Revised DR

[Grog]

In reality parties do run into monsters that the spellcasters can't damage effectively. They deal with it.

Unless you're talking about unbeatably high SR, it'll be an extremely rare situation where a mid or high level mage can't do something effective. If it's immune to all energy types, confuse it. If it has a high Will save, polymorph it. Heck, even if you can't beat the critter's SR you have options. Stoneskin the fighter. Summon some monsters. You have lots of options.

Fighters can learn to do the same, without carrying a ridiculous assortment of oddball weapons.

Yes, I know fighters have other combat options besides doing straight damage. But most if not all of those options involve making opposed rolls against monsters that very often have a big advantage over the fighter in both strength and size. Fighters simply don't have access to the same wealth of options that wizards do - so if you take away their mainstay, they suffer a lot more.

High DR is rare, and it should make monsters truly fearsome. I think we all know that the Pit Fiend was severely underpowered before. Giving it DR15 with a vulnerability to something exotic (likely holy or blessed weapons) will make it more dangerous, as it should be.

Until the fighters reach into their golf bag and pull out the right club.

The amount of whining on this subject has been simply amazing.

Here we go again. Can we please try to be a little more mature here?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

rant mode on//

So, confronted to an ennemy against whom your weapon is inneficient, you are unable to have another idea than seeking another weapon ? If you read my post, you will have a few suggestions.






This exactly what I don't like with the current system : it's so easy to use the simplest way to kill things (just need a +x weapon, or the dreaded GMW) that people forget that there are other things to do.

As I said :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

flank, aid another (two version), trip, disarm, sunder, grapple, tank (expertise+defending weapon+fighting on the defensive), bullrush, overun, throwing holy water/alchemist fire, carry a wounded fellow to safety, creative use of the environment...

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

But no. All you want is slash, hack and smash. That's as boring as the Diablo game. I think the great advantage of tabletop RPG is that you may make any action you want.

If a fighter has to resort to overrun, bullrush, trip etc, the party is likely dead, and one thing should happen the fighter should get 8 skill points and 28 class skills.

Sorry but the fighter gets virtually nothing out of a fight. So a fighter shouldn't have to take a back seat every time a DR creature comes up.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

rant mode on//

Ok i know its silly of me to even bother to reply to someone who declares themselves to be ranting, but hey... since we are starting with your own derision of you reasoning, why not expand its derision further?

So, confronted to an ennemy against whom your weapon is inneficient, you are unable to have another idea than seeking another weapon ?

no where did i say that. I am merely pointing out that it is silly to deliberately avoid giving yourself that option by doing a smidgen of planning ahead.

For instance, is anyone here ranting about the PCs carrying rope and how they don't ever choose to try free climbing or dont think to use gly spells when their "oh too simple minded rope" comes into play?

Why deliberately close off an option, by not carrying proper equipment?

If you read my post, you will have a few suggestions.

Those are really neat ideas.

However, being sentient myself and frequently playing sentient characters, i would like to have those liksted things as options. I would not like to have them as necessities.

See i would rather get to CHOOSE between bashing the skeleton with my very effective cold iron mace OR grappling him OR bull rishing him than to ever be in a position where the latter two are necessities because I for some numbskull reason did not bring an effective weapon.

See, its not EITHER carry the right equipment OR think and choose the correct action... i can have both.

This exactly what I don't like with the current system : it's so easy to use the simplest way to kill things (just need a +x weapon, or the dreaded GMW) that people forget that there are other things to do.

Perhaps this is true for your games. it isn't for mine or necessarily for anyone elses.

Personally i tend to think that the nature of the challenge dictates the nature of the solution. The challenge is determined by the GM.

But no. All you want is slash, hack and smash. That's as boring as the Diablo game. I think the great advantage of tabletop RPG is that you may make any action you want.

