[3.5] Damage Reduction & Andy Collins

[Sarellion]

I have an old MM add n for AD&D and the Blood War is mentioned there and the ritual of the eight, called the reckoning.

 

[WizarDru]

The MotP is not canon to you?

Sure it is, but the Blood War obviously predates 3E. I wanted some clarification how far back. I have the AD&D MM at home, so I'll check what Sarellion is saying for my own edification...but that's really not here or there. This sounds like it bothers your sense of verisimilitude more than a rules quibble...which is a reasonable stance to take, but I tend to disagree. I mean, did the sudden appearance of Sorcerors concern you as much? They're a much more radical change to the standard D&D core concepts than the DR changes are, IMHO.

 

[Psion]

Sure it is, but the Blood War obviously predates 3E. I wanted some clarification how far back.

Oh, I see.

Well, there was mention of emnity between demons and devils as far back as the 1e MM. But I think the first real mention of the Blood War was in the 2e Outer Planes MC appendix. Planescape just took that ball and ran with it, even delivering a whole boxed set on the subject.

 

[Psion]

I don't understand how backwards compatibility plays a role in this scenario. You can say the same thing about any of the changes in 3.5, for that matter. Changing the way Harm works would suddenly have an impact on how previous battles involving the spell would've played out. Same with Haste or Hold Person, etc.

Well, I would point out that changes to a fundamental mechanism are more far reaching than changes to a spell. Not all wizards would have or use such a spell... and if they did, then it might be a sign that spell NEEDS changing. Compare that to a rule that affects EVERY fiend and a battle between them.

But in essence you are right... many changes would have a sensible impact on the way the history of the campaign would play out. But here's the rub: are the reasons for the change worth the trouble of compensating for it's impact to the continuity to the game.

In the cases of haste, harm, the ranger, and so forth, I think the answer is clearly "yes". Those mechanics are out of whack with their surrounding, and need to be addressed.

But in the cases of many mehcanics ... many of which I have listed in my sigs... the case is much more dubious.

In short, I don't think backwards compatability is the only or primary consideration when considering the revision, but I think it should have been factored in much more heavily than it was.

 

[drnuncheon]

One of the central aspects of the blood war is that where they clash, demons and devils leave fields covered with mounds of corpses.

Ah, but what kind of corpses? Is the field of battle littered with pit fiends and balors? I doubt it. It's probably littered with the pulped and torn remains of nupperibo, lemures, manes, and other lesser fiends because their DR 5/whatever won't do squat against the bigger foes (or the spells that are getting tossed around). And then of course there's the mortal mercenaries/conscripts/etc...

It seems me that if their combat damage is reduced to a trickle and a demon or devil can retreat at their leisure because they are losing hp so slowly

I'd think they could retreat at their leisure because they can teleport without error, personally...that ought to be what makes the Blood War as its currently described improbably at best, not any kind of DR problem.

J

 

[Psion]

I'd think they could retreat at their leisure because they can teleport without error, personally...that ought to be what makes the Blood War as its currently described improbably at best, not any kind of DR problem.

The blood war boxed set itself removed that ability, and 3e seems to have followed up on that by not giving this ability to the weaker fiends. No point.

Even considering fiends that do have twoe, having a large and widely applicible DR makes it more likely you can make a concentration check and escape combat.

 

[BryonD]

In short, I don't think backwards compatability is the only or primary consideration when considering the revision, but I think it should have been factored in much more heavily than it was.

Why?

I can certainly understand why you would house rule this matter. Because it is clearly important to you.

But I know that the words "blood war" have never been uttered at my table. I would imagine this is true for the major majority of games. I certainly can not see WotC coming up with a new functional and improved DR system (for the sake of discussion, lets pretend it is better, because that is the perspective WotC would have) and then going "Wait, we can not do this, it will not mix well with the blood war."

So I guess my point is: something that is important to you (or to me) due to how it fits the setting, history and flavor of a campaign, does not automatically gain the status of being weighed more heavily in a revision. Or, just because "I will house rule because X" is a true statement, it does not automatically follow that WotC made a poor design choice because X.

On a tangent, can you clarify for me how this goes against canon? I know next to nothing about the blood war. So maybe this grinds the ideas behind it into the ground. But so far I do not see it.

I understand that there are supposed to be great battles with "fields covered with mounds of corpses". But, as drnuncheon asked, what kind of corpses? Does the blood war specify how long the battles lasted? If they lasted 30 seconds, then, yeah, this messes that up. But if they lasted hours or days (as I imagine a war in the lower planes) then it really beomes a non-issue.

I understand that they may have more chance to retreat if they are more survivable. But why did they not do that under 3E when they got wounded? Why were they there fighting to begin with? I can imagine that fear of the guy that sent them there to fight may be one reasonable example of an explanation. Did they only fight with claws, teeth and weapons? What about spells and SLAs?

 

[Psion]

I can certainly understand why you would house rule this matter. Because it is clearly important to you.

You pretend as if mine is the only campaign that will be affected.

But I know that the words "blood war" have never been uttered at my table.

As has already been pointed out, this is about more than just the blood war, but as part of the metasetting that is significantly affected, I consider it particularly significant.

I would imagine this is true for the major majority of games.

Well, from where I am standing, more campaigns are like mine than yours. Tell me, who's right?

I certainly can not see WotC coming up with a new functional and improved DR system (for the sake of discussion, lets pretend it is better,

It would just be pretending. If I thought it was better, or "better enough", I would consider any alterations justifiable and we would not be having this coversation.

That said, most of the real improvements to this system could be had without the aligned DR thing. I see NO bona fide improvement involved in the alignment aspect. The only real reason I have seen for it is Andy Collins thought it would be neat.

So I guess my point is: something that is important to you (or to me) due to how it fits the setting, history and flavor of a campaign, does not automatically gain the status of being weighed more heavily in a revision.

Again, it's not just about my campaign and it's not just about the blood war. ANY sweeping change they make should be looked at with the eye of whether the bona fide benefit of the change is worth the trouble it will engender in invalidating products and campaigns. And again, I maintain in the case of many of the 3.5 changes, it does not.

On a tangent, can you clarify for me how this goes against canon? I know next to nothing about the blood war.

What it comes down to is both in the blood war and in general in battles in the Abyss, fiends were able to contend with one another effectively. All fiends could hit at fiends with their own DR levels with no reduction in damage.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The only real reason I have seen for it is Andy Collins thought it would be neat.

Oh look ... finger-pointing and insults again.

 

[BryonD]

Well, from where I am standing, more campaigns are like mine than yours. Tell me, who's right?

I dunno.

I have not heard a single person complain about the blood war other than you.

And WotC seems to think it is not a problem.

I have played with many different groups over the years.

So all the evidence from my perspective indicates that I am correct.

The only real reason I have seen for it is Andy Collins thought it would be neat.

Actually, he thinks it is cool AND he knew it would irk you.

These are the real two reasons he did it.

What it comes down to is both in the blood war and in general in battles in the Abyss, fiends were able to contend with one another effectively. All fiends could hit at fiends with their own DR levels with no reduction in damage.

You have been asked several times how this changes the canon. You seem to not be answering.