Why I Don't Like 3.5 Damage Resistance

[Arcane Runes Press]

OK - I have to ask. Has anyone, anywhere, actually seen this happen in play? Just one person? This has seemed to be the most often used slam on 3.5 DR rules and I seriously doubt it has ever been used.

Doubtful. People on the net love to throw out possibilities as though they were certainties. I've seen people carry around virtual armories, but I saw that in 1E too. I've yet to see, or talk to anyone who's really seen someone carry around a material for every occasion weapon.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Our party fighter had a ghost touch longsword, adamantine spiked chain and a greatsword. I doubt that's enough to qualify as a golfbag though. The GM is rather golem-happy so adamantine is de rigeur. We never needed silver or cold iron, though.

 

[smilinggm]

Check Out Monty Cooks Current Take on DR

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_damage_reduction

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Check Out Monty Cooks Current Take on DR

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_damage_reduction

That doesn't do anything to discourage golf-bagging by those players that are so inclined. Since they're powergaming anyway, they'll want the extra damage bonus. And it adds a table you have to remember or look up. No thanks.

DR in 3.5 is just fine. If you don't want players golf-bagging, don't hand out magic weapons like candy.

 

[ptolemy18]

Check Out Monty Cooks Current Take on DR

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_damage_reduction

Monte Cook once again demonstrates that he rules. I agree with him 100%.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

If you don't want players golf-bagging, don't hand out magic weapons like candy.

This ties in with the whole "high magic/low magic" thing, but I must admit, I think the 3.0 DR makes more sense in a slightly lower-magic setting. Which is the kind I like. (Note that I said "slightly.")

If *everyone* in your campaign world is carrying around +5 swords, then it makes sense that you want them to have to carry "something extra" -- like holy silver -- to hurt really buff monsters like demons and devils (and also, your campaign world is either unbalanced, or very high-level).

If, on the other hand, the players have been playing for about 12 sessions and only two of them have +1 weapons -- and they've been going on a quest just for the purpose of finding more +1 weapons -- then they deserve that those +1 weapons should be able to kick some ass and hurt some monsters that they couldn't hurt otherwise.

Jason

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

DR in 3.5 is just fine.

Agreed.

If you don't want players golf-bagging, don't hand out magic weapons like candy.

You can also avoid using many things with material- or alignment-based DR.

Alternately, the players can upgrade equipment and just wind up with the three they possibly could ever need. Heck, mine FR supplements and get the Sure Striking property (and breach that pesky alignment DR) and the Gauntlets Arcane (which treat your weapon as breaching Silver and Magic), and you're down to two materials.

An archer only needs a bow, and he can have any number of specialty arrowheads.

As I mention previously in the thread, I haven't noticed any golf-bagging in our games. I don't consider carrying three weapons as golf-bagging, as you should ALWAYS carry at least a spare.

Brad

 

[Psion]

DR in 3.5 is just fine.

I haven't found it to be a major problem, but...

If you don't want players golf-bagging, don't hand out magic weapons like candy.

In D&D, players do have a certain degree of automnity to shop for and create items. Like I said, it's not an epidemic, but in one game I did have several players who wisely carried a few normal maces as a backup after a few encounters with skeletons.

 

[MerricB]

Just looked at Monte's rules... urgh.

It reinstitutes the main problem with 3E damage reduction - Greater Magic Weapon.

Actually, I think there's an even simpler answer than Monte's.

You cannot give a weapon special abilities that exceed its enhancement bonus.

Thus, you can have a +1 weapon, or a +1 flaming weapon, but not a +1 vorpal weapon - you need to have a +5 weapon before the vorpal trait can be added to it.

You can have a +2 flaming shock longsword, but not a +1 flaming shock longsword.

Cheers!

 

[nopantsyet]

If you're modifying the core rules, you have to expect there will be repercussions on other rules. You can't expect to change one rule (e.g. dropping alignment) and not compensate for that in all other areas that alignment comes into play (e.g. DR).

Personally I have no complaints about DR in 3.5, and I do not use alignment in my game. Which means any time I use something that has an alignment-based ability, I have to change that.

Edited: Removed golf-bagging comments. They were useless.