Revised DR

[Brown Jenkin]

"It seams to me to that this was added because one or two individuals in the revision proccess wanted it for thier own campaign."

First off, that is a little harsh and more than a little insulting to the developers.

Andy has said: "the R&D mantra for revised 3e, "do no harm." If there was something cool to change but it didn't really need to be done, it wasn't."

These people CARE about what you the buyer THINK. TSR never did that. The new staff has taken the time to do things like, post to your board. Comments like this make me wonder why they care.

That was me who wrote that and I still stick by it. Previously in the posting I said I like 90% of what they were doing but thought that this didn't work. As you pointed out "the R&D mantra for revised 3e, "do no harm." If there was something cool to change but it didn't really need to be done, it wasn't." This seems to contradict what they are doing. As far as I can tell this was not a major issue and was done because it was cool. As a result great harm has been done to its backwards compatability.

I appologize to the individual developers if they were insulted, but not to WotC which IMO is no longer the company that cares and is rapidly devolving to T$R. If WotC cared they would not be gutting thier staff, producing unfinished products, and allowing changes to a revision that invalidates large chuncks of 3rd party stuff I have invested in after only 3 years.

 

[Shalewind]

This seems to contradict what they are doing. As far as I can tell this was not a major issue and was done because it was cool. As a result great harm has been done to its backwards compatability.

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

I would question the comment that it wasn't a major issue. Is your backing for this simply the EnWorld and Wizard's Boards? Remember that there are a number of sources such as write ins and e-mail of which you cannot view publicly.

I know more than a few people that were concerned with DR, and while it might not be as Major an issue as the Heal/Harm debate, we still cared enough to ask questions and give our opionions to WoTC.

I'm still reserving judgement untill I see the system as a whole.

--pax

 

[Shard O'Glase]

the reasons have already been said so I'll just say, LAME.

 

[Mortaneus]

Hmmmm....all of this gives me an idea.....


New Weapon Special Abiliites:

Penetrating (+2): Weapon ignores the first 5 points of damage reduction each strike.

Greater Penetrating (+4): Weapon ignores the first 10 points of damage reduction each strike.

 

[Grog]

One thing I haven't seen brought up yet is how this change to DR will impact the creation of magic weapons. In the original 3E rules, DR was the main reason to put a high enchantment + on your weapon instead of a bunch of special abilities. If players went for a truckload of special abilities instead of more weapon plusses, they risked getting in trouble when they ran into a creature with DR (this was easily gotten around with GMW, but that's a whole other topic). But now, what incentive will players have not to make a +1 holy flaming shocking keen greatsword of speed? Since they'll have to pull out their backup weapons every time they run into a creature with DR anyway, they're not sacrificing anything for making a weapon like that.

I think this change sucks. It sucks because a fighter will have to cart around half a dozen different swords just to be a viable character. It sucks because whenever they're using their backup weapons, they won't be nearly as strong as they usually are. It sucks because archers will have to keep track of a half-dozen different types of ammunition and they'll probably end up having to make constant restocking trips. It sucks because, at high levels, spellcasters are going to dominate the game even more than they already do.

JMO. Maybe when all's said and done and the books come out, this will be implemented well. But just going by what I've seen, I think this change is bad, bad, bad.

 

[green slime]

I disagree that having Archers cart around a few various types of arrows is such a big hastle. Most players IMC:

• 
  [*] Always starts a campaign with a silver weapon
  [*] Always carries a variety of weapons (reach/blunt/sword/dagger)
  [*] Always has a variety of arrows, if they can afford them
  

There is a reason for the existence of the Quiver of Ehlonna...

What I would like to see is GMW only affecting 1 projectile, to give the archers true reason to purchase expensive "permanent" magical arrows.

 

[The Little Raven]

So now a first level fighter with high strength and a two handed weapon can damage anything. What happened to the invulnerability to normal weapons these high level critters are supposed to have?

Where the hell do you get that from? A first level fighter attacking a Pit Fiend with DR 15/holy with his two-handed weapon will deal little to no damage.

Str 18 (+4)
Greatsword (2d6)
Two-handed (Str + 1/2)
2d6 + 4 + 2 = range of 8 - 18, without Power Attack or anything.

That does 0 to 3 damage to that pit fiend. After the blow lands, the pit fiend them simply takes the fighter apart and heals the damage easily.

