What's the problem with DR 25/+5?

[Larkas]

Back in 3.0, monsters didn't have DR/magic, they had DR/+x. You needed a weapon with that much enhancement bonus to bypass their damage reduction. Not only that, they used to have much higher numbers in the DR (25/+5, for example, was the Tarrasque's DR).

Myself, I think that this kind of DR was much more flavorful. You can swing your puny +1 dagger as much as you like, you just won't bypass the Tarrasque's carapace that easily.

The numbers might've been a little excessive, but I can see their point too. They contribute to a few monster's aura of terror.

So, what do you think were the reasons for dropping that? More importantly, what are your opinions on the matter? Do you think +x DR should've been kept? What about the bigger numbers on the DR itself?

Lastly, what if the weapon's special abilities counted for bypassing the DR? (i.e.: a +1 ghost touch longsword could bypass DR/+2) Do you think that would balance things out a bit?

[Coidzor]

Too annoying, and for people who aren't out to limit/punish players for the hell of it, +5 weapons are just plain boring compared to what else you could get instead.

[Larkas]

Annoying in which sense, exactly? Would you mind expanding on that?

Also, this:

Lastly, what if the weapon's special abilities counted for bypassing the DR? (i.e.: a +1 ghost touch longsword could bypass DR/+2) Do you think that would balance things out a bit?

[Coidzor]

Annoying in which sense, exactly? Would you mind expanding on that?

Well, you have to remember what the specific number is and you have to check the specific number of every character's weapons rather than the more simple yes/no of whether it's a magical weapon or not, and as I'll touch upon later, it's kind of annoying to have all of these nifty weapon properties to choose from but be forced to eschew them in favor of having enough flat plusses in order to be able to use the weapon on enemies in the first place.


Myself, I think that this kind of DR was much more flavorful. You can swing your puny +1 dagger as much as you like, you just won't bypass the Tarrasque's carapace that easily.

The numbers might've been a little excessive, but I can see their point too. They contribute to a few monster's aura of terror.

So, what do you think were the reasons for dropping that? More importantly, what are your opinions on the matter? Do you think +x DR should've been kept? What about the bigger numbers on the DR itself?

Lastly, what if the weapon's special abilities counted for bypassing the DR? (i.e.: a +1 ghost touch longsword could bypass DR/+2) Do you think that would balance things out a bit?

What kind of weirdo attacks the Tarrasque with a dagger? Do your players really do this regularly? :smalleek:

I'm confused as to how anything about a statblock could translate into an aura of terror. It's a statblock. If you make the change then the players *have* to be made aware of the change and they have to be able to get their +Xs on time or you're being a jerk as a DM. And if they're getting their +Xs on time then the only difference is that their weapons are all pretty much the same boring old +X weapon until they're high enough level that they don't have much more time playing their characters.

I think the devs dropped it for simplicity's sake. I prefer the change myself. I do not think +x DR should have been kept or should be resurrected, I find the idea to be a waste of time and a hassle to backport creatures from 3.5 to 3.0. No feelings as far as the size of the DR.

That'd balance things out a bit, but then you raise the question of why make the change in the first place. Are your players so inexperienced/obstinate that they won't upgrade their weapons beyond a simple +1 dagger or +1 greatsword without being forced to do so? :smallconfused:

[Amphetryon]

Annoying in which sense, exactly? Would you mind expanding on that?

Also, this:
It was basically a stealth method of limiting the types of Enhancements you could put on your weapon, by forcing weapon-wielders to consistently increase the weapon's plus, rather than choosing any other Enhancement (that would almost always do more damage in cases where the DR wasn't a limiting factor).

As to your suggestion of allowing other bonuses, such as Ghost Touch, to apply to overcoming DR/+X, it could get cumbersome if you have multiple DR/+X thresholds to overcome, and wouldn't actually mesh with the 3.0 rules (as I think you know, based on the phrasing of this question). With the right group, I suppose it would make a reasonable houserule. . . but then again, that applies to many houserules.

[Nettlekid]

I've never played a game where DR X/+blah was used, but looking at it, I agree, it seems more flavorful. I've only ever played low and high level games, few mid, so either no monsters had DR/magic or those that did got sliced through because everyone had magic weapons. The +blah DR meant that you had an incentive to get a +blah weapon instead of a +1 bleh bluh weapon. In the spirit of D&D, a +4 weapon should be cooler than a +3 weapon, but to parties these days it's just "sell it for more money" or "wow, that could have been special abilities, what a waste." And DR X/+blah sounds like it's a good way of suggesting something's a threat. "I swing my +4 Greatsword!" "Good hit, but it resists a fair bit of damage." "...Oh dear, this thing is in the big leagues." As opposed to just being a niche metal DR, like Fey or Demon.