Except "draw my cold iron mace" if you failed to plan and equip so you have one. :-0

Back in ad&d2 planescape, I encountered a monster only wounded by +2 weapon, which I haven't. I used tapestry on the wall to blind and entangle it, so the fighter with the +2 sword has an easier time to cut it in pieces.

but of course we all know that the + based dr system is so flawed and never matters, right? Thats the reason and the problem causing the fix?

Of course, I could have sit down, whining "what is this game, I can't kill the beast cause my sword is not big enough, I need more sword, more magical sword, boohoo, you silly DM"

indeed i do believe YOU could have.

I'm tired of this golfbag argument. The player who will use such a tactic already use it anyway :
one ghost touch, one dragon bane, one holy, one sure striking...

so, if i get you right, you are saying here that this new rule wont cause much difference from what happens already? is that right?

i tend to agree. other than encouraging the golf bag or HEW approach to character design and punishing those who don't... this rule will do little.

thats why i object to it.

with all your oh whiner moments... you did notice i have not said one iota about it causing imbalances, right? You did bother to read the ... oh wait... rant...right. Sorry for the overestiumation. Wont happen again.

 

[Aloïsius]

If a fighter has to resort to overrun, bullrush, trip etc, the party is likely dead, and one thing should happen the fighter should get 8 skill points and 28 class skills.

Sorry but the fighter gets virtually nothing out of a fight. So a fighter shouldn't have to take a back seat every time a DR creature comes up.

As far as I know, overrun, bullrush are improved by feats, not skills. Guess, what are fighters good at ?

 

[Aloïsius]

However, being sentient myself and frequently playing sentient characters, i would like to have those liksted things as options. I would not like to have them as necessities.

You don't alway have the choice. I think it's good when the PC are forced to seek something alse to do rather than using always the same routine. Huh, I even think it's good, and realistic, that, sometimes, the PC are just forced to flee. An opponent with the right DR (or regeneration) is exactly the type of monster that could be used in this way : a flight may be more tense as a fight.

See i would rather get to CHOOSE between bashing the skeleton with my very effective cold iron mace OR grappling him OR bull rishing him than to ever be in a position where the latter two are necessities because I for some numbskull reason did not bring an effective weapon.

See, its not EITHER carry the right equipment OR think and choose the correct action... i can have both.

So you can't bear to be unprepared to something ? If you play a wizard, do you ask the DM to have all the spells of the PHB in your spellbooks, and to cast them spontaneously ? No, for sure.
I think it's normal that, sometime you won't have the right tool, and you will need to improvise something else.

Perhaps this is true for your games. it isn't for mine or necessarily for anyone elses.

I'm sorry if I didn't understood what you said, it looks like you refuse to be in a situation where DR is effective : if the rules are set so that it is easy for any fighter to allways have the weapon that bypass DR, what is the point of having a DR ? The new rules will just allow DR to be a real factor.

Personally i tend to think that the nature of the challenge dictates the nature of the solution. The challenge is determined by the GM.

By example : find a way past this monster which has damage reduction against your weapons ? Or is it an unappropriate challenge ?

Except "draw my cold iron mace" if you failed to plan and equip so you have one. :-0

You failed to plan IF the dm gave you clue about the possible need of such a weapon, and IF he gave you the possibility to gain this weapon. If not, you didn't fail. If your PC has the mindset of "I can encounter anything, so I need all type of weapon available, just in case, such a character does not look like a hero. He looks like a CRPG character.

indeed i do believe YOU could have.

So you don't understand me. What is great with RPG is to overcome various challenge, by various means. Using a tapestry to wrap it around the golem-like things was much more fun than asking a (hypothetical) priest to cast GMW on my weapon before proceeding with hack and slash.

so, if i get you right, you are saying here that this new rule wont cause much difference from what happens already? is that right?

i tend to agree. other than encouraging the golf bag or HEW approach to character design and punishing those who don't... this rule will do little.

