[3.5] Damage Reduction & Andy Collins
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
- Status
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
BryonD said:
The difference is that my "debate avoidance" lines have reasons attached. When I said you were arguing against a straw man, I identified the views I've been endeavoring (I think successfully) to present on this thread and how they differed from what you were arguing against. When I said that your experience as a playtester isn't relevant to this discussion without more specifics, I outlined several reasons why the playtest situation might have differed from the model of balance that I am proceeding under.
If I were to simply tarr you with the accusation of knocking down straw men without specifying which ones, your offense would be justified and your rejoinder deserved. That wasn't what I did though.
(Incidentally, I ought to say that I appreciate the calculations you've provided on this thread and I think you've been a model of restraint in the assumed equipment, feats, classes, and statistics of your examples. They are far more suited for an honest evaluation of the rules than some of those I've seen in other threads).
I think you mean anti 3.5e. I wasn't on the boards (or even playing D&D) when 2e was revised to 3e and my immediate reaction to that change was "Wow! They fixed everything!" And even now, the only thing I miss about 2e was that a dual class rogue who started as something else wasn't always going to be a second class rogue.
WRT positive comments on 3.5e, though, you actually have missed them. You'll find it in the rules forum on the power attack revision thread (although you'd probably call it a case of damning with faint praise considering my full view on the power attack changes). On the whole, I think it's a good change although I think something should be done for Sword and board and TWF characters to help them make up for their difficulties in getting full attack actions in.
I'm also on the record saying that the changes to Lesser Restoration (cures fatigue) and Restoration (cures exhaustion) are a good idea. And, considering those changes I retracted my view that Waves of Fatigue and Waves of Exhaustion were "screw the PCs" spells (although I still think them underpowered for PC use in conjunction with non-tedious tactics).
I've said that the changes to druid animal companions were a good thing. (And, on the whole I think that the new druid is an improvement).
I hesitate to stick my head into the perennial ranger discussions, but I like the new ranger too. (I question the reflex save but given the choice between 3e and 3.5e rangers, I'd take 3.5 in a heartbeat).
Although it's not perfect, I think the new Harm is better than the old Harm. And I think I've said so in the discussion threads.
And I share what appears to be the general consensus (from the complete lack of controversy surrounding them) that GWF, GWS, and the new Imp TWF and Sup TWF are good changes. (The same can be said for the cost revision for skill boosting items).
That said, I do think that most of the other changes are for the worse rather than the better. I don't see why that should exclude me from a conversation about the merits of the 3.5e changes though. It's not much of a conversation if you have to say "All Hail to Chief Collins" and kiss the shrine of the new PH, MM, and DMG in order to be included. All of the changes in 3.5e should be able to stand on their own merits (with the new system of course) and if they can't, then they're changes for the worse. Which is what I maintain the DR changes are. If the majority of the changes are for the worse, then the revision is probably a bad thing. (Which I suspect is, in fact the case, based upon the fraction of the changes I have seen so far).
For someone who complains about people taking offense, you certainly seem to be going out of your way to be offensive. My ideas are on the board. If the arguments are flawed, they're there for picking apart.
WizarDru
Adventurer
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re
A reasonable point. I think Henry has a valid point, though. Most folks won't switch weapons, and with the exception of missle weapons users changing ammo (which will be trivial, with Ehlonna's quiver) they'll just keep plugging away. I honestly can't say if the new DR will work as well as I hope...but I know that the existing DR doesn't work well at all. Right now, a single GMW invalidates DR for most creatures at the appropriate levels, and doesn't recreate the effect I was hoping for. I could house rule it, and if the new rules fail to meet my needs, I will. But I've already seen the damage my own house rules can wield, if not checked properly, so I tend to shy away from making dramatic changes (since I hate to reverse such changes unless necessary).
However, I still think that DR won't be as much of a factor. Most folks seem to think that Melee is getting much more powerful in 3.5. I suspect that the cumulative little changes will total up to DR not having the collective net effect that some fear it will. Of course, I could also be drastically wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time.