I wouldn't let special abilities count toward the overall +. The power is in the sheer swordiness of the magic sword.

[Rubik]

DR/+x punishes dual-wielders even more than DR already does, and doesn't dent two-handed fighters nearly as much. Or, really, at all.

Why? Because two weapon fighting already requires two weapons, and additional weapon enhancements are expensive. Even if you're paying someone for castings of Greater Magic Weapon, that's twice as much a two weapon fighter needs as opposed to an ubercharger greatsword wielder. And the greatsword wielder can just ignore the DR because they're hitting really hard already, so they're not really affected whatsoever.

[Larkas]

Hmmmm, I think you guys are getting the point, but just to be clear: what I think +x DR did accomplish was to make some monsters, if encountered at the "wrong" level, very scary indeed. If your magic arrows can't bypass that creature's hide, it might be a better idea to just retreat and arm yourself better. What I'm trying to say is: DR/magic is too bland. Either you have a magic weapon or you don't. It doesn't differentiate between a +1 or a +10 weapon. While I do understand at least one of the original system's shortcomings (+5 pretty much forced you to give up on some otherwise useful abilities), I'm trying to understand if there was something else besides that that screwed the system over. The lack of differentiation does bother me a little, as it's either no DR, DR/magic or DR/epic.

That said, carry on with the discussion.

PS: @Rubik - Agreed. But that's a shortcoming of the DR system as a whole.

[Coidzor]

Hmmmm, I think you guys are getting the point, but just to be clear: what I think +x DR did accomplish was to make some monsters, if encountered at the "wrong" level, very scary indeed. If your magic arrows can't bypass that creature's hide, it might be a better idea to just retreat and arm yourself better. What I'm trying to say is: DR/magic is too bland. Either you have a magic weapon or you don't. It doesn't differentiate between a +1 or a +10 weapon. While I do understand at least one of the original system's shortcomings (+5 pretty much forced you to give up on some otherwise useful abilities), I'm trying to understand if there was something else besides that that screwed the system over. The lack of differentiation does bother me a little, as it's either no DR, DR/magic or DR/epic.

That said, carry on with the discussion.

PS: @Rubik - Agreed. But that's a shortcoming of the DR system as a whole.

Well, I suppose you have a point there, though as the DM you also have some workarounds other than bringing the rule back, though they mostly default back to fiat or relying on other methods to communicate that a monster is above the party's paygrade.

Requiring +X in order to bypass DR rather than magic is even worse on TWF than the default DR of 3.5. It sucks to be TWF in 3.5. It sucks worse with that rule from 3.0 brought back, even with your suggested change to make weapon properties count as well as the straight plusses.

[Big Fau]

DR/+x punishes dual-wielders even more than DR already does, and doesn't dent two-handed fighters nearly as much. Or, really, at all.

It only really punishes them if they didn't buy a Pearl of Power 3 for the party's Wizard so he can cast GMW on the Fighter's weapon every day. It's sensible to do so anyway since it's +4 to attack rolls/damage rolls and at the mid/high levels the party's Wizard isn't going to need 1 3rd level spell slot that badly.

[Greenish]

Isn't DR/+X far blander than, say, DR/Silver? That, I seem to recall, was one of the reasons for the change, another being that the designers weren't happy with the "you must be this tall to ride" effect of DR/+X. It was discussed in a sidebar somewhere, I want to say Rules Compendium.

[Larkas]

Requiring +X in order to bypass DR rather than magic is even worse on TWF than the default DR of 3.5. It sucks to be TWF in 3.5. It sucks worse with that rule from 3.0 brought back, even with your suggested change to make weapon properties count as well as the straight plusses.

I suppose it does, since you do need to pay twice to improve both weapons. And unfortunately, there's no easy way around it: even if you were to double the price for two-handers, or halve the price for one-handers, you're still stuck with the weird interaction with one-and-a-half-handers...

Hmmm... Stepping deep into homebrew/house ruling territory here, but what if there were a simplified compromise between the two systems? For example, DR/magic for ≥+1 (or equivalent), DR/high magic for ≥+3 and DR/epic for ≥+6?

