Alternate damage resistance

[Mort]

I really liked the concept of damage resistance when it was introduced, but now that my players are encountering it a lot (they’re an average of 12th level); the “all or nothing” nature of it is really bugging me. For example, if something has a DR of 10/+2, shouldn’t a +1 weapon, which is leaps and bounds better than a “standard” weapon (reflected in the cost etc.), have a better affect than a standard weapon.

I can really see this becoming a problem with epic play – +5 weapons, which are supposed to be the peak for most mortals, are just as ineffective as a non-magic weapon against a DR of x/+6?

One quick and dirty solution I’m considering is to make magic weapons negate a portion of the magic resistance based on plus. For example if something has DR 10/+2 and you hit it with a +1 weapon 5 points of the DR is negated. If it has a DR of 10/+3 and you use a +1 weapon 3 points is negated (a +2 weapon would negate 6 points). This seems to carry over nicely (an iron golem [DR 50/+3] hit with a +1 sword would still have 34 DR to be bypassed, or 18 with a +2 sword) .

Has anyone actually tried this rule?
How about other means of dealing with damage resistance?

I don’t hang around the rules forum much, so apologize in advance if this has already been beaten to death.

 

[kreynolds]

How about other means of dealing with damage resistance?

Spells. Seriously though, if a creature has DR 30/+3, then more than likely your players can either suprass the DR with massive amounts of damage and/or spells, or they already have +3 weapons or better, or they have a Sure Striking weapon. If your players have no chance of surpassing the creature's DR at all, then there's something wrong with the encounter.

I would be reluctant to implement a house rule like this, mostly because I worry that it would weaken DR, thus it would weaken the creatures that have it.

You should post stuff like this in the house rules forum though. Typically, you'll get a bigger response.

 

[Valmur_Dwur]

Of course you can do that in your campaign

The reason behind DR was that the creatures who posess it have certain inherant abilities that couldn't be replicated any other way without unbalancing other aspects of the game. Then taking your example what about adantium weapons? Since they are better than regular steel shouldn't they do more? And so you keep adding rules to cover every possible combo til your head explodes from rewriting the core rulebooks Having said that if you decide that this is the way to go morepower to you!

Cheers!

 

[Xarlen]

I'd have to go with the Guru, K.

Because, well, I don't have the Punkass feat. That, and I agree.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That would actually be a very sensible idea in certain circumstances.

If DR progressed according to a set scale:
DR 5/ Silver, 10/+1, 20/+2, 30/+3. . . 50/+5

If that were the case then it would be a good idea.

However, DR doesn't progress like that.
You have creatures with DR 5/+2 (high hit dice celestial or fiendish creatures). If you allow +1 weapons to overcome half of that, then they've only got DR 2 which isn't nearly as much use. Simlarly a creature with DR 10/+3 (celestial dire bear) would only have DR 6 against a +1 sword and a creature with DR 20/+2 (like a huge elemental) would have DR 10. Thus the creature that is supposed to be harder to injure is actually easier to injure.


Another important factor in the rules is simplicity. It would probably make sense to calculate velocity, multiply by weight, divide by some damage factor and have that determine the number of d6's for falling damage. However, we don't do that because it's much simpler to use an arbitrary set number of d6's for each discrete interval fallen (in 3e, it's 1d6 per 10 feet). There are already enough modifiers and multipliers in D&D combat--adding a new one ("you're using a +2 weapon against an iron golem--what's 2/3 or 50?") and remembering which modifier to apply to each character (because they would probably have different bonusses on their weapons if this were a factor) would be a real pain.

 

[hong]

That would actually be a very sensible idea in certain circumstances.

If DR progressed according to a set scale:
DR 5/ Silver, 10/+1, 20/+2, 30/+3. . . 50/+5

If that were the case then it would be a good idea.

However, DR doesn't progress like that.

As a house rule until 4E comes out and all this funny business with DR is streamlined, I don't think it would be out of line to change DR to be "+X", as opposed to "N/+X". So anything that's currently N/+1 DR at the moment would become 10/+1, anything that's N/+2 would become 20/+2, and so on.

Creatures that miss out would include high-level monks (20/+1 DR becomes 10/+1), and those that benefit would include wizards with stoneskin (10/+5 becomes 50/+5). You might want to play around a bit with that last one, especially.

 

[Thanee]

The all-or-nothing approach also bugs me a little. It's usually either way too much, or completely absent. The golden middle is almost never achieved, unless you change the DR of the creatures encountered to something suitable, but that's also not the best approach.

I'd like to see Damage Reduction as a kind of relative figure, listed as a table, like this (a random example for a creature with DR 30/+3):

30/+1
30/+2
30/+3
20/+4
10/+5

It would probably be better to write it in a different fashion, where the listed DR is that which actually applies to the enhancement bonus in question.

+1: 30
+2: 30
+3: 20
+4: 10
+5 or better: 0

Hope you understand the difference I'm talking about.

As a formula, the DR of a creature against a certain enhancement bonus would be the one listed for all enhancement bonuses lower than the one listed (which is able to pierce the DR), and cumulative -10 for every better enhancement bonus, starting with the one listed (until the relative DR reaches 0).

Ok, I guess this would be more suitable for the house rules forum!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Coredump]

I think Hongs method will *greatly* change how DR works and how it is used for creatures. There isa reason monsters may have a 10/+3 or a 30/+3. That is like saying that all flying creatures should all of a sudden have 10 HD. ie. just another arbitrary change.


OTOH, if you want lesser bonuses to have some effect, I can see that. But, I would say to start with a ceiling of half. And be harsh.

ie. 20/+2 normal sword deals with DR of 20. A +1 sword deals with a DR of 15. I would *not* make it a linear progression.

ie. 30/+4
+4 DR of 0
+3 DR of 15
+2 DR of 25
+1 or normal, DR of 30



OTOH, in 1e/2e, this happened all the time; and it wasn't much of a problem. (Creature needed +3 to get hit, if you had a +2 == SOL.) So I would leave it as is, but this is my suggestion if you want to change it.

.

 

[Crothian]

There are some good ideas here. If I were to use one of these methods I'd increase the DR of most creatures since there would be easier ways to get through them.

 

[Stalker0]

An alternative method you could try would be to give weaker magical items a chance to still penetrate the DR.

For instance, for 20/+3 DR, a +2 weapon would have a 20% chance to penetrate and do full damage, and a +1 would have a 10%.

You can change the percentages however you like, this allows me to simply roll one more dice instead of having to do more math.