|
Huh..that is how I thought it worked.Thing is, we don't know if this is a new houserule or if this was made before the game started.
One house rule I've seen is that a Gm allows the +X to bypass DR, but it has to be purely +X, not an equivalent. So like, you need a +3 longsword to bypass whatever, instead of, say, a +1 flame burst weapon (which would be a +3 enhancement). The former would work, while the latter wouldn't. Unsure how I felt about it, but it certainly was interesting.
It is.
"Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction"
"Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted)."
Special abilities do not count as enhancement bonuses to overcome DR, only to determine market value. Some grant extra enhancement bonuses, like bane, but that only overcomes the DR of the creatures it applies to.
It is.Huh..that is how I thought it worked.Thing is, we don't know if this is a new houserule or if this was made before the game started.
One house rule I've seen is that a Gm allows the +X to bypass DR, but it has to be purely +X, not an equivalent. So like, you need a +3 longsword to bypass whatever, instead of, say, a +1 flame burst weapon (which would be a +3 enhancement). The former would work, while the latter wouldn't. Unsure how I felt about it, but it certainly was interesting.
Good...thought I was crazy for a minute.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played this game in one form or another for close to 20 years. Not a single time has a Burning Hands hit more than one character.
Do you really want to get into the math again? Haven't we proven that martials do more damage enough times so we can move onto the "narrative power" segment of the argument?
I'm really not sure offhand how you are doing 10d4+anything with Burning Hands, the spell does 5d4 + nothing max. I can't think of a +1 or +2 level metamagic feat to double dice. . .
20 years and you haven't seen an effective blaster or an area spell hit more than one target?
Crossblooded Draconic/Orc Sorcerer 1/Admixture Wizard 5.
+1 damage per die of any damage spell and +1 damage per die of any fire spell
Spell Specialization, Intensify Spell, Mage's Tattoo(Evocation), Bloatmage Initiate(Evocation), Spell Focus Evocation, Trait: Magical Knack, Trait: Wayang Spell Hunter
Effective Caster Level 10. Spell Slot level 1(Wayang Spell Hunter).
Intensified Burning Hands amplified with Goblin Fire Drum(2,000 gp).
10d4+32 Reflex Save DC16
Optimized for Fireball
Trait: Wayang Spell Hunter, Trait: Magical Lineage, exchanged Intensify Spell with Empower SpellSpell Slot level 3, ECL 9
Empowered Fireball amped with Goblin Fire Drum.
(9d6+29)x1.5 Avg Damage: 90 Reflex Save DC 18The math shows that...casters do stupid amounts of damage. He gets 4 of these fireballs a day. 1 Base, 1 Int Bonus, 1 School, 1 Arcane Bond(A bad ass cape that flows in the wind)
So, your one trick is built around stacking several feats, relies on the reduction for a meta-magic effect from a trait being able to reduce that to zero (something which I would never allow regardless), and on being allowed to take 1 level in Crossblooded Sorcerer to apply +2 damage per die to spells you cast from another class?
Cool. I guarantee reasonable GMs would see no problem with that. . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not the worst I've seen. Had a DM who would make up houserules on the fly because they "made sense" (not to mention she misread a lot of stuff). Once she infamously caused the death of a character because she ruled that blindness required us to make a 1d8 to determine where our characters would face before moving. This of course led to such things as falling down a long chasm, being incapable of finding a downed teammate as he bled out to heal him, and a host of other things. What annoyed me the absolute most was that this was done just prior to a dungeon that had two creatures that could cause blindness either with abilities or spells. As a bonus, she misread Call Lightning Storm to mean that she could call down a bolt as a free action once per turn, causing the evil cleric to cast call lightning down and use another spell on the same turn... and LASTLY, she thought the lightning struck a 10x10 square, just for safe measure. I quit that campaign after and have not played under that DM ever since then.
I have another DM whom I know to be similar. He runs a 3.5 game instead of Pathfinder and does his best to minimize the number of exploits, flat-out banning things that he feels could break the game. While I don't have to worry too much about this (I'm playing a ranger, not an altogether broken class) it does cause me a lot of grief to have to watch all these cool things that we could be doing get cut out for annoying balancing purposes. Still, he runs a good game so I at least give him a pass.
All in all, I'd say this is pretty tame compared to what your DM -could- be banning. Ultimately, it's their game. You can decide it's worth putting up with and continuing the fun or you can note your protest and walk out in a civil manner while still being friends.
