| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't it unsettle you that a "faintly magic", lowly +1 dagger can negate the full DR of a "strongly magical" imposing Great Wyrm? (Of course, hitting the target is a different matter.)
Well, it does unsettle me.
Thus, I propose a variant (and if someone can make it better, they're welcome): when a target has DR X/magic, each point of enhancement bonus negates 4 points of DR rather than all of it.
So, against a 15/magic DR, a +3 weapon would ignore 3 x 4 = 12 points of DR, as if the target only had DR 3/magic.
A +5 enhancement bonus, being the apex of (mortal) magic weaponry, would be the only exception, ignoring any amount of /magic DR (the strongest creatures usually have /epic DR, which so far is unexplored terrain).
As for Monks and anyone else who uses a Ki Pool or something similar, the Ki Pool's magic "aspect" would equal a +1 enhancement bonus for each 3 levels, for the purpose of resolving DR (obviously, with a maximum of +5 at 15th level).
It does not bother me. All the dragon has to do is cast dispel magic on the weapon. If it is a great wyrm he can quicken it.
Considering I use the "Armor as DR" rule, my eyes have recently been opened to just how powerful magic items are when it comes to DR.
Using these rules, a dragon becomes easy to hit, but hard to damage. With a magic weapon, they're now easy to hit and easy to damage.
I'm considering reducing how much DR each +1 actually negates and I think you're 1 for 4 number is a good idea, ESPECIALLY if you're using the armor as DR variant.
Easy to hit? Why not have the dragon cast mage armor before the fight and/or shield? That is +8 AC. I am just asking because it seems easier than making house rules.
In the "Armor as DR" variant rule, all Armor and Natural Armor is not applied to AC but instead becomes DR.
AC becomes DC (Defense Class) and is Touch AC + Shield.
So a Great Wyrm Red has a DC of 0, it's easy as hell to actually hit him, he just happens to also have DR 59/magic (20 from natural DR, 39 from natural armor)
It just makes armor make a little more logical sense by being DR instead of avoidance.
It does not bother me. All the dragon has to do is cast dispel magic on the weapon. If it is a great wyrm he can quicken it.
That is another matter entirely.
But alright. Now forget about Dragons and think of all other X/magic monsters.
DR magic was designed to work that way. It is the first one that is given for a reason. Those that were intended to be harder to hurt were given more exotic DR's to bypass. I am guessing your players are good optimisers, and instead of altering the monster's feats to make them more difficult or changing strategies you wish to do things this way. If that is the case I understand.
My players are somewhat poor in the knowledge of Pathfinder rules and take heed of my advice; if their characters are optimized to some extent, it's mostly by my own hand, there are really no issues in that regard. Besides, even when guided to the maximum optimization (such as Anti-Undead specific feats, spells and equipment in an Undead-hunting campaign) they never seem to be so optimized as to make me look for subterfuges, nerfing variant rules or the like.
Simply, it makes little sense to me that, as said, a weapon with the minimum bit of magic in it can bypass the whole DR of near-epic strongly magic creatures (bringing things to the extreme just to make them clear). To tear down something like that you should have a top-level magic weapon, or have the effort go from less easy to much more hard with less potent weapons.
I like your rule. In 3.0 DR/magic was DR/+1 or DR/+2, or DR/+3… you had to have a magic weapon with an enhacement bonus appropriate to surpass DR. 3.5 changed that to DR / magic, but never convinced me.
In 3.0 DR was really high, and it discoruaged getting special abiliteis instead of enhancement bonuses. Now I think the bonuses are better anyway, but for groups that are less DPR inclined it is not a good deal. If I was the OP I think the 3.0 method of doing it would be better. Otherwise that fighter feat that allows you to ignore some DR will be pretty popular.
It's hard to define which creature should get /+1, which /+2 and so on. And worse, it'd be a monster by monster work of assignation.
Also, I don't like the idea that, say, a DR 20/+4 couldn't barely be etched by a +3 weapon that is only a small grade less strong.
At that point, I find more sense in the normal /magic. Like "even a small hole in a magic barrier can make a deadly bullet pass". But yet I prefer "a magic barrier's effectiveness is inversely proportional to a magic attack's strength (aka: strength vs. strength; the greater one wins)".
I think the idea of each +1 negating a set amount of DR works well.
Something between 5 and 10 DR reduction per +1.
Sort of like how some abilities allow some hardness to be negated when attacking an object.
In the "Armor as DR" variant rule, all Armor and Natural Armor is not applied to AC but instead becomes DR.
AC becomes DC (Defense Class) and is Touch AC + Shield.
So a Great Wyrm Red has a DC of 0, it's easy as hell to actually hit him, he just happens to also have DR 59/magic (20 from natural DR, 39 from natural armor)
It just makes armor make a little more logical sense by being DR instead of avoidance.
If I am reading the natural armor as DR table right it should have DR 59/adamantine as natural armor with DR/magic gives DR penetrated by adamantine or Huge creatures.
The armor as damage reduction as DR rules are badly written however, as they involve scaling attack bonus while they keep hit DC at its base level all the time. If BAB increases with training, so should the Defense.
The DC is increased by magic enhancement, so it increases with gear much the same AC would. It also actually makes the shield a much bigger deal of a defensive item, which I like.
Overall the variant does mean more stuff hits more often, but each hit is reduced.
If DR seems too damn high, and the party isn't high magic, I lower the DR.
I actually have become more suspicious of DR of late. I prefer monsters to have more hp than DR, but I haven't changed everything over.