PDA

View Full Version : [3.0 to 3.5] DR x / +2, etc - what's not to love?



Altair_the_Vexed
2010-02-10, 05:19 AM
Damage reduction was changed between D&D 3.0 and 3.5 - the reduction was reduced, and the DR bypass was changed.

DR itself is a reworking of the old D&D idea that certain creatures couldn't be affected by non-magical weapons. It was damage reduction, it was damage immunity. Some things were only affected by +5 or better.

In a homebrew monster that I made recently for a 3.5 game, I gave it DR10/+2. I guess I was forgetting the update, and was thinking old school. I also forgot that the party didn't have +2 weapons in handy supply. The players were good natured about my oversight, and easily killed off my monster with a few spells, but the question came up - what was I doing using a DR X / +2 monster anyway?

So - what's wrong with DR X / +2, or X / +3 or higher? In high level games, shouldn't the monsters be immune to damage from all but the most heroic heroes?
Part of the fun of the old D&D game was facing a creature that was immune to our usual attacks, so we'd have to think fast about how to take it on.

Discuss!

Oslecamo
2010-02-10, 05:24 AM
I liked more of the 3.0 version personaly.

This is, DR/magic quickly becomes useless in 3.5, because at mid-high levels everybody has magic weapons of some kind, so you may as welll don't have DR at all.

Magic immunity was also true magic immunity in 3.0, not the "Super SR that doesn't block orbs of force" of 3.5.

Zeta Kai
2010-02-10, 06:18 AM
I'll admit that the 3.5 version is simpler, but I agree the the 3.0 version was better overall.

Chrono22
2010-02-10, 06:22 AM
Well, it's typically suboptimal to get a weapon with an actual enhancement bonus higher than +1. There are exceptions (I can see how a +5 to damage and to hit might appeal to a raging power attacking barbarian), but most of the time that flaming, shocking, icy, acidic greatsword will have more lasting appeal.

Part of 3.5 wasn't about rebalancing at all- it was adjusting item costs and values in response to trends. For example, boots of speed 3.5 vs. Boots of Speed 3.0. Or the costs of Boots of Striding and Springing before and after. Some of the changes seem like they were nothing more than to say "look we changed stuff" to resell material.

BobVosh
2010-02-10, 06:22 AM
3.0 DR was much better IMO. Although a great improvement on 2ed where if you didn't have the +3 weapon, you didn't hurt them. Period.

Kaiyanwang
2010-02-10, 06:25 AM
DR X/magic is useful only low level.

Nevertheless, X/Silver, X/cold iron, X/adamantine, X/Silver and Bludgeoning can be nasty and surprising. And vary, too.

X/ +y is quite bland. And forces me to get rid of interesting enchants for a +y on my weapon. One could say that now only +1 and +6 weapons matter, but weapon crystals partially restored this, and + y to hit is + y to hit. Useful.

Also, remember that maybe the PCs can overcome the X/magic, but followers and summoned creatures couldn't

Nothing bad in adding similar reductions in homebrew, too.



Also, note that even the amount of damage reduced has been changed: say, from 20 / +2 to 10/magic, not 20/magic.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-10, 06:29 AM
DR/magic is indeed pretty pointless, but it does allow you to overcome the same with natural weapons.

It has more verisimilitude than DR/+x because "+x" is an abstraction which isn't supposed to exist in the game world. DR/epic makes sense as a higher level of magic needed.

And DR numbers as high as many were in 3.0 made it a major "Achilles Heel" setup where a monster was "balanced" by auto-losing vs. something that beats its DR and auto-winning vs. something that doesn't.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 06:43 AM
X/ +y is quite bland. And forces me to get rid of interesting enchants for a +y on my weapon. One could say that now only +1 and +6 weapons matter, but weapon crystals partially restored this, and + y to hit is + y to hit. Useful.


It has more verisimilitude than DR/+x because "+x" is an abstraction which isn't supposed to exist in the game world. DR/epic makes sense as a higher level of magic needed.

These two points sum up my position. The change was needed, and the game is better for it.

Runestar
2010-02-10, 06:49 AM
In 3.0, you either could not damage the monster at all (as its dr is likely as high as your damage) or its dr had no impact at all (because you have the appropriate +X weapon. It is too binary, and really no fun (plus, that can be easily simulated using greater magic weapon).

So 3.0 dr was as good as not having dr at all. Who cares that lower lv mooks cannot harm a balor? You will never see a balor fighting them (or such a scene will likely be handwaved by the DM). All I care is that my party will face one, and in that aspect, 3.5e dr is more meaningfully in that it will have a higher chance of being relevant.

