| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If I don't own Mythic Adventures, does a +5 flaming weapon still bypass DR X/epic?
No?
Sorry, I mistyped. Meant to say +5 rather than +1. Fixed now.
Prior to mythic, didn't epic require a +6 enhancement bonus?
Prior to mythic, didn't epic require a +6 enhancement bonus?
Yes it did.
So your answer would be no?
So it isn't meant to be a global change to the general DR rules then?
Mythic rules are essentially optional rules as far as I've seen. Just like any other splatbook, they are included as desired in a game.
I saw this very thing and wondered about it myself.
My interpretation based on the mythic rules was that a +6 equivalent weapon would in fact bypass DR epic, as opposed to have an actual +6 enhancedment bonus on a weapon (which is still impossible).
I'm not sure if this was intended as a change to the overall game or not.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Interesting point. Unless the next Bestiary reprint includes the new wording, I'd have to say that the original interpretation is in play.
Essentially, unless you are using Mythic Adventures (whether to run a Mythic game/adventure/campaign, or as a source of monsters and/or buffed up bad guys), use the original version. If your game uses elements from Mythic Adventures, use the revised version.
My reasoning for this is that prior to MA, DR/Epic was so rare that it was really just DR/Magic-plus, but with the prevalence of it in MA, being able to overcome it by some means is important (and returns the game to the "the only DR that cannot be overcome in normal/low-level play is DR/-" which is built into the system).
It would make sense that only those with at least 1 mythic tier would gain this benefit. Mythic is specifically designed to increase the power level of the characters.
It would make sense if it stated that, but it doesn't. Characters with mythic tiers interact with those that don't ALL THE TIME, and either one of them may have DR/mythic and +6-cost equivalent weapons without having actual +6 enhancement. The rule doesn't just apply to those with mythic tiers.
My interpretation based on the mythic rules was that a +6 equivalent weapon would in fact bypass DR epic, as opposed to have an actual +6 enhancedment bonus on a weapon (which is still impossible).
I'm not sure if this was intended as a change to the overall game or not.
They actually issued a FAQ on the version in Mythic Adventures, so worries about 'interpretation' are moot.
Whether it's a change or not, I will believe SKR when he directly calls it a change:That all having been said, would you be willing to elaborate why the development team thought it necesssary to change the general rule on overcoming DR/Epic and if this change also applies to other types of damage reductions (like DR/Alignment) or is restricted to DR/Epic?It doesn't affect any other type of DR.
As for why it was changed, Jason's reasoning is: "You can't really afford a +6-equivalent weapon until about 15th-level, and until that point DR/epic is basically the same (insurmountable except for bypasses-all-DR abilities like paladin smite) defense as DR/—. Allowing a 15th-level weapon-oriented character to finally bypass DR/epic isn't that much of a big deal (as by that level, the difference between your full damage and your full damage minus 5, 10, or even 15 from DR/epic isn't very significant)."
So it isn't meant to be a global change to the general DR rules then?
I believe it is meant to be a global change, SKR didn't challenge that when people mentioned that the "new" MA rule should properly be FAQ/Errata for the Bestiary version, and he pretty much said that when he promised a FAQ covering "consistency with" the normal Bestiary DR/mythic rules:
What I don't get is if this is effectively Errata to the normal Bestiary rules, shouldn't they put that in a provisionary FAQ until they print a new Bestiary and release official Errata? Otherwise they have conflicting rules. How are people without Mythic Adventures but who have an encounter with a creature with DR/Mythic supposed to play? I don't see how whoever wrote that new definition of DR/Mythic in this book wasn't aware that it was a rules change, so why did they think it was adequate to just put that in the book, and not put out a FAQ for other products where DR/Mythic is defined?
Do we need to errata Mythic Adventures about this? No. Do we need to errata the Bestiary about this so the two books are in agreement? Perhaps... but we're not going to leave the thread open for months until the next Bestiary reprint, and we can't mark it "answered in errata" until it's actually been answered in errata. So that's not the option for us to use to clear the thread.
I don't think a FAQ is uncalled for that gives a specific example to make it clear (e.g. flaming)... That clarification/example could be integrated with a FAQ/Pre-Announcement of Errata on the definition of DR/Epic in earlier products, which just on it's own should probably be issued until real Errata is ready.
