Bring back DR/+2????

Paraxis · Jun 23, 2006

I had a thought on DR, I liked the old school idea of +1 through +5 DR. I hated the all or nothing aspect of it though. So what about the idea of for every +1 enhancement bonus to damage you get to ignore 5 points of a creatures DR/magic.

So very old White Dragon has DR 15/magic, if you hit it with a +2 flaming, holy, wounding, cold iron weapon it gets to apply 5 points of its DR.

What would this do to the game is it adding anything to it or just screwing the Fighter who just got his sword sundered by said dragon and is pulling out his boot knife(+1 adamantine Dagger)?

I always like the idea of higher enhancement getting something more than just hardness, hit points, and hit/damage.

I also am a big fan of you need a +2 enhancement bonus before you can have any +2 effects and +5 before any +5 effects. So all vorpal weapons are only +5 and vorpal unless they are epic.

Fieari · Jun 23, 2006

I like the first idea with regards to DR/magic... I mean, when you're fighting things with DR/magic anyway, there's almost no chance that you don't actually have a magic weapon.

The second... ehhh.... it could work, I guess, but it'd make these things more than twice as expensive as before, so unless you really want to limit named abilities, I'd reccomend against it. Note that in many cases, the named abilities aren't actually as good as the equivelent enhancement bonus.

For DR/epic, it might be an interesting rule to extend this principle, but for a 1 to 1 basis instead of a 1 to 5 basis...

Stalker0 · Jun 23, 2006

The DR rule I've seen before, and a fair number of people seem to like it.

For your named bonus rule, its an interesting idea and would definately make the +3 sword much more common than a +1 flaming, shocking sword.

airwalkrr · Jun 23, 2006

I've thought of the DR rule myself and often wondered how well it would work. I imagine it would work fine. Perhaps I will have to try it one day. I haven't foreseen any major problems with it. I mean, yea that +1 dagger won't do much to the dragon now, but do you think a dragon should worry about a +1 dagger anyway?

Graf · Jun 23, 2006

I believe:
Pluses are probably a bit overpriced compared to what they offer. Would you rather have a +4 sword or a +1 flaming shocking frost? (probably the second).

A lot of abilities are also quite expensive relative to their “plus cost”. (vorpal, disruption, etc.)

Given those assumptions
The “cheap” powers (elemental damage, holy, etc) would become, relatively more attractive.

So you would see non-standard weapon properties far less frequently since they are effectively more expensive (because you need to pay twice, once for the plus and once for the cost).

Honestly I think that given all of these factors you’re better off just lowering the cost of normal pluses a bit (20~30%?) if you want to see them more frequently.

I like the magic rule (5 points per plus) but it would effectively make DR more powerful (and its already fairly powerful).
I wouldn’t combine the two (so either make pluses cheaper OR make the DR staged not both).

Just my opinion though.

Bront · Jun 23, 2006

I like the + idea for DR, though i'd probably rate it on total overall plus.

I don't like the matching bonus, because a +1 keen weapon should be perfectly fine I think. In fact, some of the unique weapons are low + imbalanced.

Graf, Technicaly a +1 to hit and Damage is worth about the same as no bonus to hit and +1d6 damage of an elemental type. Average damage isn't much different, particularly in part. It depends on the average damage of the weapon though.

Assuming a base +15 to hit with all weapons before the enhancement:
A +2 Hand Axe (D6, 20x3 crit) getting +2 to damage before enhancement (14 str) vs the same wielder using a +1 Flaming Hand Axe: Any AC 32 or below, and the Flaming weapon does better average damage. Any AC above 32, the +2 does better.

A +2 Great Axe (d12, 20x3 crit) getting a +8 damage bonus before enhancement (18 Str, Weapon Specialization) vs the same wielder with a +1 Flaming Great Axe: AC 29 and below the Flaming does more on average, AC 30 or higher, the +2 does more on average (though the difference is .04 points at AC 29, so it's fairly moot there)

However, note that the elemental damage is subject to resistance, so that can nulify the advantage fairly quickly. And as the +s get bigger over even more damage (+3 vs +1 flaming frost), the AC swingpoint slowly moves down, or if you increase the damage done in some other way (offensive precognician, raise strength, etc) it also moves the AC swingpoint down.

comrade raoul · Jun 23, 2006

Bront said:
Graf, Technicaly a +1 to hit and Damage is worth about the same as no bonus to hit and +1d6 damage of an elemental type. Average damage isn't much different, particularly in part. It depends on the average damage of the weapon though.

Also consider the interesting and underrecognized fact that if you have Power Attack, elemental bonuses are very rarely worthwhile for two-handed weapons, since a Power Attack character can convert the marginal +1 attack bonus from the weapon's increased enhancement bonus to a +2 damage bonus, yielding a total bonus of +3 -- but a +3 damage bonus that is multiplied on critical hits and ignores elemental resistances, unlike the average +3.5 damage from the other enhancements.

Raven Crowking · Jun 23, 2006

Stalker0 said:
The DR rule I've seen before, and a fair number of people seem to like it.

For your named bonus rule, its an interesting idea and would definately make the +3 sword much more common than a +1 flaming, shocking sword.

Indeed.

drexes · Jun 23, 2006

We use the DR avoided by + rule in our campaign and it works well, though we use a three per + exchange. Overcome three points of DR/+1 of the weapon. I admit that it tends to make dr more powerful, but in a lot of cases I have found that too many creatures with dr have low hit points for thier CR, so I like it.

Just my two cents which being based of the US Dollar, are in fact worth more in Canada...hrrmm..... Canada...

Drexes

Stalker0 · Jun 23, 2006

Graf said:
Would you rather have a +4 sword or a +1 flaming shocking frost?

I agree for most fighter types the second is better, but that's not a universal answer. A rogue for example, will often prefer the to hit bonus. When I'm doing +5d6 on my SA, I don't care about a few more d6 as much as making sure I hit in the first place. Or if you like using poison, to hit is more important.

Also keep in mind if you like disarming weapons, the enhancement bonus is a better deal. That +1 XXXX sword is great until it gets disarmed by a +5 weapon.