializing at.) Does DR actually contribute to a monster's CR if it doesn't count most of the time?
... on that same topic, please review that 4th Ed seems to have scrapped DR entirely. The only monster I've found so far that resists AC targetting attacks, from skimming the 4E MM is the Grick (which take 5 less,) and insubstantial types such as spectres, (who take half damage.) I don't know that I like the idea that an ordinary pitchfork can pierce the mighty flesh of Orcus.
Mace Hammerhand |
I use Monte Cook's damage reduction redux in my game, since it only makes sense. A +5 weapon should be good, better than any +1 flaming keen weapon. It doesn't make a mess of downwards compatibility at all, it just provides a reason for the mere existance of +5 weapons.
If you look at 2nd edition demons, they were only "hittable" by specific enchanted weapons, say +3 for Malirith (I think). This way you as player get a reason to wield a +5 longsword, because it does cut through anything, otherwise the "meager" 4 point difference to hit and damage do not make sense and I could see a scenario where a player puts a +1 enchantment on the weapon and then boosts it with flaming, keen, cold burst, acidic burst and giant bane.
Sorry I'd rather have that fighter run around with a longsword +5 flaming, keen, it does away with the computergame thingy and makes a +5 weapon something you would want to keep/give to your players as a major reward.
Ross Byers RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 |
I use Monte Cook's damage reduction redux in my game, since it only makes sense. A +5 weapon should be good, better than any +1 flaming keen weapon.
It shouldn't be better. It should be equal.
Let us compare a +1 Flaming, Shock, Keen, Thundering weapon with a +5 weapon. Granted, the kitchen sink weapon deals more damage pet hit. Oop, unless you run into something with energy resistances. Or don't use the Command Word to activate each of its energy damage powers. (This is something that is often forgotten.) It also has a more frequent, much more deadly critical.
On the other hand, the +5 sword hits an extra 20% of the time. If you're swinging at a target that would require a 16 to hit, that's doubling your damage output. It is also unaffected by resists, timing, or the alignment of its target. It is reliable.
Kirth Gersen |
On the other hand, the +5 sword hits an extra 20% of the time.
Slight math correction: it's hitting an extra 20% x whatever % of the time you're attacking something with a comparable AC to your BAB. A lot of time you're attacking things that are easy to hit, or else you've maybe put too much into Power Attack (or are just looking at later iterative attacks, that almost always miss because of the escalating penalty) and you need a 20 to hit, with or without the extra +4. So if you spend 70% of the time attacking reasonable ACs (and 5% of the time on easy ones, and 25% on really difficult ones), the +5 sword hits an extra 14% of the time. It's more reliable than a +1 weapon, but somewhat less reliable than claimed.
But this all assumes that greater magic weapon is removed from the game entirely. With that spell in place, at 20th level, a +5 weapon is worth little more than a normal (not even masterwork) steel weapon.
primemover003 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16 |
I think opening DR/magic back into +1, +2, +3 is a good idea. Keep Weapon type, alignment, and material DR the same as 3.5 and spread DR/magic open a bit more. DR/magic was fairly useless after level 4 anyway.
As for the arguement that flaming is better than a +5 weapons I'll argue that +5 damage is better than 3.5 fire damage. And +5 on a crit doubles or triples whereas the 1d6 of flaming does not. Even the extra d10's from burst weapons aren't as good as +10 damage. A +5 kukri or falchion can be a pretty nasty weapon especially if you have it made keen or have the Improved Critical feat.
Kirth Gersen |
As for the arguement that flaming is better than a +5 weapons I'll argue that +5 damage is better than 3.5 fire damage.
The argument would actually be that +1 plus 1d6 fire plus 1d6 cold plus 1d6 acid plus 1d4 sonic (total +14 damage on average, minumum +5, maximum +23) is better than +5 damage. Even with crits occurring, say 15% of the time (+5 * .15 = another +0.75 damage), +14 > +5.75. And, per your suggestion, you could trade the sonic for keen, making the +1 sword even more likely to crit.