Fair enough, Quandary. I'll make sure we add a FAQ with an example on Monday, as bane does make the issue weird (a +2 enhancement bonus increase for a +1-equivalent property), can give another example with flaming as part of that FAQ, and can talk about consistency with the Bestiary.
So, now that they issued the actual FAQ we see that it just discusses that there are two 'ways' to over-come DR/mythic, presented in Bestiary and Mythic Adventures. So it doesn't actually resolve the "consistency" of those, or state that the MA rule is also applicable to ANYBODY playing the normal game (i.e. as FAQ/pre-Errata-announcement for the Bestiary DR rule), even though SKR earlier suggested that they could in fact Errata the Bestiary version to be in conformance.
IMHO, the MA rule IS the new rule, as SKR acknowledged it is a "change" (which means it was changing something already existing) that applies to anybody playing the game with or without MA, but the FAQ they issued didn't quite address that "consistency" like SKR had earier said it would. The FAQ they issued addresses the mode normally allowed by current Bestiary, i.e. 'actual +6 or mythic weapon', but that doesn't clear up whether the MA mode ('+6 equivalent') is meant to be FAQ/pre-Errata for EVERYBODY using just the normal Bestiary, the FAQ just says 'there are two modes' (and said FAQ is for the MA product, so few players without that product would even read this FAQ).
DR/mythic isn't really seen in PFS which is the only truly RAW-crucial setting, but it does matter quite a bit for expected balance in how people play their APs and modules... IMHO, Paizo do need to actually issue FAQ/Pre-Errata for the Bestiary version and directly address that consistency as SKR said, if the new rule is the new rule for everybody: great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't bother waiting for a +5 flaming weapon, just get a +3 Furious Weapon for your barbarian, or +3 Bane weapon appropriate to the creature, or just be an Inquisitor with the Bane ability and a +3 equivalent weapon, or a 5th level Magus with a +1 bane weapon and give your weapon an extra +2 from your arcane pool.
I think the title of this thread is unnecessarily antagonistic towards Paizo, personally.
You could have easily used, "Is the rewording of DR/epic a change to the universal monster ability or does it only apply to mythic characters?"
Same meaning. Doesn't look like you're trying to attack the Developers. Unless, of course, you are. In which case, mission accomplished. o7
Don't bother waiting for a +5 flaming weapon, just get a +3 Furious Weapon for your barbarian, or +3 Bane weapon appropriate to the creature, or just be an Inquisitor with the Bane ability and a +3 equivalent weapon, or a 5th level Magus with a +1 bane weapon and give your weapon an extra +2 from your arcane pool.
I think you meant +4 weapon, not +3. 3 + 2 = 5, which isn't enough to get past DR/epic.
I think the title of this thread is unnecessarily antagonistic towards Paizo, personally.
You could have easily used, "Is the rewording of DR/epic a change to the universal monster ability or does it only apply to mythic characters?"
Same meaning. Doesn't look like you're trying to attack the Developers. Unless, of course, you are. In which case, mission accomplished. o7
That certainly was not my intent. I merely used the term "stealth errata" because it is one that I've heard others use. From my understanding, it means "an official change to the rules that nevertheless does not appear in official errata."
I've never once considered it to be potentially hostile terminology until you yourself mentioned it.
How is he antagonistic to the developers with the title? Do you not like the cute phrase "stealth errata"? I don't see the big deal, it's a cute phrase that cuts right to the chase, and isn't any personal attack on Paizo or their staff.
SKR, as I quoted, already acknowledged that they probably should have issued FAQ/Pre-Errata for the Bestiary version, and promised to address that consistency in the FAQ (which didn't quite manifest that way). I believe they've previously acknowledged that changing rules in new products ('stealth errata') is not the way to change existing rules, which should get Errata/FAQ if they are meant to change, and they in fact acknowledged this new rule in MA as a "change", i.e. 'stealth errata'. If Paizo is so offended by usage of the term, they are free to ask people not to use it (as they do with the rape word), or simply put it in their server curse-word filter list. I don't see anything possibly offensive about it. What else is secretly offensive? "Ret-con"?