So, your one trick is built around stacking several feats, relies on the reduction for a meta-magic effect from a trait being able to reduce that to zero (something which I would never allow regardless), and on being allowed to take 1 level in Crossblooded Sorcerer to apply +2 damage per die to spells you cast from another class?
Cool. I guarantee reasonable GMs would see no problem with that. . .
Well the Crossblooded Sorcerer ability works on any spell you cast like it says. The meta-magic reduction through Magic Lineage is legal in PFS play. Wayang in combo with Magical Lineage was the only somewhat cheesy bit but even then it just delays the power slightly.
Without the empower you still deal 50-60ish damage a round, in an area, from range, of any element. At 8th level your damage spikes back up to ludicrous amounts. Still far more than what martials are putting out in melee range.
But I expected you to take issue with the build despite it's very legal nature.
EDIT: @Riuken and Nathanael Love,
Martials build up their damage from stacking many different abilities together, a Caster does the same and puts out more.
I haven't seen an 8th level martial do more damage than a well-built blaster yet, if you find one I'd love to see it. Its a shame for Martials to function they have to be in melee, as Archers tend to have a lower DPR till higher levels. Most DPR olympic entries are 10th or 12th level. At that level, the Wizard is even more disgusting.
Dammit. I wasn't sure on it, but now I feel obligated to add Goblin War Drum to the guide...
You and I can't possibly be reading the same conversation. I do not see where anyone said anything of the sort. The discussion was about helping out TWF, not taking away archery's shiny, as a way to have more options to THF *shrug*
*cough*
Yeah because we don't see nearly enough martials using 2 handed weapons in this game already! Oh wait.
I mean, it's not like the comment was a big deal or anything. I responded to it and that was that, so I get you not noticing it was there. But I wasn't just talking to myself, nor was I madly attacking you. :P
The OP hasn't posted since the first post. Chances are, this thread was just flame bait. And it worked.
I'm sure everyone will keep posting and arguing despite this knowledge.
a 15 foot cone is barely what I would call an area. . . and fireball is only useful when dealing with a LOT of monsters-- its area nature has no real bearing on how much worthwhile/effective damage you can realistically deal in any given situation.
Against the BBEG your fireball or other area spell is doing its damage once; and the martial can do his damage every single round forever, but once your last fireball is gone so if there are infinite low level enemies (ala war) its faster, but over the course of a number of rounds will eventually be less.
The only time an area spell like that really outshines a martial is when there are an average number of powerful but stupid foes who cluster themselves tightly together because they have somehow never heard of fireball before.
I won't go into the argument of RAI versus RAW on taking a one level dip to get +2 damage per die to all your spells. You can say its legal all you want, and I haven't dug through all the FAQs, but I don't think I would allow it.
The place where you're getting power that I am having trouble finding is in Traits, there must be some good martial traits out there, but I can't find them so maybe I'm wrong.
At 6th level the best I have right off the top of my head is 2d6+37 in one attack. . . that's using only a single 2,000 gold item (belt +2), but I only have three feats spent (power attack, weapon focus, weapon spec)so there's three more feats and two traits completely unassigned.
Str 28 (18+ 4 orc+ 4 rage+ 2 belt)= 14 x2 (2HF archetype)= 28+ 2 weapon spec + 1 weapon training +6 power attack (Barbarian 1 Fighter 5)
Against the BBEG your fireball or other area spell is doing its damage once; and the martial can do his damage every single round forever, but once your last fireball is gone so if there are infinite low level enemies (ala war) its faster, but over the course of a number of rounds will eventually be less.The only time an area spell like that really outshines a martial is when there are an average number of powerful but stupid foes who cluster themselves tightly together because they have somehow never heard of fireball before.
Against the BBEG, the only amount of damage that is meaningful is the amount that puts him down. So what if the Martial can put out 40 damage a round till the BBEG goes down on the 3rd round when the Caster can throw out 120 round 1 and kill him?
The area spell is just better in those circumstances. After a short time, you easily have enough spells to keep chucking throughout the whole day.
Then you remember those melee martials have to get into melee whereas you only need to know the general area of the enemy. Then you get to throw a fireball from usually wherever you are to wherever the enemy is.
Martials dealing more damage is an illusion created by those who want to make sure they don't get anything to make up for the fact that they are in fact inferior in many many ways to casters, including damage.
