Revised DR

[Technik4]

I think your analysis in operating under a fallacy.

The problem is not the "common-ness" of magic weapons, the problem is how easy it is to penetrate DR, or if you can't how impossible it is to be effective. In other words, if you have GMW then you dont even necessarily need magical weapons (although due to gold being part of the equation in character balance, you WILL have magical weapons) to beat DR. But, if your GMW spell is not enough to bypass DR AND your weapon doesnt have enough +s (probably because you got other mods, depending on GMW to beat DR for you, or because you just got the sure-striking mod) then you might as well run away because you will not be able to penetrate the DR. This is the problem with DR as it is now.

With the new DR, magic weapons (Im analyzing here) will not be any more or less common. However, they will not provide the ease to beat DR that they once did. Additionally, the spell GMW will not be an immediate DR beater, neither will "sure-striking". In addition to this "nerf", you will no longer have to run if your weapon isnt good enough (or in this case, if it isnt made of the right stuff) because DRs have been lowered across the board. You can still contribute at, albeit, reduced effectiveness. These are pretty tough blows to "the munchkin" or "the powergamer". Not that theres anything wrong with min/maxing, thats a different argument. The point is, it will be more sensible to carry a backup weapon. 1st level packages will probably include 2 melee weapons in addition to a ranged weapon. This is not a "bad" thing. At higher levels, yes the fighter may have more than just 1 backup weapon. Will you be punished for not having multiple backups? If you see it that way, or perhaps it will be a good experience so that in the future you WILL have a backup weapon (as Hyp pointed out).

Players and characters generally know that it takes fire or acid to kill a troll. Good players may try and work off the premise that they dont know, but by and large people just know, maybe they heard a children's tale about it (their character, not the player) or what-have-you but its common knowledge for most campaigns. It will be more or less the same with the low level DR. If you are playing in a low level campaign there will probably be hints as to what you are fighting and you will be able to comission an appropriate weapon. I just don't see what not to like except the golfbag approach some players may take.

Net Munchkinism: No more Sure Striking, No more GMW abuse, No more Invulnerable DR. Possible cheesiness due to fighter having 5+ weapons. I'll take the new DR any day.

All of these are true regardless of the rarity (or non-rarity) or price of said special materials.

As far as your analyzation vs speculation debate, I agree to a point. But something youre analyzing may well turn out to be speculation and something Im speculating may well come to pass. In that scenario, what difference did it make how we were arguing?

Technik

 

[Fenes 2]

The non-analogous parts comes from the cost. The sorcerer had to make his tough choice to decide whether to give up a precious spell slot on wall of fog or endurance and so on to help cover heavy sr encounters where the more direct spells are adversely affected.

The fighter, on the other hand, has to give up very little given the cost of silvered weapons as an example, to get the golfbag to cover his arse against the designer-dr.

Its not a tough choice at all for the fighter. its just a sensible inventory control problem.

Giving the sorcerer a more complex and full of options spell choice makes his player typically have more fun. Giving the fighter a tougher inventory and accounting challenge usually wont.

Thats part of the downside of designer-dr. Its counters are simple no brainers. No tough choices. Just simple obvious bookkeeping.

its a yawner.

unless, you are the type who by character design wont gon in for those "gameisms" and in which case for that devotion to character concept... you will pay the price.

Again, this seems to be targetting for adverse effects the wrong guys. It appears to be a very inaccurately targetted rule. Unless the goal is to slap those silly role players upside the head and shout "what are you thinking? This is DND! We will have none of that "character" stuff here! Get a clue, play the GAME not the charactergeesh! Some people!"

If that is its gaol, it seems dead spot on target.

So what is the problem there again? Under the current rules, the fighter has absolutely no choice to make - he can just swing his big sword, as long as it is powerful enough it will beat the DR. (If his weapon is not powerful enough, and he gets no GMW, then he will not hit for much though).

The new rules will add a choice. It may be, in some games, a small choice, easily solved by a golfbag of weapons, but even there it will be a choice to make at least until you can afford those weapons. Some choice is often better than no choice.

