• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5e] Damage Reduction

IceBear

Explorer
MerakSpielman said:
DR 5/anything stops having meaning pretty quick anyway, when fighter types start doing around 20-30hp per hit.

Agreed, but this was a 1st level fighter, a 1st level paladin and a 1st level sorcerer so they weren't doing 20-30hp per hit.

And I agree with the GMW thing. With the lower DR amounts, magical weapons will still help bypass the DR just by doing more damage. From what we've seen so far, a DR 15 is going to be on the high end, so that'll mean most DRs will be 5 - 10.

I see DR a lot like the poster on page 1 describing silver vs werewolves, so I'm leaning more to liking the new rules than disliking it :)

IceBear
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Stalker0

Legend
I keep hearing people say that in the new system if the fighter doesn't carry around a golfbag of weapons, he will be less effective against DR.

well....um....yeah!!!

The whole point of DR is to weaken the fighters against certain monsters. The problem is with GMW that doesn't usually happen, fighters just get there magic weapons and go through DR like paper. So this new system might actually accomplished the original goal of DR, to weaken the fighters in certain situations.

I think this might also help cut down the archer abuse as well. Archers will have it hard against certain DRs, needing silver arrows, cold iron arrows, etc. That will cut down there damage, so in certain situations the melee guys come out ahead, which I think most everyone agrees is a good thing.
 

Fighters will only be a little weaker against some creatures with DR, with a few exceptions (eg the new pit fiend - I tried running it despite the lack of info and virtually no damage was done during the encounter :D - I'll have a paladin NPC tag along next time).

I also noticed that the fighter wasn't the only one having a hard time - the creature's SR kept the spellcasters from having any reasonable effect, and it actually had good saving throws.

I don't think that a fighter must carry different weapons of different types. The DR values are usually 5, but 10 starts to hurt the fighter, and 15 -! There are only silver, adamantine and cold iron as special materials, AFAIK, and frankly I think cold iron swords are cool :)
 

Coredump

Explorer
Brown
Yes, I would carry a bunch of weapons just in case. For the same reasons I now carry scrolls of
Remove blindness, Remove Paralysis, Remove Curse, and others. As soon as we could afford these we
bought them, and although each has been used a grand total of one time, they were invaluable
durring that one combat. For just a little more I will now carry Silver and Cold Iron, and scrolls of
Alignment and anything else that might help. It is a foolish adventurerer who is not adaquately
prepared for the challenges he might face.
Agreed, mostly. But let me remind you, it is *obvious* when to use those scrolls, and you have no alternative. Paralysis is binary, you are paralized, or you are not. If party member is paralized, you *know* you need the scroll, and you have *no* other options.
With DR, many times you will not know when to use it, and evenso, you have other options.
lets say a werewolf; which 'everyone knows' needs silver. Your figher approaches with a +3 sword, is it worth switching to a regular silver weapon? What if he isn't specialized in the silver weapon?
Or better yet, the skeleton. Fighter has weapon focus/specialization/whatever on his +3 sword. Is he going to need to switch to a normal mace?

This is assuming that all the traits/weaknesses of all monsters are known. (The alternative is **NOT** that the characters are ignorants bumbling around.)


If you want to withhold information in your campaign that is fine, but I don't feel that such narrow
restrictions would be accurate.
Gee, can we get away from the condescending attitude? I said nothing about withholding information, just that not all information is readily appartent, or trustworthy.
In the real world where monsters are just myths large amounts of the
general population can tell you that to kill werewolves you need silver and to kill vampires you need a
wooden stake.
A couple of problems with that logic. First, it is not true in many many places in the world. Second, what is 'known' *varies* from place to place. heck , read more than 3 vampire books, and you will learn contradictory information. Lastly, they are well known *because* they are myths, and rare. What if we had 750+ monsters to know about?? How much do you know about the 'monsters' from India, native americans, south america, etc. etc.
In a land where these creatures are real and pose a real threat to your life you would
certainly know these things. Just as I know not to stick a paperclip in a outlet I would know that if a
fey trys to steal my child that I need to stop it using cold iron.
You are making many different assumptions. You assume that these threats are common. How often will a fey try to steal a child in a town in FR? So how 'common' is that? It is *very* common for a child to encounter an outlet. But do you know what poisen sumac looks like? Can you treat it? How 'common' is it to encounter one of the 750 monsters in the realms? Orcs, sure. Now what about a Lich, or even an owlbear?
You assume that just because they are a threat, you know alot about them. It is at least as likely that you know enough to avoid them. Take towns in Africa, they know to avoid Lions etc. They don't know a lot about their lifestyles.
You assume that you know what monsters you will encounter. If you know (like part of a quest) than learning all you can makes sense, but to just know everything about everything....
If people did not know the
weaknesses of the monsters they would be quickly overun.
You are again making more assumptions. You assume that the monsters (all 750+) are trying to overrun them. And you assume that you have to know all about them to protect yourself.
Most monsters are content where they are, except for the pesky adventures wandering about. Second, you can know how to defend, without knowing all the details. You like to bring up the 'real world' Look at how much of animal info turns out to be wrong, despite dealing with them for years, and despite actively studying them. Heck, they are now learning that the hundreds of years of dealing with horses may have been doing it the 'wrong way'.
These people did not just stumble accross
the monsters, they have been living with their threat for thousands of years.
You are again assuming that all of the monsters are an active threat, and assuming that the only defense means knowing all about them. Sure, if your town is in the middle of Undead Central, you may know some stuff about fighting undead, because then they are a common threat If a hamlet has been plagued by a family of werewolves for a long time, sure they may learn something, and it may even be right. But there are hundreds and hundreds of threats/monsters out there...
if you are playing Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk then these monsters are a well
known part of the enviornment.
Just because you know the monsters are out there, doesn't mean you know all about the monsters.
You know about elephants, do you know what they eat? How long they gestate? can you even tell the different from an asian and african elephant. (it is important, because the asian is DR silver, and teh african is DR iron :)
And remember, we live in a time of world wide communication, with nothing to do but sit around and watch Discovery channel. Imagine even 30-50 years ago, there was a lot of misinformation disguised as facts.