Granted, some monsters have an energy resistance, or even more than one, but almost none of them have resistance to all types. A +1 keen acidic flaming frost longsword is WAY better than a +5 longsword, although the prices are the same. And to add insult to injury--and this is what really breaks things past all fixing--if you cast GMW on the former, and it's now a +5 keen acidic flaming frost sword all day. Cast GMW on the +5 sword, and it's still a +5 sword.
Let me re-iterate that I have nothing against 3.5e DR, IF something is done to re-value +X weapons. They don't necessarily need to penetrate DR (that was their advantage in 1e through 3.0), but they should somehow be worth the exponentially-increasing costs. A number of good suggestions have been proposed; hopefully there's at least one that everyone can agree on.
Laithoron |
...to add insult to injury--and this is what really breaks things past all fixing--if you cast GMW on the former, and it's now a +5 keen acidic flaming frost sword all day. Cast GMW on the +5 sword, and it's still a +5 sword.
Actually, that gives me an idea. What if the Magic Weapon spells were reworked so that instead of just granting an enhancement bonus, they instead allow You to imbue a weapon with an appropriate level of magical effects.
In other words, if Your GMW could grant a weapon up to +5, why not allow the caster to allocate that +5 however they wish? i.e. +1 enhancement, +1 for keen, +2 for flaming burst, +1 for ghost touch = +5.
That would be pretty damn cool if You ask me.
If that would be too powerful, then allow for there to be some qualifiers on how the benefits can be applied. GMW could be cast using any one of the following 3 methods:
A) Grant a weapon an enhancement bonus that does not stack with any existing enhancement bonus. Any other magical properties are unaffected.
B) You can imbue an existing magic weapon with effects upto that weapons normal enhancement bonus. Effects granted from GMW suppress any effects the weapon normally has (other than its enhancement bonus) until the spell expires, is dispelled or is dismissed.
C) You can take any weapon (magical or otherwise) and imbue it with both an enhancement bonus and other effects. Any properties the weapon already has are suppressed until the spell ends. The bonuses due to effects cannot exceed the enhancement bonus given to the weapon. i.e. for a +5 bonus, You could imbue a weapon as a +3 holy weapon but not a +2 holy keen weapon.
Le_dirk |
I can´t see where the problem is not always having the right weapon. I think there always should be some monsters where the players should think about how to win. And not my +5 weapon can beat everything thats borring. Where is the the problem to have fights which are more interesting becoause a monster have DR or SR? Its just makes fighting more intersting.
And excalibur is not just a boring +5 weapon its an artifact like the one ring. It will have speziel powers like "can overcome any DR" :)
Brit O |
Then this is a problem with the magic weapon system, not DR. The golfbag syndrome never happened in my gruops, and I played 3.0 and 3.5 for 5 years almost nonstop. DR was never a problem for my party, an its only purpose in the game is to give the Fighter and Barbarian SOMETHING that doesn't just die from their relentless onslaught. Its SR for regular damage dealers.
Magic weapons were annoying back in our 3.0 games. A monster needing a +3 sword was the most annoying thing ever, and mostly handed to our spellcasters to deal with. When DRs were based on the amount of +s on the weapon, then the only time someone wanted to put a flaming or shocking or bane ability on a weapon was when they had a deathwish or it was a secondary. We had a lot of characters actually switch to their +1 flaming weapon and when a stupid DR monster came out switch to their secondary: a more expensive +3 weapon.
The +x is more reliable, and while some players may not realize this when they are chalking up hundreds of plat per upgrade it eventually the difference between hitting 20% of the time for 4 extra points of damage. Never having to worry about resistances, ect. This has been covered before.
For the person who replied to that about how the average damage isn't as good. Taking into resistances and the like over the career I think a +4 holds at least as much as the flaming. Fire resistance, and few other resistances are handed out like candy by lvl 8-11.
Kirth Gersen |
Then this is a problem with the magic weapon system, not DR. For the person who replied to that about how the average damage isn't as good. Taking into resistances and the like over the career I think a +4 holds at least as much as the flaming. Fire resistance, and few other resistances are handed out like candy by lvl 8-11.
