stuff that the quoter doesn't catchI don't really care for the limited claws. I like to think it was an oversight in the final and not an intentional cut. Regardless, we're kind of stuck with it.
Most of the stuff you are talking about is part of the capstone. The class is essentially really mediocre and bleh then at 10th level gets this really nice capstone. The effect is it sucks for anyone who actually has to play through it but if you make a paper character at 16th level it's decent.
Okay, take two. Maybe I was too tired. I don't disagree that the original class didn't need improvement. I disagree with the direction the class took as you no longer get the main reasons people took the class in the first place.
1. Real Natural Weapons2. Wings
3. Half Dragon Template.
This PrC could have had a simple fix.
1. Eliminate the caster requirement or give an alternate feat requirement.
2. Give some spell like abilities relating to the dragon type.
3. Give a progressive energy resistance to lead up to the immunity
4. I liked the energy damage with natural attacks...
5. I also like the additional breath weapon uses, don't see why the template couldn't come with a use every 1D4 rounds like a true dragon, considering that is just a feat in 3.5.
This would have kept the original concept and role, but made it over all better, more fun to play, and to par with other PrC's abilities.
P.S. The wording on the natural weapons was clear, they didn't want it or then energy damage they deal to be up all the time.
|
I already said what I have to say on my feeling about Clerics and heavy armor, (and in general for PF) elsewhere, so not going to bring that back up. And paizo has no intention of changing that regardless.
Also, I think they said in the last Poll, they wanted to stay away from specific classes (and races, etc. . .) until later down the road. Now is just overall classes and the like.
|
I miss Search.
Agree.
But the big problem is the paldin. The Paladin needed a boost, but now she is much too powerful.
Some of the spell nerfs are not to my taste, but some are good.
The Bard: I like the rounds per day mechanics, but the write up feels forced and rushed out the door.
If I only get to pick one thing it is the Paladin.
Well, Fly-skill and "choose-your-own-favored-class" are the worst changes for me.
I'm actually more disappointed with certain changes from Beta to the final product, such as removing the [Armor Training] AC bonus from fighters while "boosting" the paladin to ridiculous excess. But that's not the topic of this thread, so I'm leaving it there.
Nerfing Ray of Enfeeblement.
Thats it!
I have to say, there is one thing I don't like - the change to staffs. I like that there is now a way to recharge them... but 10 charges? COME ON!
|
You have to be kidding me. Why? Rangers can't wear medium or heavy ... Besides, make it mithril, and you can wear whatever armour you want as medium or light. Just means you can't be the cleric/fighter dwarf with DR 3 adamantine armor anymore.Nope, dead serious. You had several errors in that post:
1) Rangers can wear Medium.
2) Cleric's can't wear Medium Mihtril Full Plate (requires Heavy Armour Proficiency.)
3) Fighter grants H.A.P. so a Fighter/Cleric in Full Plate is a-ok.
4) Quintessential D&D Cleric is a guy in Full Plate. To change that image is to not be D&D anymore.
Okay, I was wrong about Rangers, and our DM must have houseruled the Fighter armour thing because whether you're wearing it or not you still take penalties like an arcane user (not necessarily being an arcane user though). As for mithril, it counts as one lighter, so why do you need H.A.P.? To change that image would make it as bad as 4th edition, and this is better than that.
But a better question would be what would you have done to make the cleric still wantable, but less god-like? The wizard's still exactly the same, and even had their 20th lvl ability removed from the beta because they were still so powerful. Would you have just left the cleric alone like the wizard, in exchange for full plate?
Okay, take two. Maybe I was too tired. I don't disagree that the original class didn't need improvement. I disagree with the direction the class took as you no longer get the main reasons people took the class in the first place.
I can see that, but personally I like the direction it took.
P.S. The wording on the natural weapons was clear, they didn't want it or then energy damage they deal to be up all the time.
I agree that the wording is clear, I was just thinking that since the claws were inherited from the sorcerer and in the beta they were unlimited that perhaps when they changed the sorcerer's powers they forgot about the effect it would have on the DD. Obviously pure conjecture on my part.
I don't really care for the limited claws. I like to think it was an oversight in the final and not an intentional cut. Regardless, we're kind of stuck with it.
Most of the stuff you are talking about is part of the capstone. The class is essentially really mediocre and bleh then at 10th level gets this really nice capstone. The effect is it sucks for anyone who actually has to play through it but if you make a paper character at 16th level it's decent.
