Revised DR

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think the downsides the new DR rules are overstated.

At low levels (1-7), carrying around an extra weapon is a good idea.

Once you get a +2 weapon, it is nearly a wash to swap against a 5/silver critter unless you have another magic weapon.

IMHO, 3.0 monster design has a couple problems areas. First of all, there is DR -- a cool idea that was not implemented quite right. Second of all, energy resistances that are far more common than energy vulnerabilities. Both these mechanices would add flavor, in theory; in practice, they made combat more flavorless. ("<grunt> I hit things with my +n weapon. And I keep hitting them until they are dead." "Fireball? I only use sonic substituted energy spells and Magic Missiles.")

 

[Mortaneus]

How often do you fight DR creatures? One in twenty encounters? One in ten? One in five?

Well, considering Planescape is my setting of choice.....

 

[Shalewind]

Well, considering Planescape is my setting of choice.....

Okay... Probably shouldn't open this door but...

If Planescape is your setting, I would think, that the extraplanar creatures and cultures have an even better grasp of the materials needed to hurt each other than some berk on the Prime.

Seems to me they would have more weapons and DR defeating stuff than anyone. New rules or no. I mean come on, it isn't core anyway...

But I do see your point and different groups are going to fight DR creatures with different frequencies. For some people DR will mean very little (I also think they might keep some of the generic +1's in the MM, after all, somethings surely still require a MAGIC weapon to hit, right?) For others, those that Dungeon crawl at high levels and such it will have more of an impact. Respect the other styles of play.

But I do agree, the number of DR creatures is a subset of all encounters, not the whole.

 

[Conaill]

A suite of spells akin to GMW that alter the materials of the weapons.

Actually, I would expect to see a spell that allows you to bypass DR altogether (or perhaps only a certain amount of DR?). Kinda like the old GMW but without the +5.

 

[Stalker0]

My biggest gripe with it is simple... it leaves spells untouched. A +3 sword may not do well against skeletons but a magic missile or ray of frost does just fine.

I actually think this is a good reason to institue new DR. Spellresitance is the antiwizard ability for monsters. DR is in many the antifighter ability, but with GMW doesn't often work out this way. There is no way for a Wizard to perfectly penetrate spell resistance, feats only help. However, fighters can completely penetrate DR with GMW. Seems wrong to me.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I actually think this is a good reason to institue new DR. Spellresitance is the antiwizard ability for monsters. DR is in many the antifighter ability, but with GMW doesn't often work out this way. There is no way for a Wizard to perfectly penetrate spell resistance, feats only help. However, fighters can completely penetrate DR with GMW. Seems wrong to me.

Good point.

I have played in campaigns where I have gotten frustrated as a spellcaster. Between SR, energy resistances (that are hard to guess unless you study the MM, which I don't), wards, and regular old saves, the average expected damage of my Fireball, Lightning Bolt, or Cone of Cold against a weird magical creature is laughable.

Then I discovered there is a very simple, reliable method of dealing with these threats: buff up a strong fighter with a high plus weapon and just watch him grind it down.

While I concede there is no balance problem here, it quickly becomes pretty darn boring, boring, BORING. It also feels wrong that the only effective ways of dealing with, say, demons is to find a tough fighter to hack it to smithereens while the wizard watches.

I think there is a real problem with how the SR, DR, and resistances are handled. They have all been revised for 3e, but the net effect is they have stumbled into the same problems of previous editions. All three are ripe for revision and I think the DR proposals are a definite step in the right direction.

 

[LokiDR]

The new DR rules will force archers to change their actions. At least they will need to figure out what the thing they are fighting is, figure out DR type, cast the right spell/pull the right arrow, and then fire. I like this, but I think stacking GMW is more of a problem.

The dual wielding fighter is more limited by this, and that I don't like. Magic arrows are cheaper than melee weapons. The dual wielder can't rely on massive damage to get through the lower DR, and can't afford many different weapons. From what I have read on this board, TWF is already weaker than two-handed style. I won't even try to reconstruct the numbers.

So, I like DR X/blunt. It fits a lot better with the other rules. I like silver being different. I think I would stop it there. Coldiron--maybe. Holy silver - too much. Demons are magical, so magic alone seems fine. Wizards, good and evil, can control demons in stories and myths.

Overall, I think this DR change is a bit much for a revision. Has anyone here ever considered this a good sized problem before?

 

[Simulacrum]

Oh boy I friggin like the changes, all of them. The revision will rule!
Dont listen to the whiners and nay sayers, these things should have been in from the beginning. All major problems get solved one by one....its everything the game needs.
Now the game becomes more intricate and shows some versaitility for DM's to challenge even the most experienced players. I always hated it that for everything in the game, there was a way too simple aproach to solve it or be prepared within a few spells cast...these times seem to be over, thats a good thing!

 

[Grog]

The dual wielding fighter is more limited by this, and that I don't like. Magic arrows are cheaper than melee weapons. The dual wielder can't rely on massive damage to get through the lower DR, and can't afford many different weapons.

That's a very good point. Dual-wielders are going to get royally screwed by this change.

 

[Rill]

So the two-handed fighters are worried about carrying another weapon, while the two weapon fighters are worried that they can't do enough damage to pass the DR. If the two sides put their heads together, maybe they'd see the advantages their styles provided. (for those missing my point: two weapon fighters will want to carry weapons of differing materials so they are always able to bypass the DR, while two-handed fighters should think about increasing their ability to punch right through DR.)


-Rill