Rules compendium sums it up quite well.


In prior editions of D&D, some monsters could only be hit by weapons with a certain magic bonus or better—anything less simply had no effect. It was a lot like a sign at an amusement park: “You must be at least this tall to fight this monster.”

Damage reduction was a big improvement. It said you could hurt a monster with an inferior weapon, but you’d just do less damage. In practice, though, damage reduction values were so high that it was very difficult to damage a monster without the right weapon.

In the 3.5 revision, we made damage reduction more flavorful and easier to overcome. With a variety of methods to overcome DR, special materials and weapon types became more important. And we lowered damage reduction numbers so you have a hope of dealing damage even without the right weapon.

Zergrusheddie
2010-02-10, 06:53 AM
It often required players to get bonuses to several different weapons. For example, a fighter might have a Silver Sword, a Cold Iron Sword, a regular Sword, and a Cold Iron Sword. It means that the fighter generally has to spend less money making each sword as high of a + enhancement as possible. It is also to useful who use two-weapons like Rogues and Rangers. However, Greater Magic Weapon makes the entire thing moot. Greater Magic Weapon on the Fighter and it doesn't really matter anymore.

DR / Magic gives people more options like putting Shocking on a Weapon rather than needing to get another +1 so you can actually deal damage to things at higher level. I can say that whenever I have played with a DM that has thrown something like DR 15/+2 it has never gone too well. At the time, it was only myself and my pet with a +2 enhancement at level 8 against a rather angry golem. Mostly it comes down to two different systems: in one everyone knows that they need to pump their enhancement bonuses on their weapons and in the other everyone knows that a +1 is mandatory but +2 is a privilege.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-02-10, 06:55 AM
Agreed, the lower reduction to damage in the 3.5 version of DR is good.

The X / +Y version though fit in with my old school conception of DR - where special materials were superceded by magical weapons, and +1 weapons were superceded by +2.

SpikeFightwicky
2010-02-10, 07:26 AM
It often required players to get bonuses to several different weapons. For example, a fighter might have a Silver Sword, a Cold Iron Sword, a regular Sword, and a Cold Iron Sword. It means that the fighter generally has to spend less money making each sword as high of a + enhancement as possible. It is also to useful who use two-weapons like Rogues and Rangers. However, Greater Magic Weapon makes the entire thing moot. Greater Magic Weapon on the Fighter and it doesn't really matter anymore.

How many Cold Iron Swords does he need? :smallbiggrin:

I like the newer DR system, especially the little things, like Zombies having DR / Slashing and Skeletons having DR / Bludgeoning instead of just 'half damage from all non bludgeoning'. Seems more streamlined. I will admit that I hate DR X / Magic. I find it useless, especially on high lvl monsters, or templates that grant it to high HD creatures. A 12 HD fiendish creature is wasting CR on DR 10 / Magic without some kind of DM fiat.

Runestar
2010-02-10, 07:35 AM
Dr/magic would still be of use against summoned monsters (some of which cannot overcome dr), as well as if you summoned fiendish/celestial monsters, since there are some high lv foes who still have problems overcoming dr/magic, such as the pit fiend.

But yeah, it won't really pose an issue past 4th lv...what were the designers thinking?

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 07:43 AM
In 3.0, you either could not damage the monster at all (as its dr is likely as high as your damage) or its dr had no impact at all (because you have the appropriate +X weapon. It is too binary, and really no fun (plus, that can be easily simulated using greater magic weapon).

So 3.0 dr was as good as not having dr at all. Who cares that lower lv mooks cannot harm a balor? You will never see a balor fighting them (or such a scene will likely be handwaved by the DM). All I care is that my party will face one, and in that aspect, 3.5e dr is more meaningfully in that it will have a higher chance of being relevant.

Another excellent point.


Rules compendium sums it up quite well.

Rules Compendium has many excellent paragraphs on why changes are made and how seductive a trap nostalgia can be. Truth be told, I was looking for that quote, and I'm glad you found it for me.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 08:59 AM
It has more verisimilitude than DR/+x because "+x" is an abstraction which isn't supposed to exist in the game world.

An abstraction? A +1 weapon costs exactly 1000 gp to create. A +2 weapon costs exactly 4000 gp to create. Et cetera. The weapon rankings are no more an abstraction than spell slots are.

