The big problem with "one weapon" characters is that they become (almost) useless when they can't use their weapon. And then they whine about it when they aren't able to use their "one weapon," because they've developed their character completely around the weapon, not the personality or experiences.
I thought the 3.5 DR system was a big improvement over the 3.0 DR system. It almost required that characters have a variety of weapons (missile weapon, primary melee, and backup melee) of different types (bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing) and materials (adamantine, cold iron, silver), instead of one maximized weapon.
This is neither realistic or consistent with fantasy fiction. I don't understand why you would want to punish someone for having a primary preferred weapon. Yes, it makes sense for someone to have a bow/ crossbow and a melee weapon, I can also buy into a bludgeoning weapon as well. Beyond that lies craziness.
The number of fictional characters who lug around 4-5 weapons is tiny... extremely tiny. Frodo had Sting, I don't even recall him having a sling or bow. Aragorn had a sword and sometimes used a bow... not 3-4 weapons. Legalas? Sword and Bow. Gimli, An Axe, not 3, not an axe and a hammer, just the axe.
Real life knights generally separated the ranged combatants from the melee combatants. Samari would sometimes carry 2 swords and a bow for different uses which is about as big as the variety went.
So why on earth does it make sense to have rules that encourage people carrying around 3+ weapons?
3 (or 4) weapons: missile weapon, primary melee weapon, and backup melee weapon (and maybe a knife/dagger as a utility tool/weapon, if that's not already the backup melee weapon). Real world soldiers would often carry at least 3 weapons, counting a knife/dagger (Greek Hoplites- spear, sword, dagger; Roman Legionaries- 2 pila, sword, dagger; Norman knight- lance, sword, mace, dagger; Samurai- bow, nagamaki, sword, dagger). This is just good sense, since no one weapon is optimum in every situation and can be broken/dropped/etc. Considering that adventurers face even more extreme circumstances than most soldiers, carrying more than one type of weapon can mean the difference between life or death (sometimes literally).
It also prevents a player from depending on a single weapon/combat style, which would then be exploited by intelligent foes.
|
And you can't teach them not to rely on a single weapon with liberal use of the disarm technique or sundering? I know my pc's faced a shield wielder whose main tactic was to disarm enemies with his shield then since he had a free hand take the weapon and use it against them. and a player who carried only his bow had to sit out a combat running from people because an enemy ran up to him and smashed his bow. A few intelligent uses of manuevers will keep players from relying on a single weapon, not a poorly built defense system.
For my 2 cents:
1) the 3.5 system penalizes characters who don't buy/manufacture most of their items, but who rely on what they find and like keeping their treasures. People whose campaigns depart from the "big magic supermarket" (a la, "let's invest some thousand gp in getting an adamantine weapon with pluses) are the ones who get penalized.
2) at least the way I've run campaigns, special materials are for the most part connected to an arcane property which can affect particular supernatural foes for a "mystical" reason, like silver for lycanthropes and devils or cold iron for demons. They would be a "very minimum" arcane power against the specific foe. I've therefore always found logical that some enchantments override the silver/adamantine/iron requirement (the power is in fact stronger). I find hard to justify in terms of fluff how a magic weapon may harm an immaterial foe like a ghost ("out of sync with this plane, whatever) and then fail to hurt a material foe like a werewolf or demon.
Of course, if in your campaign the parameters of magic and special materials follow a different rationale, the paragraph above is irrelevant. Just make sure to have it figured out, otherwise players may pose the same questions.
3) I agree with previous comments about the other type of DR, which involves creatures resistant to piercing/bludgeoning/slashing damage. That seems to be connected to the creature's physical structure (like boneless blob resistant to bludgeoning) and should be a category apart from special materials or enchantments. A mace is going to bounce off an ooze, no matter how much magic.
4)In my campaigns, the biggest problem comes with Adamantine. Whereas silver and iron are good options for low-level characters who run into the occasional lycanthrope or wight, when not all of them have magic weapons, DR/adamantine only shows up in mid-high levels (in my scenarios, with golems and other constructs). By the time, most characters may go around with +2, +3 or higher weapons. DR /adamantine would therefore become almost irrelevant with the new rules. See 5) below. Alignment does not seem to be such an issue, because Align Weapon is quite available via spellcasters (and the new PF Paladin ability if they bind a weapon) without having to go into the "magic supermarket syndrome", which, again, I find a campaign flavor killer, but that's just my opinion.
