DR/magic fix

[heirodule]

Maybe people will think this is too complex. Or its been suggested before.

What I don't like about DR/magic.

1) it makes worse the already bad investment in +2, +3, +4 and +5 weapons. The marginal benefit of a + to hit is not met by the exponential cost. Yeah, treasure is just exponential, but I'd rather have a couple of great items than many many +1 items (the trend in mid levels)

2) its dull.

Why not this:

DR/magic, but each +1 of bonus negates 5 of the DR.

So something could have DR 15, and if you hit it with a +1 weapon, it still have DR 10, and if you hit it with a +2 weapon it has DR 5

Much more variety and interest, and a reason to add straight plusses.

Paul

 

[Hawken]

Why not this: DR/magic, but each +1 of bonus negates 5 of the DR.

By your own argument, that would negate the importance/value of getting a +4 or +5 weapon. If I am correct, almost all DR in 3.5 tops out at 15. Thus, a +3 weapon could beat any DR/Magic if each + bypasses 5 points of DR.

I've already used this in one of my games and it worked quite well: Each + of the weapon reduces DR by 3. In such an example, a +3 weapon would bypass 9 points of DR, but would still not be strong enough to entirely overcome it.

Also, to make magical enhancement bonuses more valuable, you could have them reduce DR/? by the same amount. So, if you were fighting a werewolf (with DR 15/Silver) and all you had was a +3 longsword, your sword would ignore 9 points of the DR, leaving the werewolf with DR 6 vs. your +3 longsword. Thus, your weapon while not as effective as a silver weapon would still not be useless.

 

[heirodule]

Thats pretty good too. I was also expectign to bump some DR values back up to 20 or even 30.

Paul

 

[Cheiromancer]

I like Hawken's idea, though 3 per + may be a bit much. I have toyed with the idea of making certain pluses reduce DR by 5. E.g.

+2: cold iron, silver
+3: adamantine
+4: alignment based
+5: damage type (bludgeoning, slashing, piercing)

add +1 if the DR includes /magic and X. A +2 weapon is more effective against DR /silver, but you need a +3 against DR /magic and silver.

add +5 if the DR includes /epic. You need a +7 weapon if the DR is /epic and silver.

If the creature has a DR with an "or" the damage can be reduced twice. Frex a +4 weapon would take 10 off the DR of a creature with DR /cold iron or good.

DR is normally no more than 10 or 15, which this rule reduces by 5. It is a noticeable improvement, but the correct weapon would still be better.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Why go up in increments of 5? How about this?

For every plus of a weapon (on the attack roll), the weapon bypasses 2 of the DR.

So a creature with DR 5/magic ignores the first 5 points from a masterwork item, the first 3 points of a +1 item, the first 1 point from a +2 item, and is bypassed by an item of +3 or higher.

A creature with DR 10/magic is almost fully affected by a +4 item--a +4 sword will effectively reduce that creature's DR to 2 against it; and a +5 item will ignore the DR of this creature.

The toughest creatures, with DR 15/magic, will still be highly resilient to most magic items, even the +5 weapon will lose 5 points it scores (i.e. in effect a +5 item loses the bonus damage from the +5).

You can also keep DR/epic immune to the benefit of magic items with less than a total of +10 simply by fiat.

Dave

 

[Khaalis]

The major problem I see with this theory is the math, assuming I understand your theory correctly. You are ignoring that the weapon's enhancement is also already a DR bypass via doing inherent extra damage.

Lets assume the equation that ever +1 enhancement bonus overcomes 3 points of DR. Then...
A +1 Weapon ignores 4 DR.
A +2 Weapon ignores 8 DR.
A +3 Weapon ignores 12 DR.
A +4 Weapon ignores 16 DR.
A +5 Weapon ignores 20 DR.

My personal issue is that if you really want DR to be more powerful and less overcome by "simple" magic, is to either make the magic more rare or simply make all DR/magic = DR/- instead.

JMHO. YMMV.

 

[DreamChaser]

not really, Khallis. The values of your table show what it would be if you weren't concerned about your magical weapon being more effective than your normal weapon.

A weapons + deals that damage to anything, regardless of DR. That is that same as saying that, on average, a long sword negates 4.5 points of DR. It doesn't really. That is just damage. Ideally, the + of a weapon should be damaging the target not getting sucked up in DR.

