Best Type of Damage Reduction?

[Hand of Evil]

All of the above -- I think it comes down to the type of game atmosphere you build in your games, each type of 'reduction' provides a different flavor. Yes, only use one in your campaign but think about which one is best for it.

High magic world - +2 or better weapon to hit because magic is all about
Doing some Plane travel - Damage Reduction 20/+2
Ravenloft - Damage Reduction 10/Magic, undead, weres, oh my...
not sure (all) - Resist weapons 5, yea rare but maybe a superhero type of game

 

[Celebrim]

I used, well still use, the 3.0 system only with the numbers generally halfed.

So usually what you have is something like

DR 5/+1
DR 10/+2
DR 15/+3
DR 20/+4
DR 25/+5

Also 'cold iron' in my system basically means 'quenched and tempered steel', which is the ordinary material which weapons are usually made of. Steel itself has anti-magic properties because it is 'unnatural' (doesn't occur naturally, unlike for example copper or gold). So pretty much any weapon usually overcomes at least one sort of DR. Also, the special materials are themselves 'true' instances of common materials, so Adamantium is 'true steel' (and overcomes 'cold iron' DR) and Mithril is 'true silver' (and overcomes 'silver' DR). Also, aligned materials overcome their opposite as well, so a 'good' weapon overcomes both good and evil DR. This reduces the size of the tool bag needed.

The problem I have with the 3.0 system RAW is that it effectively is the 1st edition system, in as much as if you don't have the weapon for the job, the target is effectively invunerable. The problem I have with the 3.5 system is that it usually depends on having a golf bag of weapons you pull out for a particular situation, but that the straight DR/magic system is pretty much irrelevant in 95% of situations because magic weapons rapidly become ubiquitous and usually before DR/magic creatures are encountered.

My basic goal is DR which heavily rewards having the right tool, but which doesn't provide complete invunerability. By the time you encounter DR +1, you either have +1 weapons or can in a pinch do more than 5 damage. By the time you encounter DR 15/+3, you either have +3 weapons or in a pinch can do more than 15 damage. Generally I like to throw an occasional encounter at the party which would be easy had they the tools, but which becomes challenging and encourages creativity without them. By using low numbers for DR, I can do this without having a monster that is completely immune to attack, so if the players don't get creative I'm not throwing them into a TPK.

 

[Rolflyn]

I voted for the +1 or better to hit system because it is all or nothing. Really I wish it more like "only silver weapons can deal damage". Basically, I think that a werewolf's resistance to weapon damage should be absolute and a plot device because that is how it is in stories. You should find another way to solve the problem other than piling on more damage.

That said, weapon resistance should be rare. It seems that as weapon resistance gets less absolute, it becomes more common. And then it becomes a nuisance instead of a plot device. The solution is to make weapon resistance even less of a hindrance, until ultimately it does nothing.

 

[FireLance]

The "best" type of damage reduction really depends on what kind of reaction you want to get from the player characters:

1. The party runs, obtains weapons of the correct type or plus (which may involve a quest), then comes back and defeats the monsters OR the weapon users assume bodyguard roles and defend the spellcasters who do all the heavy lifting: Correct type or minimum plus to hit, DR [some high number]/type or plus

2. Give the spellcasters a more important role in defeating the monsters by lowering the weapon users' effectiveness slightly: DR [some low number]/type or plus, resist [some low number] weapon damage

A DM may even want his PCs to encounter different types of damage reduction over the course of his campaign.

 

[Nifft]

I voted for the +1 or better to hit system because it is all or nothing. Really I wish it more like "only silver weapons can deal damage". Basically, I think that a werewolf's resistance to weapon damage should be absolute and a plot device because that is how it is in stories. You should find another way to solve the problem other than piling on more damage.

That said, weapon resistance should be rare.

Mmm. The trouble with this thinking is that it applies to stories where the heroes fight one monster per story, and in D&D, you can expect to fight at least one monster every 10 minutes.

A lot of literary tropes don't quite work right when applied to games.

Cheers, -- N

 

[FireLance]

Mmm. The trouble with this thinking is that it applies to stories where the heroes fight one monster per story, and in D&D, you can expect to fight at least one monster every 10 minutes.

Well, the obvious solution is to ensure that the heroes only fight one monster with damage reduction per adventure.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I didn't know that's how it worked in 4e. That's kinda cool. I could back port that into my 3.5 game. Although I'd have to arbitrarily increase HP totals for creatures like devils and demons and whatnot by a good 20-25% or so to compensate, probably.

There's also the new 4e option. Instead of damage reduction the monster does extra stuff. Hit a volcano dragon with fire and he'll burn - and make an attack on everyone around him. (I find volcano dragons make better fire elementals than elementals themselves do).

 

[Storminator]

I liked the 3e style best, but I would have liked to see lower numbers. DR 30/+3 was ridiculous. DR 10/+3 would have been fine. 4e style works pretty well too, tho I haven't seen much of it in play. We fought wererats once, and one PC had a silvered weapon.

In play all the DR rules have been bit annoying to track, and I've seen players completely check out of a combat because of DR (in 3.5), and since we fought those same monsters 2 sessions in a row, completely drop from the campaign.

PS

 

[Pbartender]

Mmm. The trouble with this thinking is that it applies to stories where the heroes fight one monster per story, and in D&D, you can expect to fight at least one monster every 10 minutes.

A lot of literary tropes don't quite work right when applied to games.

Cheers, -- N

Not to mention the fact that PCs generally stick with a losing battle a lot longer than their literary counterparts would...

In an RPG, not having a rock to beat scissors with often ends up as a TPK, because the players feel they must win or die.

In a novel, not having rock to beat scissors usually means the heroes quickly realize their situation, and do their best to escape before things get worse. Later, they regroup and spend a couple of chapters locating that rock for a rematch later in the story.

 

[Camelot]

There's also the new 4e option. Instead of damage reduction the monster does extra stuff. Hit a volcano dragon with fire and he'll burn - and make an attack on everyone around him. (I find volcano dragons make better fire elementals than elementals themselves do).

I don't like any of those methods, though I wouldn't have said so until MM3. I really like this idea of no resistances, but if you hit it with something it "would have been resistant to," it makes an extra attack or gets a boost to something. That way, you didn't do any less damage than you should have, but you're suddenly in a more dangerous situation. On top of that, 4e combat speeds up!