Actually I'm the one who pointed out the cost difference between the adamantine +4 weapon and the +5 weapon. After I thought about it a bit I come the the conclusion that it doesn't matter a lot. To be honest I really don't think that the DR fix has to address the pricing inequalities in the system. It's nice that it does significantly help with pricing but it's not the most important thing.
To be honest my feelings on the best way to 'fix' damage resistance is to simply remove it from 80% of the monsters that have it. Reduce the 240+ creatures with DR down to about 30, mostly high level, Big Bad Monsters. Make DR special again.
Since that is highly unlikely to happen your tiered system is my second favorite solution. Combine this with reducing GMW to a 1 round/ level spell (that overcomes DR) would work fine as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not a huge fan of the +1/+3 weapons myself because it impacts a lot more than just the DR monsters.
Mostly right now I'm waiting to see how the beta looks.
|
I'm not a fan of +x at all really, maybe that's why I like the DR break idea, I'd much rather players seek a weapon because it can do x rather than seek it because damage or to hit increases. I don't play D&D as a numbers game, hell I removed the Bulls strength etc. spells from the game because I hated how they did nothing but bump a stat, I know that that creates a variety of small things, but mainly it's just a #s bump and so boring. That's probably why I like +x breaking DR, cause instead of it being sought for a # boost instead it's being sought because it can cut through x.
I'm not a fan of +x at all really, maybe that's why I like the DR break idea, I'd much rather players seek a weapon because it can do x rather than seek it because damage or to hit increases. I don't play D&D as a numbers game, hell I removed the Bulls strength etc. spells from the game because I hated how they did nothing but bump a stat, I know that that creates a variety of small things, but mainly it's just a #s bump and so boring. That's probably why I like +x breaking DR, cause instead of it being sought for a # boost instead it's being sought because it can cut through x.
Yes, one of the reasons I like Spell Compendium is it has some very nice alternatives to the generic "Bulls Strength, Cat's Grace... line". Namely the "Bite-of-the..." spells. I think they are a little overpowered for Druids who get them at lower levels but overall the idea is much more flavor than a generic "+4 strength".
Hah! Now I know what the next spell my sorcerer is taking will be.
As for magic weapons, my players much prefer having and using the dwarven axe of his ancestors with a set of powers that come with it than some arbitrary set of weapons chosen because they can hit the monster of the day. While I agree that a bunch of pluses on a weapon is pretty boring I don't think a character having a +1 Holy Acidic Frost blade is any better because it's pretty clear why the player wanted that weapon. It has nothing to do with RPing and everything to do with power-gaming.
After reading all of this, I went from wanting it to stay 3.5, to liking the idea of 3E, to seeing the wisdom in Paizo's vision, to utter confusion.
However, the one thing that I'm still sure of is that the solution to the problem involves simplification, not complication. How about this...
Just remove bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, silver, and cold iron completely. This would leave good, evil, and adamantine. You'd be able to overcome the two of the three all the time if you prepare for it, and there's a good chance you don't care about overcoming the third.
Because, let's get real, what's really the difference between steel and cold iron? Steel is cold iron. If something has DR 1/silver, it is effectively impossible to overcome. How silly is that? And I have always seen the damage type (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) as an unnecessary complication anyway.
Whether or not a +5 is better or worse than a +1 flaming frost etc. is entirely a different issue. I realize that allowing a solid +X weapon overcome certain DRs would increase the usefulness of a solid +X. However, the proposed methods for increasing the power of +X weapons doesn't only make up for DR, but it has further-reaching effects than that, and will only result in shifting the problem from one area to another. Not to mention, it would make greater magic weapon even more powerful.
By the way, try and pretend you don't know my name up there, heh. I didn't realize it'd be my posting alias. Now the whole world knows I'm a nerd. =D
|
|
After reading all of this, I went from wanting it to stay 3.5, to liking the idea of 3E, to seeing the wisdom in Paizo's vision, to utter confusion.
However, the one thing that I'm still sure of is that the solution to the problem involves simplification, not complication. How about this...
Just remove bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, silver, and cold iron completely. This would leave good, evil, and adamantine. You'd be able to overcome the two of the three all the time if you prepare for it, and there's a good chance you don't care about overcoming the third.
Because, let's get real, what's really the difference between steel and cold iron? Steel is cold iron. If something has DR 1/silver, it is effectively impossible to overcome. How silly is that? And I have always seen the damage type (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) as an unnecessary complication anyway.