That was me. (I took the resistances into account.) But yes, GMW and the insane overvaluation of +N weapons is a problem of the magic weapon system. Changes to DR are what made that problem pop up, though, so DR gets blamed a lot. I've mentioned repeatedly that I'd be happy to keep 3.5 DR if +N weapons got some other advantage... but the numbers do NOT support their reliability being equal to their cost, and more importantly, play seems not to bear it out, either (I have yet to meet a 3.5e player who would genuinely, honestly prefer a +5 sword over a +1 sword with +4 worth of "goodies." Not one.) (Also, again, +4 is better than flaming. It's not better than +1 and flaming and acid and keen, for example, which is how it's priced.)
Le_dirk |
Why not do it like this: Let the DR like it was in 3.5, BUT change some of the DR to /+2 /+3... so the Magic weapons with +X gets more important again but you also need cold iron, silver... So it is a good choice for the players to have a +4 adamantid weapon because he will pass much more DR than the guy with the +1 adamantid flaming-acid-sonic weapon.
You also could add that +x make +2x to damage so a +2 weapon would deal +4 damage.
And you could say more than one extra damge does not work together: so you can`t have a fire + sonic weapon.
Disciple of Sakura |
Brit O wrote:Then this is a problem with the magic weapon system, not DR. For the person who replied to that about how the average damage isn't as good. Taking into resistances and the like over the career I think a +4 holds at least as much as the flaming. Fire resistance, and few other resistances are handed out like candy by lvl 8-11.That was me. (I took the resistances into account.) But yes, GMW and the insane overvaluation of +N weapons is a problem of the magic weapon system. Changes to DR are what made that problem pop up, though, so DR gets blamed a lot. I've mentioned repeatedly that I'd be happy to keep 3.5 DR if +N weapons got some other advantage... but the numbers do NOT support their reliability being equal to their cost, and more importantly, play seems not to bear it out, either (I have yet to meet a 3.5e player who would genuinely, honestly prefer a +5 sword over a +1 sword with +4 worth of "goodies." Not one.) (Also, again, +4 is better than flaming. It's not better than +1 and flaming and acid and keen, for example, which is how it's priced.)
A recent character build I put together for a competition had a simple +5 Composite Longbow, because her DEX was abysmal, and I wanted to make sure that she actually hit her targets. Her primary melee weapon was only a +3 Holy, but I'd have bumped it to +5 if it hadn't been a Legacy Weapon. I was very concerned about Accuracy, honestly...
ekudub |
I don't see a problem with varying types of damage reduction, especially since the Complete Explorer..Or was it Complete Adventurer? Anway....a sourcebook offered the option of alchemical capsules that could be attached to the hilt of a weapon then applied with a swift action. Suddenly realizing your +2 silver greatsword isn't going to cut it against that DR/Cold Iron creature? Flip the switch and get about four rounds worth of non DR full attacks. That is...if you're a warrior who's intelligent and well prepared....(though INT seems to be the automatic dump stat for warriors these days).
Plus, I agree with those who've stated tht it makes encounters more unique and memorable. It encourages teamwork instead of grandstanding, and it makes the expense of exotic materials worth it.
Ashiel |
I must say that I've been browsing through my new Pathfinder pdf and I'm loving it; to say the least. However, I too must say the DR thing struck me as a bit odd, and from a mechanical standpoint (I'm a mechanic nut) seems very weak.
Creatures that have DR should retain that DR unless a SPECIFIC material is presented. To give an example, if a creature has resistance Fire, Acid, and Lightning 10, it shouldn't be overcome by fire/acid/lightning spell of X level or higher, or caster level X or higher.
In truth, creatures with a DR (especially large DRs) should generally be a bit more fragile as far as their typical stats go (perhaps less Hp, or AC) unless they're supposed to be a major enemy (such as a balor), in which case the creature's CR should be adjusted accordingly.
I have to say the 3.5 DR system is vastly better than the previous D&D editions where a +5 was the ultimate DR ignoring weapon until epic levels; period. Now, I will say that DR/Magic might need some work, and I'd consider supporting the idea of giving certain monsters DR/Magic +2 or something; but this just returns DR to being a useless factor (like lycanthropes in 3.0 where Silver was the bottom of the barrel, so the moment someone got a +1 weapon, all silver through +1 DR were useless), to the point that a high level creature with DR/Silver was just flavorful and offered no real meaning in-game, unless you were punching it (in which case something weird is going on).