I think ALOT of people will be house-ruling unlimited claws.
At the least it really seems that Dragon Disciple should have ended the claw/bite limitation at some point - the energy damage could have continued to be limited separately. I don't think you can even say the claws/bite are "that great" vs. a manufactured weapon, the main advantage besides not being Disarm-able is using the same Amulet to enhance your attacks in both normal and Dragon Form 2.The new DD seems ALOT better to play from level 1 to 20.
@Hexen: DD *does* gain Wings, and *does* gain Energy Resistance (and Immunity w/ BL Capstone)
How has DR changed? AFAIK it's still more or less identical to the 3.5 system.
A +3 weapon automatically counts as silver and cold iron, +4 counts as adamantine, and +5 counts as every alignment.
As for mithril, it counts as one lighter, so why do you need H.A.P.?
"Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. This decrease does not apply to proficiency in wearing the armor."
There is a specific exception for Elven Chain, which is light but costs 1000gp more than normal mithral chainmail.
|
|
"Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. This decrease does not apply to proficiency in wearing the armor."
There is a specific exception for Elven Chain, which is light but costs 1000gp more than normal mithral chainmail.
Or unless it says otherwise as well, I suppose. The relic chainmail I wear counts as light. I wondered if that'd be the counter argument. A simple solution for that is house ruling that, but truthfully the counter argument again would be that you shouldn't have to.
Now I hope it doesnt come accross as me kissing butt, but I honestly could not find 1 thing on that list i disliked more than 3.5 lol
I agree with you, I enjoy PF more than 3.5 in every way. There are some spots that they missed, but overall in a straight comparison 3.5 came up way short.
Honestly, I find the removal of a free proficiency from mithral to be both mechanically cheese-reducing and more realistic. I don't care how light your full plate suit is, it's still significantly more restrictive to your range of movement than a sleeveless breastplate and you don't automatically know how to move effectively in it. The check penalty (i.e. non-proficiency penalty) is reduced significantly, which is enough to reflect its reduced bulk.
|
|
How has DR changed? AFAIK it's still more or less identical to the 3.5 system.A +3 weapon automatically counts as silver and cold iron, +4 counts as adamantine, and +5 counts as every alignment.
I don't see that as a bad thing... I've seen a TPK (and a near TPK) happen with high-level parties when the PCs weren't carrying around those 'Golf Bags of Weapons' (in the latter case the difference between CR and average party level was 6 in favor of the PCs; we were all equipped with +5 stuff but we would have needed adamantine and good weapons to bypass DR, I think). Note that it's easy to ignore the '+X counts as...'-part of the rule if it bothers you, but I'm glad that those plusses once again count for something (and every "melee" PC doesn't need to slug 5 or 6 magical weapons around "just in case we bump into something that had DR/X and Y").
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
As for mithril, it counts as one lighter, so why do you need H.A.P.? To change that image would make it as bad as 4th edition, and this is better than that.
But a better question would be what would you have done to make the cleric still wantable ... Would you have just left the cleric alone like the wizard, in exchange for full plate?
They "fixed" mithril, since in 3.5 it (officially) required H.A.P. but was a weekly debate on the threads with people dissecting the meaning of "limitations" to include/not include Proficiency (and totally ignoring the Official answer of "you need it.")
In 3.p, you need it by RAW (which is great! Less debate = happier players/GMs.)
As for the cleric, I play clerics. I'd be happy with the cleric pretty much if you kept H.A.P. and Domains identical (backward compatible) to 3.5 rules. They trashed the Cleric Beta Domain changes (which was a show stopper for me, as in I couldn't switch to 3.p if Domains changed the way they were in the Beta.)
So to answer you, I don't care. I'd be happy with most anything in exchange for H.A.P. including "lose 1 spell slot of your 4th level spells or the highest you have if less than 4th" to "-2 DC on Channel" to "1d6 less channel" to some other similar power limiter. So long as it is of equal "value" I wouldn't care (and I've not spent enough to know if my 3 off the cuff examples I just dreamed up here are balanced or not.)
|
|
They "fixed" mithril, since in 3.5 it (officially) required H.A.P. but was a weekly debate on the threads with people dissecting the meaning of "limitations" to include/not include Proficiency (and totally ignoring the Official answer of "you need it.")