Anyways, regarding the bigger numbers, can I conclude that they weren't a bad thing? (I'm leaning more towards a "neutral" thing myself, but anyways.)

[jindra34]

The biggest issues with it aren't things like Big T. The issue is that in a lot of cases where the value dropped it simply became a check, as in without a +x weapon you can't hurt this guy physically at the appropriate CR. Which is silly and pointless.

[Absol197]

The reason they dropped it was because it made monsters either too easy, or way to hard. If you had the proper +x weapon, then most monsters could be defeated very quickly, hardly making them a challenge. But if you didn't have the proper +x weapon, then the fight would be nigh impossible, because the giant DR numbers made most melee people deal next to nothing.

In effect, what this did was make it so a party that was 3 levels below a creature's CR could defeat it easily if they had the right weapon, and a party 3 levels above its CR couldn't if they didn't. So characters needed to have specific items (or specific types of items, at least) in order to be able to defeat the monsters, meaning if those items weren't available, whether because the GM didn't give it to them, or because they wanted to use something different, or it got lost/destroyed, then the players were screwed.

Basically, when a monster's difficulty could swing from deadly to a pushover based on whether the fighter had a +2 weapon or a +3 weapon, there was too much uncertainty, so they dropped it. I, for one, think it was a good idea. DR can still be made useful and flavorful using the other options available. Magic, damage type, material, alignment, magic + damage type, magic + material, magic + alignment, damage type + material, damage type + alignment, material + alignment, magic + damage type + material, magic + damage type + alignment, magic + material + alignment, damage type + material + alignment, all four - there are 123 different possible DR combinations without different plusses, and then you can make up unique DR passes for unique creatures (like the whale-thing in Pathfinder that has DR/non-magic weapons). Is that not enough to make things flavorful?

If you really wanted to keep something of the idea, then maybe do something like having three levels: low magic (+1 or +2), moderate magic (+3 or +4), and high magic (+5 and above). This gives the players a bit more leeway with how much they have to purchase on their enchantments, while still having something of the same effect. You would still need to keep the actual amount of the DR low, though - like before, too high on a creature the party is not equipped to handle can lead to a TPK. Keep in mind most monsters move faster than PCs do, so retreating isn't usually an option.


~Phoenix~

[Larkas]

Isn't DR/+X far blander than, say, DR/Silver? That, I seem to recall, was one of the reasons for the change, another being that the designers weren't happy with the "you must be this tall to ride" effect of DR/+X. It was discussed in a sidebar somewhere, I want to say Rules Compendium.

Depends... The problem is that, if magic weapons are easy to find, silver are even easier. :smallfrown:


The biggest issues with it aren't things like Big T. The issue is that in a lot of cases where the value dropped it simply became a check, as in without a +x weapon you can't hurt this guy physically at the appropriate CR. Which is silly and pointless.

Hmmm, you do have a point. I guess that it could be reserved for the biggest and baddest monsters around. Not hitting Random Monster #259 for damage just because his CR is higher doesn't make much sense, and gets specially silly if you don't have much reason to get better weapons to get the guy down. To be fair, though, that never came up back in my 3.0 days: we always could hit the "fodder" for damage. If those are merits of the system or my DMs at the time, it's hard to say.

[Deophaun]

Hmmmm, I think you guys are getting the point, but just to be clear: what I think +x DR did accomplish was to make some monsters, if encountered at the "wrong" level, very scary indeed.
Not really. At that point, the wizard just save-or-dies it to death.

What I'm trying to say is: DR/magic is too bland.
You also have DR/cold iron, DR/silver, DR/adamantium, DR/good, DR/bludgeoning, DR/piercing and magic, etc., etc.

And you know what? That's all bland, too. Damage reduction in general is just bland. You're either ignoring it, or you're not. And even if you're not, it's easy to make a build that just overwhelms DR entirely. What ubercharger cares if the CR 20 monster has DR 20/-? None.

[Larkas]

--snip--

Good points all around. I think that the attractiveness of the +x method is simply because it is easier to deal with. That, and because "you need stronger magic to pierce its hide" also seems like a flavor those combinations miss. I guess that magic/high magic/epic, or your proposed low magic/magic/high magic could work very well, though.


Not really. At that point, the wizard just save-or-dies it to death.