Greater Magic Weapon can still subvert this whole paradigm.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 09:03 AM
An abstraction? A +1 weapon costs exactly 1000 gp to create. A +2 weapon costs exactly 4000 gp to create. Et cetera. The weapon rankings are no more an abstraction than spell slots are.

Which is a fine distinction to use if you're the one crafting it; but what if you're finding it in a trove, inheriting it from a dead relative, or purchasing it from a store that marks up their wares? What will you know about such a sword IC?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 09:06 AM
Which is a fine distinction to use if you're the one crafting it; but what if you're finding it in a trove, inheriting it from a dead relative, or purchasing it from a store that marks up their wares? What will you know about such a sword IC?

Whether or not the PCs know about it, it's still in the game world. For crafters, the difference is very real and not very abstract. Now, communicating to the PCs that the monster's DR is DR/+3 would force metagaming, which is true. I only wished to contest the assertion that "'+x' is an abstraction which isn't supposed to exist in the game world."

Roderick_BR
2010-02-10, 09:23 AM
DR X/magic is useful only low level.

Nevertheless, X/Silver, X/cold iron, X/adamantine, X/Silver and Bludgeoning can be nasty and surprising. And vary, too.

X/ +y is quite bland. And forces me to get rid of interesting enchants for a +y on my weapon. One could say that now only +1 and +6 weapons matter, but weapon crystals partially restored this, and + y to hit is + y to hit. Useful.

Also, remember that maybe the PCs can overcome the X/magic, but followers and summoned creatures couldn't

Nothing bad in adding similar reductions in homebrew, too.

Thus enforcing the "golf bag" syndrome.
I like Monte's version where the +x weapons can overcome some DR (+2 for example, overcomes silver), but non-magical/low level magic weapons can still overcome DR if they are made of the right material (so a +1 adamantine weapon can hurt a golen, and so do a +5 common material weapon).

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 09:25 AM
Whether or not the PCs know about it, it's still in the game world. For crafters, the difference is very real and not very abstract. Now, communicating to the PCs that the monster's DR is DR/+3 would force metagaming, which is true. I only wished to contest the assertion that "'+x' is an abstraction which isn't supposed to exist in the game world."

But from the PCs perspective, it might as well be, unless they all run around crafting wondrous items.

If all your magic swords come from shops and loot (and this is not uncommon), in what way is +X not an abstraction?

Many DMs don't let you craft magic items at all, never mind letting you craft multiple levels of magic sword.

Kaiyanwang
2010-02-10, 09:36 AM
Thus enforcing the "golf bag" syndrome.
I like Monte's version where the +x weapons can overcome some DR (+2 for example, overcomes silver), but non-magical/low level magic weapons can still overcome DR if they are made of the right material (so a +1 adamantine weapon can hurt a golen, and so do a +5 common material weapon).

Not bad at all. I like it.

Nevertheless, there are way to overcome the golf bag even in "Wotc only" 3.5 (metalline enchants, alchemical items, and leap attack as an example).

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 09:38 AM
And even if you can't enchant your way around it, DR is no longer some impassable barrier in 3.5. Just do enough damage to bypass it partially and plink away. It's called damage reduction after all, not damage negation.

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-10, 09:46 AM
So - what's wrong with DR X / +2, or X / +3 or higher? In high level games, shouldn't the monsters be immune to damage from all but the most heroic heroes?
And now, you're getting into one of the more fundamental problems of 3.5. Requiring a +N sword doesn't mean you need to be adequately heroic, it means you need to have a sufficiently shiny sword rather than any actual level of heroism. Overly externalized power. Blech.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 09:47 AM
And now, you're getting into one of the more fundamental problems of 3.5.

You mean 3e. Specifying "3.5" in this statement is perplexing, as DR/+2 has been clearly stated as a 3.0 construct.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 09:49 AM
And now, you're getting into one of the more fundamental problems of 3.5. Requiring a +N sword doesn't mean you need to be adequately heroic, it means you need to have a sufficiently shiny sword rather than any actual level of heroism. Overly externalized power. Blech.

Yes, I think you meant 3.0 and not 3.5 here.

3.5 did away with the problem you are citing.

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-10, 09:50 AM
You mean 3e. Specifying "3.5" in this statement is perplexing, as DR/+2 has been clearly stated as a 3.0 construct.
3.X, really. Externalized power is still a massive issue. A level 20 Fighter isn't powerful because he's a mighty warrior. He's powerful because he has level 20 gear. Pretty much all of his power is external.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 09:54 AM
3.X, really. Externalized power is still a massive issue. A level 20 Fighter isn't powerful because he's a mighty warrior. He's powerful because he has level 20 gear. Pretty much all of his power is external.

