D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5e] Damage Reduction

[Savage Wombat]

Maybe I missed it in an earlier post, but it seems to me that the "golf-bag" nay-sayers are missing a point.

The game designers, to my mind, WANT you to carry a variety of weapons.

Think back to the days of 1st and 2nd ed. You've got a limited supply of weapon proficiencies - choosing to specialize in one weapon denies you the use of others.

In other words, the price of being a master of long sword is not being able to use an axe when one is needed. If the situation never arises where an axe is better than a sword, then it's not a price at all - it's a freebie.

In 3rd ed., the proficiencies are (more-or-less) gone, but the idea remains. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization are optional feats, not assumed class abilities. Somewhere there should be fighters who find specializing in a single weapon to be a poor choice compared to others.

A fighter who spends all of his feats mastering a particular weapon should have the disadvantage of not being as good if he can't use that weapon. But if the game never makes his favorite weapon a sub-optimal choice, he's never "penalized" for his choice.

The game designers WANT the fighter to pull out his mace when fighting skeletons. To carry a silver dagger for fighting werewolves. To carry the one adamantine-tipped arrow for emergencies. They don't think that every problem should be solved by an application of GMW.

In the same way that many consider Haste an over-powered spell, that no spell-caster can do without, WF and WS become over-powered feats that no fighter can do without if there's no situation where something else would have been better.

 

[Petrosian]

With DR, many times you will not know when to use it, and evenso, you have other options.

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

.

Likewise, the opposite of "many time you will not know" is not "assuming that all traits/weaknesses of all monsters are known."

Why are werwwolves always trouted out as the examples of the good the designer-dr is supposed to do? because EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE ***KNOWS*** that werewolves are supposed to need silver to kill them.

But, as soon as you start pointing out that people will carry silver weapons, suddenly, amazingly, wonderfully, the fact that silver weapons are needed to kill werewolves is suddenly a state secret, one thats only available to your characrers in horrible games where GMS assume **ALL** traits/weaknesses of **ALL** monsters are known (usually followed by oh gosh what a silly way to run a game rolleyes thingy.)

No one is saying that ALL traits and weaknesses of ALL monsters is known or that ALL that info is 100% accurate. But if mosteverybody agrees werewolves need special weapons to kill and the experienced guys training me back this up and one merchant says its silver weapons and the other merchant says its wooden weapons that means i will buy BOTH for my golf bag not neither.

As for accurate info, dont you think that after several hundred years of devoting itself to killing undead and devils and demons, the temple of say cuthbert (and the other good aligned temples who give away holy water at cost) would have figured out, written down and maybe even passed on to their trained warrior-priests things like "holy water hurts undead" or "it takes magic weapons to hurt a shadow" and so on?

I mean, if no one passes on the knowledge that certain things hurt certain beasties, then what are churches telling the people to give them 4lb of silver for? Are they conning them into believing that holy water removes stains well? Does washing your tunic in holy water make it come out brighter and hold color longer?

Or is the church spreading the info that holy water will help against certain of these nasties?

Now, if you accept that this knowledge and the tools to use it are indeed being dispensed by organizations like these (in the specific case of holy water) why then wouldn't the same thing at least in part be being done with werewolves (a silver dagger weighs less than the 5 lb needed for each vial of holy water), fey (cold iron? more or less expensive than 5 lb of silver?) stakes made of ashewood, blessed crossbows bolts, and so on and so on and so on?

Answer... because if the mundane materials are made as easy to get as magic weapons are then the new designer-dr will fail just as much as the magic based one did.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Just thought I'd mention that my players ALWAYS stop off at a sage or library to do research if they know they will be up against a particular monster. They spend a lot of time and money on it. They don't want to be caught by anything like this.

Do I, as DM, feel justified in wasting their time and money by having them unearth incorrect information? No! This would just discourage them from some excellent chances for me to drop plot hooks and for them to role-play.

 

[IceBear]

Maybe I missed it in an earlier post, but it seems to me that the "golf-bag" nay-sayers are missing a point.

The game designers, to my mind, WANT you to carry a variety of weapons.

Think back to the days of 1st and 2nd ed. You've got a limited supply of weapon proficiencies - choosing to specialize in one weapon denies you the use of others.

In other words, the price of being a master of long sword is not being able to use an axe when one is needed. If the situation never arises where an axe is better than a sword, then it's not a price at all - it's a freebie.

In 3rd ed., the proficiencies are (more-or-less) gone, but the idea remains. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization are optional feats, not assumed class abilities. Somewhere there should be fighters who find specializing in a single weapon to be a poor choice compared to others.

A fighter who spends all of his feats mastering a particular weapon should have the disadvantage of not being as good if he can't use that weapon. But if the game never makes his favorite weapon a sub-optimal choice, he's never "penalized" for his choice.

The game designers WANT the fighter to pull out his mace when fighting skeletons. To carry a silver dagger for fighting werewolves. To carry the one adamantine-tipped arrow for emergencies. They don't think that every problem should be solved by an application of GMW.

In the same way that many consider Haste an over-powered spell, that no spell-caster can do without, WF and WS become over-powered feats that no fighter can do without if there's no situation where something else would have been better.

I agree that's what the designers want. Unfortunately, that's not what all groups want and that's why this is a hot issue.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

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.