The term "stealth change" is considered derogatory in MMOs. It implies that the developers are trying to sneak an alteration (usually a nerf) past the players without including it in update/patch notes. Referring to this as a "stealth errata" could be taken in a similar fashion. Please note that I do not think that it was meant in a derogatory fashion, in this case. Just that it can easily be perceived as being meant that way. And since this was front and centre in the glossary of a core book (as opposed to just suddenly being changed in the PRD one day, without reference), it's clearly not an attempt at stealth.
Don't bother waiting for a +5 flaming weapon, just get a +3 Furious Weapon for your barbarian, or +3 Bane weapon appropriate to the creature, or just be an Inquisitor with the Bane ability and a +3 equivalent weapon, or a 5th level Magus with a +1 bane weapon and give your weapon an extra +2 from your arcane pool.I think you meant +4 weapon, not +3. 3 + 2 = 5, which isn't enough to get past DR/epic.
No, he meant +3. If you read the FAQ Quandry posted a link to the example involves Bane (which is somewhat similar to furious).
A furious +3 weapon is a +4 equivalent weapon. While raging, the weapon function as though it had an enhancement of two better. Which makes it effectively a +6 equivalent weapon (furious enhancement(1)+3+2(bonus from furious).
At least now I can put aside my worries as moot, and say that in fact the rules do stand as they are. That Mythic Adventures does in fact say that a +6 equivalent weapon overcomes DR epic, but that they have not issued an errata or a sweeping statement saying that the Mythic Adventures rule overrides the Bestiary rule. So the only issue now is conflicitng sources and which will eventually take precedent. Though that doesn't seem like much of a question as it appears they are leaning toward "Use the +6 equivalent rule".
The term "stealth change" is considered derogatory in MMOs. It implies that the developers are trying to sneak an alteration (usually a nerf) past the players without including it in update/patch notes. Referring to this as a "stealth errata" could be taken in a similar fashion. Please note that I do not think that it was meant in a derogatory fashion, in this case. Just that it can easily be perceived as being meant that way. And since this was front and centre in the glossary of a core book (as opposed to just suddenly being changed in the PRD one day, without reference), it's clearly not an attempt at stealth.
I don't play MMOs...
I didn't take the title of the thread as an attack. One man's "antagonistic" is another man's "lack of sucking up."
Your description of the MMO context is simply not 'derogatory'.
You are describing a reference to a perceived violation of rules, explicit or implicit.
Implying that a party has broken a rule is not derogatory, certainly not when one is
constructively trying to reach clarity about that issue in order that everybody have full understanding of any change.
Any mature adult is aware that people make mistakes, so being accused of making a mistake is not some personal attack,
it is an objective intervention to clarify the situation about that mistake.
You're confusing the fact that many people don't like, or find it unfair (or confusing and problematic in this case)
when others break rules, and thus are motivated to call out violations of rules, with a personal derogatory attack.
Yeah I meant +3, I can add to 6(well, most days anyways) :) I should have made it more clear that bane and furious double dip but with the link to the errata already posted I assumed (usually a bad idea) I wouldn't need to do so.
RD isn't asking about whether other DR/X types are affected (SKR specifically said they weren't),
He is asking what is the intended game function for people who don't own the Mythic Adventures product,
whether there is an intended/pending FAQ/Errata to include the MA functionality in the core Bestiary definition,
or if there is meant to be some discrepancy, which the current text in both products (and FAQ) doesn't adequately resolve.
Paizo reprints many rules qualities, especially with Bestiaries, and they sometimes change or have errors between editions,
this is normally seen as an error to be rectified as the same game rules sub-systems are meant to be the same,
with new functionality supposed to be implemented via explicit new options or modifications
available via specified means/ to specified eligible characters.
This would be a significantly disappointing change if it goes through. I understand they want to make mythic relevant, but Epic is different and special.
SKR wrote:"It doesn't affect any other type of DR."
Which is pretty clear-cut, because the rule in MA doesn't say it applies to any other type of DR, and neither does the FAQ.
It does what it says.
I probably cut out that exact quote (although I linked to the post) because that's not what the thread topic is about.
Is there a clear answer on how regular weapon bonuses interact with DR?