This somehow differs from every other edition of D&D?

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-10, 09:58 AM
This somehow differs from every other edition of D&D?
Never said it did, though 4e does internalize things quite a bit. A 20th-level Fighter is formidable by virtue of being a 20th-level Fighter, rather than by having the 20th-level sword.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 10:01 AM
Never said it did, though 4e does internalize things quite a bit. A 20th-level Fighter is formidable by virtue of being a 20th-level Fighter, rather than by having the 20th-level sword.

4e actually increased externalization - it just did so across the board. Where originally only martial types needed an externality (weapon) of some kind, now everyone is gimp without an implement.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-10, 10:09 AM
Never said it did, though 4e does internalize things quite a bit. A 20th-level Fighter is formidable by virtue of being a 20th-level Fighter, rather than by having the 20th-level sword.

I don't know if its because Im 2nd ed player or it just my play style but typically when i play a fighter its because i want to be kitted out with awsome gear. Most of my higher level casters don't realy need gear... but to me thats half the enjoyment of playing a martial character is strategising gear.

AstralFire
2010-02-10, 10:14 AM
4e actually increased externalization - it just did so across the board. Where originally only martial types needed an externality (weapon) of some kind, now everyone is gimp without an implement.

Eh. Sorta.

4E normalized externalization. That's a little different, and is also easier to adjust for when running low magic item games.


I don't know if its because Im 2nd ed player or it just my play style but typically when i play a fighter its because i want to be kitted out with awsome gear. Most of my higher level casters don't realy need gear... but to me thats half the enjoyment of playing a martial character is strategising gear.

For me the thing is, sure, King Arthur had some phat loots. Mad phat. Whale on rabies phat. But they were a handful of really powerful items; the bards did not bother to micromanage the magic of every individually separateable item he owned.

The Rose Dragon
2010-02-10, 10:17 AM
I don't know if its because Im 2nd ed player or it just my play style but typically when i play a fighter its because i want to be kitted out with awsome gear. Most of my higher level casters don't realy need gear... but to me thats half the enjoyment of playing a martial character is strategising gear.

It's just your playstyle. In 2nd Edition, we would never get magical items save for one iconic weapon / staff / whatever and a few potions.

Of course, it's possibly because of the DMing style we had going. It didn't change much in 3rd Edition, either. :smalltongue:

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 10:18 AM
Eh. Sorta.

4E normalized externalization. That's a little different, and is also easier to adjust for when running low magic item games.

That's fair, but my point still stands - Fighters needing something outside themselves to be effective is not unique to 3e.

AstralFire
2010-02-10, 10:20 AM
That's fair, but my point still stands - Fighters needing something outside themselves to be effective is not unique to 3e.

No, but - it is much easier to adapt to in 4E, which makes low magic games in 4E easier by design, so Christmas Tree effect can be side-stepped with less effort. 's all I'm saying.

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-10, 10:21 AM
4e actually increased externalization - it just did so across the board. Where originally only martial types needed an externality (weapon) of some kind, now everyone is gimp without an implement.
It made things more uniform, but it's hard to deny that a 4e Fighter actually gets more stuff by virtue of being an Xth level Fighter than ever before.

And in 4e, even if you just give the 15th-level party fairly basic level 1 gear (hopefully only temporarily), every member is still going to remain fairly effective because the bulk of their power is internal. They'll be hurting, a lot, but the game's not going to explode violently into a disheveled mess.

I don't know if its because Im 2nd ed player or it just my play style but typically when i play a fighter its because i want to be kitted out with awsome gear. Most of my higher level casters don't realy need gear... but to me thats half the enjoyment of playing a martial character is strategising gear.
Now this is one of the legacy issues from 2e that really annoy me. The, "There's no such thing as a mighty warrior, if you try to be a mighty warrior, you shall be rejected, but shall get minions and a sentient sword instead," issue. Sure, it can be fun to fiddle with loot, but that's what an Artificer is for. When I run a warrior, I actually want to play the character of a powerful and effective warrior, but legacy actively opposes that in the Fighter.

SilverStar
2010-02-10, 10:22 AM
DR/magic is largely useless.

I created a couple of feats to improve the DR of creatures (be they enemies or PCs) to make it more special, generaly for the native outsider types such as half-fiend, half-celestial, and the like.

It grants an alignment component to their existing DR, thereby making it not suck quite so hard.

