D&D 3.x [3.5e] Damage Reduction
- Thread starter Kraedin
- Start date
daoloth said:
OK, just to make a point here...
For any comment or analysis that makes a conclusion either good or bad or indifferent about the rules snippets leaked out about 3.5e... the same "maybe, maybe not" nonsense applies. Maybe the change to DR is good, but maybe just maybe the new rule which makes Ray of Frost do 12220000000d6 or damage (fort save for half) against any creature with DR will have an impact on that.
What new ray of frost rule?
Why the one they haven't hinted at but which we can speculate might maybe be there in the future kinda. (but only against points we disagree with.)
[/B][/QUOTE]
I agree but the degree to which the system assists or hinders such is important. A consistent system which is understandable from its core premises is more easily xustomized than one which is a mish mash of compromises.
designer-dr and its "man, another +2 sword? Why can't we be lucky like Smitty was and find a non-magical iron mace?" make-the-mundane-rare-since-magic-is-too-common mindset is an extremely faulty and inconsistent means of addressing a problem which fundamentally boils down to poorly assigned DR levels.
Not by the rules. A GM can certainly house rule this if he wants a more consistent ruleset. That would be a first step towards making the magic beaten by dr thing work.Merlion said:
Merlion said:
I agree but the degree to which the system assists or hinders such is important. A consistent system which is understandable from its core premises is more easily xustomized than one which is a mish mash of compromises.
designer-dr and its "man, another +2 sword? Why can't we be lucky like Smitty was and find a non-magical iron mace?" make-the-mundane-rare-since-magic-is-too-common mindset is an extremely faulty and inconsistent means of addressing a problem which fundamentally boils down to poorly assigned DR levels.
Brown Jenkin said:
Also, some people run campaigns where the characters are more than just rubes bumbling about in the woods waiting for trouble to find them.
In my campaign alliances are important and for many characters they are vital sources of information. What church is gonna let its priests go out into the world TO FIGHT FOR THEIR CAUSE without providing him with rudimentary knowledge of weaknesses and vulnerabilities of their threats?
"Yes, brother ralphus, we have been training young timmy since he was knee high and now that fharlanghn has accepted his faith is pure and is now granting him full spells it is his time for him to embark on his first journeyman wanderings helping travellers move safely along the roads."
"So brother rufus, should we actually tell timmy the things he needs to know about how to deal with undead and other fell beasts like demons or werewolves or trolls. I mean, last year we lost four guys to that whole "fire or regenerate" thing?"
"No, brother ralphus, we should not tell him, after all, if more than 1 in 7 of these new found followers accepted by fharlanghn survives their first year, we would be facing competitions for our cushy sit-in-temple-and-train jobs."
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Re: chances of encountering creatures
Nonsense. Fighter types typically are focussed on a single weapon. That's the only unique (well, unique excluding Templars) thing about fighters: they get weapon specialization. Fighters are also dependant upon weapons with a good enhancement bonus for hitting and doing damage (which is about all they can do). If a fighter now needs five weapons to be effective rather than three, he is going to be less effective. Instead of having one +2 weapon, he'll need 5 +1 weapons (and the math just gets worse from there--5 +2 weapons or 1 +5 weapon; 5 +3 weapons or 1 +7 weapon etc.).
Instead of always being able to use the bonus from weapon specialization, he'll be able to use it less often. (Because he's unlikely to have all 5 weapons of the same kind since there's going to be DR/Bludgeon and DR/pierce etc. too). So fighters will generally hit less often and do less damage first because they will be encouraged to have lower enhancement bonusses on their weapons and will often be fighting with weapons that have less enhancement than their primary weapon. Second, because they will often be unable to use weapon specific feats like weapon focus, weapon specialization, improved critical, etc.