In 3.p, you need it by RAW (which is great! Less debate = happier players/GMs.)
As for the cleric, I play clerics. I'd be happy with the cleric pretty much if you kept H.A.P. and Domains identical (backward compatible) to 3.5 rules. They trashed the Cleric Beta Domain changes (which was a show stopper for me, as in I couldn't switch to 3.p if Domains changed the way they were in the Beta.)
So to answer you, I don't care. I'd be happy with most anything in exchange for H.A.P. including "lose 1 spell slot of your 4th level spells or the highest you have if less than 4th" to "-2 DC on Channel" to "1d6 less channel" to some other similar power limiter. So long as it is of equal "value" I wouldn't care (and I've not spent enough to know if my 3 off the cuff examples I just dreamed up here are balanced or not.)
Yeah our group debated that alot so we just ruled it to count in 3.5 and forever.
As for the cleric, you don't get anything at 20th for it to be all that much worth taking (two extra spells) so really you could do a one class dip into Fighter to get the H.A.P. and gain an additional feat that probably help beat the snot out of your next opponent, or you could have Channel Energy happen ever third level instead of every second. Or it could happen during the old feat progression (1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18). Or, you can just spend a feat on it. You get 10 now instead of 7.
Last day left to vote.
1: Channel Energy. Anyone who has had a fair look at my posts will know I dislike this abiilty. I honestly feel it doesn't "fix" the problem intended (Make clerics less healing focused).
2. Sorcerer Bloodlines. For a similar reason, I don't feel it really fixes what's wrong with the sorcerer. Additionally, theres also the fluff elements which are tied quite closely to the mechanics. May seem pretty minor, but it's always struck a chord with me.
3. Smite Evil. Smite evil was a little lackluster before (in fact, my 3.5 group tended to just use smite similarly to how it was in Beta, lasting for an entire round). However the current version seems too much. Against problematic foes (such as flying ones), the paladin still suffers, but evil foes that can be struck stand no chance now, leaving almost no middle ground.
4. Skill Consolidation (to an extent). I liked the idea of combining skills (like Stealth), but I felt the excecution can still be better. About 9/10 characters I've seen since then have had a least a few ranks in perception because it's so useful, but no one still takes swim. I would have liked to have seen some more of the lesser use skills combined to make them more appealing, and some of the more useful ones spread just a little (for instance, adding the much debated athletics, combining some of the knowledge skills, and maybe keeping search seperate but keeping spot and listen combined).
5. Humans. Alot of people will disagree with me here, but I felt humans were always too powerful simply because of the versitility of a bonus feat. Getting to choose where they place their stat bonus as well seems overkill.
I guess that it's, no 6th one. Theres other things I dislike (such as favoured enemy bonuses, they seem a little redundent to me and more like a holdover) but aren't really significant enough for me to complain about, and things which they didn't change though I wish they did (adding more to the fighter for instance), but what I'd describe as "Worst changes made" only fills 5 slots.
I don't see that as a bad thing... I've seen a TPK (and a near TPK) happen with high-level parties when the PCs weren't carrying around those 'Golf Bags of Weapons' (in the latter case the difference between CR and average party level was 6 in favor of the PCs; we were all equipped with +5 stuff but we would have needed adamantine and good weapons to bypass DR, I think). Note that it's easy to ignore the '+X counts as...'-part of the rule if it bothers you, but I'm glad that those plusses once again count for something (and every "melee" PC doesn't need to slug 5 or 6 magical weapons around "just in case we bump into something that had DR/X and Y").
I actually don't like that idea that much. It makes special materials pointless in my eyes. Though are you sure Paizo kept it? I can't seem to find any mention of such a rule in the SRD..
For mithral armor, the 3.5 stance was officially that you did NOT need the higher armor prof to wear it. Written up in the sage.
I can name several changes.
1) Half orc racial bonuses are wrong. +2 to Str adn Con, -2 to one Mental stat of their choice would have been perfect with both flavor and flexibility.
2) Adamantine Armor not stacking with other DR. There is literally no reason to ever use Adamantine armor. gain the Armor Spec feat for dr 2/-, or just wait until level 19 as a Fighter for DR 5/-. Wear Mithral.
3) Smite just a bit overdone with the double dmg.
4) Multiple Attacks not a class feature, but a BAB feature...still.