.
 

Coredump

Explorer
Wow, sorry about the length of the previous post...

Merak
Whack! "Nope, regular weapons don't work here, guys! Caddie, my Iron, please."

Whack! "Nope! Lets try adamantine!"

Whack! "No dice. Maybe plain 'ol magic!"

Whack! "Nope! Do I have a Lawful weapon in there?"

Whack! "That's it! He's feelin' the pain now!"
Now, lets look inside the mechanics to see what happened. Unknown to the adventurer, he is fightin a creature with DR 5/Adamantine. In fact, I think it would be common to not know if they had DR at all, but lets move on.

First he tries 'normal' : Rolls and hits, but only does 3pts damage. Since combat is abstract, you 'hit' people all the time and do no damage, that is how armour works (or natural armour) We just count those as 'misses'. Now, if all he did was hit the natural armour and do no damage, how can he (without metagaming) know it was anything other than a miss? But, lets assume he swings more than once, or just guesses lucky....

So now tries iron: He hits, and does damage, but not much (rolled 8 points- does 3) Well, is this because of DR, or just due to a bad hit? How can you tell? Lets assume he (again) guesses right, and move on.

Now tries Adamantine, hits, rolls 3 damage, does three. Well, this was no better than iron, so it must not be good either.....

Lets try magic uses a +1 sword: rolls 5 (+1) does 1 point. Well heck, this is getting worse...

How about Lawful: Rolls max damage, (10) does 5 points damage. Which is almost double anything else. The creature dies soon after.

Now, this trusty loyal follower of fharlanghn (this become important later.) goes back to the temple, to tell them he now KNOWS that this monster (with the DR 5/adamantine) is most vulnerable to a Lawful weapon.

Remember, all this 'research is being done in a split second, during combat. right. And lets *hope* this poor sop has QuickDraw.

Now, lets try it with different fighters, all with a different weapon. How do you know when it is the weapon, or when it is the strength of the fighter, or the HP of the monster??
It is just way too easy for wrong information to become 'fact' to assume everyone will know all the right answers. Or even care to find out. Who is going to do research on a Pit Fiend?? Or even a werewolf?

.
 
Last edited:

Petrosian

First Post
Well, lets see why...

A first level fighter, IMX, is swinging a d8 or d10 weapon for +3-4 bonus from strength.

the old cases, halved that damage... so 7-10 damage was reduced by 4-5 points on an average hit.

The new cases, the same 7-10 is reduced by 5.

If, in play, you had seen any noticeable difference, I would have been shocked.



IceBear said:
BTW - a couple of weeks ago I was running my group through "The Sunless Citadel" and I changed the skeletons to the 3.5 rules (Dr 5/Blunt). The group of 3 (without one blunt weapon) defeated the 5 skeletons with no more problem than my first group using the old rules. Thus, I don't think there will be that bad of an effect IF most of the DR is 5 or so.

IceBear
 

Coredump

Explorer
Well, while I am on a roll...'

Petrosian, why is it that you think these non-magic-mundane weapons are going to become rare? I have seen you make this point/assumption a few times, and I just don't get it. I can't imagine it will be difficult to get most of them. (there might be one or two, like maybe adamantine) But most, i would imagine, should be fairly straight forward.
I mention because it seems to be a large part of the reason why you don't like the new system; but I think you are creating problems that don't exist.

.
 

Grog

First Post
Stalker0 said:
The whole point of DR is to weaken the fighters against certain monsters. The problem is with GMW that doesn't usually happen, fighters just get there magic weapons and go through DR like paper. So this new system might actually accomplished the original goal of DR, to weaken the fighters in certain situations.

First of all, do fighters really need weakening? I've played in quite a few 3E campaigns over the past couple of years, and it's been my experience (and the experience of everyone I've gamed with) that, once you progress past the low levels, the game is drastically weighted in favor of spellcasters. If you weaken fighters more, the balance just gets even more out of whack.

Second, the new DR rules won't actually weaken fighters, because they'll just carry around as many weapons as they need in their golfbag. The only way this won't happen is if the DM metagames away the fighter's most logical and obvious solution to the problem of material-based DR. But IMO if a rule requires a significant amount of metagaming on the DM's part to make it work, it's probably a bad rule in the first place.
 

MerakSpielman

First Post
Coredump said:

First he tries 'normal' : Rolls and hits, but only does 3pts damage. Since combat is abstract, you 'hit' people all the time and do no damage, that is how armour works (or natural armour) We just count those as 'misses'. Now, if all he did was hit the natural armour and do no damage, how can he (without metagaming) know it was anything other than a miss? But, lets assume he swings more than once, or just guesses lucky....
.


I allow spot checks IMC for a PC to notice if a particular strike should have hurt the creature, or even if a particular strike should have done more damage. The check is sometimes difficult, but I allow it.
 

MerakSpielman

First Post
Grog said:


First of all, do fighters really need weakening? I've played in quite a few 3E campaigns over the past couple of years, and it's been my experience (and the experience of everyone I've gamed with) that, once you progress past the low levels, the game is drastically weighted in favor of spellcasters. If you weaken fighters more, the balance just gets even more out of whack.


Yes, they have DR to make some monsters more effective when fighting fighter-types.

They also have SR to make some monsters more effective when fighting mage-types.

You just have to figure out the weaknesses of the particular monster you're fighting.
 

Remove ads

Top