Finally, the reduction in DR values is pretty equivalent in effect across the board. The only people who ignored it were wizards and druids. Fighters, are among the least affected by the current DR levels. Fighters get almost as much damage out of weapon specialization as barbarians get from rage. And almost all fighters have Power Attack. Rangers typically use ranged weapons or dual wield--the worst weapon combos for dealing with DR. Rogues typically do as much damage as fighters but are hosed if any amount of DR is on a construct or undead. Clerics can do great things with Divine Favor and Divine Power but are worse off than fighters if they don't have power attack (and many don't--it's not as if they have many feats to play with).
So, while the reduced DR values will be helpful for fighters, they won't be any more helpful than they will be for other classes. And the necessity to carry multiple weapons will actually hurt fighters more than any other class since fighters are the characters most likely to specialize in a particular weapon.
The changes actually seem to have increased the desirability of GMW rather than decreased it (after all, if you're keeping a half dozen weapons, you won't be able to afford good enhancement bonusses for all of them).
Nonsense. Fighter types typically are focussed on a single weapon. That's the only unique (well, unique excluding Templars) thing about fighters: they get weapon specialization. Fighters are also dependant upon weapons with a good enhancement bonus for hitting and doing damage (which is about all they can do). If a fighter now needs five weapons to be effective rather than three, he is going to be less effective. Instead of having one +2 weapon, he'll need 5 +1 weapons (and the math just gets worse from there--5 +2 weapons or 1 +5 weapon; 5 +3 weapons or 1 +7 weapon etc.).
Instead of always being able to use the bonus from weapon specialization, he'll be able to use it less often. (Because he's unlikely to have all 5 weapons of the same kind since there's going to be DR/Bludgeon and DR/pierce etc. too). So fighters will generally hit less often and do less damage first because they will be encouraged to have lower enhancement bonusses on their weapons and will often be fighting with weapons that have less enhancement than their primary weapon. Second, because they will often be unable to use weapon specific feats like weapon focus, weapon specialization, improved critical, etc.
Finally, the reduction in DR values is pretty equivalent in effect across the board. The only people who ignored it were wizards and druids. Fighters, are among the least affected by the current DR levels. Fighters get almost as much damage out of weapon specialization as barbarians get from rage. And almost all fighters have Power Attack. Rangers typically use ranged weapons or dual wield--the worst weapon combos for dealing with DR. Rogues typically do as much damage as fighters but are hosed if any amount of DR is on a construct or undead. Clerics can do great things with Divine Favor and Divine Power but are worse off than fighters if they don't have power attack (and many don't--it's not as if they have many feats to play with).
So, while the reduced DR values will be helpful for fighters, they won't be any more helpful than they will be for other classes. And the necessity to carry multiple weapons will actually hurt fighters more than any other class since fighters are the characters most likely to specialize in a particular weapon.
The changes actually seem to have increased the desirability of GMW rather than decreased it (after all, if you're keeping a half dozen weapons, you won't be able to afford good enhancement bonusses for all of them).
Andion Isurand said:
IceBear
Explorer
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
IceBear
Zhure
First Post
It seems to me that GMW becomes MORE useful rather than less.
A +5 to hit and damage essentially slices right through DR 5/silver, even if one doesn't have a silver weapon. Sure you'll do more damage if you happen to have GMW on a silver weapon.
I also see the Halberd (s/p) and the morningstar (b/p) as becoming more popular weapons, which is a good thing, IMO.
A +5 to hit and damage essentially slices right through DR 5/silver, even if one doesn't have a silver weapon. Sure you'll do more damage if you happen to have GMW on a silver weapon.
I also see the Halberd (s/p) and the morningstar (b/p) as becoming more popular weapons, which is a good thing, IMO.
MerakSpielman
First Post
DR 5/anything stops having meaning pretty quick anyway, when fighter types start doing around 20-30hp per hit.
MerakSpielman
First Post
DR 5/anything stops having meaning pretty quick anyway, when fighter types start doing around 20-30hp per hit.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (181) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