Whether or not a +5 is better or worse than a +1 flaming frost etc. is entirely a different issue. I realize that allowing a solid +X weapon overcome certain DRs would increase the usefulness of a solid +X. However, the proposed methods for increasing the power of +X weapons doesn't only make up for DR, but it has further-reaching effects than that, and will only result in shifting the problem from one area to another. Not to mention, it would make greater magic weapon even more powerful.
By the way, try and pretend you don't know my name up there, heh. I didn't realize it'd be my posting alias. Now the whole world knows I'm a nerd. =D
According to the bullman, GMW doesn't grant DR penetration, and honestly I prefer that to shortening the duration. although I'd probably favor both together.
Whereever the discussion steers towards, I'd like to point out:
- Before this discussion can possibly find concensus, we need to sort out WHY DR should be changed. To make the game simpler? To speed up combat? To adress the often cited golf-bag problem? Because fighters feel they are duped, again? To reach consistency (SR tries something analogue for magic, but very differently)?
- And if we know why to change DR, we need to know what to offer and keep: Flavor? Flexibility? Realism? Treasure-dependency? Variety?
- Speaking for myself, I like the 3.5 system. It has variety, flavor, and not many problems attached to it. Above all: It gives a very good reason to invest in Knowledge skills...
- If I were to change that, my goals were:
1) Keep it simple (no tables needed to see whether DR applies)
2) Keep the flavor (Silver is a classic, don't let that go)
3) Relieve the fighter's headache
4) Don't dabble with the pricing system
So, if I were to write the rules, they would look like this:
- Keep the 3 "damage types" (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing)
- Keep the "alignment types"
- Keep silver, adamantine and magic as "material types", but get rid of cold iron (Monsters with DR x/cold iron get DR x/silver and magic instead)
- Don't introduce alternate ways of overcoming DR - tables are bad!
- Introduce feat "Baffling Weaponry" - Prerequisite: Weapon Focus. - Benefit: Your attacks made with any weapon you have Weapon Focus with ignore 5 points of damage reduction. This feat can be taken multiple times. It's effects stack.
In addition, I'd like to stress that DR rules shouldn't try to solve problems in effectiveness/pricing of weapon enhancements.
An example: Some say +1 flaming is better than +2 - I say, nope, only for some builds. Two-Handed and Power Attacking, +2 is better in many cases (+3 damage straight instead of +d6 of unreliable energy type). So altering DR rules to make straight enhancements more appaling leads to less versatility - which is bad, IMO.
Enhancements that lower CON bonusses are whacky for other reasons (Their effectiveness scales with HD - nothing else in the game does that).
- Before this discussion can possibly find concensus, we need to sort out WHY DR should be changed.
An example: Some say +1 flaming is better than +2 - I say, nope, only for some builds. Two-Handed and Power Attacking, +2 is better in many cases (+3 damage straight instead of +d6 of unreliable energy type).
Hi, arm.
All of this has been covered, and often beaten into the ground, previously in this thread. You've hit upon two of the most common questions, and ones I've tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to address.1. The change in DR is a way to re-value +N weapons. See above regarding GMW, etc., and why +1 holy (no energy resistance applies) is mathematically far superior to +3, even if that spell is nerfed/removed.
2. (a) Power Attack no longer works the way it did in 3.5. You can't just pick 1 or 2 points to put into it anymore.
(b) Two-handed Power Attack should not be the only way to make a viable fighter or barbarian build. The change to PA in the Alpha makes it a lot dicier, and hence less of a requirement (as in 3.5) and more of an option, which is what it always should have been.
If you have any other questions or concerns, I'd recommend reading the rest of the thread (I know, it's fairly long) and the other, equally long (but same-topic) thread linked to in various places. Then, if you have some insight that hasn't already been addressed, we're all ears. Thanks!
arg, my post was eaten.
short summary:
- Kirth, you are right - many things were already covered, and I like your system. I'm not totally convinced, though.
- Weapons out of special materials are less appaling. Nobody except for low-level demon hunters would buy/make cold iron weapons anymore, for instance. I'd interchange alignment and cold iron in "your" table, kirth. OR remove cold iron from the system. Maybe we need to give special materials something else back... only steel is boring.