Elder-Basilisk said:
A reasonable point. I think Henry has a valid point, though. Most folks won't switch weapons, and with the exception of missle weapons users changing ammo (which will be trivial, with Ehlonna's quiver) they'll just keep plugging away. I honestly can't say if the new DR will work as well as I hope...but I know that the existing DR doesn't work well at all. Right now, a single GMW invalidates DR for most creatures at the appropriate levels, and doesn't recreate the effect I was hoping for. I could house rule it, and if the new rules fail to meet my needs, I will. But I've already seen the damage my own house rules can wield, if not checked properly, so I tend to shy away from making dramatic changes (since I hate to reverse such changes unless necessary).
However, I still think that DR won't be as much of a factor. Most folks seem to think that Melee is getting much more powerful in 3.5. I suspect that the cumulative little changes will total up to DR not having the collective net effect that some fear it will. Of course, I could also be drastically wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time.
G'day folks!
I've just got confirmation from Andy Collins on how the DR rules are changing:
The rule has changed.
A creature with DR no longer automatically ignores the same types of DR with its attacks. When carried to the extreme in this new system, that creates some really strange effects. (For instance, skeletons have DR n/bludgeoning, but don't deal damage as bludgeoning weapons.)
Instead, the MM sets forth specific rules for how creatures can bypass the DR of other creatures.
1) A creature with DR bypassed by a specific type of weapon damage (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) doesn't have any special ability to bypass other DRs. Skeletons can't hurt other skeletons any better than anyone else can.
2) A creature with DR bypassed by a certain material (adamantine, cold iron, silver) doesn't have any special ability to bypass other DRs. Lycanthropes can't hurt other lycanthropes any better than anyone else can.
3) The natural attacks of a creature with DR bypassed by magic weapons are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of bypassing DR. Same for epic. Gargoyles can hurt other gargoyles as if all their natural weapons were magic.
4) A creature with DR bypassed by a certain alignment (chaotic, evil, good, lawful) doesn't necessarily have any special ability to bypass other DRs (but see #5, below). Devils can't hurt other devils any better than anyone else can.
5) The natural attacks AND weapon attacks of a creature with an alignment subtype (Chaotic, Evil, Good, Lawful) can overcome damage reduction as if those attacks and weapons had an alignment (or alignments) matching the creature's subtype(s). Fiends are really good at hurting celestials, and vice-versa.
6) A creature with DR that can't be bypassed (DR n/-) has no special ability to bypass other creatures' DR. Barbarians can't hurt other barbarians any better than anyone else can.
Each and every creature in the MM that has some ability to bypass DR includes a specific notation to that effect, so that DMs don't have to remember these rules except when creating new monsters.
Andy Collins
Senior Designer
Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D
Link to quote on Andy's messageboards
Cheers!
I've just got confirmation from Andy Collins on how the DR rules are changing:
The rule has changed.
A creature with DR no longer automatically ignores the same types of DR with its attacks. When carried to the extreme in this new system, that creates some really strange effects. (For instance, skeletons have DR n/bludgeoning, but don't deal damage as bludgeoning weapons.)
Instead, the MM sets forth specific rules for how creatures can bypass the DR of other creatures.
1) A creature with DR bypassed by a specific type of weapon damage (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) doesn't have any special ability to bypass other DRs. Skeletons can't hurt other skeletons any better than anyone else can.
2) A creature with DR bypassed by a certain material (adamantine, cold iron, silver) doesn't have any special ability to bypass other DRs. Lycanthropes can't hurt other lycanthropes any better than anyone else can.
3) The natural attacks of a creature with DR bypassed by magic weapons are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of bypassing DR. Same for epic. Gargoyles can hurt other gargoyles as if all their natural weapons were magic.
4) A creature with DR bypassed by a certain alignment (chaotic, evil, good, lawful) doesn't necessarily have any special ability to bypass other DRs (but see #5, below). Devils can't hurt other devils any better than anyone else can.
5) The natural attacks AND weapon attacks of a creature with an alignment subtype (Chaotic, Evil, Good, Lawful) can overcome damage reduction as if those attacks and weapons had an alignment (or alignments) matching the creature's subtype(s). Fiends are really good at hurting celestials, and vice-versa.
