Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 687634" data-attributes="member: 10397">Hello AllGreetings all. I just joined this board I've been reading the thread for the past couple of hours. its very interesting.&nbsp; I have two things I would like to say.I agree with RigaMortis that everyone saying that the new DR rules &quot;punish&quot; people who decide not to carry a large assortment of weapons for roleplay reasons is, in some ways a bit silly. Many, many things in the game...especialy monster abilities are made to &quot;punish&quot; the players. As in make there lives diffacult. Because, thats what the monsters are there for. Now yes if it renders fighters so reduced in power that the fighter dies in every encounter with such a creature, thats a bit much...but I dont really see that happening. Yes, others will outshine the fighter at times...just as the fighter will outshine other party members at other times. I see the new rules as an attempt to better reflect myth and literature...a few creatures of myth could only be hurt by certain things...lycanthropes and especialy fey being good examples. Now yes I think they should perhaps also do something that makes spells less effective against such beings, if weapon-magic isnt going to get past there DR. Also no where has it been said that ALL creatures with DR will be getting special matrial DR. My guess is many will still be bypassed by a certain enhancement bonus. So only encounters with certain special, mythic beings will really be altered by the new special-material aspect....not all encounters with beings with DR.&nbsp;&nbsp; Also everyone seems to have forgotten that in the case of the pit-fiend, this is all largely moot anyway since even if you have a plain old +2 sword and get past its DR you still have to have a holy or blessed weapon to do true damage to it due to its regeneration ::<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />&nbsp; Overall it might have been better as an optional rule, but I understand and largely agree with there reasons for putting it in.Merlion</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Merlion, post: 687634, member: 10397"] [b]Hello All[/b] Greetings all. I just joined this board I've been reading the thread for the past couple of hours. its very interesting. I have two things I would like to say. I agree with RigaMortis that everyone saying that the new DR rules "punish" people who decide not to carry a large assortment of weapons for roleplay reasons is, in some ways a bit silly. Many, many things in the game...especialy monster abilities are made to "punish" the players. As in make there lives diffacult. Because, thats what the monsters are there for. Now yes if it renders fighters so reduced in power that the fighter dies in every encounter with such a creature, thats a bit much...but I dont really see that happening. Yes, others will outshine the fighter at times...just as the fighter will outshine other party members at other times. I see the new rules as an attempt to better reflect myth and literature...a few creatures of myth could only be hurt by certain things...lycanthropes and especialy fey being good examples. Now yes I think they should perhaps also do something that makes spells less effective against such beings, if weapon-magic isnt going to get past there DR. Also no where has it been said that ALL creatures with DR will be getting special matrial DR. My guess is many will still be bypassed by a certain enhancement bonus. So only encounters with certain special, mythic beings will really be altered by the new special-material aspect....not all encounters with beings with DR. Also everyone seems to have forgotten that in the case of the pit-fiend, this is all largely moot anyway since even if you have a plain old +2 sword and get past its DR you still have to have a holy or blessed weapon to do true damage to it due to its regeneration :::-) Overall it might have been better as an optional rule, but I understand and largely agree with there reasons for putting it in. Merlion [/QUOTE]

Verification