I'm not too keen on the +5 weapon overcoming all DR system that PF has introduced.
Although the "golfbag" of weapons in 3.5 was a bit crazy, at least it was tactical. Now my players all ignore the other enhancement options and just work their way up to a +5 whatever.
What have you guys experienced/seen?
Are the PF rules better?
I'm not too keen on the +5 weapon overcoming all DR system that PF has introduced.
Although the "golfbag" of weapons in 3.5 was a bit crazy, at least it was tactical. Now my players all ignore the other enhancement options and just work their way up to a +5 whatever.
What have you guys experienced/seen?
Are the PF rules better?
My players don't know about the rule yet, but I will tell them when it comes up. I think its better now. Unless you use all the DR's in your game that should not happen, but if you do then that is just good tactics. I allow the MiC, and even before that the enhancements were not popular at my table, unless they found a weapon that was already made that way.
I'm not too keen on the +5 weapon overcoming all DR system that PF has introduced.
Although the "golfbag" of weapons in 3.5 was a bit crazy, at least it was tactical. Now my players all ignore the other enhancement options and just work their way up to a +5 whatever.
What have you guys experienced/seen?
Are the PF rules better?
It just lets the fighter not have to sigh and bring out his unenchanted backup hammer every time he sees some epic level skeleton or something.
I don't see a difference between 3.5e and PF in low levels. I'm still buying silver weapons.
I played a 3.5 game up to 13th level and never saw too much of a golfbag effect (Our cleric had a couple alternate bastards swords until he got his axiomatic sword). I personally like that, because its more "folk lore" friendly.
In other words, you usually didn't have too many stories that said, "only a silver weapon can kill the werewolf, unless said weapon is very greatly enchanted."
Plus, there actually is kind of a precedence for just raw power overcoming DR, in that you have stories of lesser men never being able to kill, say, Grendel, but Beowulf could use his "mightier than other men" strength to rip off his arm.
Since Pathfinder has been officially out, I've only played in Legacy of Fire with a cleric that's more likely to use Spiritual Weapon to overcome anything his scimitar can't handle, or run PFS events or Council of Thieves up to 2nd level.
The fact that Greater Magic Weapon still overwrites the enhancement bonus
It does not, however, penetrate DR like true enhancement bonuses do.
And, frankly, +1 to hit +1 to damage is a huge DPR bonus. Much better than most other weapon enchantments, especially when you consider the DR penetration.
I for one am glad there is now a point to make something +2 or +4 in place of just a +1 with+9 ability thrown in. At long last the plain+4 sword has a place once more
I for one am glad there is now a point to make something +2 or +4 in place of just a +1 with+9 ability thrown in. At long last the plain+4 sword has a place once more
I'm in total agreement here.
I don't mind it too much given a character can have invested so many feats in a weapon and then go to use another weapon for no other reason other than the material its made from or damage type.
Most of the high level games I've played in no one every got to +5 instead choosing various abilities and leaving the weapon at +1.
I liked 3.0 DR rules, where more powerful monsters required weapons with higher bonuses to overcome the DR. This whole "+1 bonus overcomes all #/magic DR" just killed any need for higher bonuses. Of course, the way D&D handles DR is just stupid overall, but that's D&D for you.
|
I liked 3.0 DR rules, where more powerful monsters required weapons with higher bonuses to overcome the DR. This whole "+1 bonus overcomes all #/magic DR" just killed any need for higher bonuses. Of course, the way D&D handles DR is just stupid overall, but that's D&D for you.
Despite not having played 3.0, I do usually house-rule some monsters to have a DR/+X type of DR, just because I like that more even if it makes it *slightly* more complex.
I'm also slightly nervous about those bonuses overcoming DR, but mostly for the sake of characters like monks who don't get their DR until 20th level, and it's /alignment, which would be bypassed by anyone with a good weapon. Not to devalue the flavor of requiring certain materials or blessed weapons and the like.I at least understand the logic behind it, though. The DRs that are /material or /alignment are pseudo-magically based and are thus bypassed by sufficiently powerful magic. If they had made them auto bypass /damage-type DR I would have completely house-ruled that out.
