Kinda changing rules without telling players.

[Baron Von StarBlade]

I am at work and don't have my books with me, so if you could do me a huge favor and post the actual PHB, DMG or MM definition of "Enhancement Bonus" and let me know what book it is from, I could probably give you my answer. And since I am in 110% agreement with DocM right now, I am sure it would help him answer the question as well.

Thanks!

I don't have the books at work either, however if you look at the DND Glossary which comes from the PHB (Look at the upper right corner of the PDF), you'll pick up a couple of key definitions:

damage reduction: A special defense that allows a creature to ignore a set amount of damage from most weapons, but not from energy attacks, spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A damage reduction entry in the description of a creature indicates the amount of damage the creature can ignore from each blow and the minimum power level of weapon that negates the ability. For purposes of damage reduction, weapons made of special materials (such as silver) and weapons with special magical properties (such as keenness) are the least powerful. Weapons with enhancement bonuses are more powerful than either of these types, and weapons with higher enhancement bonuses are more powerful than weapons with lower bonuses. For example, a 20th-level monk has damage reduction 20/+1) This means that the monk ignores the first 20 points of damage from any attack, unless that damage is dealt by a weapon with a +1 or better enhancement bonus, by a spell, or by a form of energy (fire, cold, etc.). A creature with damage reduction that attacks another with the same power inflicts damage normally if the defender is corporeal and vulnerable to the same or a weaker type of weapon as the attacker. The amount of damage reduction is irrelevant in this case. (For example, two werewolves can harm each other normally.) Barbarians have damage reduction as a class feature, but theirs is a special type that negates a set amount of damage from any source.

Bonus: A positive modifier to a die roll. Modifiers with specific type descriptors (armor, enhancement, competence,etc.) generally do not stack with others of the same type. If more than one modifier of a type is present, only the best bonus or worst penalty in that grouping applies. Bonuses or penalties that do not have type descriptors generally stack with those that do.

Notice the Emphasis. Now, if this isn't enough of a definition in the PHB, then also look under the Ki Strike Monk special ability, where it specificially states that an Enhancement Bonus will Bypass Damage Reduction of equal or lesser protection.

 

[Murrdox]

I've tried to make this point before... It's been ignored, for the most part. Occasionaly someone says that is *is* the same thing, though I disagree with that view.

Hey, I hear ya Tsyr.

 

[RigaMortus]

It's not the same thing.

In this instance, it is the same thing.

Changing a creature is completely different from changing the rules.

In general, yes it is different. In this instance it is the same exact thing. You are getting the same exact results. Would it make it better if we didn't call them were-rats? What if they physically looked like were-rats, but we called them man-rodents, and they happened to ONLY be hurt by silver? The use of non-silver negated 10 points of damage you inflict with a weapon, magic or not. Does that put your mind at ease? It's the same thing as the DM making up a new monster and putting him in the game.

Does the DM have to suddenly get the player's approval when he wants to add a new monster in the game?

DM: Hey guys. Here are the stats on that new monster that I was going to throw at you. Tell me what you think.

Pah-leeze

DocM... Did you announce before hand that they were facing were-rats, or did you just describe them as such? Did you say something like, "Ok, the were-rats attack you." or did you just describe them, something like, "You are attacked by strange looking creatures that look like a weird mixture of both man and rodent."???

It's too bad if they assumed they were were-rats, and the DM just played along, huh?

 

[Tsyr]

I am at work and don't have my books with me, so if you could do me a huge favor and post the actual PHB, DMG or MM definition of "Enhancement Bonus" and let me know what book it is from, I could probably give you my answer. And since I am in 110% agreement with DocM right now, I am sure it would help him answer the question as well.

Thanks!

From the DMG, page 177:

"An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the strength or effectiveness of a character's armor or weapon, as with the spells magic vestment and magic weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score, such as with the spell cat's grace.

It's basicly the same in the PHB and MM too.

 

[Tsyr]

In this instance, it is the same thing.

In general, yes it is different. In this instance it is the same exact thing. You are getting the same exact results.