So long as the full attack paradigm remains that will be true.
Of course houseruling limitations on Sorcerer Bloodlines change things slightly but even the straight Admixture Wizard build can put out ridiculous damage since he'll be able to metamagic his fireballs sooner.
Your math is wrong on that character though. Overhand Chop doubles your strength bonus with a two handed weapon instead of the 1.5X bonus.
Clarification by the designer who made the archetype
So your damage is +18(Str)+2(Wpn Spec)+1(Wpn Training)+6(Power Attack) for a grand total of +27 damage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's not what you're arguing for. . . you aren't arguing for martials to have abilities or options to by pass DR, you are arguing for Wizards to be able to mass produce weapons that by-pass everything.With this rule implemented its no biggie though-- I just have to through DR 10/- and Fast Healing 10 on to every monster the players ever encounter to make sure they live long enough for players to have fun.
That or triple listed hit points. . .
Long ineffective fights are not fun for players, not even a little bit.
If I'm level 12 sitting there throwing out 6 attacks a round tally up the total after a sweet round where I land everything subtract DR and I'm like "Oh I did 25 damage ..." That isn't when I'm like "WOOOO! AWESOME FIGHT!" it's more like when I swap over to web surfing and wait for the Caster to trivialize the encounter.
One-shotting the BBEG that the entire campaign has been built around is no fun either. And is ridiculously anti-climactic.
I'd be like if the ending of Aliens was Ripley punching the Alien Queen once, and all the aliens on LV-426 died instantly.
Hey, I don't much care about the bow vs. greatsword conflict. I mean, I don't usually have trouble with minmaxing players--I just ask them to tone things down if they're too much. :P
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP hasn't posted since the first post. Chances are, this thread was just flame bait. And it worked.
I'm sure everyone will keep posting and arguing despite this knowledge.
I don't think it was flame bait. Look at the initial replies. When I first read them they sounded downright hostile. The poster was probably some player who, frustrated, turned to the boards for the first time, posted, got flamed and will probably never be seen again. If we're lucky, he'll still play Pathfinder.
I mean, it's not like the comment was a big deal or anything. I responded to it and that was that, so I get you not noticing it was there. But I wasn't just talking to myself, nor was I madly attacking you. :PYeah because we don't see nearly enough martials using 2 handed weapons in this game already! Oh wait.
As a point that comment was mostly about why scrapping DR and or "dissing" this homerule made perfect sense. Because the system punishes Fighters who didn't go for THF if they are going to melee, which is widely accepted as the most effective way to build a melee focused character, but in addition to that the Bow is still a two handed weapon ... just saying.
Also as I pointed out earlier DR is mostly Trivial to bypass for the Archer except for DR/-, Clustered Shots is just the nail in the coffin for the idea that DR is an issue for an Archer and even if you remove that what is your end game goal? Make THF even more viable than other fighting styles? Because that isn't really necessary.
I did see what gnomersy wrote and I interpreted it as it seems he intended: a comment on the woeful state of TWF, particularly in regards to dealing with DR.
Unless you're that Crusader a#@@*@@. *grumble grumble*You will do more damage on a full attack so vital strike is not the answer, even if you are struggling to get past DR.Makes Vital Strike chain (considered under powered) balanced, and useful.I was just about to say "Maybe take the Vital strike chain feat."
You beat me to it!
I have no idea what you are talking about sir. <innocent face>
holy cow, golfbagging, what a silly term, Or you could just NOT haul around a weapon for every job. I've never seen my players come up with such a silly idea. yes lets buy 8 various high cost weapons to save 10-20 points of damage a round.
Am I the only one who realizes just how crazy that sounds?
maybe you research before you leave the city and just deal with it if you run into a creature you aren't perfect against.
It's ok to fight something that you aren't perfectly prepared against.
If you can't do direct damage, find another way to help, perhaps positioning or aid another bonus's, you have options other than hoping to win the lottery, jeez
EDIT: may have ranted a bit here, but this is a pet peeve of mine, since the old days where I had fighters that would sit in a battlefield sulking because they only have a sword and it's not fair they get attacked by flying creatures.
That is a LOT different. Nobody forced them to not buy a ranged weapon. In the case of golfbagging the extra weapons not being had might not be an option.