The net effect is of course that the DR value goes down increasing the chance of dealing actual damage. Anything that increases the damage dealt or reduces the DR serves the same goal: to keep damage as damaging as possible.

DC

 

[The_Warlock]

I'd go with the reduction by 3 if you were going to use such a system. The question is, is there anything on the PC side that they would end up with any DR/magic on them that would require the additional number crunching? I just try to reduce unnecessary math when I come up with a system.

Personally, I'm going to simply keep the +1, +2 bit in my home campaign to define magic weapons' ability to pierce magic DR, and slide scale the plus to 1/3rd of the creature's HD with a min of +1 and to a maximum of +5 at 15 HD. (ie, a creature in the MM with 5 HD or less with a DR/Magic would be DR/+1; 6 to 8 HD creatures get a DR/+2, etc). And obviously a higher plus obviously negates the lower DR in old fashion.

 

[Izerath]

Uh - Monte already talked about this.....

Check out the thread below - its the topic of Monte Cook's DM's Only article this month.

http://www.montecook.com/dmonly.html

 

[Hawken]

Cheiromancer said:

I like Hawken's idea, though 3 per + may be a bit much.

The reason I was thinking of 3 points per + is that the +5 weapon has always been the ultimate weapon throughout 1st and 2nd edition D&D but its importance and worth having was not as great in 3rd edition and in 3.5 is almost entirely unnecessary. I kind of hold to the attitude about them in 1st and 2nd edition. If someone is lucky enough to get their hands on a +5 weapon, they shouldn't need much anything else in battle.

However, I can see where making the + of a weapon reducing only 2 points is fair too. This method allows DR/? to still be a great ability even in the face of some of the most powerful weapons. Either way would be fine in my opinion, whether the + is worth 2 or 3 points of DR. I just went with 3 because that is the number I thought of when I introduced the idea into my game on the spur of the moment.

Khaalis said:

The major problem I see with this theory is the math, assuming I understand your theory correctly. You are ignoring that the weapon's enhancement is also already a DR bypass via doing inherent extra damage.

The weapon's enhancement is not a bypass to DR/?. It gets absorbed by some or all of the DR. In the case of a fighter using a +1 longsword against a creature with DR 5/silver, the longsword bypasses (or reduces, the result being the same) the DR of the creature from 5 to 2. The remaining 2 points of damage reduction suck up the 1 point of damage from the enhancement bonus and the first point of damage from the weapon. Thus if the fighter doesn't have a bonus to Strength or something else adding damage, it is entirely possible that the DR could still block all the damage of the weapon (if the player rolled a 1 for damage. Weapon enhancements do not bypass DR already, they just get soaked up into it, which means that the target suffers less damage from the hit. So, the DR is doing its job and is not bypassed or ignored to the extent you think.

Izerath said:

Check out the thread below - its the topic of Monte Cook's DM's Only article this month.

Monte's got a lot of ideas I agree with, but this doesn't happen to be one of them. According to his method, a weapon with enough +s totally disregards DR/?. I've never liked that either. Magic weapons should be able to function as a substitute for certain forms of vulnerabilities, but should not replace them. Using his example, why would anyone ever bother with silver weapons (inferior in Hardness and HP to steel, mithril or other metals) when they could have a weapon with a +2 or better bonus and never worry about needing silver again? Using my 3 point/+ method, against a werecreature with DR 15/silver, a +3 weapon gets you past 9 points of that DR, allowing a character with that +3 weapon a greater chance to injure the creature while still allowing another character with a normal, silver weapon to really dish out the damage! By Monte's example, anyone with a +2 isn't even going to be worried about the creature's defenses.

I also do not agree with his adding 2 points of damage if you have the right tool with the right bonuses. Just having the right tool means you should be able to inflict normal damage (not less damage from DR), not extra damage. The /? in DR means that's what it takes to hurt the thing, it doesn't mean if you have ? + X then you hurt it more. If something is vulnerable to holy, as in DR 10/Holy, and you're using a +1 Holy whatever, you're already ignoring the DR. If you're using a +5 Holy, you're ignoring the DR and inflicting 4 more points than the +1 weapon, which is enough. If it were Monte's game, that person with the +5 Holy would be inflicting +7 damage (+5 for the enhancement, +2 for the Monte bonus).

Giving players a 'free' +2 to damage is never a good idea. If they have the right tools for the job, they get to hurt the thing. They did their research and it paid off, or they were just lucky to come across what they needed.