As our group plays epic, though... we still sorta use the DR/+??... we just term it DR/epic, DR/mid-epic (+8 or better), and DR/high-epic (+10 or better).

Some critters just have tougher skin.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-10, 10:29 AM
For me the thing is, sure, King Arthur had some phat loots. Mad phat. Whale on rabies phat. But they were a handful of really powerful items; the bards did not bother to micromanage the magic of every individually separateable item he owned.

Hundred percent agree... but i enjoy the mini game of micromanaging my gear..
I know there are a few people out there that also like it... though there are some that don't... Eaither way
dr/magic fails after like 3-5th level... there realy should be another type of DR even if its dr/- at higher levels, though that kinda ****s ur fighter types..


Viletta Vadim:

See and thats fine however said powerfull fighter in "legacy" was still a powerfull fighter he could swing hard and get a ton of attacks and take a ton of hits.. Just because he didn't have all kinds of fancy moves doesn't make him less powerful... at higher levels in 2nd ed and 1st fighter still had there place... 3e gets rid of that, so people compensate by giving fighters "nice things"(tob, magic items, etc)
in 3e if i want to play a powerfull fighter i play a barbarian or a psiwarrior, if i want to play finesse type fighter i play a swashbuckler...

Pechvarry
2010-02-10, 11:51 AM
I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet --

3.0 DR was just one more way to shaft TWF players. And wielding a +4 short sword in one hand and a MW short sword in the other makes me feel like a schmuck.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-10, 11:52 AM
I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet --

3.0 DR was just one more way to shaft TWF players. And wielding a +4 short sword in one hand and a MW short sword in the other makes me feel like a schmuck.

that i have to agree with.. it did kinda screw two weapon fighters...

SilverStar
2010-02-10, 11:53 AM
I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet --

3.0 DR was just one more way to shaft TWF players. And wielding a +4 short sword in one hand and a MW short sword in the other makes me feel like a schmuck.

Maybe asking for a Greater Magic Weapon wouldn't kill you in this instance. :smalltongue:

Devils_Advocate
2010-02-10, 08:07 PM
If all your magic swords come from shops and loot (and this is not uncommon), in what way is +X not an abstraction?
"+5 to hit and +5 to damage" isn't an abstraction, it's the mathematical reality. The character abstraction of that is going to be something like "highly enchanted to improve accuracy and sharpness", much like the character abstraction of a +10 Will save will be something like "highly resistant to detrimental mental effects". Still, a wizard can divine whether a sword is +4 or +5, and a warrior would do well to have his wizard buddy check to see whether a sword is really as valuable as some merchant says it is before he buys it, unless he already has good reason to trust this merchant.


For me the thing is, sure, King Arthur had some phat loots. Mad phat. Whale on rabies phat. But they were a handful of really powerful items; the bards did not bother to micromanage the magic of every individually separateable item he owned.
Only having a handful of powerful items, or feats, or powers, or whatever, makes for a lot less bookkeeping, too. Using small situational bonuses or penalties to make the game more tactical -- making charging, flanking, etc. do something -- is fine, but a +1 to hit against goblinoids is pretty much right in between not being worth remembering and being significant enough that disregarding it feels like a handicap, so that it's a nuisance whether you keep track of it or not.

Optimystik
2010-02-10, 08:14 PM
"+5 to hit and +5 to damage" isn't an abstraction, it's the mathematical reality. The character abstraction of that is going to be something like "highly enchanted to improve accuracy and sharpness", much like the character abstraction of a +10 Will save will be something like "highly resistant to detrimental mental effects".

"Highly enchanted to improve accuracy and sharpness" can mean anything from +3 upward. (And sharpness, actually, would be the Keen property.)

"Highly resistant to detrimental mental effects" can be any will save over around +8.

The trouble does not come from recognizing that the weapon is magical, or recognizing that the character has strong will, etc. The trouble comes from the question "How magical? How strong?"

If you have a +4 and a +5 next to each other, the wizard can tell that the +5 is stronger; without such a ready means of comparison available though, he'll be at a loss to answer that question.

Thrawn183
2010-02-10, 08:22 PM
Personally I've always felt that they should have based DR/magic on BAB instead. Might really make those full BAB classes feel like they've earned something.

Swooper
2010-02-10, 09:55 PM
My take on this used to be that DR/+N shouldn't be all or nothing. Say if you had a monster with DR 15/+3. While a +3 sword will bypass it entirely, a +1 sword would lower the DR to 10, and a +2 sword would only have to deal with DR 5. Makes more sense, no?