I'm honestly fine with the way it is now, the problem with 3.0 and 3.5 were that some of the DR amounts were so ridiculous that it was impossible to kill things without the special required weapon, which led to either the critter being undefeatable by the party.
I think the crazy DR was in 3.0, 3.5 fixed that. I had a DM that used a 3.0 MM in a 3.5 adventure and there were a number of critters that were far harder to kill in the 3.0 book. We used to call it "The Book of Death"!
I for one am glad there is now a point to make something +2 or +4 in place of just a +1 with+9 ability thrown in. At long last the plain+4 sword has a place once more
There is still good reason to choose plain enhancement bonuses, Hardness and Hit Points.
I still feel it's a shame no one wants to have a say, a flaming >whatever< anymore.
There is still good reason to choose plain enhancement bonuses, Hardness and Hit Points.
And let's not forget Sundering Weapons, since PRPG uses the 3.5 non-errata'ed rule where you need a +x weapon to sunder another +x weapon.
Sadly Dragons who cannot break lousy +2 Daggers...
Throwing another 2c, the new DR system allows a Monk to be more useful, however, since while wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists his Unarmed Strikes effectively become +x weapons, and so he can bypass the DR of various monsters.
(I know that some people would argue that, since the AoMF is created using the Greater Magic Fang spell, it would have the same limitations of the spell, more precisely the 'no bypass DR', but I respectfully disagree - after all, a Flaming Sword is built using Fireball as a spell, and I'm sure that nobody would suppress a Flaming ability inside a Globe of Invulnerability)
Best Amulet combinations (IMHO)? Either plain +5 (bypasses all DR except for Slashing and Piercing, good strike/damage ratio, flat bonus can be multiplied on crits) or +3 Holy (bypasses all DR/material from 16th - when the Monk gains Ki strike-Adamantine - , DR/evil, and inflicts a good punch).
And let's not forget Sundering Weapons, since PRPG uses the 3.5 non-errata'ed rule where you need a +x weapon to sunder another +x weapon.
Sadly Dragons who cannot break lousy +2 Daggers...
Huh? Where on earth are you getting this rule from? Sunder makes no distinction for magical vs nonmagical items, and the "damaging magic items" section specifically states:
Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost. Magic items that take damage in excess of half their total hit points, but not more than their total hit points, gain the broken condition, and might not function properly (see the Appendix).
The only thing special about magic weapons is that enchanted items get +2 hardness and +10 hp per +1 enhancement bonus. A dragon can easily sunder a +2 dagger.
|
|
Huh? Where on earth are you getting this rule from? Sunder makes no distinction for magical vs nonmagical items, and the "damaging magic items" section specifically states: *SNIP*
Quoth the PRD:
Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck.
Sources (just ctrl+f "Damaging Magic Weapons"):
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/weapons.html
3.5 DR rules meant that no sane person invested in +2 or above weapons, it was far more efficient to have +1 frosty flaming acidic shocky longsword than a +5 weapon.
Exactly, There is now a reason to have weapons enchanted beyond +1 or +2. And as was pointed out by Mr. Kthulhu, this does not bypass ALL DR.
In one game I spent a feat and a ton of gold to get myself a special cold iron weapon, now this cost seems a bit much for what I am getting. This could have been handled better.
Yeah it does make it worth going to +5 with the weapon, that and the sundering part, too.
Besides, the DR is so low that high-level damage dealers won't have a problem overcoming it at all thanks to Power Attack, weapon special abilities, high sneak attack damage, and many other factors. I missed the 3.0 days when DR made sense. An iron golem with DR 50 was far more realistic than one with 15.