Ah, well, what can you do? :smalltongue: I just wish more creatures had SR, and SR applied more frequently, but that's an entirely different problem.


You also have DR/cold iron, DR/silver, DR/adamantium, DR/good, DR/bludgeoning, DR/piercing and magic, etc., etc.

And you know what? That's all bland, too. Damage reduction in general is just bland. You're either ignoring it, or you're not. And even if you're not, it's easy to make a build that just overwhelms DR entirely. What ubercharger cares if the CR 20 monster has DR 20/-? None.

Most games don't have uberchargers though, right? Myself, I think that "seeking a weapon strong enough to kill that thing" is flavorful, but I can understand your point.

[Deophaun]

Most games don't have uberchargers though, right?
Maybe not uberchargers, but most games I've been in have had some very heavy hitters.

Myself, I think that "seeking a weapon strong enough to kill that thing" is flavorful, but I can understand your point.
Fair enough. However, is that the best use of game time? If you're tracking down a +3 sword, well, you already know the ending (hint: you get a +3 sword). Uncovering the source of the Screaming Plague or the secret designs of the Dark Lich Zenrak has more built-in suspense and opportunities for narrative growth. Plus, only one person can wield the +3 sword, so you're basically running a whole side-quest to accomplish one character's shopping trip.

And still, spells are going to be able to kill it just the same. If need be you load up the beat stick with alchemist fire or acid flasks and do it that way. No need for a legendary weapon of awesomeness (which kind of cuts the flavor aspect off at the knees). DR is just a poor hook.

[TuggyNE]

Good points all around. I think that the attractiveness of the +x method is simply because it is easier to deal with. That, and because "you need stronger magic to pierce its hide" also seems like a flavor those combinations miss. I guess that magic/high magic/epic, or your proposed low magic/magic/high magic could work very well, though.

An alternative I've seen proposed is to have DR/magic be progressive: each +1 on your weapon reduces the DR by 5, down to a minimum of 0. (Interactions with DR/magic and bludgeoning, or whatever, would of course be rather tricky to define, but you could probably work that out.)

[Gemini476]

Wait, the current Tarrasque has DR 15/epic, right? That's basically DR 15/+6.
While I do see your point (although I do not agree), the Tarrasque probably wasn't the best example.

[Runestar]

With greater magic weapon, everyone in the party was accessing the equivalent of +5 weapons by lv15 anyways. So that dr is as good as redundant.

What 3.5e did was to lessen the dr, but make it more meaningful. Everyone will have a +5 weapon, but not everyone's weapon will be made of a certain material, or possess a certain alignment. However, the dr wasn't high enough that the party fighter became useless if he lacked the appropriate weapon.

[Jacque]

I personally prefer the DR/+X version as mentioned because it has much more flavor. The party runs around with greater magic weapon spells running anyway, so they can still get their special weapon abilities.

In addition, I use the houserule for 3.0 monsters, that the total weapon bonus must be high enough. A +1 flaming longsword is more magical than a +1 longsword, so when it comes to damage reduction we treat it as a +2 weapon. This way the players can keep their special weapon abilities and the damage reduction can scale with the power of the creature.

[Firechanter]

The 3.0 DR essentially said "You must be this tall to fight this monster", and that annoyed many players.
However, bear in mind that 3.0 GMW increased the enhancement bonus every 3 levels, so effectively you had a +5 weapon from level 15 onward.

3.5 replaced the rollercoaster sign with the need for a golfbag of weapons. Which i also find rather silly. But, DR values were also generally reduced, so even if you don't have a Cold Iron weapon handy, you can still kill the bugger by just dishing out enough damage.
However, over time the golf bag syndrome was also reduced, through the introduction of items that could emulate different properties. Such as Ring of Adamantine or Bracers of Weaponry Arcane, or whatever the precise name is, or certain weapon properties.

It's also a common houserule (and PF made it official) to allow increasing enhancement bonuses to override DR. Like, if the DR is "Good and Silver", you can also punch through with a +3 weapon, along those lines.

[Alefiend]

The 3.0 DR essentially said "You must be this tall to fight this monster", and that annoyed many players.

What you've got to remember is that this was originally an improvement over older editions. In classic AD&D, if you didn't have +enough, you couldn't hurt the monster at all. You could drop a house on that werewolf, but if the house wan't made of silver he'd just brush himself off and continue eating your face. Making/buying magical gear wasn't as easy either. Third Edition gave us the ability to hurt anything if we whacked it hard enough.