In my CRB, which I believe is the latest printing, the text and table do not match. The text says "enhancement bonus," whereas the table heading says "enhancement bonus equivalent." I suspect the former is correct, as the latter makes little sense to me (as it makes a +5 enhancement bonus a terrible choice), but it would be nice to know for sure -- especially for PFS.
I really dont get either a) why people are worked up about this or b) why it matters. In my entire gaming career i have had to deal with.... 1 monster with epic dr. c) if your doing a home game and you dont like it you can ignore it. d) the only case i can think of the change might matter is PFS if it becomes a global change.
So i guess is does anyone fight so many epic monsters in PFS that this will actually change anything?
Well, I can't speak for everyone but the Mythic rules make DR/epic a lot more accessible by giving it to monsters with the Mythic subtype. With how easy it is to get loads of attacks in Mythic (Mythic Rapid Shot and Distant Barrage alone give an archer an extra 3 attacks one of which bypasses all DR, then add the normal full attack/haste) or for melee to get easy full attacks (fleet charge, fleet warrior, mythic haste giving an extra move action to all affected) the DR/epic looked like a necessary obstacle to make sure a creature could actually survive a round where it might take 8-12 attacks if just 2 characters focused on it.
It could also be the awkward realization that DR/epic under the new rules doesn't live up to it's name now that it is easier to bypass than most any DR (and the odd case of a weapon that can't bypass DR/adamantine having an easy time with the CR 19 adamantine golem when it would be hindered by all the lesser golems). Or it could just be a question from those who aren't using Mythic Adventures but want to know the rules for their game, like people who play PFS or using-all-errata DMs, about whether this changes the core assumptions of the game (though I don't know how much DR/epic shows up in PFS so it probably isn't changing their game any). It's not the end of the world or anything, but it is a pretty big change from the Bestiary. I haven't seen that many people worked up over it once they've figured out how this applies across the board and learned that it is meant to be a change that will be reflected in future bestiary printings (mostly I've seen, "ok, I'm houseruling that" from people who disagree with the ruling).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's more the latter -- the fact that what was originally the "big" DR - the one you needed something truly, truly amazing to defeat is now defeatable by weapons that don't bypass DR adamantine (or, potentially, DR/cold iron or /silver) -- and, further, these new rules let you effectively double-dip with powers like Bane. (Which is now worth +3 for bypassing DR/epic - the +2 it grants, and the +1 base it occupies, according to the FAQ.)
This is seen as especially bad by the people who don't like this change (like me) because for all the talk about how expensive a weapon must still be to be +6 equivalent (and thus, you still need a very high level, etc, base on WBL), well.... the double-dipping rules in the FAQ mean that a +1 furious bane weapon (a +3 weapon costing only 18,000gp) is effectively +7 for the purposes of bypassing DR/epic when going against the right enemy, assuming the weilder is raging or under the effect of a rage spell.
Similarly, various class abilities allow bypassing DR/epic long before you could afford a +6 weapon. For example, any inquisitor with a +4 weapon is able to bypass based on their Bane class ability. Similarly, a magus with his arcane pool can add +3 to a weapon by 9th level (so, again, the barrier to bypass DR/epic is now an 18,000gp blade). A weapon-bonded paladin can add +3 to a weapon by 11th level. An Arcane Duelist Bard can sing a +3 bonus to a weapon within 30 feet with Bladethirst by level 12.
These class abilities can't raise the weapon's enhancement bonus past +5, and so, under the old rules, they couldn't bypass DR/epic. Now, not so much. (Similarly, will the line in Greater Magic Weapon be changed to say the spell won't allow you to bypass DR other than magic and epic?)
As a result, and the source of the backlash, is that DR/epic (which we all had an expectation of needing to be actually epic -- that it needed to be an Axe of the Dwarven Lords, or at least a +4 Bane or +4 Furious weapon to get past) is considerably less spiffy and impressive -- which results in things like the example everyone keeps using -- you can bypass DR on the adamantine golem with a weapon that won't even fully harm a lesser golem.
In the grand scheme of things, it's not the end of the world because so few non-mythic monsters have DR/epic - which is why this change may never "come up" -- and it's remarkably easy to houserule. (By claiming that the old printings of the bestiary were correct) So I while I agree that you're not seeing people getting "worked up" about it, but I think it's mostly for those two reasons.
