Why I Don't Like 3.5 Damage Resistance

[Mercule]

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.")

The reason I implemented my house rule in 1E is because I run a lower magic game. You really can't give out +5 weapons at 5th level, but the PCs will eventually need one. That means you need to throw in quite a few magic weapons in order to allow all the fighters a reasonable shot at damaging things. The result is the magic is disposable -- when you find the next big thing, you ditch the old one. Much better to have mundane materials retain their bite.

FWIW, my house rules for DR boiled down to silver, cold wrought iron, magic, magic silver, and magic cold wrought iron.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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!

Ack! No! No! *Waves arms around wildly*

No concrete thing, beyond horrific prices, against that, just really and truly don't like it.

The Auld Grump

 

[MerricB]

Ack! No! No! *Waves arms around wildly*

No concrete thing, beyond horrific prices, against that, just really and truly don't like it.

The Auld Grump

Hehe. No problem there - I'm not really of the opinion that you need it.

(However, I like it more as something to make the Plus of a weapon more worthwhile than Monte's system)

Cheers!

 

[BryonD]

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

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

I completely agree.

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!

I completely disagree.

I've never really understood why a sword could not simply be a magical +0 "keen" sword.
Not that it is a problem or anything. It just don't see any compelling reason.

I think that 3E DR was a great improvement over former versions and 3.5 DR is an improvement on that. I have seen players carry several weapons to be prepared for circumstance, but never anything like golfbag. They have their primary weapon, maybe a backup, some kind of ranged weapon and usually a light weapon. Variety of material and such has never been an issue.

 

[Psion]

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.

Complication/payoff ratio too high.

Of course, I could say the same of Monte's rules.

 

[MerricB]

Complication/payoff ratio too high.

Of course, I could say the same of Monte's rules.

More so of Monte's rules, I'd say. My rule only requires its application in the preparation of an adventure - Monte's requires remembering of the house rule in every combat against something with DR.

I've never really understood why a sword could not simply be a magical +0 "keen" sword.
Not that it is a problem or anything. It just don't see any compelling reason.

It must be a pricing thing (which is what Monte's complaining about, not DR). Monte instituted the DR bypass rule to make the price of +2 and +4 swords more fair, not because of 3.5e DR.

Cheers!

 

[Zappo]

Well... I hate to disagree with Monte, but... I have seen no golf bag syndrome at all in my games. 3.5 not only changed WHAT weapons could bypass DR, but it also changed the AMOUNT of DR any given monster can have. Characters CAN and DO defeat monsters without defeating their DR.

IME, characters can't afford a +3 steel weapon, a +3 adamantium, a +3 cold iron, and a +3 silver. Or, more precisely, they could at high levels - but then they would rather just have a +4 flaming shocking steel weapon, which is massively more effective against everything and only marginally less effective against DR monsters. And, maybe, a +1 or +2 of some special material when they foresee having to deal with lots of DR monsters of the same type.