And if you don't want a golfbag approach, then can just rule that magic weapons of sufficient power still beat DR. Or you can introduce multimaterial weapons. Or you just don't use those DR critters that much. Problem solved, Bob the fighter does not need a golfbag of weapons, and has no in-character reason to get one.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

I think your analysis in operating under a fallacy.

no "fallacy" just a simplification.

The problem is not the "common-ness" of magic weapons, the problem is how easy it is to penetrate DR, or if you can't how impossible it is to be effective.

these are two separate issues... how easy it is to avoid and how serious it is when unavoidable.

In other words, if you have GMW then you dont even necessarily need magical weapons (although due to gold being part of the equation in character balance, you WILL have magical weapons) to beat DR.

whether, in either idiom, the weapon plusses comes from being truely enchanted or spelled up is ireelevent. both affect dr the same. The issue remaisn the availability of such weapons. Whether they come from magic weapon at first, gmw at third, or even if the silveriness comes from a cantrip mentioned earlier... or these were bought in ye olde magic shoppe... is ireelevent. All that maytters is how frequently the players characters can get these items.

that was what i was discussing.

i didn't bother to break it down to the specific spell levels because the origin is irrelevent.

if your desired goal as GM/designer is to create more scenarios where DR is unavoidable and PART OF THIS INCLUDES restricting the availability of counter-dr weapons (whether they occur by spell or enchantment) isn't it more sensible to let "magic" be more rare than "mundane but of certain quality"?

It seems absurd to try and call SILVER some rare substabce that every third level cleric can get in 5 lb sacks ON DEMAND but which a fighter cannot get a couple pounds of for making a dagger and moreover it makes no sense to try and finagle this because "gee, magic weapons are too commonly available."

It seems equally absurd to do what so far seems to be the actual plan... to add all these designer-dr categories and then allow their materials-de-counter to be more available than the currently "too available so its breaking dr" magic weapons.

But, if your GMW spell is not enough to bypass DR AND your weapon doesnt have enough +s (probably because you got other mods, depending on GMW to beat DR for you, or because you just got the sure-striking mod) then you might as well run away because you will not be able to penetrate the DR. This is the problem with DR as it is now.

I actually have no problem with the plan of lowering DR levels. its the designer-dr part i am objecting too.

HOWEVER...

can we surmise from your observation of the problem of "you might as well run away" that it is correct to assume you then DISAGREE with the guys who posted how good DR making you go for aid other, trip and all those "not bash 'em" solutions?

Since you now embrace this as a "problem with Dr as it is now that you do not then endorse the following position as reasonable for this discussion?

There are many things a fighter without the propre weapon can do to help :
*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...

Again, i do not object to their rule, or rather DESIGN reconsideration which will see them reducing the levels of dr they assign creatures.

I do still object strongly to the designer-dr, where materials de jour will trump magic... as long as that magic is wrapped on a stikc instead of a spell.

At higher levels, yes the fighter may have more than just 1 backup weapon. Will you be punished for not having multiple backups? If you see it that way, or perhaps it will be a good experience so that in the future you WILL have a backup weapon (as Hyp pointed out).

i have no objection to the notion that, with this new rule, those who PLAY THE GAME will fare better than those who PLAY THEIR CHARACTER when the decision of being a porcupine of weapons golf-baggie type or being a more classic fantasy character who uses few weapons.

I do believe that adding more PLAY THE GAME benefits that depart from more traditional fantasy characters is BAD.

By similar note, we should start seeing "i wanna be a mage who throws spell then bows then spells then bows then spells then bows alternating back n forth" because the new haste gives them an ATTACK action and not a move action. I really dont recall these character from anywhere else, but its what the new haste rule will make "better play" for the mass hasted mage.