The golf-bag problem never occurred in any of my group's games either; and we had lots of melee characters. They either A) would create a weapon that was heavily effective against most enemies they would encounter (such as a holy CHAOTIC and LAW bane weapon - even if they DO have DR against it, this weapon will be devastating to all EVIL, CHAOTIC, and LAW creatures and outsiders, effectively covering everything from drow, to balors, to pit fiends), or simply punch through their DR 15/magic and cold iron damage reductions like butter (the barbarian didn't view creatures with DR as unkillable, just creatures with effectively more HPs - and could still 1-hit KO them on a charge).
I really don't think making a simple +X weapon ignore DR is a good thing. In fact, in the Tome of Magic, there's a special weapon enhancement that does just that (it uses shadow magic to alter the weapon to overcome DR on a creature it has just struck) and can change to round to round, IIRC.
That weapon enhancement is actually pretty cool, and if you want to make a general "I beat DR" weapon, it should be form of an enhancement like that, and not a strait +X weapon; that way players have to think about it (and I think that it was a +2 or +3 effective enhancement or something). You gave up other weapon options for huge versatility. Plus, the enhancement had a nice flavor about it as well; making it special.
My two coppers.
Peace out, Game on.
Brit O |
Honestly, I think dirk hit it on the nail with the +x weapon gives +x to hit and +2x to damage. This makes them a lot more applicable (especially everyone loves dealing all that damage!)
A +2 damage always is easily worth a 3.5 damage average sometimes.
Leave DR the way it was in 3.5. DR was never the problem.
PsychoticWarrior |
SirUrza wrote: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.
Whoa. That is an amazing idea! Consider it yoinked for my 3E games (hell i might even put it into my 4E games!). I can't believe it hasn't been thought of before but well done!
Disciple of Sakura |
Disciple of Sakura wrote:Whoa. That is an amazing idea! Consider it yoinked for my 3E games (hell i might even put it into my 4E games!). I can't believe it hasn't been thought of before but well done!SirUrza wrote: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.
Thanks, though as someone has pointed out, this makes extra damage enhancements like frosting weak for their cost... though not until the upper limits of wealth, and you can only have +5 in enhancement bonus and an extra +5 in specials, IIRC, so they can still exist side by side.
The reason I went with squaring rather than a simple multiplier is because I think a +1 weapon should still stay at +1 damage, rather than having increased damage. It puts more reward in higher level +x, without unfairly benefiting lower level enhancements. *shrug* Let us know how it turns out in your games. I may try it out in mine, too.
Kirth Gersen |
Comparing squared damage (+25 dmg for +5 sword) vs. +1 acidic flaming frost shock (average +15, min +5, max +25) means that the straight +5 sword becomes a bit "too good," esp. because the added damage multiplies on crits. But Disciple of Sakura's point about +1 = +1 damage is a very good one. So, what if the extra damage for "+N" weapons was cumulative by "plus" instead, as follows:
+1 --> +1 damage
+2 --> +3 damage
+3 --> +6 damage
+4 --> +10 damage
+5 --> +15 damage
Then the mean energy damage output is much higher at low plusses, and finally equalling out at the end. And, as was pointed out, energy damage could still be added to a "+X" weapon, so it's not strictly a "one or the other" proposition.
Disciple of Sakura |
Comparing squared damage (+25 dmg for +5 sword) vs. +1 acidic flaming frost shock (average +15, min +5, max +25) means that the straight +5 sword becomes a bit "too good," esp. because the added damage multiplies on crits. But Disciple of Sakura's point about +1 = +1 damage is a very good one. So, what if the extra damage for "+N" weapons was cumulative by "plus" instead, as follows:
+1 --> +1 damage
+2 --> +3 damage
+3 --> +6 damage
+4 --> +10 damage
+5 --> +15 damageThen the mean energy damage output is much higher at low plusses, and finally equalling out at the end. And, as was pointed out, energy damage could still be added to a "+X" weapon, so it's not strictly a "one or the other" proposition.
While this is slightly less intuitive than the current method or the squaring method, I do agree that it's probably a pretty good method. In addition, it means that a +5 weapon deals enough extra damage to compensate for the highest DRs, leaving your standard damage to be applied directly to HP, which doesn't render DR moot but still doesn't make it as much of an obstacle. I think this is reasonable.