3.5 DR rules meant that no sane person invested in +2 or above weapons, it was far more efficient to have +1 frosty flaming acidic shocky longsword than a +5 weapon.
Your DM allowed you to add different elemental abilities to the same weapon!
A frosty-fiery weapon would not be allowed in my games! Maybe I'm just mean ;)
[Edit]
A fellow DM and friend pointed out that most cities would maybe have an Expert/Artificer of around level 9 at best. This would mean that anything above +3 [weapons/armour/rings/amulets etc] would not be "sitting on the shelf" and therefore not available to most folk. Such items would have to be crafted by players, or ordered in advance [if you're lucky] from known [separate adventure to locate?] crafters.
|
|
3.5 DR rules meant that no sane person invested in +2 or above weapons, it was far more efficient to have +1 frosty flaming acidic shocky longsword than a +5 weapon.Your DM allowed you to add different elemental abilities to the same weapon!
A frosty-fiery weapon would not be allowed in my games! Maybe I'm just mean ;)
No, you're not. Those abilities have a command-word activation and activating one deactivates the others. Having both is somewhat pointless (other than for versatility's sake).
And let's not forget Sundering Weapons, since PRPG uses the 3.5 non-errata'ed rule where you need a +x weapon to sunder another +x weapon.
Sadly Dragons who cannot break lousy +2 Daggers...
Huh? Where on earth are you getting this rule from? Sunder makes no distinction for magical vs nonmagical items, and the "damaging magic items" section specifically states:
Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost. Magic items that take damage in excess of half their total hit points, but not more than their total hit points, gain the broken condition, and might not function properly (see the Appendix).The only thing special about magic weapons is that enchanted items get +2 hardness and +10 hp per +1 enhancement bonus. A dragon can easily sunder a +2 dagger.
Me and my PFGM found what he's talking about last night in the core book. I can't remember where it was offhand, but I'll try and find it. The rules do seem to say that to damage a +5 weapon you need another +5 weapon, regardless of the material of either weapon.
EDIT: Page 468 of the PF Core Book: "Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck".
I'm not too keen on the +5 weapon overcoming all DR system that PF has introduced.
I love it. Makes the plain, straight +X weapon (not the fake greater magic weapon weapons) nice again.
Although the "golfbag" of weapons in 3.5 was a bit crazy, at least it was tactical.
Now I don't get that. Strategic, maybe.
And what is so good about forcing people to waste money on an extra weapon or 10 to avoid sucking in some fights? Sucking in fights, well, sucks.
Now my players all ignore the other enhancement options and just work their way up to a +5 whatever.
I have seen mixed results.
Back in 3.5, I had +1 +everything weapons, but rarely more than +1. Well, there were a lot of +1 +everything weapons enhanced with greater magic weapon.
Are the PF rules better?
I say yes.
The special materials still mean something. Holy (and so on) weapons still mean something. But so do straight magic weapons.
Fair enough.
EDIT: Page 468 of the PF Core Book: "Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck".
Ouch. That is ridiculous. I think I'll just not mention this little rule in my games.
EDIT: Page 468 of the PF Core Book: "Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck".Ouch. That is ridiculous. I think I'll just not mention this little rule in my games.
After reading this thread, I was thinking about having a house rule to make the magic item being damaged make a FORT save vs damage after hardness? This would keep little piddly things from breaking superior magical items, but still allow a dragon in all their massive glory to damage the weapon. Just an idea, what do you think?
Personally I like the material type DR and to a lesser extend the alignment DR. It is much easier to explain from character perspective, a + 5 weapon doesnt distinguish itself much from a + 4 weapon, while a silver or cold iron weapon is much more obvious.
I am a GM though and I like to challenge my players through slightly less straightforward hack and slash, ofcourse I'll adjust the challenge rating of some creatures that are harder to harm.
I support the idea of making 'real magic weapons' a bit more interesting though, so I guess I dont mind bringing the x / + x DR back for that purpose.
