Overcoming DR: Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.
Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon (in addition to any alignment it may already have).
Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.
DR Type Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent
cold iron/silver +3
adamantine* +4
alignment-based +5
* Note that this does not give the ability to ignore hardness, like an actual adamantine weapon does
Sooo.... Other than weight reasons, there is Zero reason to have a magical mithral/Silver and cold iron weapon past +2 enhancement bonus to hit. This is especially true with cold iron as that costs more per enhancement, as it would be far better to spend that gold on making the weapon a +3, which will save you more gold in the long run.
I think I saw this in beta, and I thought it was killed. Personally I think this was a rather horrible idea. If I run a game I think this is one thing that is going to need to go.
Your thoughts?
As pointed out in another thread (I believe one of the multi-topic ones, possibly "Things you might not have Realized") this actually gives more value to the previously boring and generic +3, +4 or +5 weapons. Unless I was building something like a Kensai or Arcane Archer, I always used to get that first +1 and then from there it was all Keen-this, Flaming-that, Bane-the-other-thing. Now I've got more to consider. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.
Wait.. Explain to me again why would you bother getting a cold iron weapon if you already have a +3 weapon?
Wait.. Explain to me again why would you bother getting a cold iron weapon if you already have a +3 weapon?
Generally, you wouldn't. The things you need to weigh are having a +3 weapon vs. having a +1 Flaming Burst Weapon. They cost the same, but the flaming burst weapon doesn't overcome the DR and would therefore mean that the character would still want the alternate material weapons.
Wait.. Explain to me again why would you bother getting a cold iron weapon if you already have a +3 weapon?
You might not, but you might want a +1 Evil Ousider Bane keen cold iron weapon.
So Mithral, Silver, and Cold Iron weapons become obsolete at +3 enhancement..
That doesn't strike anyone as really bad?
I do sort of like this from a player's perspective as TWFs get kicked in the giblets a little less because of this, but from a indifferent perspective it seems to make, for the majority of play, these materials useless. Most won't even bother with cold iron due to the massive costs to weapon enhancements, mithral because of raw material costs, and silver due to the reduction of damage.
|
How about the original rule, which seems to have beencut from the final for simplicities sake?
But, what if a weapon fulfils both criteria? What if a weapon is both adamantine and has a powerful enhancement bonus? Or is both holy and +4? If the weapon is both of the right material or alignment and has an enhancement bonus equal to the "exception" level on the chart above (in other words, the perfect weapon for the job), it inflicts an additional +2 damage bonus to the creature.Thus, a +2 silvered longsword inflicts an additional +2 damage against a werewolf. A +4 holy mace inflicts an additional +2 damage against a balor.
Obviously, the damage reduction of /magic remains the same, although conceivably it might be worth our time to reinstate the idea of DR /magic (+2) or DR /magic (+4), to add some robustness to the system
So Mithral, Silver, and Cold Iron weapons become obsolete at +3 enhancement..
That doesn't strike anyone as really bad?
I do sort of like this from a player's perspective as TWFs get kicked in the giblets a little less because of this, but from a indifferent perspective it seems to make, for the majority of play, these materials useless. Most won't even bother with cold iron due to the massive costs to weapon enhancements, mithral because of raw material costs, and silver due to the reduction of damage.
Again, you seem to be ignoring (or at the very least not addressing) the points made by myself or others. In the previous system there was little reason to take a +4 Scimitar over a +1 Keen Flaming Burst Scimitar. By the book, they're both worth the same but 99 out of 100 players would take the latter.
In the early game, which is where most players spend most of their time, the special materials are still very much a part of the game. A +3 weapon is 18,000 GP. That constitues more than 50% of your expected wealth until you hit 11th level. Up until that point, having a special material weapon, even the expensive ones, is far more affordable.
Oh, and I'll point out that Cold Iron is still a bad idea, but it's not quite as bad anymore. It's just an extra +2000 up front, instead of making every single enhancement cost a fortune.
Once you get to the point where you can afford +3 weapons, you now have a choice to make. Do I want to have a bunch of nifty abilities, or have a utilitarian but still effective weapon?
So Mithral, Silver, and Cold Iron weapons become obsolete at +3 enhancement..
That doesn't strike anyone as really bad?
I do sort of like this from a player's perspective as TWFs get kicked in the giblets a little less because of this, but from a indifferent perspective it seems to make, for the majority of play, these materials useless. Most won't even bother with cold iron due to the massive costs to weapon enhancements, mithral because of raw material costs, and silver due to the reduction of damage.