Kirth Gersen |
While this is slightly less intuitive than the current method or the squaring method, I do agree that it's probably a pretty good method.
Thanks! So, I propose that DR remains exactly as it was in 3.5e, but that +X weapons gain a slightly increased damage bonus, as shown. I plan on playtesting it, and hope others will as well. Maybe this can be the compromise that pleases everyone on BOTH sides of the debate.
Carnivorous_Bean |
This might be a crazy idea, but bear with me for a second. :)
What if monsters currently with DR were to have their hit points doubled, and then given a specific vulnerability. The weapon they were vulnerable to would deal double damage on a successful hit.
In this way, they would be precisely as tough to kill for someone with the appropriate weapon (that is, doing 5 damage per blow to a 50-hp monster is the same as doing 10 damage per blow to a 100-hp monster). That way, they wouldn't be weakened.
However, this way the golf bag wouldn't be necessary. It would become twice as hard to kill a monster with a specific vulnerability like this without using the proper weapons, but it would be possible. The optimal choice would still be the appropriate weapon, but it would no longer be the ONLY choice.
Thus, you would have monsters which 1) still had a unique vulnerability to certain rare weapons, without making them any weaker, and 2) you would remove the pressing need for the golf bag of different weaponry, since they can still be killed by ordinary weapons, just that they're a lot more dangerous if you don't have the proper weapon.
Thoughts?
Kirth Gersen |
Thoughts?
That's not a crazy idea at all. In fact, it kinda makes sense. The problem is that we'd have to double the hp of every critter with DR on the fly, which would be a pain in the neck... but the other, bigger problem is that spells would also have to deal double damage to them, or they're out of whack in that respect, which would be a pain to keep track of (it's OK with party-on-one-monster battles, but in mixed melee, where some critters have DR and some don't, and someone lobs a fireball...). So from a record-keeping/back-compatibility standpoint, I'm not sure too many people will subscribe to that, although, like I said, I think it inherently makes some sense.
Le_dirk |
+1 --> +1 damage
+2 --> +3 damage
+3 --> +6 damage
+4 --> +10 damage
+5 --> +15 damage
This looks ok vor non epic weapons but this could be to much damage for epic weapons:
+6 +21
+7 +28
+8 +36
+9 +45
+10 +55
Then the fights will end in nearly a round I think.
I think
2x to damage would be enough
Thoughts?
Kirth Gersen |
This looks ok for non-epic weapons but this could be to much damage for epic weapons... Thoughts?
Well, epic weapons follow different construction and pricing rules anyway, so they might as well follow different damage scaling rules as well. In fact, ALL of the rules work differently after 20th level, so I'm not as worried about having to slow the progression or just cap it altogether, at say +20 damage for +6 weapons and up.
Disciple of Sakura |
Kirth Gersen wrote:
+1 --> +1 damage
+2 --> +3 damage
+3 --> +6 damage
+4 --> +10 damage
+5 --> +15 damage
This looks ok vor non epic weapons but this could be to much damage for epic weapons:
+6 +21
+7 +28
+8 +36
+9 +45
+10 +55Then the fights will end in nearly a round I think.
I think
2x to damage would be enoughThoughts?
I'll be honest - I have no idea how the game works at epic levels, because it doesn't interest me in the slightest. I had figured that the HP of epic monsters would probably be adequate for this sort of thing. *Maybe* what you could do is make the epic enhancement bonuses work differently from the standard bonuses. After all, it looks to mee like most everything else that advances in Epic does so differently from standard.
Laithoron |
What if monsters currently with DR were to have their hit points doubled, and then given a specific vulnerability. The weapon they were vulnerable to would deal double damage on a successful hit.
<snip>
Thoughts?
Hmm, I really like the basic idea of this. In a way it's kind of like a boss in an old-school fantasy CRPG having multiple life bars.
With that in mind, I wonder if the amount of increased HP would need to be tied directly to the amount of DR the creature has. I'm not sure that double HP for DR 5/Stuff is appropriate, and I'd say that double HP for something with DR 30/Epic might be insufficient (I suppose it would have to depend on the expected damage output of characters facing the enemy).