- What about controlling special abilities? One ability per +N would work wonders (I hate +1 shocking frost axiomatic holy weapons). OR grouping special abilities, so as that a weapon can have only one energy s.a., one alignment s.a., maybe find others.
- What about the feat in my post above? It would help 2WF (still, would burn another feat they desperately need...)
- Can anybody do the math for 2H, PFRPG-PA and nerfed GMW? I think it would be better to have +N enhancements, since it gives you back some accuracy you loose PAing. Still, would heavily depend on Att/AC ratio and whether you make iterative attacks or not...
Cheers!
1. I'd interchange alignment and cold iron in "your" table, kirth. OR remove cold iron from the system.
2. What about controlling special abilities? One ability per +N would work wonders (I hate +1 shocking frost axiomatic holy weapons).
3. What about the feat in my post above? It would help 2WF (still, would burn another feat they desperately need...)1. If you propose an alternative system, in which +N weapons gain something at each "rung," I'd be interested to see it. I stuck cold iron at +3 mostly because of the old AD&D DMG magic armor types; other configurations could certainly work.
2. Yes! That's another possibility that someone mentioned once upon a time, and I'd forgotten all about it. Thanks! I like that one just fine, too, as an alternative to the "+N beats DR" concept.
3. A feat for beating DR is something I honestly hadn't thought about. It's irrelevant for fixing magic weapon pricing, but not a bad idea, on the surface. I'll have to think through some of the ramifications
(P.S. the only reason people pick on DR as a way to fix magic weapon pricing is because it's basically a change back to 3.0, before the pricing system broke due to the introduction of the 3.5 DR rules. There are certainly plenty of other possibilities for fixing it, though, as you correctly point out).
This is probably the best suggestion for 'fixing' magic weapon pricing I've heard yet. Of course it doesn't touch on fixing DR but I've always thought that is a separate issue anyways.
This is probably the best suggestion for 'fixing' magic weapon pricing I've heard yet. Of course it doesn't touch on fixing DR but I've always thought that is a separate issue anyways.
Thanks! Honestly, I've never tried this idea in my campaigns, but will do that soon.
After some thoughts in between, I recognized that there are many different problems at hand which can potentially be solved by a "+N beats DR system", but don't have to be and maybe shouldn't. I cannot offer an alternative solution yet, but use this post instead as thinking in progress.
Problem A) - The weapon you pick is not based on flavor, opponent or circumstances, but on your STR score. Huge STR - THW. Additional damage - TWF. Neither - maybe 1H and shield, but seriously, you should do something else.
Problem B) - The enhancements and special abilities you buy for your weapon(s) are no options, but kind of set.
B1) With GMW - Go wild, make it flaming holy shocking burst keen whatever.
B2) Without GMW, 3.5 PA in effect and for THW - Take +N
Problem C) - 3.5 DR removes one of the few benefits of +N, somehow offsetting the pricing system.
Problem D) - The existance of +1 flaming frost shocking holy axiomatic weapons. At least I consider this a problem. Nonewithstanding rule ramnifications, I shudder at multi-energy, multi-alginment weapons.
Problem E) - That your favorite weapon you spent on all the loot and cash does not the job, or that you have to carry many different weapons. For me as a DM, this is no problem - but as a player, I do see it.
Problem F) - Greater Magic Weapon is the best bang for your buck, and effectively yields to epic weapons pre-epic. AND it's boring, AND it leads to calculating headaches, AND the rules are not very clear (does it grant higher hardness and HP? What happens when GMW is dispelled after a weapon has taken damage from sunder?).
Yes, you've laid out the situation nicely. The thread has gotten so long, and requires so much attention, because problems (A) through (F) are all inter-related; you can't just tweak one item and expect it not to affect everything else -- which is, unfortunately, exactly what happened when they went from 3.0 to 3.5: they fixed DR, but it threw everything else off (pricing, GMW, PA supremacy), and they seem to have missed that.
So far, we seem pretty well unanimous that nerfing GMW is a "must," and Jason is clear that he agrees. The overwhelming mechanical superiority of a 2-hd. weapon and freely scaling Power Attack in 3.5 was a mess. Paizo addressed that in the Alpha, but in so doing threw off some of the usefulness of +N weapons (in 3.5, with a 2-hd. weapon, a +3 sword was really +0 to attack and +9 damage). Etc...
(Notwithstanding BETA, which is some refresh clicks away, I continue my train of thought... let's see how much will be relevant afterwards.)