5) I don't remember if it has been proposed above, but I would perhaps go for each plus of enchantment "clearing off" 5 points of DR, instead of making a plus equivalent to a given DR type for bypassing purposes. That could escalate the weapon's might in a more proportional way (and still keep special materials making a difference; it is also logical that if a magic sword may harm a werewolf, a silver magic sword is going to be a special weapon against the critter).
I would perhaps go for each plus of enchantment "clearing off" 5 points of DR
It'd have to be 3 points per "plus," otherwise a +5 weapon is no better than a +3 weapon (because DR 15/x seems to be the max in 3.5). Also, in essence that changes a barbarian's DR 5/-- to DR 5/magic, which is a very lousy deal for them.
3 (or 4) weapons: missile weapon, primary melee weapon, and backup melee weapon (and maybe a knife/dagger as a utility tool/weapon, if that's not already the backup melee weapon). Real world soldiers would often carry at least 3 weapons, counting a knife/dagger (Greek Hoplites- spear, sword, dagger; Roman Legionaries- 2 pila, sword, dagger; Norman knight- lance, sword,...
Absolutely. Any character should carry weapons that have uses for different situations, I mentioned the Samari in my post. What I am talking about is a game system that invents NEW reasons why people need yet more weapons. A Legionnaire has never been in a situation where he needs one sword for the Persians and one for the Huns. He has a pila to throw when charging, a sword for melee, and a dagger in case he loses his sword or needs to cut something small. If he's hunting he has a different set of weapons.
The game system encourages something completely different, it encourages someone to have 3-4+ swords. Identical function but for use against different enemies, all because they have an arbitrary DR.
You suggest the legionnaire carry a Silver Pila, a Cold Iron Sword, an adamantine dagger, and a good aligned mace... but then if he engages in melee with a werewolf he's screwed. Also, suddenly all the feats he invested in weapon focus and weapon specialization are worthless because he's not using his preferred weapon. The result is... the warrior carries a pila (actually long bow), mace, dagger, and he carries 4 longswords of various makes for all the different DRs he might encounter.
I would perhaps go for each plus of enchantment "clearing off" 5 points of DRIt'd have to be 3 points per "plus," otherwise a +5 weapon is no better than a +3 weapon (because DR 15/x seems to be the max in 3.5). Also, in essence that changes a barbarian's DR 5/-- to DR 5/magic, which is a very lousy deal for them.
I am not totally sure, but I seem to recall some pretty nasty constructs with DR 20/adamantine (not in the SRD, but in third-party productions, like Drow War). And it would be meaningful if the pluses are "soaked" by the DR, so a +3 weapon overcoming 15 DR does no magic bonus to damage against that monster, but a +5 weapon still adds +2. +4 and +5 should be pretty damn rare in a campaign, anyway.
As for the barbarian, well, the idea was that the magic bonuses "soak" other types of DR (materials or perhaps alignment), but DR /-- has nothing to soak, as it has no particular condition, it always stays in place (except against immaterial foes, but that's my house rule).
You suggest the legionnaire carry a Silver Pila, a Cold Iron Sword, an adamantine dagger, and a good aligned mace...
More like a good aligned/holy cold iron longsword (demons, zombies), an adamantine mace (constructs, skeletons), a silver dagger (backup), and a few vials of silversheen (devils, lycanthropes)... or a heavy crossbow with some cold iron and silver bolts, an adamantine warhammer, a cold iron dagger, a few vials of silversheen, and a wand of align weapon.
Also, suddenly all the feats he invested in weapon focus and weapon specialization are worthless because he's not using his preferred weapon. The result is... the warrior carries a pila (actually long bow), mace, dagger, and he carries 4 longswords of various makes for all the different DRs he might encounter.
This sounds like more of a player problem: trying to overspecialize and/or failing to make use of consumable items. Note that I saw a lot of 3.0 characters who would carry only one or two weapons... and scream bloody murder if they were disarmed or put into a situation where those weapons couldn't be used effectively.
1) the 3.5 system penalizes characters who don't buy/manufacture most of their items, but who rely on what they find and like keeping their treasures. People whose campaigns depart from the "big magic supermarket" (a la, "let's invest some thousand gp in getting an adamantine weapon with pluses) are the ones who get penalized.
Then the DM needs to put more weapons made of special materials into the treasures. The market price increases (+3000gp for adamantine, x2 base weapon cost and +2000gp to enchant for cold iron, no more than +180gp for silver) are fairly modest for the benefits.