The main pitfall I see is damage from spells which bypasses DR anyway.
Keeping that in mind, it's almost like 2 hit point pools would be needed. One from which spell damage and damage exceeding DR is subtracted and another for its diminishing pool of Damage Reduction. Of course, that would mean You could tie up even a god and eventually peck them to death with a rust dagger (provided You take care of any Fast Healing and Regeneration).
Le_dirk |
What if monsters currently with DR were to have their hit points doubled, and then given a specific vulnerability. The weapon they were vulnerable to would deal double damage on a successful hit.
<snip>
Thoughts?
I like this!!! But it should change with the DR:
DR 5 : + 1/3 Hp
DR 10: + 2/3 Hp
Dr 15: + 100% Hp
...
Mabye it is a like bit much HP.
But I realy HATTE this fast fights in 3,5!!!!!!!!!!
Laithoron |
While this doesn't necessarily solve the Alpha 3 DR issue, I was just updating my list of 3.5 house rules for use with PfRPG when I discovered a mechanic that some might find useful...
DAMAGE REDUCTION CHANGESDR/Magic:
A magic weapon overcomes 5 points of DR/Magic plus an additional 5 points per +1 of enhancement bonus it has.
Special: A weapon with a enhancement bonus of +5 or greater completely overcomes any amount of DR/Magic damage reduction.Example: A +1 weapon overcomes DR 10/Magic completely whereas it decreases DR 20/Magic to DR 10. A +3 weapon would completely overcome DR 20/Magic, while a +5 weapon would overcome even DR Infinity/Magic.
DR/Alignment:
Instead of providing damage reduction, DR/Good, DR/Evil, DR/Lawful, and DR/Chaotic instead prevent the confirmation of critical hits unless the weapon is of the listed alignment. DR/Alignment is automatically bypassed if the creature's monster entry reads DR/Material or Alignment and the weapon is made of the listed material.Example1:
A fighter attacks a marilith with DR 10/Cold Iron & Good. Using a Cold Iron weapon, he is able to overcome the marilith's 10 points of damage reduction, however he is unable to score a critical hit against her.Example2:
A paladin attacks the same marilith using a Good-Aligned steel weapon. The marilith still subtracts 10 points of damage from each of the paladin's attack, but is susceptible to critical hits from the paladin's weapon.Example3:
The marilith summons a succubus whose damage reduction type is DR/Cold Iron or Good. Unfortunately for the succubus, she can be damaged in full by both the fighter and paladin's weapons since only one condition of an "or" damage reduction type needs to be met.
This particular approach helps to solve part of the "golf-bag" problem by allowing a partial negation of compound damage reduction types. It also keeps a good bit of the flavor of the DR types while maintaining easy backward compatibility.
Using this system, perhaps every 2 points of a weapon's enhancement bonus overcomes 5 points of DR/Material. In this way, the real material is still the best choice but having a costly enhancement bonus (or an epic weapon) is still desirable.
Steven Hume |
i hate to use the cheap way out from splatbooks but a +4 weapon covers EVERY possible DR combo
sure striking+1(any alignment i think its in FR book), Morphic(change into any one handed weapon)+1, forgot last one but allows you to change metal into one of the four types +1 think its called metalic or something
so at +4 weapon covers EVERY possible combo, what does a +4 weapon cost? not alot.
Laithoron |
i hate to use the cheap way out from splatbooks but a +4 weapon covers EVERY possible DR combo
sure striking+1(any alignment i think its in FR book), Morphic(change into any one handed weapon)+1, forgot last one but allows you to change metal into one of the four types +1 think its called metalic or something
so at +4 weapon covers EVERY possible combo, what does a +4 weapon cost? not alot.
As You've statted it, that's a +1 weapon with properties that allow it to bypass any form of damage reduction. While that's handy in and of itself, for the same price I still think I'd rather have a +1 holy ghost-touch weapon.
Also at 32,000gp, if You are going by the guidelines that no character should have a single item worth more than 1/2 their wealth by level (DMG pgs 42 & 135) then a character would need to be 11th level before being able to afford such a weapon. It would be more cost-effective to have a +1 cold iron weapon, apply silversheen, and use a scabbard of blessing if needed. That wouldn't cover every type of DR it's true, but it leaves You with some gold to afford other items.