As a professional in problem solving and structural analysis, I'll now try a profession goes hobby experiment by saying that in order to solve a multi-criteria problem as this, from a structural point of view, a solid strategy is to divide the problem into independent subsets - or, as Caesar put it, "divide et impera".
Maybe it's possible to cut dependencies between STR/weapon/fighting style efficiency on the one hand, and DR/GMW/item pricing on the other. I'll try reverse engineering on this one by theorizing that 3.0 GMW was meant to overcome DR, not to enhance weapons into epic play. Then 3.5 offered more flavor and diversity by the new DR system (which I consider a plus), but did not take into account GMW as an element that links pricing and efficiency with DR. So, we have some options here:
A) Change GMW so that it no longer affects DR (I see this coming in BETA).
B) Change GMW so that it's reduced duration encourages applying it permanently - which is to say that the cost/effect ration of permanent +N over GMW castings is tilted in favor of the former.
These two options have been mentioned (much) earlier. Combined with a changed DR system as the one kirth proposed, DR as a link between fighting style and pricing is severely weakened. On the downside, DR itself is weakened - much of the flavor and diversity that 3.5 introduced would be gone. And, the party mage now cannot contribute as meaningful as before to the brutes (which I don't like; I consider cooperative gaming D&D's, erm PFRPG's, biggest plus)
But there are other options:
C) Change GMW so that it no longer affects +N, but solely DR. This has the benefit of solving the epic weapon problem at the same time.
A preliminary wording might go:
A single weapon you target with the spell overcomes DR according to you Caster Level. If your CL is 10 or above, you must choose the specific effect with each casting. See table:
CL - DR type
5 - silver
10 - cold iron
15 - adamantine
(I excluded "alignment" because there is align weapon which does the job perfectly)
D) Similar, but "-1 DR per CL" - Unfortunately, that leads to more mid-combat calculations (which is bad), and does unintentionally help with DR/- and alignment.
Now, +N means plus to hit and damage for anyone which you cannot get for free otherwise. Still, you have to worry about DR but your mage will do that - or, if you want to, carry extra-weapons in fancy materials. (Or take the Baffling Weaponry feat as in my other post)
Special abilities would still be more efficient over +N for some fighting styles - well, but this can be left to the other subset of problems. Maybe I'll tackle that soon, but for now, I'd be happy to receive your feedback (knock-knock, Kirth)
CL - DR type
5 - silver
10 - cold iron
15 - adamantine
I like that! We could maybe rename the spell, "penetrating weapon" or something along those lines, that more accurately describes its function, but OK.
That takes care of GMW and DR. We're still left with the unescapable fact that, regardless of fighting style, a +1 holy sword is better than a +3 sword, unless we go back to 3.5 Power Attack and 2-handed weapons, which would be re-introducing a different problem Paizo has already addressed. If a +3 sword did +6 damage, or was unbreakable by a +2 sword, or some other benefit along those lines; or if a sword had to be at least +2 to be holy; then we'd have everything solved, as near as I can tell.
|
|
Well I must say that I'm a little disapointed in the end result of the beta, having no benefit to a +2 weapon means that it is just a stepping stone to +3, alignment as the ultimate DR broken is fine but I'd much rather have seen +5 beat DR/-, just trying not to feel underwhelmed by the changes i guess. I am glad that GMW doesn't affect DR bypass though.
Just to retain my own sanity, can someone site the page the damage reduction table is on?
|
Hi --
My beef with the 'golf bag ' theory is how does this affect the CR of a creature? For example: if a creature has a CR of 10, and DR 10/something, is the CR based on the fact that you can overcome its DR, or that that you need to kill it without exploiting its Achilles heel?
Personally, I think that CR is based on the fact that you fight the creature with its full immunities applicable. The fact that is has some "Achilles heel" is a technicality that oyu may or may nor be able to exploit.
So the real question w.r.t those golf-baggers, is why does one need to carry a golf bag in the fist place? Does the golf-bag include wooden stakes for Vampires? Holy Water for undead? Fire for Ropers? Fly-swatters for Stirges?
To remedy the problem, DR should be dumbed-down somewhat. I find all those metals and alignment things just cumbersome without really adding to the game. I understand why they are present, but its just more complexity in an ocean of rules.
