Revised DR

[Zad]

1) Consider that the people designing 3.5 have heard of, and will pay attention to, game balance.

I am certainly hoping that is the case. Part of the problem is I'm a little too used to computer RPG's where the designers put in a fix without thinking it all the way through, and that certainly biases me here.

Worried that an arcane archer is going to get hosed? What about that new 1st-level arcane spell, transmute metal? For one round/level, it'll change one melee weapon or 50 missiles from one nonmagical metal into another nonmagical metal. Presto: the arcane archer is useful again.

What about it? Reference please It's not mentioned on the 3.5e info page, nor the other material I've read (granted I haven't combed for every iota of information but I did read the 3.5e info page and just went back and searched it.) Assuming it's out there, then certainly that makes life much more practical for everyone, and would be a grand and wonderful thing. (On the other hand, doesn't a spell like that eliminate the flavor they're going for by letting parties easily counter the DR? Beats me.)

 

[Dr_Rictus]

I've been using this system in my home game for a few months now, and after some initial adjustments by the characters (such as buying extra arrows, or swapping a normal weapon for a special-material weapon, or just buying a secondary melee weapon), the players have taken to it really well.

Well, your players already have it, so it doesn't need to be changed in the core rules, then.

Seriously, most of the 3.5 changes I've heard about are in response to issues that have been experienced by a lot of people. They address problems that come up repeatedly, at least judging from the limited evidence of forums like this. This DR thing, on the other hand, strikes me as, for the most part, a solution in search of a problem.

I can grant the point about using a more consistent mechanic for skeletons and such, but that's the only thing I see here that addresses any real need of any kind. As such, the rest of this business would make a perfectly fine variant among the other variants in the revised DMG, but a poor move otherwise.

 

[reiella]

You still can buy 3.5 and easily ignore this rule.

Just don't buy the 3.5 MM... Problem solved, no?

[add]
There are a few problems with the Revised Change however...

d20 monsters will need to be reworked...

Plus side, it appears Monsters of Rokugan would be ok, since they already use similiar behavior for Jade.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

You still can buy 3.5 and easily ignore this rule.

Just don't buy the 3.5 MM... Problem solved, no?

No. As I've said before, the fact that DM's are free to institute house rules does not in any way whatsoever excuse poor design decisions in the core rulebooks.

 

[reiella]

Was more so in reference to the comment that you weren't able to buy 3.5 because you didn't agree with that single rule and wouldn't be able to 'easily' adapt out of it. Should be just as easily as using the older MM material instead. In fact, it looks like for some time that would be the easier course of method for general use if you happen to use any book with monster supplements that have DR at all.

 

[IceBear]

Grrr, I didn't. A titan should do so much damage with a sword that halving it won't make much difference to a skeleton.

I mean, its warhammer does 4d6+19. If it uses a sword with similar damage, that's still 33/2 = 16 damage on average to a skeleton. Even Large skeletons only have 13 hp. So, where's the problem?

Ok, I wasn't saying that I thought it was bad before, just that for CONSISTENCY purposes, I was ok with it. All it does is make any monster that is resistent to certain attacks follow the same rules. That's what I didn't mind. Understand now?

IceBear

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Agreed, IceBear. I don't think there's any problem with how the rule about skeletons' weapon resistance behaves, and the notion that Titans are unduly penalized is a straw man argument. But having one game mechanic for such things, not two, is proper.

For that matter, I do think that the fact that "+1" is on a hierarchy with "silver" is a consistency problem. If a +1 weapon should affect the creature, then its DR should read something along the lines of "DR 5/+1 or silver." But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about someone's opinion that a highlighting a variety of special materials would not only be a Neat Idea in Their Campaign, but is so important, so universally necessary to all fantasy gaming, that it should be part of the core rules.

 

[dravot]

What about it? Reference please It's not mentioned on the 3.5e info page, nor the other material I've read (granted I haven't combed for every iota of information but I did read the 3.5e info page and just went back and searched it.) Assuming it's out there, then certainly that makes life much more practical for everyone, and would be a grand and wonderful thing. (On the other hand, doesn't a spell like that eliminate the flavor they're going for by letting parties easily counter the DR? Beats me.)

I'd be interested in seeing this spell as well.

And I don't think it eliminates the flavor at all, and isn't that easily countered. The spell uses up a spell slot that you could take for another spell (or costs money if it's in a wand, etc.), and unless you're pre-buffing for a fight, will take precious time to cast/invoke, etc. - especially when haste is nerfed to extra attacks instead of extra partial actions.

 

[RedSwan78]

Worried that an arcane archer is going to get hosed? What about that new 1st-level arcane spell, transmute metal? For one round/level, it'll change one melee weapon or 50 missiles from one nonmagical metal into another nonmagical metal. Presto: the arcane archer is useful again.

Wrong.

Read the spell, it's ONE projectile it changes. Sorry, still just see this "change" as a bad thing, and If I have anything to do with it, *won't* be using it. The bad thing is, when I *won't* have anything to do with it, such as when I join a new group or such.

So basically melee's are getting screwed out of hitting things, right? The fighter of the group has to carry around new weapons.. well there goes alot of his monetery resources. Does the fighter now get extra money per level to buy additional swords and such?

Hey, why aren't magic users getting screwed too? I mean, a magic missile still hits a werewolf, right? Or do they have to memorize a "silvery magic missile"..? See how stupid it gets?




EDIT- Just saw a few people asking for that spell, here is the referrence:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article..../mc/mc20020130a

Silvered Weapon
Transmutation
Level: Brd 0, Clr 0, Drd 0, Pal 1, Rgr 1, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: One weapon or projectile
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: None

You transform a single weapon or projectile into a silvered weapon or silvered projectile. A silvered weapon or projectile functions as a normal item of its type, except that silvered weapons or projectiles can hurt some creatures that can resist damage from normal weapons, such as werewolves.

Material Component: A silver coin.


Also, how do you make your quote's include that "originally posted by: x" thingy? hehe I haven't posted too much here

 

[Pielorinho]

Wrong.

Not wrong, just misunderstood.

Lemme quote the part of my post that people are missing:

2) Think of possible solutions to the potential problems you're imagining, and discuss ways to make the system work

See? With about 30 seconds' thought, I came up with a POSSIBLE spell they could add to 3.5 that would enable archer characters to be useful in combat vs. creatures with DR/special material. I wasn't talking about that 3E cantrip at all.

Before you run in circles, screaming and shouting, think about whether the problems you're imagining have imaginary solutions as well. If they do, why not discuss those imaginary solutions? Andy is obviously reading this thread; if your suggestions are good, maybe he'll include them.

But talking about how You're Not Going To Buy 3.5 Because of This Sucky Rule -- this is, I'm guessing, both false and irrelevant. People said exactly the same thing before 3E came out, kvetching about all sorts of stuff that later proved to be immensely popular.

Only 3 saving throws? Wizards can wear armor? Clerics have nine spell levels? Blasphemy! Despair! Armageddon! I'll never buy the books!

And yet when people saw how these changes were actually implemented, people found them to be fair and exciting. People bought the books after all. And i do hope that Monte, Skip, and all the others ignored people's I-won't-buy-the-book-if-you-make-this-change threats.

So discuss these changes. But give the designers the benefit of the doubt. Point out potential pitfalls, but use your imagination, and try to come up with possible solutions.

That's constructive criticism. Just saying, "This su><><0r5!" is perilously close to whining.

Daniel