2) at least the way I've run campaigns, special materials are for the most part connected to an arcane property which can affect particular supernatural foes for a "mystical" reason, like silver for lycanthropes and devils or cold iron for demons. They would be a "very minimum" arcane power against the specific foe. I've therefore always found logical that some enchantments override the silver/adamantine/iron requirement (the power is in fact stronger). I find hard to justify in terms of fluff how a magic weapon may harm an immaterial foe like a ghost ("out of sync with this plane, whatever) and then fail to hurt a material foe like a werewolf or demon.
Of course, if in your campaign the parameters of magic and special materials follow a different rationale, the paragraph above is irrelevant. Just make sure to have it figured out, otherwise players may pose the same questions.
3.5 DMG pg. 291, in the description of Damage Reduction: "Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable." (emphasis mine)
Adamantine affects golems because it's so hard/tough that "weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20." (3.5 DMG pg. 283) Effectively, the DR of a golem is its "item hardness."
Cold iron is mentioned in many myths/legends as burning fey and other magical creatures on contact. In this case treating demon and fey DR as "instantly healing damage" is probably the way to go.
Silver is also mentioned in many myths/legends as having "special properties," exclusive of magic. In some variants, lycanthropes rapidly heal (regenerate) damage made by weapons that aren't made of silver. Whether or not the weapons are enchanted are beside the point; only whether the weapon is silver or not is important (depending on the campaign, mithral could count as silver for bypassing DR). Again, treating the DR as "instantly healing damage" would probably work.
4)In my campaigns, the biggest problem comes with Adamantine. Whereas silver and iron are good options for low-level characters who run into the occasional lycanthrope or wight, when not all of them have magic weapons, DR/adamantine only shows up in mid-high levels (in my scenarios, with golems and other constructs). By the time, most characters may go around with +2, +3 or higher weapons.
Adamantine is mostly useful for the bonuses to sundering (see above) or resisting sundering. 3.5 DMG pg 283: "Weapons, armor and shields...that are made from adamantine have one-third more hit points than normal...and hardness 20." The DR penetration is more of an edge-case.
we recently tried a house rule that worked out very nicely. we changed the DR mechanic so that instead of DR the creature had regeneration equal to the original DR value. the regeneration healed all damage inflicted unless the weapon was of the appropriate type, alignment, or magic. this may seem like much but our fighter was able to still kill the monsters we did this with. the regeneration simply made it a more challenging fight. this allows the creature to still be beaten but gives a individual who is prepared an advantage. (as the DM it has also allowed me to make some very interesting and memorable encounters.)
just a suggestion.
More like a good aligned/holy cold iron longsword (demons, zombies), an adamantine mace (constructs, skeletons), a silver dagger (backup), and a few vials of silversheen (devils, lycanthropes)... or a heavy crossbow with some cold iron and silver bolts, an adamantine warhammer, a cold iron dagger, a few vials of silversheen, and a wand of align weapon.
This doesn't seem ridiculous to you? When a player has to sit down with a piece of paper and plot out exactly how he is going to overcome 7 or 8 different types of weapons with a combination of different weapons, wands (which fighters can't use), oils they have to drag out of their pack...
I agree that a fighter should be prepared for a lot of situations. I just don't agree that the system needs to contrive reasons to make the fighter ineffective and that is exactly what the current system does.
I'm all for some sanity. The system in Alpha 3 was better than the craziness in SRD 3.5, Kirth's suggestion is better. Maybe not perfect but much much better.
|
|
Think about Van Helsing, the famous vampire hunter Hollywood recently gave us. Now, think of him without all of his equipment, just a mighty glowing sword and a chainmail.
I'm sorry: carrying multiple/various weapons is the job (and duty!) of a well-prepared warrior. When the party hits the dead-magic zone, he's the one busting out the grappling hook, pitons, caltrops, rope-ladder, etc.
Plus, the various DRs are there to reward people for keeping within the spirit of the original flavor of a particular monster. Not drawing a silver weapon against a vampire or werewolf *IS* what *I* find really lame...
Keep that flavor (or "monster spice" if you want!) within *MY* Golarion! :)
Think about Van Helsing, the famous vampire hunter Hollywood recently gave us. Now, think of him without all of his equipment, just a mighty glowing sword and a chainmail.
Umm... horrible horrible movie. Terrible example.
So how many different types of DR did VH have to overcome? Silver, wooden stakes... that's it isn't it? I don't recall.
For every example you give of gear happy heros I can give you 5 heroic fiction characters who used 2-3 simple weapons. How many times in the book or movie did a single character in LotR have to swap weapons to hurt a creature? There were perhaps a couple of times.