Again, you seem to be ignoring (or at the very least not addressing) the points made by myself or others. In the previous system there was little reason to take a +4 Scimitar over a +1 Keen Flaming Burst Scimitar. By the book, they're both worth the same but 99 out of 100 players would take the latter.
In the early game, which is where most players spend most of their time, the special materials are still very much a part of the game. A +3 weapon is 18,000 GP. That constitues more than 50% of your expected wealth until you hit 11th level. Up until that point, having a special material weapon, even the expensive ones, is far more affordable.
Oh, and I'll point out that Cold Iron is still a bad idea, but it's not quite as bad anymore. It's just an extra +2000 up front, instead of making every single enhancement cost a fortune.
Once you get to the point where you can afford +3 weapons, you now have a choice to make. Do I want to have a bunch of nifty abilities, or have a utilitarian but still effective weapon?
Well I guess I was just one of those weird people who got that mostly enhancement bonus cold iron weapons, using gloves that made them count as silver, and a ring that made them count as adamantine. I get what your saying now. Most valued bane, some bonus damage, and keen over a +4 weapon. Okay.
So non enhancement bonuses were too powerful, or enhancement bonuses were too week. I guess the latter was a better choice for change, if they needed to be. I still don't like the idea of materials becoming obsolete.
I totally used cold iron, and counted on it being an issue, so that DR/adamantire was never really an issue.
And preemptively: greater magic weapon explicitly does not make the weapon overcome anything but DR/magic. :)
Dunno... I see the arguments in favor, and they're good ones, but I still really don't like that special materials become useless. I think a better solution may have been to have +X weapons overcome 2X points of DR at all times... so a plain +3 weapon vs. an enemy with DR 10/good reduces that to DR 4, and a skeleton only has DR 3 against a +1 longsword.
Granted this is a little more bookkeeping for whoever is keeping track of the DR, but still... at least the balor still has DR 5 against an otherwise unremarkable +5 weapon, y'know? And I think it makes enhancement vs. special quality a much harder decision, which is an advantage over both 3.5 and 3.p: switching from one apparent no-brainer to another isn't progress in my book.
What I really dislike about it (and mentioned in another thread), is that now you'll get very little variety in weapons, especially at high levels. There's just no competition for a plain +5 weapon anymore, whereas before you could easily want to keep a +3 axiomatic cold iron weapon instead of a generic +5 weapon.. Any time a change causes more genericness, that's a poor change in my book. It just irks me that a lycanthrope-fighter would be better served by a generic +3 weapon than by a +2 silver weapon.
Also, and this is perhaps even worse, this change means DR is worthless as a defensive ability on high-CR monsters. Take the Pit Fiend, for instance. At first glance, the DR 15/good and silver sounds like a pretty neat ability, but then you consider that it is CR 20.. Any fighter who will fight CR 20 monsters as an appropriate challenge will have a +5 weapon with this system, which means the DR may as well not have been printed for all the good it does.
At least with the old system, the Pit Fiend's DR meant it would last a few turns extra and actually make for a memorable fight, unless the party was sufficiently prepared for just such an eventuality, of course :)
Yep... pretty much everything Are said. :)
Are, read my post just above... what do you think of that as a house rule replacement? Does it need a little more, or a little less? With that scheme, a +3 weapon is still all you need against an afflicted lycanthrope (only has DR 5, +3 overcomes 6) but you still want silver for a natural lycanthrope until you can get +5 (at which point lycanthropes are probably not a meaningful challenge anyway).
An alternative might be to just double the damage bonus for an enhanced weapon. A +1 enhancement then gives +1 to hit, but +2 damage. This overcomes damage reduction by brute force (and by less than the other idea), but makes +2 vs. +1 flaming a more difficult decision in all cases, not just against creatures with DR.
I see it as a good thing.
You used to only see +1 weapons with a lot of other enhancements. Now you will start to see both.
Special material weapons will still stick around, as players will add to the enhancement of their current weapons rather than drop them for a new shinny (or at least that has been my experience).
If a fighter has a +3 silversheen keen flaming demonbane scimitar, they will most likely not ditch it just for the fight against a balor (and where do you get a +5 weapon on short notice to either buy or borrow?).
|
Because most PC's don't get the option to just run out and buy a +3 sword?
A +3 sword you have is probably coming from upgrades and could easily have started out as a +1 silver or +1 cold iron sword that just as you reach those mid levels is just then cresting to +3 through upgrades.
