Revised DR

[Fenes 2]

In low power games, it can slaughter people. A mummy has DR 5/+1 and takes half damage from weapons before DR. If the party doesn't have magic weapons for one reason or another, they are down to torches. In other words, they are dead.

If they do not have access to turn undead, spells, Lay on Hands, flasks of oil or a way to escape, then they are dead indeed.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

In muchkin games, I have never seen DR matter. In low power games, it can slaughter people. A mummy has DR 5/+1 and takes half damage from weapons before DR. If the party doesn't have magic weapons for one reason or another, they are down to torches. In other words, they are dead.

Lowering DR seems to be a good idea. I don't know about the designer DRs though. Maybe I should try this for my next game.

This will be no different in the proposed changes only now you will need to have the DR weapon of choice instead of a +1 weapon. I refer to Petrosian who has been far more articulate than I could be for the explanations. Thanks Petrosian I agree with you 100%

 

[Petrosian]

In muchkin games, I have never seen DR matter. In low power games, it can slaughter people. A mummy has DR 5/+1 and takes half damage from weapons before DR. If the party doesn't have magic weapons for one reason or another, they are down to torches. In other words, they are dead.

Lowering DR seems to be a good idea. I don't know about the designer DRs though. Maybe I should try this for my next game.

IMO, this is simply a pair of cases of poor GM encounters.

Anytime you throw a monster with special qualities of any significant nature, you must assess its particulars against your party. The particular monster may be too fast, too hard to hit, or as in this case too hard to damage for your gang. If you select a creature to throw at your group that has special qualities that will hit them this severely, that was likely a bad GM call (if you did not provide scenario counters.)

That said...

IMO the notion of reducing some DR blocking values (the 20 in the 20/+1) seems appropriate. i don't know that i think that they all should cap at 15... i think there are some cases where higher values are acceptable. (this is espcially true if all the immunities are going to be turned into DR.)

IMO the problem of the Bypass numbers (the +1 in 2-/+1) being so low and so often bypassed as to make Dr less than a reality is simply a case of creatures assigned too LOW a bypass number for their CRs. its like the guys who did the MM did not pay attention to the wealth by level vs CR numbers or did not pay attention to the GMW scaling by level vs CR. Rasing the current bypass numbers on a case by case basis (and maybe adjusting some crs) to take wealth levels and GMW into account seems to be the precision or targetted answer to this "problem."

But regardless... even after they do 3.5e ad fix everything... the Gm will still have to stop and ask "is this beastie an appropriate challenge for my guys in this setting?"

 

[Fenes 2]

I would have thought that was common sense.

I had an enconter where the barbarian had a +1 shocking burst magic weapon, no GMW was available, the creature had spell immunity and immunity to fire (leaving the sorcerer with magic missile) and the creature was immune to criticals from the duelist with the +3 rapier. In that case I did reduce the DR from 20/+2 to 10/+2 to give the party a good chance at killing the creature.

Are there really DMs out there who just plug a creature from a book without checking what it will do to a party first?

 

[Ancalagon]

The DR these demons have is 10 and 5. Do not say that is is not significant. The transmutter's spells (fire and acid) do not affect the demons. He has magic weapon as a spell.

Using the standart rules, he would magic weapon his rapier and be able to act. Now, because it takes a "special something" (in this case, special magic as opposed to special material) his rapier does not bypass DR. when you do 1d6+1 damage, DR 5 is a great obstacle and dr10 makes you want to cry. Luckily for him, he has on lowner one of the few weapons that can affect them reliably, but if it wasn't for that, he would be screwed... or would have to rely on the cleric casting yet another magic weapon spell. "excuse me mr demons, could you give us, oh, 5 rounds? I need to enchant the party's weapons". We have a convoy to defend, everyone needs to be able to act imediately when we are attacked.

I am telling you, what we are going through right now is EXACTLY what the new system will be. (replace special material with special magic). And let me tell you it is a great anoyance.

Ancalagon

 

[Shalewind]

But regardless... even after they do 3.5e ad fix everything... the Gm will still have to stop and ask "is this beastie an appropriate challenge for my guys in this setting?"

And when it comes down to it, that is the core of the issue. No matter what rules WoTC comes out with, it will all come down to what the DM is willing to use against the party and his ability to judge them and their resources. No level of rules tweaking is ever going to change this.