Dagalk |
I wouldn't mind seeing DR/+1 and DR/+3 and such back specially if you combined it with the material DR so the more powerful demons could have DR/+3 and cold iron and special spells create skeletons that a +2 bludgeoning weapon to take out. you would need to have spells that could switch your weapons type for a little while. like maybe a level 2 spell that allows you to give a weapon a coating of cold iron or silver for 10 min/level that costs 100gp worth of silver or cold iron maybe? sounds like a reasonable spell to me. then once again you make the wizard important, and the more prepared group can face down whatever they confront.
BlaineTog |
Honestly, I've never had a problem with +x modifiers, and PF's way of dealing with DR does strike me as altogether too much too fast. Golf bag syndrome also never really came up, though I could see how it might. And, DR should be difficult to get around; that's the point of it.
What I would think would make the most sense is to give magical weapons two points of DR penetration per +x (excluding DR/-). This helps a little, but it doesn't make having a special-material weapon pointless.
As for increasing damage... well, I'm torn. On the one hand, anything to help boost noncasters is probably a good thing. On the other hand, they doesn't really need help in the damage-dealing department. Again, though, I've honestly never had a problem with people preferring special enhancements because gp for gp, you're really better off with the +1 to attack and damage (the numbers crunch better in your favor, don't forget that the increase also gives your weapon better hardness and more hitpoints).
Midnight-v |
I think they simply changed this because it was an added bane for the already beleagured melee classes.
Someone above said, "We'd hand it over to the spellcasters" which is the most common thing for somthing with damage reduction "You're not getting past this".
Actually something lik that should lead to the golfbag syndrom really if you think about it. Unless you're playing a warrior capable of throwing down 30 + points of dmg per lick (not unheard of I suppose) You're getting boned at 10th unless you can bypass
Dr Something/10
I think thats were golems start showing up. Dr 10/adamantine bludgen
or some such. So yeah its a raw deal for those engaging in fisticuffs and what not. ImHo
Props to Paizo for fixing it (and I hold my props tightly)
awp832 |
I'm also somewhat on the fence as to the *idea* of changing damage reduction. But -sorry Paizo- I hate the rules for DR in the Alpha.
For this (paizo's system more or less as-is) to work, here are some things that *need* to be done:
1. Most importantly: The Magic Weapon/ Greater Magic Weapon spells *MUST* have a rider that says that they do not help you overcome DR. That way GMW is useful to give you a cool +X to hit and dam, but its not something the Cleric casts on the fighters sword everymorning so the Fighter's +1 Vicious Fire-Shocking Greatsword of Frost can bypass all types of DR. Hells no. GMW is my #1 complaint with Alpha's DR system.
2. Cold Iron+ enhancement properties should be "bumped up" a level. To put this more clearly: Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing remains +2. Cold Iron/ Silver becomes +3, adamantine +4, Allignment based +5. As is, there isnt a reason to have the "iconic" +5 sword, a +4 sword is just as good. My proposed change makes the +5 sword still a god of overcoming DR, while those of us who want to overcome most DRs but still have some weapon properties can do that without feeling dumb, and also: the +2 level isn't quite as obscenely good as it is now. This way I can have my +2 Icy-Shock Cold Iron longsword. Overcomes quite a bit of DR, but a +4 sword instead would also get my by Silver and adamantine.
3. Some monsters need to have their DR re-evaluated. Mostly, I mean dragons. They NEED a better DR than "magic". Why not give dragons DR of Magic and Good (for evil dragons) or Magic and Evil (for good dragons)?
Kirth Gersen |
For this to work, here are some things that *need* to be done:
1. Most importantly: The Magic Weapon/ Greater Magic Weapon spells *MUST* have a rider that says that they do not help you overcome DR.
2. Cold Iron+ enhancement properties should be "bumped up" a level.
3. Some monsters need to have their DR re-evaluated.
1. Agreed 100%. I've proposed this several times, and Jason seemed to be on board with it.
2. Agreed. I previously recommended
I'd also leave Blg/Prc/Sls as non-negatable with a "plus."