Which doesn't mean that a large part of the community doesn't think it's a severe weakening of DR/epic and generally a bad idea.
|
I saw this very thing and wondered about it myself.
My interpretation based on the mythic rules was that a +6 equivalent weapon would in fact bypass DR epic, as opposed to have an actual +6 enhancedment bonus on a weapon (which is still impossible).
I'm not sure if this was intended as a change to the overall game or not.
Sigh.
Furious, Bane, Grayflame, it is hardly "impossible" even for normal weapons.
I saw this very thing and wondered about it myself.
My interpretation based on the mythic rules was that a +6 equivalent weapon would in fact bypass DR epic, as opposed to have an actual +6 enhancedment bonus on a weapon (which is still impossible).
I'm not sure if this was intended as a change to the overall game or not.
Sigh.
Furious, Bane, Grayflame, it is hardly "impossible" even for normal weapons.
You misunderstand me. I'm talking about a flat +6. That is impossible. The rules say you can't have above a flat +5 enhancement. Yes you can easily get a +6 equivalent. The old rule for bypassing DR epic required a flat +6 enhancement bonus, +6 equivalent did not qualify. The question as whether +4 or +5 enhancement plus furious or bane weapon never did actually get answered for whether it bypassed DR epic. I believe previously there was some indication from either SKR or JJ that they wouldn't play it that way, but I can't recall what thread this was from.
It *is* possible for a weapon to have a +6 enhancement bonus, by having the Potent special weapon quality (MA page 143):
As a swift action, the wielder can expend one use of mythic power to increase the weapon’s enhancement bonus by half his mythic tier (minimum 1, to a maximum of a +6 enhancement bonus) and give it the ability to bypass [EPIC] damage reduction. These benefits last for 1 round. Melee and ranged weapons can have this ability, but not ammunition.
Added [EPIC] so that the sentence makes more sense.
Sorry, I was speaking about the rules before the existence of Mythic Adventures.
|
|
You misunderstand me. I'm talking about a flat +6. That is impossible. The rules say you can't have above a flat +5 enhancement. Yes you can easily get a +6 equivalent. The old rule for bypassing DR epic required a flat +6 enhancement bonus, +6 equivalent did not qualify. The question as whether +4 or +5 enhancement plus furious or bane weapon never did actually get answered for whether it bypassed DR epic. I believe previously there was some indication from either SKR or JJ that they wouldn't play it that way, but I can't recall what thread this was from.I saw this very thing and wondered about it myself.
My interpretation based on the mythic rules was that a +6 equivalent weapon would in fact bypass DR epic, as opposed to have an actual +6 enhancedment bonus on a weapon (which is still impossible).
I'm not sure if this was intended as a change to the overall game or not.
Sigh.
Furious, Bane, Grayflame, it is hardly "impossible" even for normal weapons.
Dragon with DR/Epic
+4 weapon with Bane Dragon special ability = +6 weapon against a dragon+4 weapon with Furious special ability = +6 weapon when raging
+5 weapon with Greiflame special ability = +6 weapon after spending a use of the channel ability.
Weapon Bonuses: Can weapon special abilities (such as bane) or class abilities (such as a paladin's divine bond) allow you to exceed the +5 enhancement bonus limit and the +10 bonus-equivalent limitation?
For the enhancement bonus limitation, it depends on the specific effect or ability that's altering the weapon.
Bane: This allows the weapon to exceed the +5 limit, but only against the designated creature type. For example, a +5 dragon-bane longsword is normally a +5 weapon, but has a +7 enhancement bonus against dragons and deals +2d6 points of damage against dragons.
Paladin: The divine bond ability says "These [enhancement] bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon bonuses to a maximum of +5." That means if a paladin has a +5 longsword, she can't use her divine bond to increate the enhancement bonus to +6 or higher (but she could use her bonuses to add abilities such as flaming to the weapon).
The +10 bonus-equivalent limitation is a hard cap for all weapons; you can't exceed that even with class abilities or other unusual abilities.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13
It should apply in the same way to all other abilities that allow you to add circumstantial bonuses to a weapon.
It should apply in the same way to all other abilities that allow you to add circumstantial bonuses to a weapon.