It is less costly and more realistic to not have to carry so many weapons.I'm gonna disagree on "realism" here. "Realism" would be not having creatures be resistant to silver in the first place, but this is a magical setting, and having magic substitute for silver is just as unrealistic as having only silver be able to wipe out lycanthropes.
Otherwise, I agree with you--it is indeed less costly, and many GMs prefer it. I myself use the rule, but I'm gonna speak in the defense of not using it here.
If a player packs a cold iron morningstar, a mithril longsword, and an adamantine whatever, he's fine--and any one of those can be his main weapon, too. The "golf bag" analogy is a bit hyperbolic. You just need three weapons to bypass most DR.
Also, the rule doesn't really affect the "golf bag" until it no longer matters, since enhancements that are good enough to count for metals are so expensive you'll still need to carry all three types for a lot of the game.
all three types of what?
But that's not what you're arguing for. . . you aren't arguing for martials to have abilities or options to by pass DR, you are arguing for Wizards to be able to mass produce weapons that by-pass everything.With this rule implemented its no biggie though-- I just have to through DR 10/- and Fast Healing 10 on to every monster the players ever encounter to make sure they live long enough for players to have fun.
That or triple listed hit points. . .
Long ineffective fights are not fun for players, not even a little bit.
If I'm level 12 sitting there throwing out 6 attacks a round tally up the total after a sweet round where I land everything subtract DR and I'm like "Oh I did 25 damage ..." That isn't when I'm like "WOOOO! AWESOME FIGHT!" it's more like when I swap over to web surfing and wait for the Caster to trivialize the encounter.
Fights over in 2 rounds aren't any fun either. If there's no challenge to the game why bother?
Rocket tag is only fun for a certain segment of the population.
The average fight is only 3 to 4 rounds, and if a GM knows his party he won't need fast healing 10 and DR 10/- to make it last 3 to 4 rounds.
It sounds like the argument is being raised that DR itself is un-fun. In that case, why even include it?
EDIT: By this I mean, why include it in your games? If you want to make it as easy as possible to bypass, it's not performing its intended purpose of raising CRs, and it's making things less enjoyable.
EDIT x2: And by that I mean, those of you who think DR is inherently un-fun should do this. This suggestion applies less so to the people who are solely complaining about the golf bags.
I don't mind DR. I just dont like the idea of there being so many different ways to apply leading to the golf bag effect. Even as it stands now you won't always be ready for it, but the other way is just annoying.
It sounds like the argument is being raised that DR itself is un-fun. In that case, why even include it?Frankly I do think DR itself is an unfun mechanic and that it does more harm than good to the game. I think for the most part it's still in the game as a story themed hold over from it's roots in mythology where lycanthropes have to be killed with silver and vampires fought with garlic and stakes.
But lets be honest as a game mechanic it's complete crap, it makes the weak fighting styles weaker and the strong ones stronger.
@Nathanael Love - I like how you pretend that DR makes Rocket Tag less important, when in fact DR is the main reason why Rocket Tag PCs like 2handed fighters and Archers are the primary fighting styles. (The other part is of course the shoddy movement rules in the system).
Anyone who isn't a Rocket Tag player has an even worse time when playing with DR. Throw in a two weapon dex specialist and realize that you legitimately can't do anything in a fight with even moderate amounts of DR and you wonder why people build their PCs to do tons of damage on a few hits.
So we should have there be no regulation for how much damage enemies can take and just let the fighter kill everything in one shot?
Sorry, I've played/ran too many games where one guy has that character and nobody else is capable of doing anything to ever shining to simply let that guy get his way and one shot everything.
Martials are one-shotting things past level 5? Maybe on a crit as part of a full attack but how is it happening a lot?
"Why use one of my spells per day when I can just let the melees handle it?" The first part is the arrogance, the second is the laziness.
When I play casters I do it to save resources. I will throw out a spell if needed, but once the battle is well in hand I just go into melee with them. If I am playing a low BAB caster then I just try to buff the party and/or debuff team evil, with as few spells as possible.
But that's not what you're arguing for. . . you aren't arguing for martials to have abilities or options to by pass DR, you are arguing for Wizards to be able to mass produce weapons that by-pass everything.With this rule implemented its no biggie though-- I just have to through DR 10/- and Fast Healing 10 on to every monster the players ever encounter to make sure they live long enough for players to have fun.
That or triple listed hit points. . .
Long ineffective fights are not fun for players, not even a little bit.