*sigh* I wasn't saying that I was shocked that it was the same or anything. I just don't think DR 5/x is going to hurt that bad UNLESS it happens a lot (which it shouldn't). If a group of 3 1st level character can handle 5 DR 5/x monsters then it shouldn't be too hard for a group of 7th level characters to do the same with those demons that at DR 5/cold iron. Until be actually see the monsters and their DR values it's hard to see how balanced this will be. If DR10 and DR15 are rare, then it really shouldn't be that bad at all.

IceBear

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Does washing your tunic in holy water make it come out brighter and hold color longer?

Yes, And you get a fresh spring scent too.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Maybe I missed it in an earlier post, but it seems to me that the "golf-bag" nay-sayers are missing a point.

The game designers, to my mind, WANT you to carry a variety of weapons.

Think back to the days of 1st and 2nd ed. You've got a limited supply of weapon proficiencies - choosing to specialize in one weapon denies you the use of others.

In other words, the price of being a master of long sword is not being able to use an axe when one is needed. If the situation never arises where an axe is better than a sword, then it's not a price at all - it's a freebie.

A fighter who spends all of his feats mastering a particular weapon should have the disadvantage of not being as good if he can't use that weapon. But if the game never makes his favorite weapon a sub-optimal choice, he's never "penalized" for his choice.

Hear, hear!

I agree unequivocally with this point, and I think it's exactly what the DR revisions are intended to accomplish.

Grog: I agree with you 100% that fighters are pretty underpowered at high levels in 3e. I also agree with you that DR, both in 3e and 3.5e, screws fighters; that's its purpose, just as SR is there to "screw" spellcasters. However, I think that the new DR rules screw fighters less than the old, for the simple reason that changing DR type and simultaneously lowering DR values gives fighter-types two options: 1) carry a variety of weapons; or 2) concentrate on doing enough damage to bypass DR.

In 3.0, GMW was basically always sufficient to bypass DR, meaning that a cleric, say, was effectively better at bypassing DR than a fighter. More to the point, in a party with casters able to dispense GMW at little costs in spell slots, the secondary fighters, and especially the archers, were just as good at bypassing DR as the primary fighters.

With the new DR rules, doing damage and exercising combat options (tripping, grappling, disarming) is going to be what matters much of the time. GMW becomes a nice option to have, but not completely necessary. Likewise, being able to use a variety of weapons (something that primary fighters, with the use of all simple and martial weapons, do nicely) and having a high enough BAB to use them with Power Attack (again, point to the fighters) will be more important. True, there'll be a bit of "golfbagging" going on, but on the whole, I think the new DR system appears to benefit fighter-types handily.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

*sigh* I wasn't saying that I was shocked that it was the same or anything. I just don't think DR 5/x is going to hurt that bad UNLESS it happens a lot (which it shouldn't). If a group of 3 1st level character can handle 5 DR 5/x monsters then it shouldn't be too hard for a group of 7th level characters to do the same with those demons that at DR 5/cold iron. Until be actually see the monsters and their DR values it's hard to see how balanced this will be. If DR10 and DR15 are rare, then it really shouldn't be that bad at all.

IceBear

I think the thing is skeletons are almost a special case when it comes to DR. They have DR5 vs blunt and they suck otheriwse. A Low AC, low HP so the 5 points of damage knocked off doesn't effect the fighters that much. But at low levels when you bump into 5 DR salsa, and the monster has AC15ish and 20+HP then the 5hps getting kocked off every swing will mean a lot more.

I guess my point is when it adds only one more hit to take it down its to a big deal, when it adds 3-4 hits all of which might have to come from the fighter since he's the only one with the str to get past 5 HPs regularly well then even DR5 means a lot. And at mid-high levels DR 10 will mean a lot in similar situations, and DR 15 will virutally always mean a lot.

 

[Grog]

A fighter who spends all of his feats mastering a particular weapon should have the disadvantage of not being as good if he can't use that weapon. But if the game never makes his favorite weapon a sub-optimal choice, he's never "penalized" for his choice.

Why should he be penalized for his choice?

Do you think that fighters who take other feats should also be "penalized"? How can you "penalize" a fighter who takes Spring Attack? What about a wizard who takes Empower Spell?

Why are weapon specific feats more deserving of penalties than any of those choices?

The game designers WANT the fighter to pull out his mace when fighting skeletons. To carry a silver dagger for fighting werewolves. To carry the one adamantine-tipped arrow for emergencies. They don't think that every problem should be solved by an application of GMW.

If that's really the case, then the answer is to fix GMW, not to change the DR system in a way that screws over certain types of characters.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Why should he be penalized for his choice?

Do you think that fighters who take other feats should also be "penalized"? How can you "penalize" a fighter who takes Spring Attack? What about a wizard who takes Empower Spell?

Why are weapon specific feats more deserving of penalties than any of those choices?



If that's really the case, then the answer is to fix GMW, not to change the DR system in a way that screws over certain types of characters.

Besides fighters already have the ranged or not ranged penalty. If they focus on t he sword there in trouble when facing foes at 10+ feat, if they take bows they are in trouble up close and personal(at least in theory) To even more penalize them so that you need more than 1 mellee weapon would be unfortunate IMO.