I agree with you in principle, but it was never explicitly resolved whether or not this actually allowed you to bypass DR epic since it wasn't a normal +6 flat enhancement. I agree that it should work, but currently have a GM who doesn't abide by this because there is not an explicit statement.
And I've been trying to find that thread where that FAQ came from because I recall the question being brought up about whether or not this would allow for DR epic to be bypassed and I recall that it was ignored/unanswered. Though I could be recalling incorrectly.
Furious, Bane, Grayflame, it is hardly "impossible" even for normal weapons.You misunderstand me. I'm talking about a flat +6. That is impossible. The rules say you can't have above a flat +5 enhancement. Yes you can easily get a +6 equivalent. The old rule for bypassing DR epic required a flat +6 enhancement bonus, +6 equivalent did not qualify. The question as whether +4 or +5 enhancement plus furious or bane weapon never did actually get answered for whether it bypassed DR epic.
Uh... you're getting pretty confused there, "+X equivalent" is only ever invoked for weapon enchantments that aren't enhancement bonuses but which are costed as such, e.g. Flaming/Flaming Burst. Under the old rues, a +4 Flaming Burst weapon was +6 equivalent but only had +4 enhancement bonus. Under the old rules, a +4 Bane weapon was +5 equivalent but had a +6 enhancement bonus vs it's Bane targets (and +4 vs everybody else).
I never noticed the rules in general caring about "normal" enhancement bonus. Paladin Divine Bond has it's own internal limit that prevents increasing enhancement bonus beyond +5 (only equivalent abilities are OK, up to +10 equivalent), but that is a specific rule, not the general rule. If there were such a general rule, then the Paladin limit which is worded different than similar 'enhancement bonus augmentations' would be wholly superfluous, but since there isn't any such general rule there actually is a reason for the Paladin rule to exist in order to enforce a discrete difference. When the rules and FAQ say it "has a +7 bonus", I expect that it "has a +7 bonus" for any game function that cares about that.
BTW, AFAIK, there's no ruling on what you do when multiple abilities would take it beyond +10 equivalent.
When activating one ability then the other, the second one can just not work (beyond +10), but when they are continual and simultaneous it isn't clear.
Similarly, various class abilities allow bypassing DR/epic long before you could afford a +6 weapon. For example, any inquisitor with a +4 weapon is able to bypass based on their Bane class ability. Similarly, a magus with his arcane pool can add +3 to a weapon by 9th level (so, again, the barrier to bypass DR/epic is now an 18,000gp blade). A weapon-bonded paladin can add +3 to a weapon by 11th level...
These class abilities can't raise the weapon's enhancement bonus past +5, and so, under the old rules, they couldn't bypass DR/epic. Now, not so much.
Uh... Besides Paladins' internal limit, things like Bane and Furious certainly could do so under the 'old' rule AFAIK, just because that wasn't "confirmed" doesn't make it not so, Paizo can't and doesn't "confirm" every single rules interaction. I wholly agree that the WBL point is shifted for many of these classes, and noticed that when Jason Bulmahn's rationale was published, but I'm sure he figures "The whole point of these abilities is they surpass WBL". (within activation/duration limits)
Similarly, will the line in Greater Magic Weapon be changed to say the spell won't allow you to bypass DR other than magic and epic?
Well, I don't know, at this point it doesn't, but if they get around to FAQ-Errata'ing the Core Material perhaps they will decide to, if DR/Epic is now seen as DR/BigMagic.
It should apply in the same way to all other abilities that allow you to add circumstantial bonuses to a weapon.
Careful, "Circumstance Bonus" is an actual type, y'know... ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the thing about 'double dipping' enhancement bonus and cost equivalence for Bane feels the wonkiest to me.
I don't know if the change is really hugely problematic per se, but I understand why people are upset,
besides the fact that this is "Stealth Errata" in a new product changing core mechanics,
it seems to be wholly up to Paizo's ideosyncratic decision to change game mechanic balance/function,
which seems rather odd when they swear off making similar Errata changes to other game mechanics
which the player base and even themselves admit SHOULD change (e.g. Stealth, Partial Charge/Slow/etc) but they claim they can't.
I guess it comes down to they expect to be making more Epic Monsters/NPCs that will have DR/Epic,
and they want more PCs at the appropriate level to be able to overcome that level of DR with the weapons they have on hand.
