Revised DR

[Pielorinho]

I also wonder -- does anyone know whether all DR will look like this? I'm guessing that the majority of creatures will still have DR 5/+1 (or whatever), with the related hierarchy of pluses; I'm guessing that the special material DR will be something reserved for a minority of creatures. You won't need to carry around a diamond saw for when you fight gargoyles, or a fire extinguisher for when you fight salamanders. This isn't Zork, after all.

But that's my WAG. Does anyone know?

Daniel

 

[Brown Jenkin]

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.

My point was, and you provided the numbers, that a first level fighter can with only a little luck damage a pit fiend with a normal weapon. I never claimed that he would live past the first round. If the rule change is to make things make more sense (Your definition of sense may vary) this does not from my perspective. A pit fiend should be shrugging off any damage that a level 1 fighter can do. Im not sure what the 20-20-dead is about but if you are talking about crits (dead is not a part of crits) then yes I suppose you could damage a pit fiend on confirmed 20-20 crit with a 2 handed weapon maxing the damage for a total of 4 HP damage, but with the new rules you need only one 20 with a greataxe to cause damage 25% of the time. If you crit 20-20 with that greataxe under the new rules you will do 39 HP damage to it.


As for new spells and DR I realize that these may not be the same, and we will have to see what they do for spells. I was pointing out that right now they had a 0 level spell that could ignore the new DR. If they realy intend for this to be different than the current situation they will have to prohibit any change material spells or you end up with the same problem you have with GMW. If GMW is the real problem fix the spell not the DR system.

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.

Its more fundemental because it is effecting many more things from spells to feats to monsters. Yes changing the core classes is fundemental but it doesn't have the same ripples. I can still use the old ranger with the new rules. Its not so simple to houserule either since using your rule that pit fiend is now hittable with a +1 weapon.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

I'm slightly concerned at this. Not overly. I find the DR modification to be exciting and challenging. Something that has bugged me for a while, was the inclusion of DR 5/silver which had no real meaning.

You're overstating the case, I think. Lycanthropes range down to the CR where you certainly don't expect everyone to necessarily have magic weapons.

So it's more to the point to say that silver weapons have no meaning after characters reach mid- to high levels. I have no more problem with that, personally, than the fact that most characters eventually stop bothering with stuff like tanglefoot bags.

 

[Perithoth]

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.

Um,

The play test for the changes was us. A lot of the rethinking of the rules was based upon the steady torrent of feedback from the consumer. There are external play tests going on right now. In fact I know someone who is a part of one such group.

The difference between the 3e play test and the revised 3e play test is they are not working with a complete unknown. Instead they have 2.5 years of heavy load testing on the old 3e rules system. They have further tested new ideas with D20 releases (Star Wars, D20 Modern, Wheel of Time, etc.) So I would say that the revised edition is getting a better test than the origional.

One last thing about play test. A few hundred people will never catch what thousands will find. The fact that they didn't have a big splashy play test like the last time does not concern me.

Happy that stuff will be updated and improved,

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Perithoth
Lord of Grumpiness

 

[Particle_Man]

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.

You know, I HOPE that players think like this, because I want to see the looks on their faces when I get a strong mook with a +2 greatsword to sunder their +1 holy flaming shocking keen greatsword of speed.

Anyhow, I will reserve judgement until I get the books. And I will get the books.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Um,

The play test for the changes was us. A lot of the rethinking of the rules was based upon the steady torrent of feedback from the consumer. There are external play tests going on right now. In fact I know someone who is a part of one such group.

The difference between the 3e play test and the revised 3e play test is they are not working with a complete unknown. Instead they have 2.5 years of heavy load testing on the old 3e rules system. They have further tested new ideas with D20 releases (Star Wars, D20 Modern, Wheel of Time, etc.) So I would say that the revised edition is getting a better test than the origional.

One last thing about play test. A few hundred people will never catch what thousands will find. The fact that they didn't have a big splashy play test like the last time does not concern me.