I really hate all these hypothetical situations that keep cropping up with the assumption you just have a huge pile of gold and some kind of magic item vending machine.
A long time ago Monte Cook posted up something similar to this system as a freebie on his website. In that system, +2 bypassed silver and damage type, +3 bypassed cold iron and adamantine, and +4 bypassed alignment-based. +5 didn't really do anything special. I've been using this system in my home games for oh, about six years now, and IMHO, it works for what it was intended to do, to beef up the utility of +2-5 enhancements for weapons, and to reduce the dependency of many PCs on the "golf bag" of multiple weapons. The Pathfinder version is a bit more tame than this, and so it seems perfectly fine to me.
What I really dislike about it (and mentioned in another thread), is that now you'll get very little variety in weapons, especially at high levels. There's just no competition for a plain +5 weapon anymore, whereas before you could easily want to keep a +3 axiomatic cold iron weapon instead of a generic +5 weapon.. Any time a change causes more genericness, that's a poor change in my book. It just irks me that a lycanthrope-fighter would be better served by a generic +3 weapon than by a +2 silver weapon.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have an adamantine +1 holy, evil-outsider bane weapon (on which your party spellcaster can cast Greater Magic Weapon, and on which I can use Silversheen) and a backup +3 weapon (to penetrate DR/cold iron) than a +5 weapon.
Of course, if you don't have a party spellcaster who's willing to cast GMW or Align Weapon for you, then the +5 weapon is looking better, I suppose.
It feels to me like the DR still hasn't settled into a sweet spot.
In 3.0, damage reduction was always N/+X (and N was usually quite large), so there was a continually race to the enhancement bonus on your weapon high enough so that you could overcome DR. The "cool" enhancements like flaming or bane waited until you had +5, which often meant you never got to them.
That problem was solved in 3.5, where +1 and +5 where equal, in that both would overcome DR /magic. It instead introduced the golf-bag problem. Now everyone has at least three weapons (one each of bludgeoning, piercing and slashing made from mithral/silver, adamantine and cold iron) and hopes they don't encounter something with DR / bludgeoning and cold iron when their warhammer is silver.
There was also (in 3.5) a tendency to not enhance your weapon past +1, since the +1d6 damage enhancements were often considered more effective. The +X enhancements essential went from "must have" to "clearly suboptimal" status.
The latest version is probably an attempt to balance things again. There is the option to have a +5 weapon that beats almost all DR. (It still won't beat DR / bludgeoning if it's a sword.) You can also have a +1 flaming shocking keen spell storing mithral sword, a +1 cold iron warhammer and a +1 adamantine heavy pick. The latter costs a bit more (100k vs 106k and weapon costs), but at that level, it's not a notable cost. (You also probably found your backup weapons in loot, so you saved the loss from selling them.) When you can use your main weapon, you will do a lot more damage, especially if the party wizard/cleric casts Greater Magic Weapon on your sword so you're not missing much on your to-hit bonus.
Without having played them, I'm not certain which set of weapons is a better choice. Possibly, they are two equally viable options. Likely, which is better depends on the campaign. In a "tour of all the planes" campaign, you'll probably want the +5 sword since you'll see all types of DR. In "slog through Gehenna", you can pick the optimal metal and then add on damage boosters, since you'll mostly see one type of DR.
|
Personally, I like the 3.0 version. It makes encounters feel different. 3.5 screwed that up for me whith things like werewolves are just a little harder to kill without silver, but not much.
In my house rule, all weapons had to have a +1 for each special enhancement equivalent. So a +1 Flaming sword was fine, but it had to be a +2 before adding anything else, bane or vorpal. It keeps the +'s up, and still allows for unique special properties, as well as materials. Cold Iron still kind of screwed though, so I usually made it a one time +2,000 gp thing.
|
|
Or they could have just expanded the Monster's DR /Magic which is uber lame to DR / Magic +1, +2, +3, etc depending on their CR. For example the CR 19 Ancient Red Dragon should have more than the puny DR 15/magic. Every adventurer will have magic weapons! The Dragon should at least have Dr 15/ Magic +4!!!
--+1 Vrocking Burst Greatsword!
There was also (in 3.5) a tendency to not enhance your weapon past +1, since the +1d6 damage enhancements were often considered more effective. The +X enhancements essential went from "must have" to "clearly suboptimal" status.
For most of the players in my group, getting the equivalent of 3 feats (Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus) or 1 extremely good feat (Melee/Ranged Weapon Mastery) was definitely worth going from +1 to +3 or +3 to +5; much more so than most of the +2 enhancements (although they liked having 1 or 2 enhancements; never more than that before the weapon was +5 though). It helps to hit monsters some times, too.