I'm just saying that the players with HHH or golf bag attitude may already have equivalent behaviour...
For the others, the new rules give new opportunities to the DM, and thus, give them new opportunities to live different adventures. With it, you may easily design low to mid level adventure, where the PC will have to search the weapon they need to overcome the BBEG, by example. This is not possible without imbalance with the 3e edition (you don't want to drop a +3 or +4 weapon in the hand of level 6 characters, even if it is needed to kill the Night Hag ?)

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

You don't alway have the choice. I think it's good when the PC are forced to seek something alse to do rather than using always the same routine. Huh, I even think it's good, and realistic, that, sometimes, the PC are just forced to flee. An opponent with the right DR (or regeneration) is exactly the type of monster that could be used in this way : a flight may be more tense as a fight.

New DR rules are not needed to make fights challenging or interesting or even difficult.

if you believe it is, then that explains a lot.

I find personally "uncounterable" gimmicks such as "DR of type you cannot avoid" to be a rather vulgar tool, one easily overused and rarely worth its troubles.

i don't find situations where the fighter is "forced" into strange tactical choices to be clever or interesting. However, setting up situations where his normal routine works but where other tactics are better so that he and i can see if he gets it (and benefits) or if he misses it and stays "par normal" to be much more interesting.

Crossroads are more interesting to me than single sets of tracks.

So you can't bear to be unprepared to something ?

I never said that.

Why is it one side has to keep trying to put words in the others mouths?

i cannot bear to be expected to deliberately be unprepared so my less than ambitous gm can make challenges simpler.

If you play a wizard, do you ask the DM to have all the spells of the PHB in your spellbooks, and to cast them spontaneously ? No, for sure.

What an utterly absurd statement!?

I think it's normal that, sometime you won't have the right tool, and you will need to improvise something else.

If that is what a Gm needs to make challenges, then i guess thats what he will have to settle for.

I'm sorry if I didn't understood what you said, it looks like you refuse to be in a situation where DR is effective :

Why? What did i say that lead you inexorably to that conclusion?

Pay attention.

I haven't argued word one about how bad this is for balance. i haven't been on the 'it cripples fighters" bandwagon which seems to be the only thing you can wrap your noggin around.

Pay attention...

The new rule won't make DR more effective. it will simply expand the number of mundane items needed to be added to equipment lists for the possible occurances.

if the rules are set so that it is easy for any fighter to allways have the weapon that bypass DR, what is the point of having a DR ? The new rules will just allow DR to be a real factor.

Not unless the GM also drops in his own house rules to prevent purchase of these mundane items to counter the DRs. Not unless the Gm drops in his own house rules about carrying capacity magic item rarity.

By example : find a way past this monster which has damage reduction against your weapons ? Or is it an unappropriate challenge ?

Its not an inappropriate challenge its just a vulgar and unimaginative one. its no more clever than just throwing a bigger monster with more HP but less gimmick.

You dont need DR to make a challenge interesting and you certainly dont need Dr to make challenges unique.

You want the fighter to CHOOSE to do something other than "bash 'em"? give them a scenario where "bash 'em" is not the goal. give them a scenario where both bash 'em and "something clever" are there but where he has to choose. Do your players all need such blatent clues as "my axe did little damage" before you can get them to look at other possibilities? if so, you might NEED designer DR. Mine aren't, so i don't.

You failed to plan IF the dm gave you clue about the possible need of such a weapon, and IF he gave you the possibility to gain this weapon.

Ok, so lets pretend for a moment that i buy into this whole notion of the GM not allowing the opportunity to have the needed weapons and such.

So, why wasn't this same option available before now?

Why couldn't the Gm say "sorry no +x swords available" when he wanted to make monsters with +x "special."

Why is it that making silver weapons unfindable is OKEY DOKEY but the same could not be assumed or done with MAGICAL weapons?

Answer... no reason.

If not, you didn't fail. If your PC has the mindset of "I can encounter anything, so I need all type of weapon available, just in case, such a character does not look like a hero. He looks like a CRPG character.

I could care less what he looks like. if he prepares for potential life threatening issues ahead of time, he sounds like a sentient character.