Xenogears
2010-02-10, 09:57 PM
"Highly enchanted to improve accuracy and sharpness" can mean anything from +3 upward. (And sharpness, actually, would be the Keen property.)

"Highly resistant to detrimental mental effects" can be any will save over around +8.

The trouble does not come from recognizing that the weapon is magical, or recognizing that the character has strong will, etc. The trouble comes from the question "How magical? How strong?"

If you have a +4 and a +5 next to each other, the wizard can tell that the +5 is stronger; without such a ready means of comparison available though, he'll be at a loss to answer that question.

I dunno. It also affects the hardness and HP of the item. So a +5 sword takes 2 less damage per hit than a +4 sword. Seems like something you could test for pretty easily. Kinda like people biting coins to see if they're gold.

jokey665
2010-02-10, 10:03 PM
My take on this used to be that DR/+N shouldn't be all or nothing. Say if you had a monster with DR 15/+3. While a +3 sword will bypass it entirely, a +1 sword would lower the DR to 10, and a +2 sword would only have to deal with DR 5. Makes more sense, no?

I've always like this idea, but not quite the way you presented it. 5 points of DR/magic is bypassed for each +1 your weapon has. Similarly, 5 points of DR/epic is bypassed for each +1 your weapon has beyond +5.

Thames
2010-02-10, 10:13 PM
I much prefer the 3.0 approach to DR than 3.5's.

In the Rules Compendium Wizards made the point that they got rid of it because they thought it was akin to a "you must be this high to enter" sign except for monsters. Not only does further underline wizards painful detachment from how the system was being used but also their hack and slash fest approach to encounters. The 3.5 change did as it was intended make some challenges more accessible (read less challenging) and removed a story-telling/game tool for the GM, where players would go "oh crap we can't hit that with our swords now we have to think some more to get past this guy". I have always like the added strategy required to get past (not necessarily take on) a DR challenge.

On that note does anyone know of a list which indicates the 3.0 DR values for the MM creatures or even if the creatures that were released only as part of 3.5 have been given 3.0 DR ratings?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-10, 10:15 PM
removed a story-telling/game tool for the GM, where players would go "oh crap we can't hit that with our swords now we have to think some more to get past this guy".

DR/really obscure material has replaced that. You can't hit that with your swords. Either think some more, like in the old days, or go on EpicQuest to acquire obscure material.

Any magic weapon in 3.0 overcame DR/material, which seems rather irksome.

Thames
2010-02-10, 10:28 PM
DR/really obscure material has replaced that. You can't hit that with your swords.

No it hasn't as you CAN hit it with your sword now - they lowered the values of the DR as well so even if you dont have the weapon made of the material you can still damage it just less - then combat becomes just a slow drudge through the HP.
Also that questing for an item isn't what the new DR removed the interesting strategies to bypass the creature is because now they can just do the same thing as they did with normal non-DR creatures except it takes more time. No straegies to bypass it because then they don't get the treasure. Dr in 3.5 loses all that made it special.

martyrX
2010-02-10, 10:35 PM
I dunno. It also affects the hardness and HP of the item. So a +5 sword takes 2 less damage per hit than a +4 sword. Seems like something you could test for pretty easily. Kinda like people biting coins to see if they're gold.

The caster level of the sword's creator would likely be higher as well.

Xenogears
2010-02-10, 10:54 PM
DR/really obscure material has replaced that. You can't hit that with your swords. Either think some more, like in the old days, or go on EpicQuest to acquire obscure material.

Any magic weapon in 3.0 overcame DR/material, which seems rather irksome.

Yeah that last part is lame, but the DR/magic is just as lame to me. I just think that it makes sense that some monsters need higher level magic weapons to overcome them than others. Otherwise why bother making the? Why bother even having them as an option?

I think this is another example of WotC fixing something twice and winding up nerfing it instead. Like Vorpal Keen weapons. So they made Keen and Improved Critical not stack. Then they also made Vorpal only trigger on a Natural 20 anyway so now melee got nerfed needlessly. Same thing here. They should have either made DR lower or changed it to DR/magic not both. DR 20/magic should be fine. So should DR 10/+3. And the magic weapons should not auto overcome all DR/material either.

Holocron Coder
2010-02-10, 11:16 PM
Personally, I think one of the best setups is to keep the DR x / +y. However, with a caveat.

A weapons +y is based on its overall magic. Thus, a +1 flaming longsword is a +2 weapon in effect.

Now the DR x / +y can range from y = 1 to 10.