[Runestar]

What you've got to remember is that this was originally an improvement over older editions. In classic AD&D, if you didn't have +enough, you couldn't hurt the monster at all. You could drop a house on that werewolf, but if the house wan't made of silver he'd just brush himself off and continue eating your face. Making/buying magical gear wasn't as easy either. Third Edition gave us the ability to hurt anything if we whacked it hard enough.

An iron golem had dr 50/+3 in 3e. Ignoring greater magic weapon, how many fighters do you know who can reliably dish out over 50 damage per hit? And even if he could, it sucks having such a large chunk of your damage being nullified into barely-noticeable pin-pricks. For most intents and purposes, 3e dr was pretty much equivalent to 2e damage immunity.


3.5 replaced the rollercoaster sign with the need for a golfbag of weapons. Which i also find rather silly. But, DR values were also generally reduced, so even if you don't have a Cold Iron weapon handy, you can still kill the bugger by just dishing out enough damage.

I think that's the whole intent. Dr still remains relevant, and the fighter isn't screwed even if he doesn't have the appropriate weapon.

[Eldan]

If I remember correctly, AD&D also had quite a few monsters with "takes half damage from everything other than X", which became damage reduction.

Anyway, I prefer werewolves being hurt by silver and fey by iron. Has more flavour.

[Enguebert]

In version 2.0, DR was all or nothing
And if you had a +5, you were ok for everything

In 3.5, with DR x/material or alignement,

1) Even if you don't have the right weapon, a big fighter can still do some damage, but he is less effective
2) the fighter can use his uberweapon but have damage reduced by DR , or use the right weapon that is not so effective ("should i use my Greataxe of Fire or my silver dagger?")
3) Mundane do no damage. The milicia, with 10 Lvl1 warrior can kill an ogre, scare a troll (if they can shoot from behind a wall), but will not be able to kill a quasit or a werewolf

For adventurers, for an appropriate encounter, they can bypass the DR unless special circumstance (like being prisoner, with no materials)

[Killer Angel]

Back in 3.0, monsters didn't have DR/magic, they had DR/+x. You needed a weapon with that much enhancement bonus to bypass their damage reduction. Not only that, they used to have much higher numbers in the DR (25/+5, for example, was the Tarrasque's DR).

Myself, I think that this kind of DR was much more flavorful.

Flavorful? Au contraire, my friend.
IMO, a flat +x is unimaginative. But when you need special materials, or aligned weapons, now we’re getting some.

[Eldan]

In version 2.0, DR was all or nothing
And if you had a +5, you were ok for everything

Hm. In the Planescape monstrous appendix, there are a few creatures like that. Most seem to have flat immunities, but there's at least:
"Greater Tanar'ri take half damage from silver weapons"
There's probably more, but I was just leaving through it.

[Morgarion]

I was actually just thinking about my reaction to this change when it first landed. At first, I was not so sure I wanted to go with the DR/magic as opposed to the +X.

My friend's take on it was that, from a storytelling perspective, no one in universe understands the concept of +X magic weapons. They're just magic or they aren't. So how do you tell someone what they need to overcome a balor's DR?

'You need a magic weapon to truly cause it damage'
'I have one, let's go!'
'No, a more magical weapon.'
'How magical?'
'Well, not the most magical, but more than what you have.'
'How much more magical?'
'Not twice as magical, that's still not enough, but about half as magical as the most magical.'

[Larkas]

Thanks for all the great replies, guys! They are certainly helping me see the big picture here. :smallsmile:


Wait, the current Tarrasque has DR 15/epic, right? That's basically DR 15/+6.
While I do see your point (although I do not agree), the Tarrasque probably wasn't the best example.

Ooops! You're quite right here. :smallbiggrin: But to be fair, I wasn't exactly comparing the monsters, I was just taking a random example of a monster I could remember was quite resistant. :smallredface:


An iron golem had dr 50/+3 in 3e.

Sheesh, I guess you singlehandedly demonstrated why huge numbers in DR are a bad thing. Still, I think they could still have a slightly greater range for the numbers. What would you think of a DR 20/+3, or 20/adamantine for that matter?


However, bear in mind that 3.0 GMW increased the enhancement bonus every 3 levels, so effectively you had a +5 weapon from level 15 onward.

Eh, to be fair, following WBL guidelines, that's exactly when you should first be able to afford a +5 weapon.