Frodo, Xena, Aragon, Legalas, Beowolf, Li Mu Bai, He-Man
What is the fictional source for the idea of adamantine, good, evil, lawful, chaotic, etc damage resistance. I know there is a tradition that werewolves can only be killed by a silver bullet. Cold iron is also the bane of fae. Vampires have their own weaknesses. Beyond that? It's all contrived specifically to make some creatures harder to kill.
I'm sorry: carrying multiple/ various weapons is the job (and duty!) of a well-prepared warrior. When the party hits the dead-magic zone, he's the one busting out the grappling hook, pitons, caltrops, rope-ladder, etc.
Hey, I don't have any problem with this, heck this is exactly what I am talking about. Note that all of these things you mention have different purposes. You don't have 4 ladders to climb 4 different types of walls. "Oh wait it's a rock wall, bust out the hemp ladder." "Not THOSE caltrops, can't you see these are Clydesdales? Get the bronze caltrops out".
Plus, the various DRs are there to reward people for keeping within the spirit of the original flavor of a particular monster. Not drawing a silver weapon against a vampire or werewolf *IS* what *I* find really lame...
I accept all of the traditional (Silver, Cold Iron, Magic) plus the ones that make sense (Pierce, Slash, Bludgeon) but I reject Adamantine, Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic... none of which are in the original spirit of anything aside from some game designers hash induced nightmare. Adamantine is a great special material for it's inherent properties, don't give it some additional arbitrary use. Worse is the idea of a creature which requires multiple types to overcome DR. Suddenly having a silver dagger isn't enough it has to be a +1 silver dagger.
I also think way too many creatures have DR. If we were just talking about the creatures that traditionally have 'Damage Resistan
ce' you are looking at just a handful, Faries, lycanthropes, vampires.
A quick quiz and no looking. What do you need to damage:
Clay Golem
Zelekhut
Night Hag
Marilith
Horned Devil
Hoary Steed
Rakshasa
What weapons and items would your character have to carry if that was their random encounter table? About the only good thing I see coming out of this is it encourages people to spend skill points on knowledge skills.
Clay Golem = Adamantine and Bludgeoning
Zelekhut = Chaotic
Night Hag = cold iron and magic
Marilith = Good and Cold Iron
Horned Devil = Good and Silver
Hoary Steed = magic and cold iron
Rakshasa = Good and Piercing
Traditionally, in folklore, cold iron wasn't required just to hurt fey; it hurt them MORE. It was a special material weakness, not DR. You want silver as a special material? OK. But once you start adding cold iron, adamantine, various alignments (DR 10/lawful evil with a twist of good), etc., things get out of hand quickly. And well-meaning 3rd party publishers didn't help; the Ravenloft Denizens of Darkness has things like DR 15/obsidian, DR 10/gold, you name it.
I draw mighty Excalibur, swing at the werewolf and oops, I forgot to bring my silver Excalibur, this cold iron one looks so much like it! Or is this my adamantium Excalibur I put too much oil on. Boy these artifacts sure don't impress like they used to! I sure hope the MU brought HIS silver spellbook....
Then this is a problem with the magic weapon system, not DR.
I think the best solution is Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon replace the bonus/special properties of a magic weapon. Thus a +1 Flaming, Frost, Sonic weapon becomes a +X weapon when you cast Greater Magic Weapon on it. I don't think you need to take away GMW's ability to pierce damage reduction.
I also like the idea of magic weapons adding twice or thrice the bonus to damage. This has the added benefit of mitigating the effect of not having the right weapon for a specific creature without removing the significance of that DR (particularly if we are talking about twice the bonus).
I think the best solution is Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon replace the bonus/special properties of a magic weapon. Thus a +1 Flaming, Frost, Sonic weapon becomes a +X weapon when you cast Greater Magic Weapon on it. I also like the idea of magic weapons adding twice or thrice the bonus to damage. This has the added benefit of mitigating the effect of not having the right weapon for a specific creature without removing the significance of that DR (particularly if we are talking about twice the bonus).
I like both of these ideas, except that a masterwork sword and a party sorcerer = a +N weapon for 350 gp. That, I don't like so much.
I like both of these ideas, except that a masterwork sword and a party sorcerer = a +N weapon for 350 gp. That, I don't like so much.
Just reduce the duration of the spell. Then the party can use GMW for an encounter but it won't last all day. I think a third level spell to overcome DR for one encounter is reasonable. It's the whole day thing that is a problem.
Just reduce the duration of the spell. Then the party can use GMW for an encounter but it won't last all day. I think a third level spell to overcome DR for one encounter is reasonable. It's the whole day thing that is a problem.