Knaight
2010-02-10, 11:26 PM
I like a generic DR against magic better, although there are parts of the implementation that are questionable. For instance, damage dealing spells aren't affected. And high DR is fine, since that just forces better tactics. Sure, DR 20/magic isn't going to be easily overcome in a straight fight by 1st level characters. But what about when you collapse a tower on the guy? What about when you knock a monster over a cliff (They take 15 damage and probably survive, but that is a different issue entirely). What happens when you leave them on a ship at sea and light it on fire? Etc, etc.

Of course, there are many, many bigger issues, but the removal of /+4 or whatever was a good idea in my opinion.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-02-10, 11:53 PM
Someone on EN World came up with a great DR variant:

For every enhancement bonus your weapon has, knock 5 DR off the monster's X/magic. My rule of thumb for monsters is that its X value should be 5 per 4 CRs.

It's simple, and it keeps DR/magic relevant without completely screwing over PCs who don't have top-notch weapons on hand. And as an added bonus, it gives players a reason to buy extra enhancement bonuses rather than stacking on more and more properties.

Runestar
2010-02-11, 12:15 AM
Personally, I think one of the best setups is to keep the DR x / +y. However, with a caveat.

A weapons +y is based on its overall magic. Thus, a +1 flaming longsword is a +2 weapon in effect.

Now the DR x / +y can range from y = 1 to 10.

But everyone would be more or less assured of having a weapon of that enhancement value by that time. What's the use of a monster having drX/+10 if every player will be expected to have a +10 weapon? Then you may as well not have that dr.

At least with 3.5 dr, even if you have say, a +1 holy silver longsword. You can overcome the dr of devils, but demons would still confound you. Now that's what I call meaningful.

AstralFire
2010-02-11, 02:51 AM
No it hasn't as you CAN hit it with your sword now - they lowered the values of the DR as well so even if you dont have the weapon made of the material you can still damage it just less - then combat becomes just a slow drudge through the HP.
Also that questing for an item isn't what the new DR removed the interesting strategies to bypass the creature is because now they can just do the same thing as they did with normal non-DR creatures except it takes more time. No straegies to bypass it because then they don't get the treasure. Dr in 3.5 loses all that made it special.

There are exceedingly few games of strategy I can recall where having INSTANT-WIN-ACHILLES-HEEL-IF-YOU-DO-ANYTHING-ELSE-YOU-DIE is an appealing part of the game. Pokemon, which has developed an extremely complex metagame, works in large part because Fire doesn't automatically beat Ice doesn't automatically beat Dragon. Provides an advantage, it does not provide the win on its own nor is it necessary to the win.

DR in 3.0 has as its essential problem that it is chump change to overcome as a maximized 2H damage build and damned brutal if you're playing the game as intended. They could only change so much in 3.5.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-02-11, 02:54 AM
Someone on EN World came up with a great DR variant:

For every enhancement bonus your weapon has, knock 5 DR off the monster's X/magic. My rule of thumb for monsters is that its X value should be 5 per 4 CRs.

It's simple, and it keeps DR/magic relevant without completely screwing over PCs who don't have top-notch weapons on hand. And as an added bonus, it gives players a reason to buy extra enhancement bonuses rather than stacking on more and more properties.

That's a neat compromise. I think I'll use that.

faceroll
2010-02-11, 03:07 AM
Damage reduction was changed between D&D 3.0 and 3.5 - the reduction was reduced, and the DR bypass was changed.

DR itself is a reworking of the old D&D idea that certain creatures couldn't be affected by non-magical weapons. It was damage reduction, it was damage immunity. Some things were only affected by +5 or better.

In a homebrew monster that I made recently for a 3.5 game, I gave it DR10/+2. I guess I was forgetting the update, and was thinking old school. I also forgot that the party didn't have +2 weapons in handy supply. The players were good natured about my oversight, and easily killed off my monster with a few spells, but the question came up - what was I doing using a DR X / +2 monster anyway?

So - what's wrong with DR X / +2, or X / +3 or higher? In high level games, shouldn't the monsters be immune to damage from all but the most heroic heroes?
Part of the fun of the old D&D game was facing a creature that was immune to our usual attacks, so we'd have to think fast about how to take it on.

Discuss!

In my high powered gestalt games, I use DR/ +X monsters just to **** with their itemization. It's typically easier to buy a +4 or +5 weapon than have enough CL to cast GMW at that level.

I think I used some DR 50/ +5 & adamantine constructs in the last session I ran. Course, the warblade had no problem opening those like butter with the right stance/maneuver, but it still ate up actions.