The more cases where "PLAYING THE GAME" moves the character away from anything recognixable as a fantasy character the weaker the game becomes to me and more importantly... the further the power gap between newbies or roleplayers (people who wont just give in and PLAY THE GAME for its obvious benefits) and those wonderful chaps (minmaxers or munchkins or whatever you want to call them) who do see PLAY THE GAME as an obvious and expected thing.

As far as your analyzation vs speculation debate, I agree to a point. But something youre analyzing may well turn out to be speculation and something Im speculating may well come to pass. In that scenario, what difference did it make how we were arguing?

Once the new rules are out, this entire discussion will be moot, if it isn't already.

that has nothing to do with this discussion however.

 

[Technik4]

I dont embrace that if you cant beat the DR you should run away BUT in the old DR system I would be much more inclined to simply because if the fighter cant get through that usually invalidates anyone else from punching through as well. After all, the only measuring stick is +s on your weapon. In the new DR, maybe someone else has the appropriate material, I can still meatshield for him and we still have spellcasters, or maybe he throws me a spare in that material that he keeps, maybe he has a silver fetish?. In a larger combat, the fighter would ignore the guy he couldnt hurt as effectively and go after ones he could.

There is also a large differentiation between power in the 2 editions (imo) just by looking at GMW. Presently it functions as a way to supercede ALL DR (with high enough levels) and it lasts for hours AND it gives you bonuses to hit and damage. Based on the evidence of the silver cantrip which is rounds duration, the spells which allow wepaons to penetrate new DR will NOT give additional benefits like bonuses to attack and damage and will NOT last for hours.

This means the powering down of a spell which is clearly too powerful for its level. Now you may be thinking, well why not just revise GMW, why muck up the whole DR system? Because it isnt working as its intended to. Especially with respect to most things that may only have DR 5/something. By the time you fight a low DR creature presently the fighter probably has a weapon to negate it. Or if a creature with a low DR has classes added its DR is for nothing because the party will definitely have at least +1 weapons by then.

Also, no one said silver would be a rare substance. In my earlier "proposed" cost I was assuming that it would take a substantial amount of silver to properly coat one weapon. Maybe it would take some sort of spell or require the feat "Craft Magic Arms and Armor". Maybe it wouldnt, I was just throwing that out there. Maybe its just a straight extra 50 gold to have a silver weapon and its as common as steel.

I'm wearying again. My position still stands, I like the change and am willing to try it. This does not mean I wont look back, it just means I'll give it a shot. If I find that fighters are upset over the changes or that it generally just makes play more cumbersome and less heroic than I will go back to the old system. I don't understand how you can eyeball the present rules and throw them out out of hand.

Technik

 

[Piratecat]

Hey guys - please make sure you keep discussing the subject, and don't descend into bickering over semantics or perceived insults.

Thanks!

 

[Petrosian]

I don't understand how you can eyeball the present rules and throw them out out of hand.

Technik

"out of hand"?

More like, after consideration.

When i can see the obvious downsides, i need to see the good sides before implementation.

but in addition...

i dont have to expose my players to bad rules and make them suffer through some period of "perdition" to give them their due.

All i have to do is what i will do.

I told my players a couple weeks ago... we wont be implementing 3.5e in our current campaign.

it was that simple.

for this discussion, playtest is a valuable tool for analysis, but it is not a necessary one.

before beta testing aka playtest... there is the specifications step, where you examine whether the product has reached the desired goal. In this case, the analysis shows me that the new designer-dr portion of this rule does not meet any desirable goals for me.

I will look at dropping creature drs at some point possibly, or at least analyzing it to see if the current dr levels prove abusive.

As for GMW... yes my response would be to say FIX GMW to fix GMW dont REPLACE DR to fix GMW.

But following up further... if the problem with the current dr is that by the time you meet creature X you already have weapons to beat it, then maybe that is a case for ADJUSTING THE DRS.

If a Cr6 creature with dr10/+2 is either too strong (kills parties without +1) or too weak (most everyone has +2) then why not instead give it DR 5/+3? Why try and rejuvenate DR 10/+2 by changing it to DR 5/absurdium?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Hold on a second. Do you really think that GMW will become less popular or effective if it doesn't beat all magic resistance?