I've read people say how their PCs died because they didn't have x-y-z type material of spell memorized. If that is the case, then maybe the creature needs to be rebalanced, not he PCs. If the creature is just too hard to beat without overcoming its Achilles Heel, then its not a fair creature.
An idea:
- Reduce the value of the DR of a creature by 5 (to a minimum of 5) jsut to make fighting a monster fair.
- The way to defeat the DR should be monster specific; specified in the module. The rationale being that since each monster is 'unique' in its own way, it should have its own Achilles Heel; and not some generic "Good + Silver" way of overcoming the DR. If a demon is the Lord of Pepper, then one needs to sprinkle pepper on a sword to overcome his DR. This is how Warhammer used to work; especially for Beastmen. The monster is generic in the "monster manual", but in the module, it has its own write up on what powers the mutations give it, so reading the 'monster manual' gave you nothing really -- only the fact that it MAY have some Achilles Heel.
The entire rationale behind doing this is that some monsters have DRs, but they are so specific that players cannot carry golf-bags; its just impractical; and that overcoming the DR is considered an Achilles Heel, and is not the 'right' of PCs to be able to overcome all DRs in all cases. Instead, the burden is on the module to provide hints (if it so chooses), on what kind of material/magic would overcome the DR of a given creature. The players may figure it out with luck, or some clue is given.
Again, the rationale behind this is that when a monster has a 'vulnerability', its considered to be an Achilles Heel, and that information should not necessarily be generic in all case; in fact, it becomes a very powerful storyline tool. A monster guardian could be given a DR of 50/something. Fighting it would be useless unless some secret is discovered on how to break through it; part of the storyline.
My 2 cents :)... for what its worth.
So the real question w.r.t those golf-baggers, is why does one need to carry a golf bag in the first place?
One doesn't.
Missile weapon (bow, crossbow, sling) with cold iron and silver ammunition, primary melee weapon, backup melee weapon, some applications of silversheen, and maybe a silver dagger and you're pretty much set. As long as either the primary or the backup melee weapon is a bludgeoning weapon (adamantine once you can afford it) and at least one is cold iron, you can bypass all DR in the Monster Manual except for alignment and holy/unholy (assuming enchanted weapons or the magic weapon spell).
You don't need three or four different primary weapons. A little forethought and planning when selecting your normal weapons set (missile, primary melee, backup melee) lets you cover the bases.
I've read people say how their PCs died because they didn't have x-y-z type material of spell memorized. If that is the case, then maybe the creature needs to be rebalanced, not he PCs. If the creature is just too hard to beat without overcoming its Achilles Heel, then its not a fair creature.
Like fighting a troll without flasks of acid or alchemist's fire, acid or fire spells, or corrosive or flaming weapons? They aren't required to defeat the troll, they just make it easier.
|
|
Like fighting a troll without flasks of acid or alchemist's fire, acid or fire spells, or corrosive or flaming weapons? They aren't required to defeat the troll, they just make it easier.
And that is exactly my point; although the troll is somewhat of a different case since one can still damage the troll (fire or not), its just that it comes back. With DR, you may be hacking at something, and not doing any damage at all.
All I'm saying is that instead of there being 10 fixed ways of overcoming DR, make the possibility infinite instead; so this way no one spends their time focusing on how to overcome it -- they will keep their favorite Whip-weapon, and if it defeats the DR, great. If not, tough. The fight is harder. Its either part of the storyline to overcome DR, or you just can't do it (which is in the end the simplest solution... just make all DR /- and be done with it). Why MUST we be able to overcome it anyways? Its a bit of a throwback to 1st Ed where you needed a + weapon to damage a creature. So, its either you can hurt it, or don't try. 3.0 just 'teased' people by making it 30/+3... and 3.5 made it even more titillating by reducing the DRs 15/... Just make the DR 10/- or 5/- and forget the rest.
And if a monster should have an Achilles Heel, then state so in the text of the module.
And the CR of a creature should be based on the fact that the DR is NOT overcome; ie: worst case scenario.
Thanks
|
Seriously, I don´t miss (at all), "the good ol´times", D&D has improved a lot from first edition, and I don´t want to go back in time.
I find a lot more interesting to have a silver or adamantine weapon than a +"big number" weapon.
Also I find more interesting a holy, flaming, whatever, weapon than another +x.
And there is the problem of backwards compatibility if you go the route "we are going to change this, it isn´t a problem wich needs to be fixed, but I think it will be cool if we create one"