5) Vital strike not a class feature of melee classes. Having them be automatically effective on standard actions? You mean, Like spellcasters?
6) melee guys not getting Pounce automatically.
7) What is it with this reluctance to give Melees decent saves?
==Aelryinth
Adamantine Armor *never* stacked. It's not a change (though perhaps a fair compliant).
Quite frankly the only bone I had was how easy they made it to bypass pre-requisites for magic item creation including caster level by just pumping up skill points.
From teh rules "In addition, you cannot create spell-
trigger and spell-completion magic items without meetingtheir spell prerequisites."
So not quite all of them.
|
|
1: Channel Energy. Anyone who has had a fair look at my posts will know I dislike this abiilty. I honestly feel it doesn't "fix" the problem intended (Make clerics less healing focused).
I can not agree more. Save the channel healing for clerics that want to be the partry healers rather than even worse than before shoehorn the entire class into that role.
3. Smite Evil. Smite evil was a little lackluster before (in fact, my 3.5 group tended to just use smite similarly to how it was in Beta, lasting for an entire round). However the current version seems too much. Against problematic foes (such as flying ones), the paladin still suffers, but evil foes that can be struck stand no chance now, leaving almost no middle ground.
I had similar problems. It was either useless a lot of the time, or in certain boss fights all of the sudden ramped up the Paladin, but only a round or two. However, now I think the Paladin is just way to good.
|
|
Adamantine Armor *never* stacked. It's not a change (though perhaps a fair compliant).
I think what they are trying to say is that D.R. is just so easy to bypass now, and also to gain, (via feats, or a few different class levels) that Adamantine Armor is too expensive and pointless, unless it stacks, which it still does not. There is little reason to want Adamantine Armor.
|
|
1) Half orc racial bonuses are wrong. +2 to Str adn Con, -2 to one Mental stat of their choice would have been perfect with both flavor and flexibility.
While I agree with you, to a point, those stats where specifically not chosen because they did not want Half-Orcs to be Melee characters only. Which is exactly what those stats would reenforce. However, I do not like the Half-Orc as it is now. In my opinion, the Beta was perfect, finally giving a good Cleric/Druid Base Race that isn't Dwarf.
6) melee guys not getting Pounce automatically.
Are you serious? Do you know what Pounce does or is this a joke?
7) What is it with this reluctance to give Melees decent saves?
Many people think that Fort saves are the most important save to have good. I think that as it is now is perfect, minus the Paladin losing Will again. As is, Pathfinder has really made D&D a noncasters game. They don't need more, again my opinion.
Glad to see that less people liked the "fix" to spiked chains than dislike it. Totally unnecessary to make a feat mechanically inferior to a martial weapon and requiring an additional feat for "flavor" reasons. Absolutely wrong way to go about it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
one class dip into Fighter to get the H.A.P. and gain an additional feat ... Or, you can just spend a feat on it. You get 10 now instead of 7.
The fighter dip wouldn't work for a spellcasting Cleric. I currently would take a feat for it, but I just feel "dirty" taking a feat for something that by all rights belongs to a Cleric by default (H.A.P.)
one class dip into Fighter to get the H.A.P. and gain an additional feat ... Or, you can just spend a feat on it. You get 10 now instead of 7.The fighter dip wouldn't work for a spellcasting Cleric. I currently would take a feat for it, but I just feel "dirty" taking a feat for something that by all rights belongs to a Cleric by default (H.A.P.)
Why wouldn't the fighter dip work for a spell casting cleric?
I actually don't like that idea that much. It makes special materials pointless in my eyes. Though are you sure Paizo kept it? I can't seem to find any mention of such a rule in the SRD..
I don't see that as a bad thing... I've seen a TPK (and a near TPK) happen with high-level parties when the PCs weren't carrying around those 'Golf Bags of Weapons' (in the latter case the difference between CR and average party level was 6 in favor of the PCs; we were all equipped with +5 stuff but we would have needed adamantine and good weapons to bypass DR, I think). Note that it's easy to ignore the '+X counts as...'-part of the rule if it bothers you, but I'm glad that those plusses once again count for something (and every "melee" PC doesn't need to slug 5 or 6 magical weapons around "just in case we bump into something that had DR/X and Y").
P561 and 562 of the Core book, under Damage Reduction. You may want to look at Damage Reduction in the SRD.