'You need a magic weapon to truly cause it damage'
'I have one, let's go!'
'No, a more magical weapon.'
'How magical?'
'Well, not the most magical, but more than what you have.'
'How much more magical?'
'Not twice as magical, that's still not enough, but about half as magical as the most magical.'

That... Was actually very insightful. :smalleek: Even though people mentioned it before, put in those terms, it does sound a bit silly. It's exactly the same as an NPC asking your character what did he do for a living, and said character answering "I'm a 7th level bard"!
___

Now, I still feel there's a place for a "high magic" DR. Probably something that could be reliably hit by level 10. Do you think a "+3 or equivalent" would be deleterious?

[Psyren]

I was actually just thinking about my reaction to this change when it first landed. At first, I was not so sure I wanted to go with the DR/magic as opposed to the +X.

My friend's take on it was that, from a storytelling perspective, no one in universe understands the concept of +X magic weapons. They're just magic or they aren't. So how do you tell someone what they need to overcome a balor's DR?

'You need a magic weapon to truly cause it damage'
'I have one, let's go!'
'No, a more magical weapon.'
'How magical?'
'Well, not the most magical, but more than what you have.'
'How much more magical?'
'Not twice as magical, that's still not enough, but about half as magical as the most magical.'

"Elminster, what does the scouter say about my sword's power level?" :smallbiggrin:

I agree, the 3.5/PF version of DR gets away from the jarring metagamey issue of having to know exactly how strong your weapons are. In 3.5, it simply doesn't matter, and in PF, you can use terms like "the enchantment is powerful enough to slice through adamantine!" or "A devil itself would recoil from your sword's power."

[JackPhoenix]

I know mundanes don't need any further weakening, but I like idea of demons invulnerable to mundane/weak weapons...now, if there was any option (not counting DM fiat) to do the same with magic...energy and spell resistances and flat immunities are still not enough, because casters always have some other option somewhere...

[Psyren]

However, I'm not entirely happy with 3.x's way that you can still hurt it a little bit with mundane weapons. That might make sense for some, but not for all.

I'd like to introduce a new concept for some of thse DR types.

Werewolves, for instance. Rather than have DR x/silver, they should have vulnerability (silver 1d6) — each time they take a hit from a silver weapon, they suffer an extra 1d6 points of damage. Most other weapons affect them normally. This change probably requires also upping their hp to compensate.

If you're interested in a modification. the PF regeneration rules are a good way of modeling this - Monster is vulnerable to X, and everything that isn't X is automatically converted to nonlethal and quickly healed away. This makes attacking with "not-X" even on an ubercharging build, much more of a hindrance than DR 10, while still letting characters without X do something if they go all out (e.g. knocking the Werewolf out so they can get away and find silver somewhere.)

[Morgarion]

The problem with DR/x +n is it is metagamy, and invokes knowledge that characters simply should not have.

However, I'm not entirely happy with 3.x's way that you can still hurt it a little bit with mundane weapons. That might make sense for some, but not for all.

I'd like to introduce a new concept for some of thse DR types.

Werewolves, for instance. Rather than have DR x/silver, they should have vulnerability (silver 1d6) — each time they take a hit from a silver weapon, they suffer an extra 1d6 points of damage. Most other weapons affect them normally. This change probably requires also upping their hp to compensate.

I'd also like to see the DR and energy resistance mechanics unified. Having two subsystems for essentially the same concept is just confusing, more so since one is "you are safe against this", and the other "you are safe against anything except this (except if it is an energy attack)".

There is already vulnerability, where you take an extra 50% damage. I've only ever seen creatures with vulnerabilities to an energy type (cold, fire, electricity, etc.) but I think it could easily be applicable to special materials.

And I'm not sure I follow the logic behind your new DR system. I thought you didn't like that DR allowed for mundane weapons to do little bits of damage when and where they can deal more hurt than the DR soaks up. So wouldn't your hypothetical silver vulnerability just exaggerate that?

[Lanson]

On a slight side note, I had a DM backport all these DR/ +x rules from 3.0, but he required you to have EXACTLY the +X the DR listed, otherwise it didn't work. I was too new to the game to know otherwise, long since done gaming with him.

[Starbuck_II]

An alternative I've seen proposed is to have DR/magic be progressive: each +1 on your weapon reduces the DR by 5, down to a minimum of 0. (Interactions with DR/magic and bludgeoning, or whatever, would of course be rather tricky to define, but you could probably work that out.)