Rixx
2010-02-11, 03:14 AM
Pathfinder brings this up actually - generic magic weapons with enhancement bonuses can overcome certain other kinds of DR by default (like cold iron, silver, and adamantine).

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 06:33 AM
No it hasn't as you CAN hit it with your sword now - they lowered the values of the DR as well so even if you dont have the weapon made of the material you can still damage it just less - then combat becomes just a slow drudge through the HP.

If it really IS a plot-monster they aren't supposed to beat their way through, just raise his DR. How is this even a complaint?


The caster level of the sword's creator would likely be higher as well.

Not necessarily, as a high-level caster can make any sword from +1 to +5.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-11, 08:51 AM
If it really IS a plot-monster they aren't supposed to beat their way through, just raise his DR. How is this even a complaint?

Said plot-monsters aren't covered in enough detail by the Monster Manuals and stuff.

The DR on this one golem we're fighting is...irritating. Half the party is stopped cold by it. Two of us have martial maneuvers to just smash through it. And one of us has a Force bow, which also makes DR a non-issue.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-02-11, 10:31 AM
That's a neat compromise. I think I'll use that.
Glad to help. It's great how sometimes a simple solution can spring up suddenly and kick us in the face.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-11, 10:34 AM
My take on this used to be that DR/+N shouldn't be all or nothing. Say if you had a monster with DR 15/+3. While a +3 sword will bypass it entirely, a +1 sword would lower the DR to 10, and a +2 sword would only have to deal with DR 5. Makes more sense, no?

I've always like this idea, but not quite the way you presented it. 5 points of DR/magic is bypassed for each +1 your weapon has. Similarly, 5 points of DR/epic is bypassed for each +1 your weapon has beyond +5.

Glad to help. It's great how sometimes a simple solution can spring up suddenly and kick us in the face.

There were ninjas. 10 and 8 posts before you, respectively.

Dyllan
2010-02-11, 10:43 AM
I like 3.5's material/alignment based damage reduction. It gives players options on how to deal with things. The Barbarian can just power through it, but that also means he's doing less damage per hit. Or the fighter can carry a bunch of weapons (and they can do double duty a slashing adamantite weapon, a bludgeoning holy cold silver weapon, etc). Of course, if the fighter has to pull out his silver +1 longsword instead of his normal +1 flaming longsword, the damage reduction is *still* effective, as he's using a weaker weapon just to overcome it.

In 3.0, you had one weapon, and once you got it high enough, DR did nothing. In 3.5, it almost always does something (unless your primary weapon happens to get through it), even if all it's doing is forcing someone to use a weaker weapon.

As for the "bag of swords" mentality... I don't have a problem with that. There are pleanty of magical means for carrying multiple weapons (throw them in a Handy Haversack, for instance), so if your job is to fight, why wouldn't you carry backups and other tools of your trade for specific situations.

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 10:46 AM
Said plot-monsters aren't covered in enough detail by the Monster Manuals and stuff.

You're misunderstanding me - if the DM doesn't want you to kill something, he should make it unkillable. If he wants to make it unkillable except via the use of [insert Sword of Plot Advancement here], then that is what he should do. What is written in Monster Manuals, etc., is irrelevant.


The DR on this one golem we're fighting is...irritating. Half the party is stopped cold by it. Two of us have martial maneuvers to just smash through it. And one of us has a Force bow, which also makes DR a non-issue.

Who is stopped cold then? The casters? :smallconfused:


As for the "bag of swords" mentality... I don't have a problem with that. There are pleanty of magical means for carrying multiple weapons (throw them in a Handy Haversack, for instance), so if your job is to fight, why wouldn't you carry backups and other tools of your trade for specific situations.

Or just use magic to align your weapons, temporarily make them silver etc.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-11, 11:15 AM
Who is stopped cold then? The casters?

The warlock, the favored soul, the DMPC fighter-fellow, and the rogue. We're rather low on casters.

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 11:18 AM
The warlock, the favored soul, the DMPC fighter-fellow, and the rogue. We're rather low on casters.

The lock should be using vitriolic essence, the Favored Soul should be buffing the melee types, and the other two are indeed screwed :smalltongue:

Oslecamo
2010-02-11, 11:22 AM
The rogue should be geting some scrolls of golem strike. Allows him to sneack attack constructs for 1 turn, 25 gp and swift action to activate. Spell compendium. Also available as plant and undead version. Don't leave your guild whitout them.