If your groups didn't feel that way (and from the threads in this post it seems this was the case for most of you), then I suppose this change is for the good for your groups.. For my group it will lead to less diversity in weapon selections.
And to those who ask "but where do you get a +5 weapon?", I can just turn that right around to "where do you get the +1 weapon with 4-5 enhancements?". They're no easier to get..
Not to mention that it makes absolutely no sense (from a flavor point of view) for a monster that fears silver to fear +3 nonsilver weapons more than +2 silver weapons, or similar.
And to those who ask "but where do you get a +5 weapon?", I can just turn that right around to "where do you get the +1 weapon with 4-5 enhancements?". They're no easier to get..
Most of the +1 weapons with several enhancements are gradually enhanced over the character's career.
Ex. Party runs into some drakes/dragons, barely wins, and decides that they need a boost -so add dragon's bane to weapons; Later, the party fight some demons/devils, so they add in demon bane (evil outsider bane), etc..We are talking about a party going down the road to xxx and buying a +5 weapon because they know that they are going up against a pit demon. Even if they had the extra cash, the party would likely have trouble finding such a weapon for sale, especially at short notice.
Most parties would likely make sure that they had access to align weapon and greater magic weapon spells.
Not to mention that it makes absolutely no sense (from a flavor point of view) for a monster that fears silver to fear +3 nonsilver weapons more than +2 silver weapons, or similar.
Why would they not fear the +2 silver weapon? I can see them avoiding it and only "fearing" the +3 weapon after getting hit with it. And even then, may fear the silver weapon more because it "burns".
We are talking about a party going down the road to xxx and buying a +5 weapon because they know that they are going up against a pit demon. Even if they had the extra cash, the party would likely have trouble finding such a weapon for sale, especially at short notice.
You are missing the point. Before, they actually had to try to find a Holy silver weapon if they knew they were coming up against a Pit Fiend. Now, they already have the +5 weapon, because there's no reason not to have a +5 weapon, so it doesn't matter if they know they're facing a Pit Fiend or not.
Why would they not fear the +2 silver weapon? I can see them avoiding it and only "fearing" the +3 weapon after getting hit with it. And even then, may fear the silver weapon more because it "burns".
I'm not saying they won't fear the +2 silver weapon at all. But the +3 weapon hurts they more, and hurts them more often (+1 both attack roll and damage roll). Which makes no sense, since they're supposed to be taking more damage from silver.
Have your party wizard cast Greater Magic Weapon daily.
If you're actually going to have the benefit of GMW all day, you would need your party Wizard to cast it multiple times. And not only on one weapon, but on every frontline fighters' weapons. I've never met a Wizard player who wanted every single one of his 3rd level spell slots (or any Cleric player who wanted all his 4th level spell slots) memorized to be GMW.
If you assume you're only going to have 1 encounter per day, then obviously this is the better choice. But in games where I am DM, and in virtually every game where I've been a player, you can assume 3-4 encounters per day, and they're not always lined up within the duration of a GMW.
Edit: Speaking of the party wizard; how would he like it when his Stoneskin doesn't help at all against the high-level NPC with a +4 weapon? I'm quite certain that my players would hate that, even if they liked overcoming DR with +X enhancements themselves :)
Because most PC's don't get the option to just run out and buy a +3 sword?
A +3 sword you have is probably coming from upgrades and could easily have started out as a +1 silver or +1 cold iron sword that just as you reach those mid levels is just then cresting to +3 through upgrades.
I really hate all these hypothetical situations that keep cropping up with the assumption you just have a huge pile of gold and some kind of magic item vending machine.
If you read the 3.5 DMG the default/standard fantasy setting is a specific sized community gives access to buying magic items up to a certain gold value, just as they say items can be sold for half market price (and trade goods for full price). Typically by the time you could afford the item in question you easily had access to a community size that could provide what you were "interested" in. If your DM is not following that they are probably trying to keep a tighter rein on things and are being more controlling then the default rules state for whatever reason (good or bad, it is off topic). Either way your argument is actually more "hypothetical" than saying they cannot get a specific item (as they can by the default rules of the game) or they wouldn't have the gold to do so FYI.