Happy that stuff will be updated and improved,

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Perithoth
Lord of Grumpiness

The "errors" were playtested by us, but the fixes haven't been. Or do they have this new DR thing in d20 modern, and really for how long has the new haste been playtested in d20 modern with it being new and it being a magic light game. So no these fixes haven't really been playtesed as much as I'd like unless there is some super secret playtest going on that no word has leaked about.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

You know, I HOPE that players think like this, because I want to see the looks on their faces when I get a strong mook with a +2 greatsword to sunder their +1 holy flaming shocking keen greatsword of speed.

Anyhow, I will reserve judgement until I get the books. And I will get the books.

Well considering that a higher + is needed to break a enchantment can you actually claim that no insane amounts of metagaming aren't going on when you even attempt to sunder a weapon crackling with holy fire and lightning. So if you are being serious I can't tell, the look you'll likely see is the you a metagaming geeble look otheriwse known as the yeah right whatever your the DM I guess you can screw us over however you want as long as we play here.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Something that is really bothering me, is the fact that even if I have a weapon made of nearly any material I can imagine, I still don't know which one to use. Or have the new monster painted on them "DR 10/coldiron"...I would wonder if it is the way...has a fighter to spend several rounds hitting the monster until he knows which weapon to use??? Will there be a spell "Analyze DR", is the cleric standing behind until he has analyzed the DR and then casting "Transmute x to Y" and then simply adding again GMW, is that how it should be done know?!? And this process will take several rounds with the revised haste...the fighter is nearly beaten up in this process until he gets the right weapon and starts with dealing damage to the monster...but that is all what comes to my mind, so how should I say it: let's wait for the final rules then we can start complaining about facts not imaginations!!!

 

[Fenes 2]

Actually, with all the "Let us commission this-and-that-Sword" attitude toward magic items it stands to reason that many people would expect a weapon with obvious energy enhancements to have only a low enhancement bonus, and therefore be vulnerable to sundering. The people living in that world are not stupid, after all.

Now, in a world where magic item creation is not as easy as in the standard campaign, I would be more cautious with such antics, but in standard D&D? What is good for the goose is good for the gander - if players can order custom weapons, then others can at least get information about the limits of magic weapons.

 

[The Little Raven]

My point was, and you provided the numbers, that a first level fighter can with only a little luck damage a pit fiend with a normal weapon. I never claimed that he would live past the first round. If the rule change is to make things make more sense (Your definition of sense may vary) this does not from my perspective. A pit fiend should be shrugging off any damage that a level 1 fighter can do. Im not sure what the 20-20-dead is about but if you are talking about crits (dead is not a part of crits) then yes I suppose you could damage a pit fiend on confirmed 20-20 crit with a 2 handed weapon maxing the damage for a total of 4 HP damage, but with the new rules you need only one 20 with a greataxe to cause damage 25% of the time. If you crit 20-20 with that greataxe under the new rules you will do 39 HP damage to it.

I'm talking about the Intant Kill variant rule in the DMG, where if you roll a 20, then a 20, then a critical hit, you kill your target instantly. I've used that rule for all of my gaming, so I automatically figured it into the process.

As for new spells and DR I realize that these may not be the same, and we will have to see what they do for spells. I was pointing out that right now they had a 0 level spell that could ignore the new DR. If they realy intend for this to be different than the current situation they will have to prohibit any change material spells or you end up with the same problem you have with GMW. If GMW is the real problem fix the spell not the DR system.

Its more fundemental because it is effecting many more things from spells to feats to monsters. Yes changing the core classes is fundemental but it doesn't have the same ripples. I can still use the old ranger with the new rules. Its not so simple to houserule either since using your rule that pit fiend is now hittable with a +1 weapon.

I don't think DR is more fundamental than the core classes. Not every monster has damage reduction, so the players don't always have to deal with it. However, players do have to deal with the core classes, which makes them a more fundamental part of the game. There are more players than DMs out there, so I think player-related material is much more fundamental to the game.