If I'm level 12 sitting there throwing out 6 attacks a round tally up the total after a sweet round where I land everything subtract DR and I'm like "Oh I did 25 damage ..." That isn't when I'm like "WOOOO! AWESOME FIGHT!" it's more like when I swap over to web surfing and wait for the Caster to trivialize the encounter.
One-shotting the BBEG that the entire campaign has been built around is no fun either. And is ridiculously anti-climactic.
I'd be like if the ending of Aliens was Ripley punching the Alien Queen once, and all the aliens on LV-426 died instantly.
If his hit points are that low then the DR probably is not saving him anyway since the rest of the party is likely to finish him off.
|
MY GM does not allow weapon enhancement to by pass specific material DR. It has started to hurt my character's effectiveness and quote "I think the weapon enhancement rule is bullsh$t and is a lazy persons way out of being perpared
I do not see what the problem is. Change characters and play a caster. No more weapons to argue about ;-)
If you GM does not accept that you change your character, change GM :-))
More seriously, explain to your GM how much this lessens your fun at playing this specific character and try to find a compromise acceptable by all. Rules, even RAW (which this one is not BTW), should take a definite backseat to the enjoyment of the gaming group (that is both GM and players).
|
"Why use one of my spells per day when I can just let the melees handle it?" The first part is the arrogance, the second is the laziness.When I play casters I do it to save resources. I will throw out a spell if needed, but once the battle is well in hand I just go into melee with them. If I am playing a low BAB caster then I just try to buff the party and/or debuff team evil, with as few spells as possible.
Before it gets taken too poorly, I'm using the terms arrogance and laziness, but don't mean it in a bad way. This is actually how I perceive the way I play casters: just sort of hanging out, along for the ride, until nobody else can solve the problem. Then I sit up, stop mindlessly repeating "haste" after every initiative roll, and actually look at my character sheet. Resource management is the reason this play style started, and why it works, but the end result looks like arrogance and/or laziness.
The average fight is only 3 to 4 rounds, and if a GM knows his party he won't need fast healing 10 and DR 10/- to make it last 3 to 4 rounds.
But that's not what you're arguing for. . . you aren't arguing for martials to have abilities or options to by pass DR, you are arguing for Wizards to be able to mass produce weapons that by-pass everything.With this rule implemented its no biggie though-- I just have to through DR 10/- and Fast Healing 10 on to every monster the players ever encounter to make sure they live long enough for players to have fun.
That or triple listed hit points. . .
Long ineffective fights are not fun for players, not even a little bit.
If I'm level 12 sitting there throwing out 6 attacks a round tally up the total after a sweet round where I land everything subtract DR and I'm like "Oh I did 25 damage ..." That isn't when I'm like "WOOOO! AWESOME FIGHT!" it's more like when I swap over to web surfing and wait for the Caster to trivialize the encounter.
Fights over in 2 rounds aren't any fun either. If there's no challenge to the game why bother?
Rocket tag is only fun for a certain segment of the population.
I don't enjoy fights of 3-4 rounds. This may be a huge problem of why people think Wizards are so OP and martials are so weak. At my table the major encounter of a session I aim to make challenging enough to be a minimum of 10 rounds; if the part can win in 3 I have failed as a DM.
DR helps accomplish that by slowing some of the damage.
The average fight is only 3 to 4 rounds, and if a GM knows his party he won't need fast healing 10 and DR 10/- to make it last 3 to 4 rounds.
But that's not what you're arguing for. . . you aren't arguing for martials to have abilities or options to by pass DR, you are arguing for Wizards to be able to mass produce weapons that by-pass everything.With this rule implemented its no biggie though-- I just have to through DR 10/- and Fast Healing 10 on to every monster the players ever encounter to make sure they live long enough for players to have fun.
That or triple listed hit points. . .
Long ineffective fights are not fun for players, not even a little bit.
If I'm level 12 sitting there throwing out 6 attacks a round tally up the total after a sweet round where I land everything subtract DR and I'm like "Oh I did 25 damage ..." That isn't when I'm like "WOOOO! AWESOME FIGHT!" it's more like when I swap over to web surfing and wait for the Caster to trivialize the encounter.
Fights over in 2 rounds aren't any fun either. If there's no challenge to the game why bother?
Rocket tag is only fun for a certain segment of the population.
I don't enjoy fights of 3-4 rounds. This may be a huge problem of why people think Wizards are so OP and martials are so weak. At my table the major encounter of a session I aim to make challenging enough to be a minimum of 10 rounds; if the part can win in 3 I have failed as a DM.
