Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Technik4" data-source="post: 664348" data-attributes="member: 7211">Getting TiredPetrosian: 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 The "change" proposed so far is that these things are not superseded by a +1 on your sword.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</blockquote>

Verification