Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bret" data-source="post: 654203" data-attributes="member: 713">From what I've heard of it, I dislike the new DR rules.I wouldn't mind having rules like DR 5/piercing or DR10/blunt. Doing it by damage type doesn't bother me as much. It still makes it tough for the rogue, who isn't proficient in a slashing weapon.Doing it by the material that the item is made of does bother me. In my opinion, it does add complexity for very little benefit. It will also make it very difficult for any EXCEPT a fighter to hurt the creatures. In my experience, the other character classes do lower average damage per hit than a fighter, so they are the ones who would end up needing the golf bag of weaponry. I can't recall any stories involving a rogue or cleric carrying a half-dozen different weapons. Anyone trying to stay at light encumberance is going to have trouble carrying enough different weapon types.What is wrong with a magic weapon being MAGICAL? Allow it to hurt any type of creature if the magic is strong enough, the person who enchanted the weapon certainly put enough effort into it.Personally, I hate the 'memorize the monster properties or die' type of creatures. Why should you reward a player for memorizing the monster manual? In my experience, it is exactly that type of creature you want to avoid, because it causes people to focus on the game mechanics rather than the story.The only good thing about this rule I can see is it will make it easier for me to talk people into playing more of other FRPG systems. It has already become a regular refrain in our group that the reason something works in a certain way is because of silly D&D rules. This should help kill the last of the suspension of belief. An advantage from my viewpoint, but I suspect WotC might not agree.Edit: Spelling</blockquote>

Verification