So you don't understand me.

Understanding? hardly. all i know is that when you say you could have whined that way IN GAME... I have no reason to believe you were lieing.

What is great with RPG is to overcome various challenge, by various means. Using a tapestry to wrap it around the golem-like things was much more fun than asking a (hypothetical) priest to cast GMW on my weapon before proceeding with hack and slash.

What is not great is not preparing so that a rather simple scenario can be made challening with no reall effort or graymatter spent on it.

lack of preparation could add lots of drama to a scenario. but when is that last time your fighter deliberately left his armor and weapons at home so that he could add more drama to his next fight?

I'm just saying that the players with HHH or golf bag attitude may already have equivalent behaviour...

yes... a notion of being prepared as any successful character would.

Would a cop today be considered more heroic without his vest or just foolhardy?

For the others, the new rules give new opportunities to the DM, and thus, give them new opportunities to live different adventures. With it, you may easily design low to mid level adventure, where the PC will have to search the weapon they need to overcome the BBEG, by example. This is not possible without imbalance with the 3e edition (you don't want to drop a +3 or +4 weapon in the hand of level 6 characters, even if it is needed to kill the Night Hag ?)

OK, i think i see your point.

If, for games run by you, it is really NOT possible to construct such encounters without your designer DR that would be imbalancing, then yes by all means i understand YOUR need for designer DR.

But, just as a nudge towards what can be even possible, you might want to consider the possibility that the "special weapon" needed to kill the beast is indeed a potent magical item that will slay the beast but at the same time be consumed. A pc with a short term access to this weapon may indeed be imbalanced for a short period and then be faced with the.... watch for it my favorite word... CHOICE of slaying the beast and losing his new found power OR keeping the weapon for his own use and letting the beast continue.(this is ESPECIALLY potent if the PC has some unfinished business that the "special" weapon would help with but not enough time to do both ) heck, the beast might even try and make this argument to the PC, tempting him.

See, the above scenario sets the same stages, gives the same search for puzzle scenario and resolutions issues but it did not require designer DR at all. As a matter of fact, the very "potent magic item" nature of the gimmick adds to the drama and tension, not subtracting from it. the "sacrifice" of the power adds to the heroic nature of the PCs choice.

for most of us, designer DR is not needed and it is INDEED very much POSSIBLE to run those things without it.

heck, instead of the vulgat designer DR, why not just roll a die each night and decide which player's character's kung-fu is nerfed each night so as to make him have a more interesting game?

But, all said and done, you tell me this is the type of thing you NEED, that its not possible for you to do those things without it in 3e, well... i see no reason to believe you are lieing, so i believe indeed that you do need it.

Now, can you stretch so far as to believe other GMs wont?

 

[Technik4]

Getting Tired

Petrosian: Ok, your argument is basically that you and your dm never had a problem with the way DR worked because your dm always made sure that the party had the appropriate spells/weapons to deal with any threat. You also dont like the new DR because it forces you to carry around a golfbag of weapons if you are conscious. Because thats the smartest way to play.

Did you ever roleplay a whimsical fighter? How about a brash agressive one? A fighter with a low int or wis? A fighter who didnt always look to the future?

Point is theres plenty of fighters who wont have golfbags just by their very nature. I'm not trying to disrupt your strategist view of every character, Im just saying some people add some depth to their character, some faults that may end up coming in to play.

Will you at some point or another pay a price for not having every single special material weapon and at least one of each damage type? I guess. But only if you feel that if you are getting 5/10 or maybe 15 deducted from your attacks that you are useless. In that case a lot of your wizards might get put out by red dragons who pretend to be white dragons.

You think specific DR is "vulgar". Why? Its already in the MM in many places. The "change" proposed so far is that these things are not superseded by a +1 on your sword. One example is up and it isnt even in full.

Tell me truly, which is more fitting from a fantasy pov:

1) Monster is totally unaffected by your weapon because your weapon is +2 and his DR is 20/+3.