1: Channel Energy. Anyone who has had a fair look at my posts will know I dislike this abiilty. I honestly feel it doesn't "fix" the problem intended (Make clerics less healing focused).
From what I recall in the beta channel energy was changed to:
It did all of these things fairly well. I never heard it suggested the goal was to make the class less healing focused.
It does more or less cements the cleric class as the ultimate healing class and I am not entirely happy with that.
Adamantine Armor *never* stacked. It's not a change (though perhaps a fair compliant).
Huh... I'm a little confused now, because I specifically remember text stating that damage reduction from multiple sources did not stack unless it was DR/-, in which case it stacked both with other DR/- and DR of another type.
d20srd has no such exception, though. Did anyone else see this somewhere, or am I just crazy? (...was that 3.0?)
|
|
They "fixed" mithril, since in 3.5 it (officially) required H.A.P. but was a weekly debate on the threads with people dissecting the meaning of "limitations" to include/not include Proficiency (and totally ignoring the Official answer of "you need it.")Magic Item Compendium ruled on it in print, and said "You don't need it."
Plus the fAQ since 3.0. I think they are confussed on what the official answer actually was. It has always officially been yes it grants proficiency because it says for ALL purposses. With PathFinder, it is the first time they changed it, and I gather that was much more to codify only Paladins and Fighters are allowed to have heavy armor than to "fix" mithral.
|
|
The fly skill I have to say was probably amongst the best changes made to the game. It managed to codify and simplify the rules on flying. A friend of mine and the Dm had a disaggrement on how the mechanics of the Overland flight spell worked.
This I don't get. 3E Flight was simple and clear. At least to me, I can't even see where people are getting confussed. All PathFinder has done is make it so that you need to roll to do something you either could or could not before, and made the rules for flying something you actually have to look into a lot when used.
I really really prefer 3E's version, it is smaller, straight forward, and while not clearer, requires a lot less indepth rules to use on the fly (no pun intended). However, it is not that big of a deal to me to say it is worst or terrible, more a not for me type thing. But I would like to understand why 3E Flight is so bad to some people?
Why wouldn't the fighter dip work for a spell casting cleric?Rule #1 "Thou Shalt Not Sacrifice Caster Level"
But sure, if you don't mind making a less effective spellcasting character take lots of non-spellcasting classes.
Ah, ok. I was thinking that you were saying that the cleric would not be able to wear the heavy armor and cast.
Adamantine Armor *never* stacked. It's not a change (though perhaps a fair compliant).Huh... I'm a little confused now, because I specifically remember text stating that damage reduction from multiple sources did not stack unless it was DR/-, in which case it stacked both with other DR/- and DR of another type.
d20srd has no such exception, though. Did anyone else see this somewhere, or am I just crazy? (...was that 3.0?)
I know that the Magic Item Compendium calls it out with regards to a particular suit of adamantine breastplate (Breastplate of Terror) from the Armor of the Watchful Master, so it could be taken as being an exception, rather than a consistent rule.
DR doesn't stack unless it's from same source or specifically allows it.
Thus, the DR from adamantine doesn't stack with DR from Barb levels or the DR from the feat Armor Specialization (this last really grinds me).
Now a fighter who eventually gets to wear Full Plate with no move penalty has to make a choice...picking up DR 3/- or getting a +2 Dex bonus to AC and lower ACP?
He thinks about it, realizes he's going to get DR 5/- at level 19, trumping adamantine armor, and he can take mithral, get his +2, and perhaps burn a feat for DR 2/-, and be happy.
DR x/- from class levels, any class levels, stacks. Thus Barb stacks with Dwarven Defender. Roll With It stacks for the DR it is aimed at. DR from armor does not stack with class levels does not stack with feats, unless specifically stated otherwise.
They did such a good job fixing mithral, why didn't they fix adamant?
BTW, the Change to DR punching is a Good Thing. Finally, a great reason to get +5 weapons. It changes my ideal weapon to +5 APtitude Martial (pick your stance) Magebane Wounding with a Truedeath Augment Crystal (for Ghost Touch). +9/+6 and punches all DR and hits everything, baby, with a Bane effect against spellcasters and Wounding for all those high hp, high con, high HD monsters.