Personally I like the material type DR and to a lesser extend the alignment DR. It is much easier to explain from character perspective, a + 5 weapon doesnt distinguish itself much from a + 4 weapon, while a silver or cold iron weapon is much more obvious.
I am a GM though and I like to challenge my players through slightly less straightforward hack and slash, ofcourse I'll adjust the challenge rating of some creatures that are harder to harm.
I support the idea of making 'real magic weapons' a bit more interesting though, so I guess I dont mind bringing the x / + x DR back for that purpose.
I think it is unfortunate that many weapons and armor do not have a background or such that can be discovered in many games. They are the hack-and-slash weapons that are just a tool with bonuses that overcomes DR. If you think about it, that magical weapon was created by someone who had to get up to that level to create it, and maybe there story and use of it before losing it was intering as well. If you created it in real life yourself, you'd probably have some pride in your creation, no?
When the game becomes a simple matter of number crunching and over optimizing (only picking classes because they are top tier and such) and less about storytelling, it's basically D&D miniatures. This is just my opinion and playing style, but it many games this is the unfortunate case.
For the gentlemen above with the Cold Iron weapon, I propose a House Rule:
If the enhancement bonus on your weapon is sufficient to bypass DR, AND you would have otherwise surpassed without the enhancement bonus, you do additional damage = to the amount of DR of the foe, to represent your weapon's ability to prey upon their weakness.
i.e. your weapon normally deals +15 dmg to something with dr 15/Cold Iron. Your weapon is +3 Cold Iron, the +3 bypasses the DR and you're still dealing the +15 from having cold iron. Your weapon goes from 'just' punching DR to being outright anathema!
This means that a proper Demon Slaying sword will STILL be Holy Cold Iron, because of the additional damage you'll do against them. That guy over there with the adamantine weapon will still hurt them, but not nearly as much as you do.
======
This viewpoint represents a different take on Damage Reduction. Effectively, all DR is x/-, but the creature has an 'allergy' or vulnerability to a specific combination of effects. They don't 'lose' DR...they take 'additional damage' from weapons they are anathemic to.
So, your Marilith has DR 20/holy cold iron magic. Effectivley, they take +20 dmg from weapons that are holy cold iron and magical. If the enhancement bonus bypasses their DR, they are still taking +20 dmg!
In short, DR now becomes a potential gaping hole as well as a good defense. Find that weakness, bypass the DR, and rip them a new one.
===Aelryinth
EDIT: Page 468 of the PF Core Book: "Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck".Ouch. That is ridiculous. I think I'll just not mention this little rule in my games.
I know it, and I agree with you (sorry for not replying earlier, I was off-line for a while). My personal point of view (I could be wrong) is that the rule somehow 'slipped by' from the SRD, which was not errata'ed like the 3.5 Official Rules.
This is the SRD rule for damaging magic weapons:
"Hardness and Hit Points: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon’s or shield’s hardness and hit points."
And this is the Official 3.5 errata for that rule (which was NOT included into the SRD...):
"Hardness and Hit Points
Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 222
Problem: The first paragraph is not consistent with similar information for shields on page 217.
Solution: Delete the first sentence after the boldface header. Change the next sentence to read as follows:
Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points."
This is one of the few rules I'm willing to change, since I don't like the idea of Dragons which are not able to sunder +2 Daggers, or huge iron portcullisis that can be hold open with a +1 quarterstaff placed under them...
This is one of the few rules I'm willing to change, since I don't like the idea of Dragons which are not able to sunder +2 Daggers, or huge iron portcullisis that can be hold open with a +1 quarterstaff placed under them...
I totally agree here.
No, you're not. Those abilities have a command-word activation and activating one deactivates the others. Having both is somewhat pointless (other than for versatility's sake).
Where does it say that one activating one ability via command word deactivates the others? I've never heard of such a rule before. It would mess up all sorts of official magical items. Also, why couldn't you have the same command word for all abilities (so you turn them all on or all off at once)?