3. Yes, I agree.
Krell |
DR in 3.5 seems to be a case of "its not broke so no need to fix it." Truthfully I'd likely ignore any alteration to DR based on base weapon bonus, especially to type, eg blunt, so it doesn't matter all that much to me. Some critters are supposed to be tough to hurt and if that means a PC needs a good and cold iron weapon so be it. Fights are generally short in 3.5 already as the PCs generally deal out a large amount of damage, why make it easier for PCs to overcome exotic DR?
Kirth Gersen |
DR in 3.5 seems to be a case of "its not broke so no need to fix it." why make it easier for PCs to overcome exotic DR?
It's one of a number of possibilities to make +5 weapons worth 50,000 gp again. As discussed ad nauseum, with math, on this thread and on another one linked to a couple of times.
Tordak |
I just found out about the pathfinder, and I think it rocks.
I went over the post in the thread quickly to see if my ideas were already covered...and they were.
So a the risk of being repetitive, here are my thoughts.
There are really two sides to this. The 3.5 version, where only the correct type bypasses DR, makes every DR more special. Including for PCs who manage to get some DR (monk, some PrC). Just having your DR busted by magic weapons means most humanoid enemies will be able to bypass your DR at higher level (important rival NPCs). DR 10/evil is usually only bypassed by evil outsiders; most magic just won't cut it (or bludgeon it!:)), enemy will need a very particular weapon. DR silver REQUIRES a silver weapon; lots of monsters don't get to use weapons at all. That way it favors PCs with DR/[type/material/alignement].
However, most PC ended up (at higher levels) with what was required for every situations; a silver weapon and a cold iron weapon and an good weapon etc., or with the appropriate spell to duplicate the required material/type/alignement. With stronger magic weapon busting other types of DR, you take away the some of the pain of having many weapons to do your job. The result will be the same anyway, for pretty much every situation, so why bother. This way favors a less complicated approach for PC vis-à-vis there weapon choice.
I still favor the former version, occasionnaly giving the PC a headache and making some encounter memorable. Of course in the end, every DM can still make your life miserable :(
Kirth Gersen |
I still favor the former version, occasionnaly giving the PC a headache and making some encounter memorable.
Yes, it's good to have meaningful DR. I'd like to also see +5 weapons be worth 50,000 gp, though, and in 3.5 they are most certainly not. That's the real issue, to my mind; DR just got picked on as an "easy fix" for the defunct pricing scale for +N weapons.
lastknightleft |
You'll have to forgive me if this has been covered or not since my last post but I got about halfway through page 2 and a headache kicked in so I'm just gonna say my peace.
My only problem with the mechanic is that it still leaves +5 weapons as pieces of crap, take a look and you see that every weapon enhancement has its use, but they toploaded +2 and left +5 blank, so there is no point still in paying for anything past +4. They should have made +2 only break the P/B/S then shifted everything else up one level.
EDIT: ah I see that it was covered, okay, well I also agree that +5 should be the one to break adamantine and +4 to break alignments like someone said.
Kirth Gersen |
EDIT: ah I see that it was covered, okay, well I also agree that +5 should be the one to break adamantine and +4 to break alignments like someone said.
Yeah, again, my recommendation -- IF AND ONLY IF they stick with "defeat DR" as the means to re-value +N weapons -- is:
+1/magic
+2/silver
+3/cold iron
+4/alignment
+5/adamantine
And that Prc/Sls/Blg cannot be overcome by plusses.
And for the people chiming in who haven't read any previous posts, CLICK THIS BUTTON:
+1 --> +1 damage
+2 --> +3 damage
+3 --> +6 damage
+4 --> +10 damage
+5 --> +15 damage.
Still another possibility is to bring back the 3.0 rule that a weapon with a higher "plus" is totally immune to being sundered by a weapon of a lower "plus."
There just needs to be SOME way to justify the cost of a +4 sword, because in 3.5 everyone takes a +1 flaming frost shock sword instead (which is mathematically far superior despite the slightly lower chance to hit).
So please, before you chime in with "Keep 3.5e DR!" understand that people are sympathetic, but it needs to include some recommendation for making "+N" weapons worth their list price, or it's failing to address the full issue.