Worst 3.5 Change

[Psion]

At low level I doubt DR 5 will make that much of a difference - take for example a greatsword with some strength for 2d6+3 dmg,

Hold on here. "Not much of a difference"?

First off, this is an average of 10 points. 5 DR halves it right off the top. Power attack is an options (an all too obvious option, IMO, BID), but depending on the AC of the foe, that may be a limited option. Now you are HALVING the damage of this character.

Now consider: this is your best fighter here, and the best type against DR (namely, two-handed fighters). You start talking about the rogues and clerics in your group, they aren't going to be doing as much as your mainline fighter.

In my current 3e game, the non-fighters are innefectual against DR 5/+1 creatures unless they have a magic weapon.

The impact is significiant.

 

[James McMurray]

Hold on here. "Not much of a difference"?

First off, this is an average of 10 points. 5 DR halves it right off the top. Power attack is an options (an all too obvious option, IMO, BID), but depending on the AC of the foe, that may be a limited option. Now you are HALVING the damage of this character.

Now consider: this is your best fighter here, and the best type against DR (namely, two-handed fighters). You start talking about the rogues and clerics in your group, they aren't going to be doing as much as your mainline fighter.

In my current 3e game, the non-fighters are innefectual against DR 5/+1 creatures unless they have a magic weapon.

The impact is significiant.

True, you are halving that character's damage. However, don't you think that the CR of the creature will reflect the DR?

Also, why would non-fighters be useless against DR5/+1? A cleric can still heal or buff his companions, a wizard or sorcerer can still blast the enemy, and a rogue can still sneak attack.

Assuming you're 3rd level the wizard could do 2d4 +2 damage (enough to take out quite a few CR2 critters, and enough that two castings will take out most CR3s). The rogue deals 3d6 per succesful flanking attack (average of 10 -> 5 after DR). The cleric can still heal any damage that CR3 creature deals, and can increase the fighter's and rogue's ability to deal or take damage vis Bull's Strength and Endurance.

Besides, how many low-level creatures actually have DR 5/+1?

 

[Fenes 2]

Hold on here. "Not much of a difference"?

First off, this is an average of 10 points. 5 DR halves it right off the top. Power attack is an options (an all too obvious option, IMO, BID), but depending on the AC of the foe, that may be a limited option. Now you are HALVING the damage of this character.

Now consider: this is your best fighter here, and the best type against DR (namely, two-handed fighters). You start talking about the rogues and clerics in your group, they aren't going to be doing as much as your mainline fighter.

In my current 3e game, the non-fighters are innefectual against DR 5/+1 creatures unless they have a magic weapon.

The impact is significiant.

I wonder about your non-fighters. A level 3 rogue with a rapier does 3d6 damage when flanking - average of 10.5 damage. A wizard can (and should) use his spells in that situation - it is tailor made for the quick punch magic missile and other spells provide. A cleric may be "reduced" to keep the party alive, but that is by no means "ineffectual" (I don't see anything wrong with "reducing" a cleric to healing and spell support once in a while). A bard can inspire courage, which effectively reduces the DR by 1 (or 20%) for the whole party by providing bonus damage to all melee attacks. Paladins have smite (for evil creatures) to boost their damage, and ime often choose power attack as a feat. Rangers, if not fighting a favored enemy, may be hampered.

Really, when considering the point that DR will not be common at those levels, a DR 5 encounter or two does not have a significant impact - as long as the DM has not taken pains to make it a TPK by boosting the critters ac and hitpoints as well. Usually it does just take more time to kill the creature, and uses up a few more ressources than against an equally statted creature without DR - exactly what DR should achieve.

 

[Psion]

Also, why would non-fighters be useless against DR5/+1? A cleric can still heal or buff his companions, a wizard or sorcerer can still blast the enemy, and a rogue can still sneak attack.

Never said they couldn't. Just pointing out that the fighter is not going to be the only one in melee, and you depend on more than just your fighter for damage.

 

[Psion]

I wonder about your non-fighters. A level 3 rogue with a rapier does 3d6 damage when flanking

when flanking

First off, if sneak attack damage were reliable, it would be way too powerful.

Second, many creatures with DR, like elementals and undead, also are immune to criticals and ergo sneak attack damage.

- average of 10.5 damage. A wizard can (and should) use his spells in that situation

But are a limited resource.

(I don't see anything wrong with "reducing" a cleric to healing and spell support once in a while).

Sure, that's part of the cleric's job, but again, typically second string fighters like clerics, monks, and rogues are expected to contribute to the damage total, and their contribution there is much more strongly affected than a fighter because they are less able to overcome DR via damage alone.

Really, when considering the point that DR will not be common at those levels,

Really? Low level undead are DR creatures, lest you forget. Not to mention that elementals and outsiders usually have DR, and great effort has been made to ensure that there are low CR choices there.