DR helps accomplish that by slowing some of the damage.
So do tons of hitpoints, and tons of hit points actually don't give an additional disadvantage to characters who have their damage spread over more attacks with less damage each. As opposed to characters who pool more damage into fewer attacks.
20 years and you haven't seen an effective blaster or an area spell hit more than one target?Crossblooded Draconic/Orc Sorcerer 1/Admixture Wizard 5.
+1 damage per die of any damage spell and +1 damage per die of any fire spell
Yes, but he has very little variety, and if the foe is immune to fire, he's toast... so to speak.
Martials are one-shotting things past level 5? Maybe on a crit as part of a full attack but how is it happening a lot?
Mythic power attack.
Or a full attack with a bow. Clustered shot blows past DR.
Yes, but he has very little variety, and if the foe is immune to fire, he's toast... so to speak.
20 years and you haven't seen an effective blaster or an area spell hit more than one target?Crossblooded Draconic/Orc Sorcerer 1/Admixture Wizard 5.
+1 damage per die of any damage spell and +1 damage per die of any fire spell
Admixture, elemental metamagic spells. Elemental Spell doesn't change the descriptor either and so you keep your bonus damage despite dealing different elemental damage. You can get one as a metamagic rod for 3,000 gp. Its only +1 Spell Level.
|
|
MY GM does not allow weapon enhancement to by pass specific material DR. It has started to hurt my character's effectiveness and quote "I think the weapon enhancement rule is bullsh$t and is a lazy persons way out of being perpared
Responding only to the OP. no, he is not. I have that houserule in my games as well. The +'s bypassing nullifies most weapon materials. I made materials matter in my game. Cold Iron weapons will still be relevant in the late game, where RAW, it is obsolete by 8th or so.
It sounds like the argument is being raised that DR itself is un-fun. In that case, why even include it?Frankly I do think DR itself is an unfun mechanic and that it does more harm than good to the game.
A houserule I played with a few years ago for one AP attempted to address this in a manner that was fun for the players. Any monster with DR was granted more hit points... typically 2 per HD per point of DR if I recall right (using only the highest value in the case of multiples). Then the monster was assumed to be weak to certain materials/alignments/etc. So something with DR/cold iron took normal damage from everything except a cold iron weapon which did extra damage (typically 2 or more points per hit... I don't remember the formula I used). Instead of penalizing everyone for not carrying the right weapon, you are rewarding the one carrying the right weapon without penalizing everyone else.
Of course, this did little to change the disparity of THF/Archery vs TWF in the long run, but if a TWF DID have two weapons of the right material, he felt a little more powerful than the THF for a brief moment. When no one had the right materials, the fights still took an extra round or two, but my players never indicated that any of those fights felt overly lengthy. I never played out the same fight twice using both systems to compare lengths though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MY GM does not allow weapon enhancement to by pass specific material DR. It has started to hurt my character's effectiveness and quote "I think the weapon enhancement rule is bullsh$t and is a lazy persons way out of being perparedResponding only to the OP. no, he is not. I have that houserule in my games as well. The +'s bypassing nullifies most weapon materials. I made materials matter in my game. Cold Iron weapons will still be relevant in the late game, where RAW, it is obsolete by 8th or so.
Why do you hate martials?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is your GM being a jerk?
kinda.
I houserule things all the time. Sometimes I'll make up a rule on the spot for something, even if there's an existing rule for it in the rulebook just because I feel the situation warrants it being done differently. Sometimes I'll change something because it's getting done a lot in-game and the results feel "wrong".
The trick is to do it fairly. If you're constantly singling out a certain player or type of activity, then your group will likely have problems with it. If you're making those changes in such a way that it enhances your players' game experience, then it's more likely they'll be fine with you doing it and will be more likely to trust you to make the right call whether it follows the rulebook or not. Obviously it also depends on the group, if people came to the table and you gave them the expectation it'll be played RAW, then it's wrong to make those changes.
If I make a rules change that means a fundamental change to the way someone built their character, then I'll give them the opportunity to make some changes, that's only fair.
So, to answer the question - if you knew about the house rule in advance, or have been given the opportunity to rebuild your character, and there was no agreement to the game being purely RAW, then your GM is not being a jerk. It also sounds like your group could benefit from more communication in the future.