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The cause of an effect is important. I can get a job and earn 30 dollars for a new WotC book, or I can steal 30 dollars off a person on the street and buy it, or I can rob a store and steal it, or I can highjack a shipment of books to get it, or whatever. Same result, yes, but they are not the same thing. And that's an important distinction to me.

Would it make it better if we didn't call them were-rats? What if they physically looked like were-rats, but we called them man-rodents, and they happened to ONLY be hurt by silver? The use of non-silver negated 10 points of damage you inflict with a weapon, magic or not. Does that put your mind at ease? It's the same thing as the DM making up a new monster and putting him in the game.

No, it's not. By the default rules, an enchanted weapon over-rides silver-based damage reduction. It's not that it's for that one specific creature... hell, if he wanted to give them damage reduction +10/60 (epic level), I'd be fine with that, from a rules standpoint. This is fundamentaly changing how the system works.

Does the DM have to suddenly get the player's approval when he wants to add a new monster in the game?

DM: Hey guys. Here are the stats on that new monster that I was going to throw at you. Tell me what you think.

Pah-leeze

Of course, since A) this isn't what was happening (Making a new monster), and B) No one has said anything of the type Re: new monsters and C) Everyone has said he didn't have to tell them the specifics of what changed, this is a straw-man arguement that I'm not gonna bother with.

 

[Ravellion]

I like that school of character creation actually. I mean, it IS the PLAYER'S character, isn't it? I think they should have some control of how their character progresses.

If you don't like them plotting out their character progression ahead of time, then why bother having them make character sheets? Just make up the character sheets yourself and hand them out. Everytime they level up, have a new leveled version of their character to hand out. That is essentially what you are doing. Limiting their freedom of choice.

Do your players often "abandon" (purposely have them killed off, decide to leave the party, etc.) their characters to make new ones?

You should read the editorial in the latest Dragon. It mentions how one of the funnest (I know that isn't a word) parts of playing DnD is actually character creation. You're nerfing the fun man!

If that is your idea of fun go sit at home and make some characcters. If I introduce a new organisation with a new prestige class in my game and offer it to you as a player, I am nerfing your fun because you hadn't planned that out? Male bovine excrements!

You can pick your feat when you level up. Cahracter creation can be fun, but if that's how it's going to be (going to make just a stupid analogy as you just made : ), I am going to tell my DM that there is no use in going to 20 levels worth of adventure, since I have got my character all planned out anyway.

To the main discussion again: The creature might have read: DR 30/+5

Special vulnerability: Silver weapons do normal damage to this creature

Completely within 3e rules, doesn't change the situation at all. So the player is a metagaming git. DOne. Over.

And Tom Cashel... I think it is a bit rude to state a bottom line in a discussion which is merely your own opinion, and not the true bottom line at all.

Rav's Bottom Line:

Since it is the DM's prerogative to change creatures as much as he wants, and the rule change can be easily explained as a creature variation completely within the rules, any player who restates that his weapon should damage the creature, which he doesn't even know is a wererat, is metagaming.

Edit: Im a one slow typer... my position has been stated three time sin the alst few posts. I disagree with Tsyr, because the players simply can not know which was made: rules or creature.

 

[RigaMortus]

Notice the Emphasis. Now, if this isn't enough of a definition in the PHB, then also look under the Ki Strike Monk special ability, where it specificially states that an Enhancement Bonus will Bypass Damage Reduction of equal or lesser protection.

Ok, you have a very good point. My only arguement here is (a) should a character who doesn't have DR himself OR hasn't ever encountered a creature with DR know how to bypass it? and (b) is the player a Monk with +1 Ki Strike?

In one example, we have a player that can cast Magic Weapon. He should know what Magic Weapon does, since he can cast it and has used it before. So the only thing he has to go by is (a) the description of Magic Weapon in the PHB and (b) any previous encounters where he used Magic Weapon (or saw it in use). Since the description of Magic Weapon in the PHB doesn't mention anything about bypassing DR, the character wouldn't know. Also, since they never faced a DR creature before while using Magic Weapon, again they wouldn't know.