It seems to me that GMW becomes even more essential to PLAYING THE GAME (to use Petrosian's distinction) with special materials DR. A character can have a backup weapon or three. What a character can't readily have is a +5 backup weapon. So if fighter A has his primary weapon (+1 Adamantium Keen Greatsword of Speed) and his secondary weapon (+1 Holy Silver Heavy Mace) and his tertiary weapon (+1 Evil Outsider Bane cold iron Battle axe) it seems like he's still going to want GMW on whichever one he's using at the time so that he can actually hit reliably and deal 5 points more damage per hit.

Now, at the moment, the character might just drop everything onto a +3 holy keen greatsword of speed or a +5 Holy Evil Outsider Bane Greatsword or even just a plain vanilla +5 greatsword and count on that to be good against everything. Since he won't be able to afford high enhancement bonusses on multiple weapons, however he will be more reliant on GMW rather than less.

Say what you will, under the current rules a character can afford to eschew GMW. (Especially with Sure Striking). Under the revised rules, that will be much more difficult to pull off (especially with creatures that also resist damage not dealt by weapons with particular enhancements (Holy for instance).

It seems like your Net Munchkinism entry should read: "No more Sure Striking. Even more incentive for GMW use. Possible cheesiness due to fighters having 5+ weapons. Possible cheesiness due to monsters having DR x/Who'severheardofthatIdidn'tknowyoucouldmakeswordsoutoftoiletpaper!"

Net Munchkinism: No more Sure Striking, No more GMW abuse, No more Invulnerable DR. Possible cheesiness due to fighter having 5+ weapons. I'll take the new DR any day.

 

[Derren]

What are we arguing about?

Ok, I will try to summarize this "discussion". I don´t try to twist anyones words in favor of one other. If you feel I did, please correct me in an non-aggressive, non-insulting way.

Petrosian, your arguments against the new DR are:

1. The new DR encourages the carrying of "many" (exact number isn´t known) backup weapons which will resort in munchkines.

Here I must ask why is carrying more than one weapon munchkin to you? (And the other way around, when you only carry one weapon are you a "True Roleplayer™"?)

2. It will encourage metagaming (Like everyone knows how to fight trolls)

Here you are right. But an DM can always change the DR. Also it will take some time for the players to learn what is effective against who except they read the MM

3.Flavor/Logic issue. Spells can penetrate DR but magic weapons not.

Correct

4. The lowering of DR allows partys who aren´t properly equipped still to fight against the monster and this takes away the "heroic" aspect of seeking a strong weapon because a monster is otherwise invulnerable.

Like you said DR is only a minor issue so this didn´t happen often except when the DM engineers such an situation as plot hook. But this can also be done with the new DR. As DM you can always invent a new form of DR.

The others:

1. The new DR adds flavor to the monsters.

Correct


2. A strong enchanted weapon no longer makes DR useless

Correct, but weapons will still be enchanted, mostly with abilities than with +es which. The only thing which requires a high + are sundering and old style DR (If it will still be in the book)

3.You aren´t useless anymore if you can´t penetrate the DR

Maybe not useless, but also aren´t very effective either.

 

[Technik4]

Petrosian: Well, as you say, YMMV. Maybe youll give it a chance if it proves to be more solid given the overall rule-set. At any rate, thank you for the discussion as it put me in perspective with the new DR. I think roughly half the time I was just playing devil's advocate anyway, but I will probably make my players go through the "perdition" of using all of the new rules, hey Im an evil guy I was hoping to at least convince you that it may be a sound rule, but Im not sure I succeeded. At any rate, good gaming.

Elder-Basilisk: You analysis is correct. However, I fervently hope that GMW will be toned down a little, and that "Transmute Metal" or whatever spell is made will also be 3rd level. Then you have to decide, do you want to be able to buff the fighter's sword, or ready it against DR, IF you know what DR the monster you face may have.