Fighter: "I charge the BBEG" *rolls natural 20, confirms* "WOOHOO, 120 points of slashing damage! Suck it [BBEG's name here]"
GM: "Sorry, he's immune to slashing damage."
Figher: "What? I've never heard of someone being immune to..."
GM: "SHUT UP! ROCKS FALL YOU DIE!" *takes toys and goes home*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Resource management is the reason this play style started, and why it works, but the end result looks like arrogance and/or laziness.
How so? Would it be better to keep slinging spells and find yourself and the party in a bad situation because you wasted all of your useful spells on a fight that was already won?
That is just smart gameplay. Even when I a martial I don't like casters blowing spells if it is not needed.
I don't enjoy fights of 3-4 rounds. This may be a huge problem of why people think Wizards are so OP and martials are so weak. At my table the major encounter of a session I aim to make challenging enough to be a minimum of 10 rounds; if the part can win in 3 I have failed as a DM.
DR helps accomplish that by slowing some of the damage.
I was simply stating what the average was, and it is difficult to make it a 10 round fight unless it is a boss level fight. If you try to use a lot of minions in a normal fight the casters tend to negate them. If you use one or 2 monsters and the martials are well built they go down in 2 or 3 rounds, maybe 4.
edit: If you are worried about casters taking over why are you using DR to hold the martials back intentionally. I am not saying don't use DR. I just don't understand your position.
Martials are one-shotting things past level 5? Maybe on a crit as part of a full attack but how is it happening a lot?Mythic power attack.
Or a full attack with a bow. Clustered shot blows past DR.
Most people are not using mythic rules, and bows are not one shotting a monster of equal CR past level 5 without a crit unless the monster has low HP for its CR.
I don't enjoy fights of 3-4 rounds. This may be a huge problem of why people think Wizards are so OP and martials are so weak. At my table the major encounter of a session I aim to make challenging enough to be a minimum of 10 rounds; if the part can win in 3 I have failed as a DM.
DR helps accomplish that by slowing some of the damage.
I was simply stating what the average was, and it is difficult to make it a 10 round fight unless it is a boss level fight. If you try to use a lot of minions in a normal fight the casters tend to negate them. If you use one or 2 monsters and the martials are well built they go down in 2 or 3 rounds, maybe 4.
edit: If you are worried about casters taking over why are you using DR to hold the martials back intentionally. I am not saying don't use DR. I just don't understand your position.
My position is that I like the FLAVOR of needing something specific (Silver or Cold Iron) to overcome DR and I dislike the marginalization of DR as a mechanic by essentially having all martial characters get past all DR so easily.
I don't remove SR or Energy Resistance which are the things that slow spellcasters, and I also don't trivialize them by stating something like "Spells of 7th level ignore half the Energy resistance, 8th level ignore all energy resistances and 9th level ignore spell resistance" which is what +3/+4/+5 to ignore all DR feels like.
I don't remove SR or Energy Resistance which are the things that slow bad spellcasters,
FIXT
I don't enjoy fights of 3-4 rounds. This may be a huge problem of why people think Wizards are so OP and martials are so weak. At my table the major encounter of a session I aim to make challenging enough to be a minimum of 10 rounds; if the part can win in 3 I have failed as a DM.
DR helps accomplish that by slowing some of the damage.
I was simply stating what the average was, and it is difficult to make it a 10 round fight unless it is a boss level fight. If you try to use a lot of minions in a normal fight the casters tend to negate them. If you use one or 2 monsters and the martials are well built they go down in 2 or 3 rounds, maybe 4.
edit: If you are worried about casters taking over why are you using DR to hold the martials back intentionally. I am not saying don't use DR. I just don't understand your position.My position is that I like the FLAVOR of needing something specific (Silver or Cold Iron) to overcome DR and I dislike the marginalization of DR as a mechanic by essentially having all martial characters get past all DR so easily.
I don't remove SR or Energy Resistance which are the things that slow spellcasters, and I also don't trivialize them by stating something like "Spells of 7th level ignore half the Energy resistance, 8th level ignore all energy resistances and 9th level ignore spell resistance" which is what +3/+4/+5 to ignore all DR feels like.
There is on version of SR and 5 versions of resist energy. That is not even close to all the types of DR. On top of that a caster can just use another spell. The melee types can't just go to weapon B and be as effective as they were before. You point about flavor stands since that is a personal preference.