This is a pretty easy self-contained change, perhaps unlike other mechanics which really DESERVE change more but are more 'involved'.
As a GM, I could see allowing the Mythic version for Mythic characters, while the older bestiary rules for non-Mythic characters. I know it's not official, but it feels fine to me honestly.
Uh... Besides Paladins' internal limit, things like Bane and Furious certainly could do so under the 'old' rule AFAIK, just because that wasn't "confirmed" doesn't make it not so, Paizo can't and doesn't "confirm" every single rules interaction. I wholly agree that the WBL point is shifted for many of these classes, and noticed that when Jason Bulmahn's rationale was published but I'm sure he figures "The whole point of these abilities is they surpass WBL".Similarly, various class abilities allow bypassing DR/epic long before you could afford a +6 weapon. For example, any inquisitor with a +4 weapon is able to bypass based on their Bane class ability. Similarly, a magus with his arcane pool can add +3 to a weapon by 9th level (so, again, the barrier to bypass DR/epic is now an 18,000gp blade). A weapon-bonded paladin can add +3 to a weapon by 11th level...
These class abilities can't raise the weapon's enhancement bonus past +5, and so, under the old rules, they couldn't bypass DR/epic. Now, not so much.
My point wasn't that it was impossible -- in fact, I pretty much said it could be done with bane and furious weapons -- I was responding to the logic of "Well, a +6 effective weapon is still a massive invesetment WBL, so only high level characters will be able to do it" and showing that is no longer the case.
What's happened here, instead, is that any class with a self-buff weapon ability (despite the +5 limit they all have) -- can now buff a magic weapon enough to bypass DR. That's a change.
After all -- a paladin's weapon bond, a bard's bladethirst and a magus' arcance pool not only don't allow more than +5 enhancement -- they also don't allow Bane or Furious as possible enhancements -- so prior to this you could not use a class feature (other than the Inquisitor's bane) to make a weapon strong enough to bypass DR/epic. Now, you could do it reasonably by level 9-11 without even looking a little odd from WBL.
Which makes DR/epic... well, far less epic, no?
[And, as an aside, under the old rules, your bane or furious weapon would count as +6 "for real" and thus be able to bypass all forms of DR, including adamantine -- and *those* weapons *would* be the super-high cost that was being alluded to-- whereas now, 18,000gp will get you past DR/epic (thanks to the fun double-dipping and class feature thing)]
I guess it comes down to they expect to be making more Epic Monsters/NPCs that will have DR/Epic,
and they want more PCs at the appropriate level to be able to overcome that level of DR with the weapons they have on hand.
That could be it -- but there were a lot of ways that could have been done that wouldn't have resulted in this, such as:
I mean, just off the top of my head.
(As an aside, I also don't love DR/magic the way it is and would have much preferred something more like "each + of weapon bypasses 5 points of DR/magic, but that's me)
This is a pretty easy self-contained change, perhaps unlike other mechanics which really DESERVE change more but are more 'involved'.
Oh, I quite agree -- it's easy enough to just not use this rule in my house games - And I also agree there are other issues with systems and subsystems that need to be resolve -- but I worry that because of how easy it is to bypass DR/epic now, more and more new (non-mythic) content will have it -- and so we'll see it become more of an issue over time.
I think you're ignoring the simplicity factor. Alot of your suggestions involve wholly new rules options.
Likewise the wonkiness of Bane double dipping is IMHO at least in part due to that being perceived to be simplest to handle,
rather than explaining how you take the best of, etc, or adding 2 but subtracting 1, etc...
I would also find your 5DR/magic is overcome per +1 more dynamic, but I again think it's a simplicity factor.
And my point was that Paizo would want the gear that is already used and is already a part of the game to be useful vs. these new mythic monsters,
the new DR/mythic is just a test of over all character level / WBL (including abilities modifying that).
When 'equivalents' don't work agaisnt DR/mythic, then it isn't a test of over all character level/WBL,
and increasing the usage of DR/mythic would mean that those equivalents/gear would become relatively less valuable.