2) Monster can be damaged by your +2 weapon, but since your weapon isnt silvered, the first 10 points are negated.

In scenario 1, the best thing you can do is wrong. Somehow, despite your best efforts you were NOT prepared to fight the monster. In scenario 2 you can give it your best and pray for crits, at the very least doing some damage every round. If its AC isnt very high, perhaps quite a bit of damage every round.

I'll tell you which one I think is vulgar...

As far as you insulting people by saying that "why not just roll a die each night and decide which player's character's kung-fu is nerfed each night so as to make him have a more interesting game?". Thats pretty uncalled for.

You dont think that lyncanthropes have been getting shortchanged since the inception of 3e? Dont Iron Golems seem a "little" too powerful? How about that whole weird if you have DR then your attacks are effective against DR of equal strength? Wasnt that just a big load of bs?

DR has been clunky since it came out, not so clunky that its glaringly breaking down, but this isnt the first time anyones talked about it either.

If you think DR that is "gimmick" is undesirable than obviously someone is fixing all of your fights ahead of time. Because apparantly youve never run into the "gimmick" that your + isnt high enough. Or maybe you just always had a spare Sure Striking weapon, because it was the sensible thing to do and all.

The new DR is more effective, in many ways. Now a module can be written wherein the players need to recover magic item X with Y property in order to fight Z monster. Or is that not a crossroads? Lets just automatically assume the party has X, now they can just fight Z. Who needs adventure anyway? Ive got my handy +whatever weapon right here, I can take on the world as long as I make sure I get it upgraded every few levels.

Its an obvious difference of opinion, but your arguments are doing things that would get you upset. You put words in other people's mouths, you make lame scenarios as our arguments (Why dont I just not wear armor today as an analogy to DR/special weapons...sigh), and in the end it seems like YOU are the minority. The minority being, people who dont even want to give the new rules a chance in their games, because by virtue of their superior intellect and foreknowledge, they already know that the rules are bad.

Just try and be a little more openminded, the books are written by now anyway, whatever your point was is moot.

Technik

 

[Petrosian]

Re: Getting Tired

[/B][/QUOTE]

Petrosian: Ok, your argument is basically that you and your dm never had a problem with the way DR worked

it is one realtively minor game element.

because your dm always made sure that the party had the appropriate spells/weapons to deal with any threat.

i never said this. You just invented it wholecloth. this seems to be a habit of the "pro-designer-dr" crowd.

You also dont like the new DR because it forces you to carry around a golfbag of weapons if you are conscious. Because thats the smartest way to play.

Actually i said it ENCOURAGES it, not forces it, iirc.

Did you ever roleplay a whimsical fighter? How about a brash agressive one? A fighter with a low int or wis? A fighter who didnt always look to the future?

Yup.

i played an elven child of an exiled elven fighter who was raised by humans and who, when it came time to sign up with a troupe of all elves jumped at the chance. While he did plan ahead, his decisions were often severely colored by his desire to discover the elven heritage he had lost.

in the same game i played an elven sorcerer fascinated by music who maxed his perform skill and fancied himself quite the bard. he was relatively foppish and chose spells sometimes for their convenience... like MOUNT so that he didn't have to keep up and maintain a smelly horse and to allow him the freedom to 'take off" whenever he wished.

those are all well and good examples of a player deciding to play a character as opposed to playing a DND character. those characters are much more like the fantasy characters outside of DND who typically carry one weapon or one special family weapons and so on.

Unfortunately, these types of characters are the ones affected by the new designer-dr thingy. They are the ones who have their effectiveness to the party reduced by the new designer-DR.

The 'DND-based character" who knows a Haversack is cheap and readily available and who buys the golf-bag is the one rewarded.

get it! i said this several pages ago. i spelled it out.

I dont like the new rule because it hits thw wrong players characters. i much prefer to have the guy who decides his dwarf uses axes because dwarves use axes be rewarded for limiting his character than punishing him for it.

The new rule discourages this.