Bingo! We have a winner. And to Persistent Spell it would be do-able, but would chew up a 9th level spell slot, which seems reasonable to me.
|
I like the old way better, as it makes for better stories. I had a were rate once be a thief guild leader. He wasn't a great thief, or warrior, but he had an unusual DR. Instead of Silver it was Obsidian. Because of that he rules the streets as no one could hurt him. (Until someone found out how he had been turned, then the game was up for him). It was a great story though.
|
Think about Van Helsing, the famous vampire hunter Hollywood recently gave us. Now, think of him without all of his equipment, just a mighty glowing sword and a chainmail.
I am sorry but this is not a very good analogy since Van-Helsing was an old man and that movie went way off into the deep end of the mythology and well truth be told wasn't a very good movie to begin with.
While I can understand that the rules state otherwise, I can't see why my +2 sword could now affect the iron golem as if it were adamentine, but still can't cut another sword (also made of metal) just like an adamentine sword does. Sunder would quickly get out of hand, but I fail to see the logic as to why not (coincidently, I always wondered what good an armor did against adamantine if it is that much potent against other material).
I hope special materials or properties will not be replaced by a flat magical enhancement. The magical bonus already have its use (just makes the weapon more efficient overall), overcoming DR should come from another property.
I agree however that there may be too many special material/properties. But it would be easy enough to have those properties overlap. Holy weapon could bypass DR of ANY evil creature for example, regardless of the need of silver or what not. Create a weapon property that cover it all if necessary.
If I had to design Excalibur, it would be more than a +5 sword, and somehow I would design it in such a way that most if not all DRs would be covered. Conan can kill anything because he deals 1d12+much-more-than-any-DR damage, he just doesn't care...
there are examples in literature where the main character had to choose an alternated weapon to defeat its opponent, such as Heracles burning the wounds of the Hydra. There and more example where the hero had to think of some way to trap an opponent it just couldn't kill, and more even of a hero who had to go along way to get a weapon that could affect the otherwise invulnerable villain.
The concept of DR/something-special is a good one and should not be ruined with a "boring" magical enhancement. Whether if should be toned down or restricted to fewer creatures is another question.
The magical bonus already have its use (just makes the weapon more efficient overall), overcoming DR should come from another property. The concept of DR/something-special is a good one and should not be ruined with a "boring" magical enhancement.
Our problem here is that the math shows otherwise; the improved efficiency does not justify the magnified cost. (Also, if a +5 enhancement can do something to justify its 50K gp price tag, then it quickly becomes "not boring" again).
|
|
The magical bonus already have its use (just makes the weapon more efficient overall), overcoming DR should come from another property. The concept of DR/something-special is a good one and should not be ruined with a "boring" magical enhancement.Our problem here is that the math shows otherwise; the improved efficiency does not justify the magnified cost. (Also, if a +5 enhancement can do something to justify its 50K gp price tag, then it quickly becomes "not boring" again).
And once again this is a great boon for two weapon fighters who otherwise were screwed in 3.5 because they didn't have the damage output to beat DRs and often only had one of their two weapons capable of bypassing said DR effectively cutting their efficiency in half. whereas mr. two handed weapon fighter didn't give a crap about DR because his individual hits dealt enough damage that DR barely slowed him down. Now you have a great dynamic where two weapon fighters value and go for higher pluses and two handed fighters go for special enhancements and get this both will have comparative damage outputs when dealing with DR baddies. and there's nothing saying if you want a monster that cant be harmed except by a special weapon you still can't make it, just use a DR/something not the basics from the MM. DR broken by the special moon rock found in yasmir's crater that even magic cannot harm. the dr mechanis isn't to make fights memorable, its to make them slightly tougher. and also, unless you are handing out +5 swords at 3rd level you can still probably throw monsters at them that they can't get through the DR, but at high level say 15+ you have to get more creative than saying oopsie you don't have a adamantine longsword and a silver one well sucks to be you.
Frodo, Xena, Aragorn, Legolas,
Speaking of bad examples.
The Lord of the Rings (The Fellowship of the Ring), Book II, Chapter 3, The Ring Goes South: "The Company took little gear of war, for their hope was in secrecy not in battle."
Beowulf, Li Mu Bai, He-Man
And again (based on the original, not the movie).
Beowulf had to wrestle Grendel specifically because normal swords, etc. were ineffective. Grendel's mother was slain with a special weapon found by Beowulf. Beowulf did not kill the dragon with weapons, but with a swarm of bees.
What is the fictional source for the idea of adamantine, good, evil, lawful, chaotic, etc damage resistance.
