Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 666683" data-attributes="member: 1149">[/B]</blockquote>no "fallacy" just a simplification.these are two separate issues... how easy it is to avoid and how serious it is when unavoidable.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.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? 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.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.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.[/QUOTE]

Verification