Point is theres plenty of fighters who wont have golfbags just by their very nature. I'm not trying to disrupt your strategist view of every character, Im just saying some people add some depth to their character, some faults that may end up coming in to play.

and those people will be adversely affected by the rule while those who do plan out will be rewarded. For those who feel golf-bags = munchkin, then this new rule rewards the mucnhkin and adversely affects the roleplayer.

this is a good thing? i think not.

Will you at some point or another pay a price for not having every single special material weapon and at least one of each damage type? I guess. But only if you feel that if you are getting 5/10 or maybe 15 deducted from your attacks that you are useless.

Why does planning for a deficit or trying to not be adversely affected by it somehow equate to thinking in terms of useless or not. Its nit binary.

BTW... have you seen me say "useless" in regards to the effect designer DR has? Nope.

In that case a lot of your wizards might get put out by red dragons who pretend to be white dragons.

In my game it was a black pretending to be a red. My players thought it clever.

Amazinglym i did it by the simple current rules with no need for designer dr to make it an interesting challenge.

You think specific DR is "vulgar".

I think designer DR is vulgar in specific when its arranged by the GM to be of a sort not countered by the players. See above the discussion of not allowing the PCs to have the counter weaponry.

its vulgar as in anything thats as simple as engineered to say "you cannot successfully choose this option...bam..i say so" in order to force the PCs to explore other options.

If you want subtle, allow them the first option, their normal response works just fine, but also give them a BETTER out-of-the-box option and see if they can pry themselves away from the norm.

its vulgar to take away the box when you want them out of the box. its subtle to leave them in their box but leave something a little sweeter just outside for them to try and figure how to get to.

Thats the whole point of tough choices.

Giving a fighter a -10 damage due to designer-dr in a scenario where he might be able to bull rush the monster into a tarpit is like hitting him over the head with a anvil with "dont try just beatim him down" scrawled on it.

instead, give the monster no designer DR and see if the player figures out that rushing him off the cliff is stilla quicker solution.

Why? Its already in the MM in many places. The "change" proposed so far is that these things are not superseded by a +1 on your sword. One example is up and it isnt even in full.

Its superceeded by a magic sword and that makes a magic weapon VERY SPECIAL. It means the character is much more likely, perhaps even encouraged, to wield the one magic weapon and not carry around the golf bag. the roleplayer who only wants elven longsword and longbow is not reduced in impact as compared to the golf-bag guy.

i personally see both the golf-bag guy (DND -style-character)and the family weapon guy (if you will... role player) as equally valid and i dont see the need to add a rule that hits one. if i had to hit one, it would be the golf baggie, but i dont feel i need to.

The hero that carries one special weapon is the very guy this designer-dr works against.

Tell me truly, which is more fitting from a fantasy pov:

1) Monster is totally unaffected by your weapon because your weapon is +2 and his DR is 20/+3.

2) Monster can be damaged by your +2 weapon, but since your weapon isnt silvered, the first 10 points are negated.

i prefer the former. The former establishs this creature is beyond you current capabilities due to his magic. The threat is not one handleable by force and must be sought as a puzzle. you must find a more powerful sword to beat this beastie yourself. of course, in a team game, you might be able to distract it while more magically endowed guys do the actual killing.

Another reason i am much more fond of having "magicalness" trump "materialness" is thats how it works elsewhere.

The werewolf with his 5/silver designer DR will give, under the new rules, +1 or even ++2 weapons a definite spot of trouble... but a cantrip like ray of frost is wholly unaffected. A magic missile is wholly unaffected.

MAGIC bypasses DR all the time. Magic trumps DR all the time. this will continue to be the case once designer dr comes the norm.

If every spell ever built to affect the beastie can counter the DR, then i dont see it as a strech that enchanted weapons can too.

matter of fact, it seems rather silly that a mage could cast a spell to hammer the beats but not cast a spell to make an existing weapon do it.