It's an expansion to the "diametrically opposed alignments" theme that has been a part of (A)D&D for over 30 years. Basically, it's a way to make alignment matter for more than just flavor. It can be taken to an extreme (which did happen with a lot of monsters after the first MM), but was fairly appropriate and modest at first.
I accept all of the traditional (Silver, Cold Iron, Magic) plus the ones that make sense (Pierce, Slash, Bludgeon) but I reject Adamantine, Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic... none of which are in the original spirit of anything aside from some game designers hash induced nightmare. Adamantine is a great special material for it's inherent properties, don't give it some additional arbitrary use.
It wasn't arbitrary.
As I said above, "weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20." (3.5 DMG pg. 283) Effectively, the DR of a golem is its "item hardness." Also, since the natural attacks of most outsiders are considered aligned, you can have (most) outsiders of opposed alignments do full damage to each other with natural attacks without automatically giving them the ability to fully damage other unrelated creatures. Besides, setting how many "plusses" a creature is worth when overcoming DR is tricky. You could just hand-wave it in a home game, but a unified rules set like 3.x has problems (as 3.0 did with monsters penetrating DR; more "magical" creatures were less effective at penetrating DR than those with more HD).
It wasn't arbitrary.
As I said above, "weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20." (3.5 DMG pg. 283) Effectively, the DR of a golem is its "item hardness." Also, since the natural attacks of most outsiders are considered aligned, you can have (most) outsiders of opposed alignments [b]do full damage to each...
Arbitrary. The substance did not exist, has never existed in any fantasy or mythological sources, and prior to 3e didn't exist in D&D. The substance itself was created whole cloth and added to the game based on comic strips. Holy crossed genre's Batman! Are we introducing cosmic rays and cryptonite into the game as well?
Should Paizo introduce supermantine, and even harder substance for PRPG? That would make the game system even better, then we can have some creatures vulnerable to adamantine and some vulnerable to supermantine. And Green, I want a creature who can only be damaged by green weapons. Wait... DR 10/green and supermantine!! It's required to fight the adamantine golem because the adamantine golem is too hard for adamantine weapons to harm.
Re: adamantine
The substance did not exist, has never existed in any fantasy or mythological sources, and prior to 3e didn't exist in D&D.
1st Ed AD&D DMG pg. 164: "Armor of +3 bonus is of special meteorite iron steel, +4 is mithral alloyed steel, and +5 is adamantite alloyed steel." Adamantite rather than adamantine, but that's a minor quibble, especially since adamantine was often used as the term for adamantite alloy (or vice versa). 3.5 adamantine is 1st Ed AD&D adamantite alloy given actual game effects beyond "required for +5 metal armor."
Adamantine/adamantite is, among other sources, based on the metal galvorn, developed by Eol in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion. See Chapter 16, Of Maeglin: "and he devised a metal as hard as the steel of the Dwarves, but so malleable that he could make it thin and supple; and yet it remained resistant to all blades and darts." See also Chapter 21, Of Turin Turambar: "Then Beleg chose Anglachel; and that was a sword of of great worth, and it was so named because it was made of iron that fell from heaven as a blazing star; it would cleave all earth-delved iron."
The golem DR penetration is based on the 3.5 properties of adamantine and logical extrapolation/unification of effects. Why do golems have DR? Because they are essentially animated objects under permanent enchantments. Why does adamantine penetrate golem DR? Because it bypasses item hardness of less than 20.
But aren't we getting Damage Reduction wrong?
Isn't DR part of the defense of a creature (call it a supernatural resistance, instant regeneration or simply a really though hide/material) that is NOT SUPPOSED to be bypassed by every adventurer? Likewise, should every adventurer be immune to fire, cold, acid AND electricity?
All these DRs may have a weakness that can be exploited, but if every adventurer can easily have access to the bane of the creature, isn't DR loosing of its very essence? Might as well remove DR altogether...
The concept of DR made things in such a way that you still could kill a werewolf with a normal weapon. It takes more time, and possibly new strategies, but usually, you still CAN. Forcing players to adopt new strategies is not a bad thing, really...
I do not disagree that the 3.5 DR system has its issues, but loosing flavor in favor of mechanics is a poor way to tackle the problem IMO. Maybe every second monster should not have a DR. Maybe there should be less types of vulnerability or weapon abilities that cover more than one vulnerability (mythral could also be considered as silver and adamatine as cold iron). But vulnerabilities should stay vulnerabilities.
I think the magic equivalence should be introduced in core as an optional rule, as it is an easy implementation. Otherwise revisit DR but keep it more or less the same...