One of two things is going to happen. 1) You are going to ignore the new rules or 2) everyone will simply "shift gears", campaigns will change, attitutde will adjust and over a period of about two months, the new DR and a new set of "standard baddies" will be the norm.

New Info: "monks will have a couple of properties with unarmed attacks that will allow them to bypass certain sorts of DR."

"Magical weapons alone won't work, but only good-aligned silver ones. So, there will be DR bypass designations such as Silver, Gold, Cold Iron, Magical, Bludgeoning, etc."

"The "bypass mechanics" have generally proven very intuitive to players, meaning that they quickly figure out from context clues what they need to fight particular monsters (though I'm looking forward to their first fight with a lich...)"

I stand corrected. It does seem the play test team encourages (in at least some degree) and intended the carrying of multiple weapons. Good news for the Monks at least (well they are in a better position now)

But again, it all comes down to the DM in the first place (and to some extent what his players are). I never use 80-90% of the published monsters anyway... But I can understand how this makes a problem for people that thought the system worked one way and now it has changed... Time to core dump, adapt, and re-init...

 

[Ferret]

I won't complain So soon, it might not be like that. I'll start to whine when my epic +10 greatswprd doesn't penetrate a silver DR. This also brings up the point, most of the DR are lower, how hard will it be to get 10+ damage? And one last thing, wouldn't it make sense to have x+ weapons equal Y material?

 

[Dursk Starkfire]

IMO the problem of the Bypass numbers (the +1 in 2-/+1) being so low and so often bypassed as to make Dr less than a reality is simply a case of creatures assigned too LOW a bypass number for their CRs. its like the guys who did the MM did not pay attention to the wealth by level vs CR numbers or did not pay attention to the GMW scaling by level vs CR. Rasing the current bypass numbers on a case by case basis (and maybe adjusting some crs) to take wealth levels and GMW into account seems to be the precision or targetted answer to this "problem."

Amen Petrosian. The first person to hit the nail on the head. You're the first to address the ROOT CAUSE of the problem, rather than point out the EFFECT. IMO, fixing the DR is the wrong way to go about this, fixing the DR for the monsters would be more appropriate.

I agree with changes like giving a skeleton 5/blunt damage reduction, but forcing a material is the wrong way to go about this. I have to say that this seems more a change for the sake of change... Of course WoTC realizes that you are now going to have to re-purchase the PHB, DMG, AND the MM because of all of these changes now.

Dursk.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I agree with changes like giving a skeleton 5/blunt damage reduction, but forcing a material is the wrong way to go about this. I have to say that this seems more a change for the sake of change... Of course WoTC realizes that you are now going to have to re-purchase the PHB, DMG, AND the MM because of all of these changes now.

Dursk.

And how long until will will have to re-purchase the MMII, Fiend Folio, MotP, PsyHB, Splatbooks, Savage Species, FR materials, and etc. because they now will have so much errata that a revised version of all of them now be "neccesay" as well.

 

[AuraSeer]

Anytime you throw a monster with special qualities of any significant nature, you must assess its particulars against your party. The particular monster may be too fast, too hard to hit, or as in this case too hard to damage for your gang. If you select a creature to throw at your group that has special qualities that will hit them this severely, that was likely a bad GM call (if you did not provide scenario counters.)

Following this argument to its conclusion removes the entire point of having special materials in the first place.

Say you, as DM, read about a new gigantic demon. It would fit perfectly into your campaign plans, and you want to use it, but it has DR x/silver. The party has no silver weapons, and you judge that if they can't penetrate its DR, they won't be able to defeat it.

You have four possible choices:
1) Let the party "randomly" find silver weapons (or hint that they need to buy some).
2) Change the monster's DR to something the PCs can penetrate.
3) Don't use the monster, even though it would be the perfect fit for a certain situation.
4) Use the monster as is, even though it will cause a TPK.

If you use either of the first two options, it really doesn't matter what kind of DR the monster had in the first place. You are ensuring that the PCs will always be able to penetrate any DR they encounter, so why should they care about special materials at all?

Using either of the last two options is even worse, since you're allowing a minor rule to actually harm your campaign. A decent DM never allows that.