In scenario 1, the best thing you can do is wrong. Somehow, despite your best efforts you were NOT prepared to fight the monster. In scenario 2 you can give it your best and pray for crits, at the very least doing some damage every round. If its AC isnt very high, perhaps quite a bit of damage every round.

So the proper solution in 2 is to just swing and hope you get lucky? pray for crits does not seem heroic or fantastic to me.

As far as you insulting people by saying that "why not just roll a die each night and decide which player's character's kung-fu is nerfed each night so as to make him have a more interesting game?". Thats pretty uncalled for.

If the gm has set as his goal to make sure a character is hit by designer dr, its every bit as vulgar as saying 'your stuff dont work tonight, even if only in part. i just didn't dress it up all pretty.

You dont think that lyncanthropes have been getting shortchanged since the inception of 3e?

uhh... no. lycanthropes are NPCS. They dont get shafted.

or.. is that what this new designer dr is for? people are hoping PCs get to be lycanthropes and so then mosnters cannot get arounf their fave PCs silver DR?

Dont Iron Golems seem a "little" too powerful?

If an iron golem is too powerful i would look first to its massive spell immunities which have a whole lot more impact than their Dr does.

but again, since iron golems are not players... its not an issue.

As GM i dont get upset when my monsters dont win.

How about that whole weird if you have DR then your attacks are effective against DR of equal strength? Wasnt that just a big load of bs?

Actually it seemed a very elegant rewrite of the old "so many HD meakes you +1 claws and then +2 and..." so on. it defined in a sense DR as also being a meter for the 'magical" level of a beastie.

i am not sure why you feel this is somehow wrong.

do you feel that, for instance, werewolves should not be able to kill each other since they both have silvered designer dr and no silver claws or teeth? the SRD werewolf does 1d6+1 bite. if he has to go thru 5 DR, then thats gonna be a long fight.

DR has been clunky since it came out, not so clunky that its glaringly breaking down, but this isnt the first time anyones talked about it either.

I haven't seen a problem with it. The times my players met a beastie with more DR than they had weapons for, it was a really tough fight. Then again, they have had a lot of really tough fights where DR wasn't an issue. its just one tool of many. I dont need vulgar designer dr to gimmick in "creature you cannot touch of the weeks".

If you think DR that is "gimmick" is undesirable than obviously someone is fixing all of your fights ahead of time.

designer dr is a gimmick. dr is a moderately weak tool.

Because apparantly youve never run into the "gimmick" that your + isnt high enough.

So if i dont believe designer dr is a good idea you somehow divine that this means i never fought things i didn't have the plusses to hit?

your crystal ball needs cleaning.
your rune stones need polishing.
your ability to read minds and clairvoy others histories from afar seem lacking.

At least, psychic awareness is about the only thing that makes your conclusion seem plausible.

Or maybe you just always had a spare Sure Striking weapon, because it was the sensible thing to do and all.

Actually, the first sure striking weapon appeared in my games just a few weeks ago. A thief got his hands on a sure striking sword of subtlety. he is quite happy with it. unfortunately, during the subsequent encounter where he and the gang ran into a nightwalker AFTER their GMWs were mostly down... he forgot the darned thing.

go figure.

The new DR is more effective, in many ways. Now a module can be written wherein the players need to recover magic item X with Y property in order to fight Z monster.

Did you even read my example above.

OK, lets try this again.

modules could be written that way before.

really they could.
heck, it might seem silly but even whole campaigns could be based on that very concept.

All this without designer dr.

Or is that not a crossroads? Lets just automatically assume the party has X, now they can just fight Z. Who needs adventure anyway? Ive got my handy +whatever weapon right here, I can take on the world as long as I make sure I get it upgraded every few levels.

if you say so.

Somehow, i seem to see more options in my fantasy world.