All these DRs may have a weakness that can be exploited, but if every adventurer can easily have access to the bane of the creature, isn't DR losing its very essence?
Mostly I agree, but I should point out that "every adventurer" doesn't have a +5 sword. That's 50,000 gp worth of hardware, a large portion of your total accumulated wealth even at relatively high levels -- and even then, you're having to forgo other enticing properties like holy, etc. until you're epic level (at which point they roll out DR/epic and you have to start all over again!).
Re: adamantine
The substance did not exist, has never existed in any fantasy or mythological sources, and prior to 3e didn't exist in D&D.1st Ed AD&D DMG pg. 164: "Armor of +3 bonus is of special meteorite iron steel, +4 is mithral alloyed steel, and +5 is adamantite alloyed steel." Adamantite rather than adamantine, but that's a minor quibble, especially since adamantine was often used as the term for adamantite alloy (or vice versa). 3.5 adamantine is 1st Ed AD&D adamantite alloy given actual game effects beyond "required for +5 metal armor."
This is fine, I'm good with +5 enchantment == adamantine. Now we are all on the same page. Perfect.
This is fine, I'm good with +5 enchantment == adamantine. Now we are all on the same page. Perfect.
Yep. Now, if we could just agree that an "enchantment" was a mind-affecting spell...
This is fine, I'm good with +5 enchantment == adamantine. Now we are all on the same page. Perfect.Yep. Now, if we could just agree that an "enchantment" was a mind-affecting spell...
Hahahaha... D'oh! I was under an enchantment, normally my use of the Egrish language is in-peck-ible.
Option 1: Paizo's start, with 3.5-like sensibilities:
Option 2: Alternative:
Option 3: Other workable option that re-values +X weapons.
Not an Option: System in which low enhancement bypasses all DR.
Not an Option: No change from 3.5, so that +4 swords are comparatively worthless.
Option 4 Wait and see what's in the beta and comment on that.
Incidentally you haven't mentioned what to do about DR 10/gold DR 10/obsidian and DR 10/green? </sarcasm>
Not sure if this was mentioned before, but how about an exponential function for pluses
Similar; I actually proposed
+1 --> +1+2 --> +3 (+1+2)
+3 --> +6 (+1+2+3)
+4 --> +10 (+1+2+3+4)
+5 --> +15 (+1+2+3+4+5)
Shisumo worked the stats on it, and said it was good, but "annoyingly non-intuitive," is what I believe he called it (and I have to agree). My problem with your system is that it confers no noticeable advantage until you hit +4. On the other hand, (+2n) is simple, but too good in the low ranges and not really good enough at the upper register.
Incidentally you haven't mentioned what to do about DR 10/gold DR 10/obsidian and DR 10/green? </sarcasm>
Leave DR/alignment untouchable and make +4 beat DR/any special material except adamantine
Ooh! I like that!
Incidentally you haven't mentioned what to do about DR 10/gold DR 10/obsidian and DR 10/green? </sarcasm>Leave DR/alignment untouchable and make +4 beat DR/any special material except adamantine
Ooh! I like that!
Actually, would rather silver be separate and the DR/aligned be +4 but I can deal with this.
I am assuming that DR 1/- would still be impossible to overcome?
(1) Actually, would rather silver be separate and the DR/aligned be +4 but I can deal with this.
(2) I am assuming that DR 1/- would still be impossible to overcome?
(1) Silver and cold iron are "lower-tier" materials. I'd envisioned something which, if spelled out, might look like this:
OR +4 beats all the same as +3 and DR /alignment, if not.
(2) Yes, exactly.
Just reduce the duration of the spell. Then the party can use GMW for an encounter but it won't last all day. I think a third level spell to overcome DR for one encounter is reasonable. It's the whole day thing that is a problem.Bingo! We have a winner. And to Persistent Spell it would be do-able, but would chew up a 9th level spell slot, which seems reasonable to me.
I had considered shortening it (IIRC, they did in 3.5), but the duration, IMO, should have some beef or the utility quickly drops to undesirable levels. If it gets too low, it becomes one of those spells the Sorcerer never knows or the Wizard only memorizes when he knows he needs it in advance.
If you like a shortish duration spell, how about an hour, not level dependent?
If you like a shortish duration spell, how about an hour, not level dependent?
Too long; you cast it once, blow through a bunch of encounters, cast it again, and you're more or less done. As a static time limit, 1 minute sounds about right. That's 10 rounds; long enough to get your business attended to. I could maybe be talked into 5 minutes. 10 at the outside.