I like this so but let us use 3.0 mechanics: and DR lowered by 10.
iron golem had dr 50/+3
With a +2 weapon it only has DR 30. Still hard but more doable.

[Rubik]

I personally prefer the DR/+X version as mentioned because it has much more flavor.Moldy unwashed socks really isn't the "flavor" I'd want, no matter how pungent it is.

[edit]
"Elminster, what does the scouter say about my sword's power level?" :smallbiggrin:

I agree, the 3.5/PF version of DR gets away from the jarring metagamey issue of having to know exactly how strong your weapons are. In 3.5, it simply doesn't matter, and in PF, you can use terms like "the enchantment is powerful enough to slice through adamantine!" or "A devil itself would recoil from your sword's power."Speaking of which...

New DBZAbridged! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4L2dFoUysU

[JungleChicken]

I do miss the days of DR/+3 monsters.

Then again I also like going back and playing first edition D&D and doing an old fashion Gygax dungeon crawl and having a PC attrition rate of 1 death or more per day gaming.

[Person_Man]

DR X/ - is a perfectly reasonable thing to include D&D. For example, if you want your Elder Red Dragon to be more or less immune to attacks from peasants, just give them DR 25/-, and assume that players will find a way to deal more then that if they're going to fight such a powerful enemy.

DR X/Anything Else is an attempt to inject fluff into the mechanics (Skeletons need to be hit with Blunt weapons, because it "doesn't make sense" that they'd be hurt as much by arrows), and/or an attempt to introduce elemental Rock/Paper/Scissors into the game. In other words, you need to use Power A to succeed sometimes, Power B to succeed sometimes, and Power C to succeed sometimes, thus you can't rely on the same exact attack every time to succeed, and have to pay attention to combat and make reasonable tactical choices in order to succeed. This type of damage reduction only makes sense if the Player has the resources available to allow them to make such choices in every combat.

If a player is a Fighter 10, and he only has enough resources to buy one really good sword, then you're punishing him in 95% of combats if you make him buy a separate blunt weapon for 5% of combats, or if you make him buy a +5 weapon for 5% of combats when a +1 Whatever weapon would be better for 95% of combats.

[Beelzebub1111]

I think that the best thing that they changed was Magic does not count as material. It used to be that a material DR could be overcome by a magic weapon of any plus. You don't have a silver weapon or Cold Iron weapon, you're screwed. When by the time you are fighting a werewolf in 3.0, you probably already have at LEASt one magic weapon.

My Two Copper.

[Segev]

DR X/Anything Else is an attempt to inject fluff into the mechanics (Skeletons need to be hit with Blunt weapons, because it "doesn't make sense" that they'd be hurt as much by arrows), and/or an attempt to introduce elemental Rock/Paper/Scissors into the game.

(...)

If a player is a Fighter 10, and he only has enough resources to buy one really good sword, then you're punishing him in 95% of combats if you make him buy a separate blunt weapon for 5% of combats, or if you make him buy a +5 weapon for 5% of combats when a +1 Whatever weapon would be better for 95% of combats.
Or, it's no more punishment for the Fighter with "One Really Good Sword" than it would be if the skeletons had DR/- instead of /bludgeoning.

It's also a way for the - say - mace-wielding cleric to do a bit more damage than the fighter. (Yes, yes, clerics have better options against the undead, I know.)

Having DR/[something] is a way to alter the normal dynamics of a party with mixed weaponry.

[denthor]

first problem I see you have to equip the entire party with +5 weapons of some sort.

The second problem is once they have them why would they give them up?

third how do create a sense of danger when you have the kill anything in one shot type of game?

[supervillan]

DR of any sort seems pretty pointless to me if the party facing the monster is always going to have the right weapon to bypass that DR. It's just blah on the statblock and does nothing in the game.

I get the whole "level appropriate" thing, sure, but for some encounters actual DR that makes a difference adds to the sense of danger, thus the sense of excitement and the fun of the game for all players.

Back in 1e, when the party encountered an iron golem it wasn't automatic that everyone had a +3 weapon. Some of the players really ought to have, as long as it's not a hose job, but the party couldn't count on just beating the thing up in melee and they'd have to think a bit more.

3.5e, especially if played in a way that assumes or guarantees that the players must always have the right weapons to bypass any DR, reduces that thrill of danger.