Regardless the change really helps those that run pregenerated stand alone adventures as they tend to have generic +X items not knowing what the PC's might have had from before or would be useful against what might come later. Also it makes sure an item could be useful once picked up as opposed to left in the bag someplace until it can be sold or traded for something more in line with what the party requires (IE the character really wants to get an outsider bane weapon when they can return to the city but as the magic bonus on that random sword bypasses the DR they can continue on through the dungeon not being completely handicapped with no way to deal with the DR the BBEG has - in the long run it will be replaced, but it has its immediate uses as well).
And as the last few posters seemed to miss it (I haven't got the book to double check at the moment but usually a statement like this means it is in there):
And preemptively: greater magic weapon explicitly does not make the weapon overcome anything but DR/magic. :)
What I'm getting is that normally you had to carry around different weapons made of different materials and with different damage types. Wouldn't it have been possible to come up with magic enhancements for "equivalent to material/damage type X"?
In 3.5 they did, they were usually considered a +1 type bonus and I think there was one that counted as everything that might have been a +2 or +3 bonus. When you can get alchemical items (which existed too) that made them count short term for much less an investment it didn't make much sense to do so. The cost to go from +1 to +2 is ok, when going from +6 to +7 total it was completely not worth considering the majority of the time. This is also assuming that the weapons you have early on in your career are the same weapons you'll be using later, sometimes characters don't have access to the feats to use new/exotic weapons until "later" and that long sword you were using for the first 5 levels isn't what you'll be using come 6th level. Default rules would say you sell the long sword at half price and then have to come up with the rest to cover the same enchantments on a differing weapon that you want and just became able to use. It is almost like a punishment for doing things in a non-standard/generic way and not planning out your character/allowing the character to grow organically. In a situation like that you end up "paying more" for the enchantment as you paid for it once on the initial weapon, get back half of it and then have to pay full price for it again on the new weapon.
Creative Director
|
I personally MUCH prefer the 3.5 version, where magic didn't help overcome damage reduction. The concept of specific materials working against DR is, I think, really cool, and I'm kind of disappointed at how we changed it in Pathfinder. I'm pretty sure that as a result you'll still be seeing some +3 mithral weapons or +4 adamantine weapons showing up in our products now and then for a month or two. At least adamantine weapons still have a few things to do that an enhancement won't do... but those poor mithral weapons! :(
I already knew I'd be houseruling some stuff anyway, I guess! (shrug)
Personally, I like the 3.0 version. It makes encounters feel different. 3.5 screwed that up for me whith things like werewolves are just a little harder to kill without silver, but not much.
In my house rule, all weapons had to have a +1 for each special enhancement equivalent. So a +1 Flaming sword was fine, but it had to be a +2 before adding anything else, bane or vorpal. It keeps the +'s up, and still allows for unique special properties, as well as materials. Cold Iron still kind of screwed though, so I usually made it a one time +2,000 gp thing.
I would have to agree with you here!
I personally MUCH prefer the 3.5 version, where magic didn't help overcome damage reduction. The concept of specific materials working against DR is, I think, really cool, and I'm kind of disappointed at how we changed it in Pathfinder. I'm pretty sure that as a result you'll still be seeing some +3 mithral weapons or +4 adamantine weapons showing up in our products now and then for a month or two. At least adamantine weapons still have a few things to do that an enhancement won't do... but those poor mithral weapons! :(
I already knew I'd be houseruling some stuff anyway, I guess! (shrug)
Can you get something done about the price of the mithral weapon? Something more along the line of a set cost, like adamantine. This new revelation makes a mithral weapon even less worth the cost.
I personally MUCH prefer the 3.5 version, where magic didn't help overcome damage reduction. The concept of specific materials working against DR is, I think, really cool, and I'm kind of disappointed at how we changed it in Pathfinder. I'm pretty sure that as a result you'll still be seeing some +3 mithral weapons or +4 adamantine weapons showing up in our products now and then for a month or two. At least adamantine weapons still have a few things to do that an enhancement won't do... but those poor mithral weapons! :(
I already knew I'd be houseruling some stuff anyway, I guess! (shrug)
Besides the weight of the item, were there even any monsters that mithril worked particularly well on? I honestly can't think of one (but it has been awhile since I've looked at a MM of any sort). We just used to make items out of mithril to reduce weight(weapons)/penalties(armor) from what I recall.