Derren: The Golfbag of weapons can be roleplayed as Hypersmurf pointed out, or it can just be bought at early levels and relied upon. Additionally, evenutally dms (who also often times play) will know the specific DR of many creatures, as they now know some of the resistances. Hence, PCs will more often than not, after a period of playing with 3.5 at least have a 50/50 on what DR it is. Also Im not a stat guy, but I think youre far removed from "useless" or "not very effective" against DR 5/whatever. Against DR 10 its more dicey, and against 15 you better hope someone else has an answer for you.

I probably wont post to this thread much more; one final point I'll try is that under the core rules a dwarven defender can get DR 6/- and a barbarian can get DR 4/-. Would making this DR x/something diminish their abilities in an effective way? What about the monk, who at 20th level gets 20/+1. Wouldnt this ability be more powerful if it was 20/silver (although, to be fair, it would probably be 10/silver). At any rate, DR works for the players and the monsters (at higher levels).

Technik

PS- I dont think its out of hand PC, I just keep failing my fort saves when it gets late.

 

[Petrosian]

Re: What are we arguing about?

[/B][/QUOTE]

Petrosian, your arguments against the new DR are:

1. The new DR encourages the carrying of "many" (exact number isn´t known) backup weapons which will resort in munchkines.

Here I must ask why is carrying more than one weapon munchkin to you? (And the other way around, when you only carry one weapon are you a "True Roleplayer™"?)

Nice spin but this was not my position.

you will look up, if you read the posts and find i generally describe the more than one weapon approach as "common sense for an uncommon world." I do not generally refer to it as munchkin or as BAD play. Matter of fact, it is a good example of smartly PLAYING THE RULES or PLAYING THE GAME and those players who decide to design their character to match the things the RULES make sensible will reap the benefits thereof.

Those, however, are not the only player-types i have. Some like to emphasize character and frankly could care less about figuring out the minmaxing rules aspects of a DND CHARACTER as opposed to a FANTASY CHARACTER.

For my Gming job it is better if i do't run a ruleset that makes the latter run "uphill" against the rules as much. The more cases where PLAYING THE RULES provides a significant advantage over PLAYING THE CHARACTER (example given is the golf-baggies weapons factory DND-type fighter as opposed to the more traditional fantasy novel/movie type with one or at most two weapons and where often one weapon is special) then the greater the problem exists in sustaining a campaign with both types.

See, you don't get it at all. its not that i think golf-baggie types are bad (insert your own selected "derogative" terms like munchkin or minmaxer or power gamer as you see fit) and that single weapon FANTASY-type characters are good (insert your own favorable terms like true roleplayers" as you see fit) at all. its that i do not want the RULES to favor one over the other any more than absolutely necessary.

My game is a big tent, i just don't want player specific landmines in the rules to in and of themselkves discourage certain player types from my games.

2. It will encourage metagaming (Like everyone knows how to fight trolls)

Here you are right. But an DM can always change the DR. Also it will take some time for the players to learn what is effective against who except they read the MM

Actually this is not a point of mine at all. i never referred to the golf-baggie as metagaming and even defended it as reasonable due to generations untold and their stories of such beasts.

3.Flavor/Logic issue. Spells can penetrate DR but magic weapons not.

Correct

i call this an inconcistency. the notion that magic SHOULD NOT trump DR... as long as the magic is in a weapon.... but in all other cases should...seems inconsistent to me.

4. The lowering of DR allows partys who aren´t properly equipped still to fight against the monster and this takes away the "heroic" aspect of seeking a strong weapon because a monster is otherwise invulnerable.

While i recall commenting on this aspect, i believe it weas a counterpoint. I would not liken this issue as as serious as the first one.

Like you said DR is only a minor issue so this didn´t happen often except when the DM engineers such an situation as plot hook. But this can also be done with the new DR. As DM you can always invent a new form of DR.

of course, or i can invent new monsters or i can house rules it... all of which is irrelevent to the new rule and analysis of what it does. Every rule in the book can be changed.