Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Technik4" data-source="post: 684490" data-attributes="member: 7211">I enjoy arguingI like playing the arguing game, and I don't think minds can't be changed. While I was playing devil's advocate at points earlier in this thread, at other points I wasn't. The reason I started replying again is because of a statement about 30-40% of encounters containing DR. I did my own research and find those numbers highly misleading.You seemed to want this comment:"...you could adventure to level 20 and only see a couple of creatures with DR, it isnt overwhelmingly likely because dms traditionally enjoy messing with creatures with DR, but its certainly possible."to read like this:"...everyone will adventure to level 20 and only see a couple of creatures with DR."Which wasn't my intent. I merely stated it was possible, and indeed if you are in one of many "low-magic" campaigns where the PCs spend the majority of their time fighting against orcs, drow, or another humanoid race, you may only very rarely see DR. Such as when the dm throws in a Dragon or has someone summon a fiend or elemental. The rules change is for all people who play D&D, not just certain subcategories, I was just pointing out that to a great many people it will be a welcome change.I think its very reasonable to state that something can be more flavorful even if it does not necessarily come up a lot. I think its a good change for Role-players. It doesnt have to be some huge sweeping change, a slight change in the rules for some creatures, it will make said players appreciate those monsters.You seem to think that if a change is small it is also unncecessary, maybe youd like to start a thread on 4e?I agree with your statement about porportionality. I think modules are usually written with this in mind to some extent, to make every encounter interesting. Maybe a fire immune monster here, then a creature with high hp, then a creature with DR, etc.Your comparisons to disease and level-draining are poor, imo. Those things are debilitating effects, and yes I have seen some very anxious players that make sure to stay stocked on those things. It also applies to poison. These are effects that could knock out a party character, these are not effects that cause them to be less successful in damaging an opponent. I think it does NOT apply in cases with blunt weapons. In my experience (YMMV) most characters only take blunt weapons as a style decision, or if they are limited to simple weapons. For instance, a dwarf fighter who "sees" dwarfs carrying a warhammer. Or a cleric whose best weapon option is a morningstar. Someone who thinks the flail is a cool idea, or someone who wants to break the spiked chain. None of these people chose a blunt weapon for blunt damage, they chose it for other reasons.Your attempt to convulute my words to your liking is very transparant. When I use the words "could" and "possible" I dont mean "extremely likely" and "always", though it does make your stance look better if you argue as if I did.I explicitly stated that I wasnt much of a stats guy, I printed that list mostly for my own curiousity, but also so that people could get a look at the monsters that are really being affected. As far as spin versus substance, thats certainly your opinion, but Im stating the case as I see it. I'm not a lawyer, I just think people are looking at the change the wrong way. Maybe I can help people see my side of the story, maybe I will just get ignored.As I said before, I plan on giving the new rules a chance, and I dont mind defending "changes" no matter how small or "unncessary".Technik</blockquote>

Verification