Its an obvious difference of opinion, but your arguments are doing things that would get you upset. You put words in other people's mouths,

thats rich, considered how many times i have had to point out that the points being argued against me are not the ones i made.

you make lame scenarios as our arguments (Why dont I just not wear armor today as an analogy to DR/special weapons...sigh),

if the gm feels its unreasonable to seek out ahead of time special weapons in case, that that level of preparation is somehow paranoid, then i have to wonder how far this goes. like i said, i routinely see people seeking scrolls of cure blindness and cure disease and the like just becasue they dont normally have the means to handle those threats easily.

When the sorcerer used his potion of cure blindness after failing his save vs the lich's spell, it surprised many of us and we thought it was a smart idea.

When the fighter pulled out his hammer instead of his axe against the skeletal figure, we thought it a smart idea.

We didn;t think it was something that should be pooh poohed or worked against by the GM any more than a fighter going out in armor was.

and in the end it seems like YOU are the minority. The minority being, people who dont even want to give the new rules a chance in their games, because by virtue of their superior intellect and foreknowledge, they already know that the rules are bad.

uhh... i ake rules decisions for my games all the time. just because a rule is NEWEST doesn;t mean a thing about its quality.

Matter of fact, i have to say, in my experience the NEWEST rules are frequently the worst. most NEW rules get amended by not too long after their release to mass market because the mass audience is a bigger playtest pool than the in house.

The best rules, from my experience, are more often the ones which have been out a while and used and had their kinks and crannies explored and reamed thoroughly.

The notion of allowing a rule that looks bad, that promotes several thing quite obviously that you find unpleasent, just because ITS NEWER seems very silly to me.

I mean really, at work, i would not suddenly spring from my cvhair everytime a NEW VERSION1.0 product came out and say "Ok lets integrate this into our existing software right now." That would be reckless and stupid. instead, i would ask to be shown the benefits, i would suggest we analyze it, and then see if it makes its case. i would also typically insist on letting it run thru a period of evaluation where we waited and saw what other customers reactions were and analyzed its success stories anf failures.

i care as much about my game. Why would i do less?

Just try and be a little more openminded, the books are written by now anyway, whatever your point was is moot.

and yet another point towards the why are you bothering notion.

so once again i ask the unanswered question... why does "the books are already written" impact only the contrary side of the discussion and not the positive side?

Why doesn't "the books are already written" mean you should be a little more openminded?

Huh?

 

[besnode]

Posts on this thread are getting so long that replying to them in toto is unweildy, so I'll try to summarize.

The basic "pro" argument is the new DR will add flavor to the game and discourage people from seeking out the highest possible enhancement bonus as the ultimate min-max solution to any DR challenge.

The basic "con" argument is that the new DR will "encourage" people to carry a ridiculous assortment of weapons, at the expense of roleplay consistency. A variant on this is that DMs will use this new rule as a way of screwing PCs with absurdly exotic DR vulnerabilities.

I favor the "pro" argument, and here's why:

There are already mechanics in the game that can be taken to extremes, or can be seen to "encourage" min-max behavior at the expense of roleplay. Cleave and the bag of rats is an obvious example: as written, the Great Cleave feat "encourages" the bag of rats, because on its face it should be a highly effective tactic and there's nothing explicit in the rules to forbid it.

In fact, almost any roleplay decision involves some departure from a cold, calculating min-max powergame approach. DMs handle this by either metagaming or outright banning "bag o' rats" abuses, and by rewarding roleplay decisions. DR is no different.

As for the DM abuse argument, DMs can already abuse PCs nine ways from Sunday if that's what they want to do. The solution is simple: Don't play with DMs who worry more about "beating" the players than entertaining them.

In the final analysis, I think that DR will indeed add flavor and mystery to the game, and that the "con" arguments don't hold water when examined in the light of common sense.

Best,

--Paul

 

[Fenes 2]

Petrosian, how do you handle SR and resistances/immunities? As far as I see it, DR is to fighters what SR/resistances/immunities are to spellcasters. Have you got complaints from the spellcasters about being forced into preparing a spell of each energy type in case they encounter a resistant foe, and then complaining that after casting that spell they were useless?