==Aelryinth
I too miss the "DR Change" option. I'll definitely be ignoring that change in my campaigns - I like my DR 5/silver to actually mean something, and it's not like a +5 to damage really gets screwed up that much by the low DR levels. I mean, is it really so hard to lose 15 points of damage at high levels? The whole point of the 3.5 revision to DR was to make it mean something again.
And it's not like there aren't enhancements you can pay for to deal with the fictional "golf bag" syndrome I've never actually seen happen.
Allowing anyone, via a Perception roll, to detect traps (sorry if it was already mentioned).
It's a HUGE bonus to the party, but it strips the Rogue of being, well, a Rogue.
Played our first Pathfinder session last night and it was really fun!
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Magic Item Compendium ruled on it in print, and said "You don't need it."Plus the fAQ since 3.0. I think they are confussed on what the official answer actually was.
The MIC did spell it out, I hadn't noticed/remembered that. The FAQ has always maintained that "by RAW" it didn't cover proficiency, but assumed most DM's would allow it to provide proficiency.
3.5 FAQ says:
"The simplest answer and the one that the Sage expects most players and DMs use is that mithral armor is treated as one category lighter for all purposes, including proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the Dungeon Master’s Guide says"
I specifically remember text stating that damage reduction from multiple sources did not stack unless it was DR/-, in which case it stacked both with other DR/- and DR of another type
DR/- doesn't stack, but some DR/- (like barbarian) stack with other DR/- effects (as an exemption to the general DR doesn't ever stack rule.)
|
|
I specifically remember text stating that damage reduction from multiple sources did not stack unless it was DR/-, in which case it stacked both with other DR/- and DR of another typeDR/- doesn't stack, but some DR/- (like barbarian) stack with other DR/- effects (as an exemption to the general DR doesn't ever stack rule.)
What you may be confussing here isn't that say DR 5/Silver + Dr 10/Siler = DR 15/Silver
But rather DR 5/Siler + DR 5/Good + DR 5/Magic can mean DR 5/Silver, Magic, AND Good, or DR 5/Silver OR Magic OR Good. It also said something about how DR 3/- and DR 5/? did not stack (because they are different numbers and would always be one or the other [and essentually did stack]).
|
|
I too miss the "DR Change" option. I'll definitely be ignoring that change in my campaigns - I like my DR 5/silver to actually mean something, and it's not like a +5 to damage really gets screwed up that much by the low DR levels. I mean, is it really so hard to lose 15 points of damage at high levels? The whole point of the 3.5 revision to DR was to make it mean something again.
And it's not like there aren't enhancements you can pay for to deal with the fictional "golf bag" syndrome I've never actually seen happen.
Actually, I've seen it happen, and once it even lead to a TPK (a surprise encounter with an evil adventuring party that included a vampire two-weapon fighter, who pretty much slaughtered everyone).
Here's the caveat: we're not very good at character optimization, and there are no magic item shops in out campaigns. Yet I know that the system (more or less) holds together at high levels *IF* (and only if) the DM (and, naturally, all players) utilize the '+1 per three levels'-expectation and the 'Wealth-by-Level'-table (with everyone having "free access" to magical gear, especially potions and scrolls). This problem can be circumvented if the spellcasters make sure they have (either memorized, or as scrolls or potions) spells that speficially deal with the "DR problem" ('Align Weapon', for example). In my experience many "old skool" players and DMs, however, are not comfortable with these "requirements", and problems may ensue because the "numbers" often do not equal the expectations underlying the rules.
Try fighting a regenerating creature with a weapon that does not bypass DR, such as a vampire -- that 15 points per strike (assuming every one of them hits) will, in total, accumulate to 60 points less in a round. And that will turn a melee easily into a "grind", even if the PCs would eventually triumph. I can't even recall how many times the PCs had to hastily retreat to rest (occasionally in the middle of the first encounter of the day) because the damage bonuses of the "melee" PCs were ineffectual in regard to a monster's DR (and, sometimes, the regeneration/fast healing).
I'm a bit amazed that people criticize the new DR system, because I see it using the "best of the both worlds"; now my fighter's +5 Vorpal Greatsword actually *can* bypass the vampire's DR, and I don't need to spend an action rummaging through my Handy Haversack for "Weapon number #12" or delay and wait for the spellcasters to cast the necessary spells on my weapon.
Here's the thing: if you're unhappy with how it works, just ignore the '+X equals...'-part of the rules, and you're fine, right?