But I agree I like the 3.5 take on them better, but the PFRPG rules were something that were easily left out/ignored if they become an issue in the future (which I don't really see happening). Just one of those "ehh" changes in the conversion from my personal take.
|
Creative Director
|
Can you get something done about the price of the mithral weapon? Something more along the line of a set cost, like adamantine. This new revelation makes a mithral weapon even less worth the cost.I personally MUCH prefer the 3.5 version, where magic didn't help overcome damage reduction. The concept of specific materials working against DR is, I think, really cool, and I'm kind of disappointed at how we changed it in Pathfinder. I'm pretty sure that as a result you'll still be seeing some +3 mithral weapons or +4 adamantine weapons showing up in our products now and then for a month or two. At least adamantine weapons still have a few things to do that an enhancement won't do... but those poor mithral weapons! :(
I already knew I'd be houseruling some stuff anyway, I guess! (shrug)
Actually... I'm kinda okay with expensive costs for mithral weapons. I've always sort of regarded them as conspicuous consumption items. As in... "look at how much money I have! I have a mithral weapon and a gold eyepatch and ruby slippers!"
It's good to have things like this simply as another type of "art object" you can give out in a treasure hoarde, in other words.
|
Creative Director
|
I like it this way to be honest. I think it's ridiculous for a PC to be running around with a different sword for every occasions. Golf bag anyway?
Thing is... I've never seen this pop up in games I play with the exception of archers, who carry different arrows. Which is kinda cool in a Hellboy sort of way. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention... but carrying a lot of weapons is a long-standing RPG tradition anyway.
|
I like it this way to be honest. I think it's ridiculous for a PC to be running around with a different sword for every occasions. Golf bag anyway?Thing is... I've never seen this pop up in games I play with the exception of archers, who carry different arrows. Which is kinda cool in a Hellboy sort of way. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention... but carrying a lot of weapons is a long-standing RPG tradition anyway.
Yes but an archer has a quiver for that. How many longswords can you strap to your pc before it just looks silly? :)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Yes but an archer has a quiver for that. How many longswords can you strap to your pc before it just looks silly? :)I like it this way to be honest. I think it's ridiculous for a PC to be running around with a different sword for every occasions. Golf bag anyway?Thing is... I've never seen this pop up in games I play with the exception of archers, who carry different arrows. Which is kinda cool in a Hellboy sort of way. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention... but carrying a lot of weapons is a long-standing RPG tradition anyway.
I've seen lots of characters carry multiple weapons, but one of the big reasons was to make sure that they had a piercing, slashing and bludgeoning weapon, to deal with pesky clay golems, rakshasas, skeletons, zombies, etc. In my case, I'd generally have a sword (or axe, or whatever) as a primary weapon, and eventually want an adamantine one to make sure it was less likely to be broken, and then a cold iron mace and a silver dagger (also handy for when you're swallowed whole.)
With the changes in PRPG, I'd still likely carry those weapon types, but at higher levels, simply not care that at lower levels I'd spent a bit more on the silver and cold iron ones.
There's also another reason to have the special materials - anti-magic. DR wouldn't go away, but your +5 sword of ignoring DR suddenly becomes just a MW steel sword. Your silver dagger, however, or cold iron mace will still do their stuff vs. the appropriate DR.
The reason the lycanthrope should fear the +3 weapon is because it's a more powerful weapon, probably being used by a level 11 character and not by a level 7-9. It's got enough power behind it that the mundane attributes of metal are subsumed into the greater power of the magic reinforcing the material of the weapon.
Making a weapon count as silver or cold iron is a very minor effect. But it makes the idea of the +1 sword with +9 of enhancements and a GMW to top it off have to seriously contest with a +5/+5 of extras weapon, and not needing the GMW.
A powerful weapon should not be hamstrung by DR. DR is something that is a defense against low level heroes challenging a powerful villain, not something that is supposed to stop the hero from beating on an enemy.
And besides, if you don't like it, you can always blow +2 on Shadow-Striking, and bypass all DR that way. Somehow, I don't think it's worth it. At high levels, you want the adamantine sword +5 to resist sundering, to defy the enemy, and cut through weaker materials like straw, just the way an uber sword should. There shouldn't BE any contest to getting the best material for your weapons.
Now, I just wish there was the same reason to get adamantine armor over Mithral.
==Aelryinth
I don't know why GMW wasn't just nerfed. Making it, say, +1 per two levels with a min/ or round/level duration would have solved a lot of this silliness.Again. GMW was of the greatest reasons that in 3.5 taken enhancement bonus was considered a poor choice. Letting the permanent enhancement bonus do more that GMW increased the incentive that people will actually select the permanent enhancement bonus.
Agreed, perhaps capped at +4? Same sort of thing with bull strength, which maxes at +4, getting the remaining +2 is probably the soul reason people get enhancement stat items.