[3.5] Damage Reduction & Andy Collins

[Fenes 2]

Discouraged, encouraged... it all depends on the DM. If the DM is fond of using undead and other monsters immune to critical hits, rogues and keen improved critical scimitar/rapier wielders are not as effective as the greatsword wielding barbarian, effectively getting discouraged.
If the DM is fond of using high-mobile hit and run enemies, the full-attacking melee tank in heavy armor will not be too effective compared to the monk.
If the DM is fond of just using random monsters out of the book without regards to party capabilities, then the new DR may discourage certain characters. I, for one, don't play like that. I check what my players want to play, and then model the enemies after their characters - I don't take the "baseline" and force them to adapt or die. There may be the occasional creature or enemy that is very hard to hurt, but all in all my players' PCs will be effective in their chosen roles - no matter what it is.

 

[drnuncheon]

I always liked the Idea of having one weapon, and using it and upgrading it, naming it and becoming familiar with it, and prefering to use it above all else.

However, with all these new types of DR, doesn't that idea seem to be discouraged?

No, because unless every foe you throw at them has wildly different kinds of DR, players are still going to have one 'primary' weapon. They're going to use that on most foes, and then when they run into something with a DR that it won't bypass, they'll say "oh poopie" and pull out the silver dagger (or what have you). Some people may not even bother with this, and just crank up the Power Attack instead.

I mean, really: is an adamantine sword, a silver dagger, and maybe a cold iron mace a 'golf bag' of weapons? I don't think so. Most PCs I know carry 3-4 weapons - their primary, a dagger of some kind, a ranged weapon, and sometimes a backup.

The guys that do spend all of their cash on a golfbag of weapons (and try to keep them all equal) are going to be markedly less effective in most circumstances.

Furthermore, I expect that in long-standing parties, there will be a sort of 'division of labor' among the magic weapons. When a devil shows up, the paladin will take center stage because he's the guy with a holy silver broadsword. Similarly, when the foe is a golem, it'll be the fighter with his adamantine bastard sword that is the mainstay of the combat. The other front-liners will take support roles if they can't bull through - there's a lot of things that a warrior can do that don't involve penetrating DR!

J

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

Forgive me, but in what way is that question different to now, i.e. 3.0?

Indeed, the question is slightly easier to answer in 3.5, since the Fighter who lacks the +3 sword to defeat the 20/+3 DR is probably going to be able to do rather less than the 3.5 Fighter overcoming the 10/lawful DR.

I think you are missing the point here. You can assume that a party will have the means to suprass a certain level of DR by a certain level, based on how potent weapons they own or GMW. Now, the question is if they happen to have the specific enchantment or material you need, which is more random.

Yes, the net DR is lower. But it still makes a huge difference. To reduce a fighter who can deal an average of 12 points a round to 2 points a round is a significant difference in the ability of the party to affect the creature. The "effective CR" due to being unable to beat the DR will not be as different, but the situation of having a creature whose ability exceeds it's supposed CR will be more frequent.

 

[Psion]

"if all you do is move (not run) during your turn, the space that you start out in is not considered threatened, and therefore enemies do not get AOO's against when you move from that space."

I strongly suspect that this rule will be replaced by the withdraw action we see in other WotC products, so the issue of things like haste will become moot.

 

[BryonD]

Isn't that making a mountain out of a molehill?

True CR or EL has already been an highly elusive, party structure dependant concept. I never thought CR was anything better than a ballpark guestamite before. So this addition to uncertainty is completely negligible.

Add in that I find your 12 points per round figure to be a major exageration and a non-issue is further reduced.

Worst case scenario, assume that CR includes the presumption that DR can be overcome. So if the party can not, this is special circumstances that MAY warrent bonus XP.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

Yes, the net DR is lower. But it still makes a huge difference. To reduce a fighter who can deal an average of 12 points a round to 2 points a round is a significant difference in the ability of the party to affect the creature. The "effective CR" due to being unable to beat the DR will not be as different, but the situation of having a creature whose ability exceeds it's supposed CR will be more frequent.

With the changes to things like Power Attack, I think DR will be mitigated in a variety of different ways. With fighters now doing more damage via power attack, the lower DR balances out. As far as the CR system is concerned, it's so dependent on EL and situational modifiers for every combat, I've never considered it anything more than a ballpark figure anyhow.

 

[Psion]

Isn't that making a mountain out of a molehill?

No. It's calling a moderately sized hill a moderately sized hill.

True CR or EL has already been an highly elusive, party structure dependant concept.

Indeed it is. But DR has always been the biggest wrinkle in its utility. There is no reason to make it worse.

Add in that I find your 12 points per round figure to be a major exageration and a non-issue is further reduced.

Do you care to justify this statement? Just how is it an exagarations. A 12 point average is not outlandish low or high for a fighter, and a 10 DR is supposed to be one of the three norms for DR.

Worst case scenario, assume that CR includes the presumption that DR can be overcome. So if the party can not, this is special circumstances that MAY warrent bonus XP.