Nothing else is changed, enhancement bonus is still important for the other DRs and still works the same vs. DR/mythic,
they are just making DR/mythic hinge on overall character power essentially... And that is the larger change with Mythic rules,
'mythic'/'epic' is now wholly integrated into character progression, whether or not you have N mythic ranks,
character levels themselves have some implied mythic stature/equivalence, and DR/mythic now reflects that.
I stopped taking personally every Paizo ruling when Spring Attack Vital Strike was Errata'd out of existence.
As long as they have a clear functioning rule system, that's good enough for me.
|
|
Careful, "Circumstance Bonus" is an actual type, y'know... ;-)
It should apply in the same way to all other abilities that allow you to add circumstantial bonuses to a weapon.
AFAIK, they mean different thing:
circumstantial - adverbCircumstance - noun
But I suppose we can call them contingent bonus.
;-)
I don't think that this rule change will really help fighters, rogues or other classes that don't have a easy way to buff their weapons, at least not until the higher levels. Instead it will help paladins, maguses and inquisitors, classes that already had a way to temporarily enhance their weapons from mid level onward.
Barbarian too will be somewhat helped, as their furious weapon will be able to overcome DR/epic earlier than before.
While I don't think that fighter and rogues are weak classes (at least if you disallow some of the more unbalanced metamagic feats), they are weak in the flexibility department.
This change increase the flexibility of classes that already have a good capacity to adapt while it do very little for the less adaptable classes.
Sure, after a fighter has sunk 72.000 gp in his main weapon he will be able to overcome DR/epic against any kind of creature.
A 5th level Inquisitor will be capable to do that with a weapon that cost 32.000 gp and a successful knowledge check.
A 9th level magus with a 18.000 gp weapon.
A 10th level paladin with a 32.000 gp weapon.
We are speaking of a very reasonable expense for the 9th level magus, an acceptable one for a 11th level paladin or inquisitor, but one that become acceptable for the fighter only at level 14+.
If there is enough foreshadowing in the campaign, the magus and paladin can buy a appropriate bane weapon and be capable to overcome the DR/epic of the main opponents even earlier.
Add someone with Craft magic weapon in a group and for those three classes ER/epic will become only a small sped bump, while it will stay a noticeable obstacle for the fighter and rogue.
I would have preferred something helping them more than other classes.
|
|
Uh... Besides Paladins' internal limit, things like Bane and Furious certainly could do so under the 'old' rule AFAIK, just because that wasn't "confirmed" doesn't make it not so, Paizo can't and doesn't "confirm" every single rules interaction. I wholly agree that the WBL point is shifted for many of these classes, and noticed that when Jason Bulmahn's rationale was published but I'm sure he figures "The whole point of these abilities is they surpass WBL".Similarly, various class abilities allow bypassing DR/epic long before you could afford a +6 weapon. For example, any inquisitor with a +4 weapon is able to bypass based on their Bane class ability. Similarly, a magus with his arcane pool can add +3 to a weapon by 9th level (so, again, the barrier to bypass DR/epic is now an 18,000gp blade). A weapon-bonded paladin can add +3 to a weapon by 11th level...
These class abilities can't raise the weapon's enhancement bonus past +5, and so, under the old rules, they couldn't bypass DR/epic. Now, not so much.
My point wasn't that it was impossible -- in fact, I pretty much said it could be done with bane and furious weapons -- I was responding to the logic of "Well, a +6 effective weapon is still a massive invesetment WBL, so only high level characters will be able to do it" and showing that is no longer the case.
What's happened here, instead, is that any class with a self-buff weapon ability (despite the +5 limit they all have) -- can now buff a magic weapon enough to bypass DR. That's a change.
After all -- a paladin's weapon bond, a bard's bladethirst and a magus' arcance pool not only don't allow more than +5 enhancement -- they also don't allow Bane or Furious as possible enhancements -- so prior to this you could not use a class feature (other than the Inquisitor's bane) to make a weapon strong enough to bypass DR/epic. Now, you could do it reasonably by level 9-11 without even looking a little odd from WBL.
Which makes...
A magus can get the bane special ability, but only at 15th level.
Bane Blade (Su): Whenever the magus enhances his weapon using his arcane pool, he may spend 1 additional point from his arcane pool to add the bane special ability to the weapon. The magus must be at least 15th level before selecting this arcana.
Being capable to bypass Dr/epic at level 9 is a big difference.