Isn't DR part of the defense of a creature (call it a supernatural resistance, instant regeneration or simply a really though hide/material) that is NOT SUPPOSED to be bypassed by every adventurer? Likewise, should every adventurer be immune to fire, cold, acid AND electricity?
All these DRs may have a weakness that can be exploited, but if every adventurer can easily have access to the bane of the creature, isn't DR loosing of its very essence? Might as well remove DR altogether...
If DR were rare and special, then it would be cool. The party is fighting some mysterious monster and it has turned the blades of everyone who has attacked it so far. That would be great. Unfortunately, it no longer is rare nor is it special. It's now commonplace and just a chore on the players.
DR lost it's essence when it became commonplace. In the SRD there are 20 different "Special" materials or combinations of materials. required to overcome various creatures damage resistance. There are 240+ creatures who have these various resistances. This isn't counting all of the incorporeal creatures which expands things even more. Having to get a special weapon to kill the monster at the heart of things is cool with me. Having to stock 3-4 different magic weapons to overcome all this garbage (below) is not.
/-
/adamantine
/bludgeoning
/adamantine and bludgeoning
/chaotic
/cold iron
/cold iron and good
/cold iron and magic
/evil
/evil and cold iron
/evil and magic
/evil and silver
/good
/good and piercing
/good and cold iron
/good and silver
/lawful
/magic
/silver
/silver and magic
/slashing
|
|
(1) Actually, would rather silver be separate and the DR/aligned be +4 but I can deal with this.
(2) I am assuming that DR 1/- would still be impossible to overcome?(1) Silver and cold iron are "lower-tier" materials. I'd envisioned something which, if spelled out, might look like this:
+1 beats DR/magic
+2 beats DR/magic and DR/silver
+3 beats DR/magic and DR/silver and DR/cold iron
+4 beats DR/magic and DR/all special materials except adamantine (if you use others like obsidian, etc.),
OR +4 beats all the same as +3 and DR /alignment, if not.
+5 beats all DR short of epic. (2) Yes, exactly.
You know, one poster pointed out that with adamantine being top tier at +5 that it was cheaper to just buy a +4 sword made from adamantine, which would then bypass every DR. So maybe instead of just trumping adamantine, +5 should beat adamantine and DR/-, then I could see a reason to have a +5 weapon instead of a +4 adamantine weapon. Plus it really fits the flavor to have +5 weapons be blades that posses unstopable power that can cut through anything, even things adamantine can't harm. I think that's the best way to do it.
You know, one poster pointed out that with adamantine being top tier at +5 that it was cheaper to just buy a +4 sword made from adamantine, which would then bypass every DR.
That's why I actually am starting to prefer the extra damage option; at +15 for a +5 weapon, you'd have enough to get through DR 10/whatever and atill have the +5 actual damage you get now, whereas a +4 weapon (+10 damage) would get through the DR but score no extra damage thereafter.
To retain a "beats DR" scenario instead, your option is a very good one.
Another option would be to create a synergy effect for +5 adamantine weapons: maybe they're unbreakable by anything short of epic weapons, for example, and ignore hardness 25. You could still have a +4 adamantine sword, but a +5 adamantine sword would be better, so that the guy with the +4 adamantine sword would still be willing to pay that extra 18,000 gp.
Another option, of course, is to simply increase the cost of adamantine weapons to scale with their usefulness: maybe price them at the equivalent of +1 additional enhancement... given how good they are when it comes to sundering, I rather like this option.
Yet another option would be to do nothing, and pretend like the extra +1 to attacks and damage would be worth the extra 18K gp. It wouldn't really be, though, and at CL 20th you're back to the GMW issue, so I really don't want to just ignore it.
Just brainstorming here. The issue is indeed a potential snag, but there should be some way around it without too much trouble. I really don't want to just make DR /adamantine +4, and DR /alignment +5, because of the +5 = adamantine correspondences in 3.0/3.5, and (more importantly) because of the fact that it would just make things worse; you could just get a +3 adamantine weapon and a wand of align weapon (or a paladin with that aura), and be better off than you were before the DRs were switched.
|
|
Agreed, I don't want spells to replace the utility of the weapon. Also, in case it hasn't been terribly obvious, I am majorly in favor of beating DRs to doing extra damage (bigger #s is just meh to me, whereas ultimate cutting weapon is cool flavor). Also I agree with you that adamantine should be top teir, but I think it's cool enough to just say +5 ignores all DR except DR/epic. Also it's the easiest to implement mechanically into the current alpha setup.