6) A creature with DR that can't be bypassed (DR n/-) has no special ability to bypass other creatures' DR. Barbarians can't hurt other barbarians any better than anyone else can.
Each and every creature in the MM that has some ability to bypass DR includes a specific notation to that effect, so that DMs don't have to remember these rules except when creating new monsters.
Andy Collins
Senior Designer
Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D
Link to quote on Andy's messageboards
Cheers!
Don't know if anyone is interested, but I ran a combat last evening, putting two level 14 PCs (paladin-7/Fighter-7 and Fighter-8/Weapon Master-6) + 1 npc rogue-12 against a a modified monster with DR 15/-, AC 30 and the melee attacks and hit points (123) of a 3.0 pit fiend. Even with the weapon master rolling real bad (no crit at all) and his burst weapon being ineffective to boot the fight was not much of a problem, and that was with 15 points of damage reduced from every blow.
Make of it what you want, I for once don't care about the golfbag theory anymore.
Make of it what you want, I for once don't care about the golfbag theory anymore.
Re
That is pretty much as I see it Fenes. I am not too concerned about the DR so much as the system being overly complex and encouraging the taking of certain alignments. That is why I plan to eliminate DR #/Adamantine and DR #/alignment. Useless and overly complex while encouraging people to take the Neutral alignment, when DR should just be a feature of the monster. Why put it in if players will be encouraged to find ways to bypass it?
Let's face it, the way the game is structured, many players will be owning Adamantine weapons as they level. Adamantine is supposed to be extremely rare and special. I'd like to keep it that way while not giving my players the further impetus to have Adamantine weapons to bust through DR. I already had to tell one player that he wasn't allowed to purchase any more mithral armor. If he had the coin, he would buy mithral armor for all his characters. Mithril is supposed to be special, not commonly worn by any high level character because they can afford it.
I certainly don't want the same thing to happen with clerics and casters only choosing to be neutral or neutral good so they can properly align weapons along the chaos/law axis. It defeats the entire purpose of giving a creature DR. Players tend to optimize a character for defeating the encounters.
That is pretty much as I see it Fenes. I am not too concerned about the DR so much as the system being overly complex and encouraging the taking of certain alignments. That is why I plan to eliminate DR #/Adamantine and DR #/alignment. Useless and overly complex while encouraging people to take the Neutral alignment, when DR should just be a feature of the monster. Why put it in if players will be encouraged to find ways to bypass it?
Let's face it, the way the game is structured, many players will be owning Adamantine weapons as they level. Adamantine is supposed to be extremely rare and special. I'd like to keep it that way while not giving my players the further impetus to have Adamantine weapons to bust through DR. I already had to tell one player that he wasn't allowed to purchase any more mithral armor. If he had the coin, he would buy mithral armor for all his characters. Mithril is supposed to be special, not commonly worn by any high level character because they can afford it.
I certainly don't want the same thing to happen with clerics and casters only choosing to be neutral or neutral good so they can properly align weapons along the chaos/law axis. It defeats the entire purpose of giving a creature DR. Players tend to optimize a character for defeating the encounters.
Last edited:
Psion
Adventurer
MerricB said:
Well, I have mixed feelings about this.
On the bright side, it does address some major hiccups in the DR system as it existed. Now we know why they went with 10/adamantium for stoneskin.
On the down side, it is a lot more complicated.
On the down side part 2, #4 confirms my fears about the "aligned" aspect that they will be breaking from canon in a big way. In short, I REALLY think they botched the aligned part of this thing.
BryonD
Hero
Psion said:
I agree with this.
I think it is marginalized a bit, to me, because I can not recall ever having two demons fight each other on stage.
But I can imagine it happening. And I do think this part is just flawed.
I'd balk at "breaking from canon" because demons can still fight each other, and if one could destroy another before I imagine they still can, it will just take longer. But that is trivial.
Ultimately, #4 is still just not the way it is should be.
- Status
Similar Threads