I think you are missing the point here. Sure you could do that, if that is what you intended to do from the get go. But CR will be further compromised as an effective measure if it varies wildly dependant upon a factor which has no direct corellation to level, e.g., did the party get a silver-plated sword in the last town. This makes the task of selecting creatures to challenge the party on the fly much more haphazard.

 

[Deadguy]

I really do think, Psion, that you are making more of this DR matter than it warrants. It might cause some difficulties if you are in the position of DMing for a group whose capabilities you don't know. But for the typical, known group, you will have some idea of what they can do, and can thus adjudge the danger of the creature compared to the norm. It's like fighting incorporeal undead without a Cleric, or throwing in creatures with elemental vulnerabilties; something you need to account for, and something which is quite rightly the DM's job.

 

[BryonD]

No. It's calling a moderately sized hill a moderately sized hill.

Ok, we significantly disagree.

Indeed it is. But DR has always been the biggest wrinkle in its utility. There is no reason to make it worse.

I am not certain that it is the biggest wrinkle. But even if it is the one biggest, it is still one of many and not a serious issue on its own.

Do you care to justify this statement? Just how is it an exagarations. A 12 point average is not outlandish low or high for a fighter, and a 10 DR is supposed to be one of the three norms for DR.

Well, you are using DR10, so we are in mid levels. Let's aim low and say 8th.

Say Str18 and +2 gloves. For +5 Spec for +2. A +2 longsword you are at 13.5 PER HIT not counting crits which would move the average hit up to 15 or 16. Add in 2 attacks per round with a >>50% hit rate and the average moves up again, say 18.

So when I use conservative assumptions, you estimate is as much as 33% low.

Now consider that it is fair to guess that a fighter 8 may have Str 20 (or 22 for a 1/2 orc) and +4 gloves. And that 2hand is a fair assumption. Your value moves farther from expected per hit, even moreso per round.

So is 12 per hit absurd? Not at all. But is 12 per round a low exageration for a fighter expected to face DR10 level creatures? Yes, I think it is.

I think you are missing the point here. Sure you could do that, if that is what you intended to do from the get go. But CR will be further compromised as an effective measure if it varies wildly dependant upon a factor which has no direct corellation to level, e.g., did the party get a silver-plated sword in the last town. This makes the task of selecting creatures to challenge the party on the fly much more haphazard.

Then I think you have missed my two points. One, CR is already so far compromised that even adding a moderate hill won't change the overall topography. Two, If you assume that the CR presumes the ability to overcome DR, then this issue goes away. Inability to overcome DR simply becomes one of those circumstancial variables that the DM is already expected to account already, both in terms fo assigning a challenge and in awarding xp.

If you are hoping for a system where you can grab a random monster and throw it at a party based purely on CR, then this change may be a spit on your grave. But it does not make you any more dead.

 

[Psion]

Well, you are using DR10, so we are in mid levels. Let's aim low and say 8th.

Say Str18 and +2 gloves. For +5 Spec for +2.

I consider that generous. Given the highest score given you on a standard stat block is 15, by 8th level you might have 16. And I think a character might have a +2 weapon OR gloves, not both.

A +2 longsword you are at 13.5 PER HIT not counting crits which would move the average hit up to 15 or 16. Add in 2 attacks per round

The number of attacks is immaterial. I hope you aren't saying that multiple attacks in the same round apply against the same DR, because currently they don't. At any rate, each attack you are missing 10 points of damage.

But even if you assume your more generous assumptions are the norm and lets say a fighter is dealing 20 points per hit:

1) The fighter's damage is STILL being halved. That is NOT insignificant.
2) Less optimized combatants in the party (rangers, paladins, and suchnot) will be much less than half.

This is unquestionably very significant.

So is 12 per hit absurd? Not at all. But is 12 per round a low exageration for a fighter expected to face DR10 level creatures?

First off, I would point out that you are making an assumption of what DR will look like for a given level. Unless you have the revised MM in front of you, YOU DON'T KNOW.

That said, the point about the party level is central to my point. You USED to be able to navigate this easily by the fact that the plus-to-bypass was a fairly regular factor in a party's level, and pretty explicitly controllable by what the DM chose to gave out. But one you start talking about special materials, you are talking about "whether the party chose to have special weapons made" or "whether they have a cleric who can cast the lawful enchantment."

Then I think you have missed my two points. One, CR is already so far compromised that even adding a moderate hill won't change the overall topography.

I don't agree. The biggest wrinkles in CR are character level to CR translations (particularly NPC classes) and high level abilities. DR is managable. An issue to consider, but ingorable so long as you don't throw creatures with DR at your party with a CR above the party level.

Two, If you assume that the CR presumes the ability to overcome DR, then this issue goes away.

But my entire point is that you cannot assume that anymore!

If you are hoping for a system where you can grab a random monster and throw it at a party based purely on CR, then this change may be a spit on your grave. But it does not make you any more dead.

You're the dead one. You are the one who seems the think CR is useless as is. Not starting from that viewpoint, it is an issue for me.

They said that the design philosophy of 3.5 was "do no harm." If they made an existing problem worse, harm has obviously been done.