In the second example you have DR. Since none of the characters have DR themselves or previously encountered a creature with DR, they shouldn't know how it works exactly. They *might* know that if they don't have the proper defense available (whether that is a silver weapon, a +2 weapon or a flaming holy weapon), that they won't do AS much damage as they could to the creature. And that's it.

From the DMG, page 177:

"An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the strength or effectiveness of a character's armor or weapon, as with the spells magic vestment and magic weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score, such as with the spell cat's grace.

It's basicly the same in the PHB and MM too.

Well DocM said that he doesn't think the player's should use knowledge from the DMG anyway. However, you mention this is in the PHB as well, and it doesn't say anything about bypassing DR in the definition. So I think the player shouldn't "know" if it bypasses DR or not until they make the proper checks or use trial and error.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Metagaming can be a problem.

In the campaign that I'm DMing, I don't allow players to look up stats of monsters, or leaf through random books trying to find a way out of the current situation. They're pretty good about playing under my rules, and metagaming doesn't happen very often as a result. I ALSO do tricks like Doc has mentioned, and I change stats for monsters all the time. (However, while I might change the DR for a specific creature, I wouldn't change the fundamental rules behind it without at least mentioning it to the players.) I never tell them specifically what they're facing unless they've encountered them before. Even then, I might say "You see a rat-man creature similar to the two you killed a few minutes ago."


HOWEVER, I've seen how much a problem it can be.

In a campaign where I'm a PLAYER... last night we ran into a Nightshade. We'd never seen ANYTHING like this before. After a couple of rounds not hurting it, the DM mentions to everyone that it has 25/+3 DR.

IMMEDIATELY, all the players bemoaned that they couldn't hurt the thing (we didn't have any +3 weapons) and started trying to figure out ways to do more than 25 points of damage. The party had ONE +5 weapon in the form of an artifact mace, and immediately everyone tried buffing up that character as much as possible.

In the GAME - our characters had maybe taken two swipes at the thing, and a pittifully failed Knowledge: Undead check would not have revealed its DR to us.

Well, I'm not one for metagaming. My character spent 3 rounds swinging at it, and missing - but he didn't know his weapons would be ineffective, so he kept attacking. Then he finally hit twice, and rolled near maximum damage each time. Thus, he realized that his weapons weren't strong enough to hurt the beast. When the Nightshade used its Finger of Death ability on the character with the artifact, I jumped down, grabbed it, and switched to that weapon. We barely managed to kill it before it fled.

My point? Well, our DM in that group really doesn't care one way or another if we metagame... I do though.


EDIT: Goddamnit I actually used the word "Buff" when describing enhancement spells. ARGH! See what bad influences you guys are on me??

I hate stuff like that. Once he told you the DR the encounter went from "role" playing to "roll" playing as everyone frantically pulled out their calculators and figured out how they could add maximum twinkage to the one character with a +5 weapon.

As far as I am concerned that game got boring right then and there. Might as well be playing a computer game with a hint button.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

DocM... Did you announce before hand that they were facing were-rats, or did you just describe them as such? Did you say something like, "Ok, the were-rats attack you." or did you just describe them, something like, "You are attacked by strange looking creatures that look like a weird mixture of both man and rodent."???

It's too bad if they assumed they were were-rats, and the DM just played along, huh?

I never called them were-rats. I origionally described them as feral looking people and when they switched to hybrid form I described how their snouts elongated, fur started to cover their bodies, and their teeth lengthened and took on a sickly color.

 

[Tom Cashel]

And Tom Cashel... I think it is a bit rude to state a bottom line in a discussion which is merely your own opinion, and not the true bottom line at all.

You do, of course, realize that you just followed up with the exact same thing, right?

I was just trying to boil it down for my own benefit; possibly for the benefit of others. My apologies if it rubbed you the wrong way.

I also think that players don't need to know everything. They don't need to see "behind the curtain," and know what mechanics are at work in every situation. If they DM another campaign, they need to learn how to be players in the one they're in. One DM is enough for any game session.