Usually it does just take more time to kill the creature, and uses up a few more ressources than against an equally statted creature without DR - exactly what DR should achieve.

Which is precisely my point. Before you said it doesn't make much of a difference, and here you admit that it takes more time, uses up more resources (both in terms of magic and the fact that the creature is attacking back during the time you haven't killed it...). That isn't "not much of a difference" to me. That is a pretty telling difference between having the weapon that will bypass the DR and not having it. That's sort of the whole point.

 

[Storminator]

But isn't DR supposed to have a significant impact? Shouldn't it be an important factor? Is it now? No really, is it?

I've seen exactly one fight where it was important. I've seen other fights where it made a tiny bit of difference, but usually DR is completely bypassed, which is pathetic.

PS

Hold on here. "Not much of a difference"?

First off, this is an average of 10 points. 5 DR halves it right off the top. Power attack is an options (an all too obvious option, IMO, BID), but depending on the AC of the foe, that may be a limited option. Now you are HALVING the damage of this character.

Now consider: this is your best fighter here, and the best type against DR (namely, two-handed fighters). You start talking about the rogues and clerics in your group, they aren't going to be doing as much as your mainline fighter.

In my current 3e game, the non-fighters are innefectual against DR 5/+1 creatures unless they have a magic weapon.

The impact is significiant.

 

[Psion]

Re: No game does archery right

But isn't DR supposed to have a significant impact? Shouldn't it be an important factor? Is it now? No really, is it?

E tu, Pete?

This is really the isse. It depends. If the GM wants it to be an issue, it's great. Having the final boss demon only vulnerable to holy silver weapons is great flavor for a game.

But the problem is, do you want every demon or devil or lycanthrope to have this inherent obstacle in it? I know I don't. I prefer only to have this type of thing come into play for pivotal encounters, and the various materials/alignment totally removes the "scaling" aspect of the DR. Before, if my players had +2 weapons, I knew I could face them with X/+2 encounters with impunity, and save the X/+3 encounters for big fights. Changing this was a bad move, as that aspect of the DR was a feature, not a bug.

 

[Fenes 2]

First off, if sneak attack damage were reliable, it would be way too powerful.

Second, many creatures with DR, like elementals and undead, also are immune to criticals and ergo sneak attack damage.

But are a limited resource.

Sure, that's part of the cleric's job, but again, typically second string fighters like clerics, monks, and rogues are expected to contribute to the damage total, and their contribution there is much more strongly affected than a fighter because they are less able to overcome DR via damage alone.

Really? Low level undead are DR creatures, lest you forget. Not to mention that elementals and outsiders usually have DR, and great effort has been made to ensure that there are low CR choices there.

Which is precisely my point. Before you said it doesn't make much of a difference, and here you admit that it takes more time, uses up more resources (both in terms of magic and the fact that the creature is attacking back during the time you haven't killed it...). That isn't "not much of a difference" to me. That is a pretty telling difference between having the weapon that will bypass the DR and not having it. That's sort of the whole point.

Ok, for me "making a significant difference" means more than taking a bit more time and ressources - I consider a significant difference the difference between a "average" fight and a TPK.
And DR is only one part of the balance. There could be creatures with very high ACs and hit points for low level parties, which would be in effect as hard to kill as DR creatures, creatures with regeneration (like trolls), creatures with magic immunities rendering spellcasters less useful and other possibilities.

IMHO, DR is no big deal. It can help letting the fighter (and the mage) shine though.

 

[Storminator]

Never realized that replying preserves the post subject...

E tu, Pete?

This is really the issue. It depends. If the GM wants it to be an issue, it's great. Having the final boss demon only vulnerable to holy silver weapons is great flavor for a game.

But the problem is, do you want every demon or devil or lycanthrope to have this inherent obstacle in it? I know I don't. I prefer only to have this type of thing come into play for pivotal encounters, and the various materials/alignment totally removes the "scaling" aspect of the DR. Before, if my players had +2 weapons, I knew I could face them with X/+2 encounters with impunity, and save the X/+3 encounters for big fights. Changing this was a bad move, as that aspect of the DR was a feature, not a bug.

I like the angle where your PCs, used to fighting lesser monsters, start getting overwhelmed by the demon hordes, just like all the other mortals. Then they get wise. Then they go get the right stuff, and start making a difference against the fiends.

I do think it could be better with some shades of "Magic," and I would like it if the different materials had different value. Like if the weapon damage type (B/P/S) had a DR cap of 5, the alignment types had a cap, etc.

But overall, I think this is a vast improvement.

PS

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Psion

I prefer only to have this type of thing come into play for pivotal encounters, and the various materials/alignment totally removes the "scaling" aspect of the DR.

WotC didn't deliberately design the system that way. It's a bug, one they intend to fix.

The problem is, people and even DMs get used to these bugs, even if (in the case of Haste) they cause balance issues.

DMs will get used to the new DR rules soon, and so will players.