Remember, a first level fighter can also drop a 20-20-dead on that same Pit Fiend, but I don't see you complaining about that.

People were complaining about GMW disrupting the game by making it easy to get by DRs but all that was done now is changed the spell needed to do this and made it a cantrip. And yes cantrips by definition are pretty much totaly useless and shouldn't have a great impact against a CR10+ creature. The only cantrips I use at high level anyways are detect/read magic so yes I already have lots of unused cantrip slots. You might even see an unintended consequence of this now as many high level fighters start taking 1 level of sorcerer so they can fix thier own weapons on the fly as needed. For 1 less BAB and 3 less HPs you can now bypass material DRs.

Totally useless? I used a Ray of Frost (0-level) to put one of the toughest villians I have ever faced in his coffin. Cantrips are NOT totally useless.

And another point... that spell is from the Wizard's site. Nowhere have is been stated that the spell will be in the revision. If it is in the revision, it must be prepared (or spontaneously cast) and cast on a single weapon, with a very limited duration. It also only affects creatures hurt by SILVER, not by anything else, whereas GMW would overcome ANY DR, based on material or enhancement bonuses, as well as grant those bonuses to attack and damage. There are WORLDS of difference between those two spells, and I think you should have taken a deeper look before you responded.

Silverered Weapon (0-level/1st-level)
Makes 1 weapon or projectile silver for 1 round/level
* Your single level of sorcerer would grant silver for ONE round, so you need to cast it in the midst of combat.
* This will only allow damage through a lycanthrope's DR for one round, not very useful.
* This spell's range is touch, which means you must be holding the weapon or be next to someone who is.
* Minimum level attained for any class: 1st.

Greater Magic Weapon (3rd-level/4th-level)
Makes 1 weapon or 50 projectiles magic for 1 hour/level
Grants +1 bonus per 3 levels
* Grants an enhancement bonus to ATTACK and DAMAGE and damages through certain DR
* Also, if cast by a cleric or paladin, it is considered blessed (which will negatively affect certain creatures)
* This spell's range is Close, which means you can cast it on your friend who is being slaughtered in order to give him an edge.
* Minimum level attained for any class: 5th (which means FIVE hours of enhancement, minimum).

These spells are not even in the same ballpark.

Unlike every other rule they are fixing this one is fundemental to the rules structure. You can't just house rule it without changing dozens of creatures and spells. If it wern't for this I would buy 3.5 and implement it imediately. With this I will consider not buying it and adopting the other changes from the SRD into 3.0. If they are trying to sell more books they almost had my money.

Excuse me? How is changing FOUR core classes not changing the fundamental rules? Every published product out there will now have to be changed on the fly to compensate for the changes.

And actually, it's incredibly easy to house rule this, based on the information released so far. Any character with DR/material can be affected by a +1 or higher weapon. Simple.

Just as simple as when I house ruled that lycanthropes could not be affected by +1 or higher weapons, but only silver.

 

[dcollins]

These people CARE about what you the buyer THINK. TSR never did that. The new staff has taken the time to do things like, post to your board.

Those sentiments are nice.

However, the real test of a quality rule system is whether it's gone through a sufficiently wide playtest. That's one of the things that really impressed my about 3rd Ed.; the lack of same was one of the main downfalls of 2nd Ed.; it's one of my main concerns about Revised 3rd Ed. To date, I still haven't seen any assertion that there's any out-of-house playtesting being done on the proposed rule revisions.

Even nice people can make mistakes. My comfort level would only be adjusted if a lot of end-players were first using and commenting on the changes.

 

[Shalewind]

Even nice people can make mistakes. My comfort level would only be adjusted if a lot of end-players were first using and commenting on the changes.

Agreed. And, I know they aren't perfect. They are trying though. And I would feel safer if they had done some more public from the start. However, according to them the play testing staff never truly disbanded and has been continuing ever since inception. Perhaps we'll here more in the months to come. I'm willing to give benefit of a doubt for the moment.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

And actually, it's incredibly easy to house rule this, based on the information released so far. Any character with DR/material can be affected by a +1 or higher weapon. Simple.

Not true. Their strategy for balancing the change involves lowering the DR values across the board, so you also have to figure out what the appropriate value is if you change back, and hope that your judgement was correct (or that you have the 3.0 version of the same creature, if any).