Lycanthropes - As tough as it gets (a rant against 3.5 DR).

[Bauglir]

Because in the case of a magic weapon the magic is applied to the weapon and not to the creature attacked with it.

Under your interpretation each attack with the weapon vs an opponent with SR would require a caster level check to see if the weapon counts as magical for that attack. (One that would fail often - magic items being made at the minimum caster level)

From the point of view of balance, spellcasters already have SR and ER to worry about. Add DR into the mix and damaging spells will be shelved for more save-or-dies.

 

[Pinotage]

I think in some cases the golfbag syndrome is justified, if not essential. One of the characters I play is a halfling rogue 3/fighter 7. Being small and a halfling with two-weapon fighting (bashing shield and longsword), her straight damage will barely overcome DR 10/- on any attack. She relies on critical hits and flanking with sneak attack to do damage (and generally then more so than the two-handed greatsword fighter. Sneak attack adds up).

However, when those situations don't present themselves, she's useless against anything that has DR 10/anything other than magic. So she carries a cold iron and silver longsword along, as well as some adamantine arrows. She needs them.

On a similar note, I've found that golfbag syndrome is also required because it is so easy to Sunder a weapon, particularly one carried by a halfling. Multiple weapons for her are needed and justified. Oh, and yeah, I like 3.5e DR, but I'd be inclined to follow some of Monte Cook's suggestions on the matter, where a +2 weapon, for example, is 'equivalent' to 'silver' and a +3 weapon to 'cold iron', IIRC.

Pinotage

 

[Li Shenron]

About the golf-bag, I haven't seen it either. But with the increasing cost of magic weapons it is possible to happen at lower level:

a +2 costs as much as four +1
a +3 costs slightly more than two +2
a +4 costs slightly less than two +3 or one +3 and two +2
a +5 costs as much as one +4 and one +3

higher eq bonuses make it progressively a worse idea to swap for lesser weapons. However IMXP a character always looks for one single top weapon rather than more lesser ones, unless he's a 2WFer in which case it's usually seen as frustration not to have weapons as good as the other PCs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, even if I definitely prefer the 3.5 DR, I agree with Monte Cook that the one bad effect of it is that the straight enhancement bonuses are not worth their cost anymore, at least compared to the special abilities. They are still useful (for the fact that there is an attack bonus besides the damage bonus, you may not just need the latter), but more expensive than before.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMO the DR is nice if it has an effect on the battle. Now I think we are too much thinking of a one-on-one battle, one PC with a magic weapon against a monster with DR. In this case the golf-bag would seem a very common choice, since without the weapon you may be seriously screwed up (even with PA or whatever damage bonus you have, DR is STILL giving the monster a huge discount on damage). In a 3.0 one-on-one battle DR had the exactly opposite effect: better have one weapon only ALWAYS, the best you can get.

But in 99% of the games there's a party of PC against the monster, and DR has a different impact...

In 3.0 when you face the monster probably some but not all the PC have enough enhancement bonus on weapons to beat the DR. This means that depending on HOW MANY in the party can bypass it, the battle can be more or less difficult. After a point however everyone has the right weapons, and DR doesn't matter anymore, or "saturates". Obviously at this point the DM gives you monsters with better DR and the thing restarts

In 3.0 the same thing happens with DR /magic, and ends being important pretty soon. The material-based DR instead is so that at every level it may be more or less dramatic, depending on how many PC have the right material. Since you cannot have more than one material on the same weapon, there's no saturation (ok, you could ALL have silver weapons, but then you won't have the other ones), and DR is always important. The only way to always have ALL the right weapon is to carry the golf-bag, which is otherwise rather suboptimal as I said before about the cost.

This more of less to say that I didn't dislike how it worked in 3.0, as long as the DM used monsters of a DR well-centered on the group. I just think the 3.5 is more flavorful* and less frustrating for the damage discounted is much lower at the same time.

*rather because you actually may have one more choice to deal with

 

[Psiblade]

I just wanted to repeat this again. "I frickin' love 3.5 DR." 3.0 DR was useless. As far as fireball goes, try fireballing a devil or an iron golem. If one spell or tool could do everything, the game would be very boring.

-Psiblade

 

[Bauglir]

Anyway, even if I definitely prefer the 3.5 DR, I agree with Monte Cook that the one bad effect of it is that the straight enhancement bonuses are not worth their cost anymore, at least compared to the special abilities. They are still useful (for the fact that there is an attack bonus besides the damage bonus, you may not just need the latter), but more expensive than before.

With a 2 handed weapon, compare a +1 enchantment to say, flaming

+1 enchantment gives +1 to damage, +1 (5% chance) to hit
flaming enchantment gives (on average) +3.5 damage

But, say we convert that extra +1 to hit into damage using Power Attack

+1 gives +3 damage
flaming gives +3.5 damage (avg)

The damage from the flaming enchantment is still slightly higher on average, however the damage from the straight enchantment is more reliable, and less situational (i.e. not subject to fire resistance), and with the +1 enchantment the wielder has the choice of reducing damage for a higher chance to hit (i.e. not power attacking ) when needed.

Seems like a good balance to me. Granted with 1-handed and light weapons the special enchantments are stronger, relatively. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing - people with 2 handed weapons will lean more towards the straight enchantments, while others may favour the special effects. This seems to me like a good thing, as it promotes variety.

 

[Li Shenron]

The damage from the flaming enchantment is still slightly higher on average, however the damage from the straight enchantment is more reliable, and less situational (i.e. not subject to fire resistance), and with the +1 enchantment the wielder has the choice of reducing damage for a higher chance to hit (i.e. not power attacking ) when needed.

This seems to me like a good thing, as it promotes variety.

Yes definitely, that's why I said that straight enhancements are still useful, although I wasn't thinking of two-handed weapons + power attack, that's already too specific for me

I was rather thinking that it makes sense for a PC to choose to keep improving his hit chances (with +X enh bonuses) instead of just improving damage (with special abilities).

Anyway without helping DR anymore, those bonuses should cost a bit less IMO. I'm not going to suggest it because I like simplicity, but I think that it would be more fair.

 

[BigRedRod]

I really hated the 3e DR rules. I don't care how magic your sword is, you need silver to do proper damage to a werewolf
3.5 is a much better idea, still not perfect though. Although I can understand why they didn't want to make certain monsters immune to all damage per special materials