When I use monsters with DR in 3.5e, not everyone in the party will automatically have weapons able to bypass it. Although, if the DR is x/magic, that is unlikely except at low level. This doesn't make the encounter impossible (I don't want to do that to my players) but it encourages good tactics.

Example: I played in a game a while back where we did encounter a construct with significant DR. We couldn't beat it down - I don't think any of us had adamantium weapons. It was killing us. I screened it off with a creative use of Stone Shape, we retreated, and when we came back we buffed our cleric up with Divine Power and a bunch of other good stuff and broke the golem. Still no adamantium weapon, but we defeated the obstacle. This is an encounter I remember after several years. If it had just been "OK boys, pass me the 9-iron" I don't think it would stand out any more than your average orc in a 10' by 10' room.

[lsfreak]

I think what you may want to consider, Larkas, is giving monsters unique vulnerabilities and immunities. Having a lot of monsters with certain levels of plusses, or as Person Man said, certain kinds of weapons, required to kill them becomes a game of guess-the-designer's-thought. But simply shift the viewpoint to certain monsters that are fairly unique, legendary monsters, and then maybe you have something. Angel of Decay (Libris Mortis) are given ridiculous DR, though after being hit by a weapon forged under the dying sun (winter equinox) and blessed by the god of death, it's DR is negated entirely for two rounds. Now it's not a guessing game, but is very likely a quest in itself. Similar in some ways to E6's answer to CR12+ monsters where you may have to forge alliances, rally armies, etc, unique DR becomes a quest, not a mechanic. (Of course, it also necessitates that these are more-or-less unique monsters, not something to throw in one room of a dungeon as filler).

[KillianHawkeye]

Anybody saying that 3.0's +N magic DR is MORE flavorful than "You need silver weapons to slay the werewolf" and "Only a holy sword can harm the demon's flesh" pretty much has the opposite definition of the word flavorful than I have.

IMO, 3.5's variety-based DR was a humongous improvement over what came before.

[Carth]

Aren't there rules for a sufficiently high enhancement bonus automatically overcoming material based damage reduction somewhere? Without DR/+X, that's the only remaining reason to ever really get more than a +1 enhancement bonus, in my opinion. Special abilities, if you have access to good ones, are going to beat the pants of those +1s from a cost/benefit perspective. With how the price ramps up exponentially, a net +10 to a sword generally isn't worth the WBL. DR/+X gives you an incentive to get these enhancements, which I think is nice in a vacuum, but in reality it's putting another damper on the classes that need it the least.

[TuggyNE]

Aren't there rules for a sufficiently high enhancement bonus automatically overcoming material based damage reduction somewhere?

In Pathfinder.

[Runestar]

Sheesh, I guess you singlehandedly demonstrated why huge numbers in DR are a bad thing. Still, I think they could still have a slightly greater range for the numbers. What would you think of a DR 20/+3, or 20/adamantine for that matter?

Depends on when the monster gets it. In 3.5e, the iron golem has dr 15/adamantine, which I feel is a lot more reasonable, considering that with power attack and a good 2-handed weapon, a fighter should be able to consistently land at least 30 damage per hit. An adamantine weapon sure would help, but he can get by without it, and doesn't feel marginalised by not having said weapon.

Even the tarrasque has only dr 15/epic. So blocking 15 damage per hit (not factoring in uber-charging shenanigans) would still be significant without unfairly penalising the fighter (who, at lv20, can be expected to average 50 damage per hit).

I feel the 3.5e numbers are a good guideline to go by.

Not to mention how Tome of Battle deals with dr. With their emphasis on single attacks dealing huge amounts of damage, dr is a lot less significant (as it applies just once, rather than 3-5 times per round), and some maneuvers even let you bypass it altogether.

[georgie_leech]

Personally, I find that DR/+X isn't more flavorful for the monsters, but more flavorful for the weapons. In 3.5, the difference between a +1-whatever weapon and a +5-whatever weapon was that the later was slightly more accurate and hit slightly harder. In, say, AD&D on the other hand, that +1 is a rather weak enchantment, while that +5 hums with magical energy, a weapon capable of cutting through demons like butter and able to harm the gods themselves. It was a way to differentiate the weapons forged in the fires of creation by the legendary archmage whoever, and the stick spat out by the apprentice Wizard.

[Starbuck_II]

Anybody saying that 3.0's +N magic DR is MORE flavorful than "You need silver weapons to slay the werewolf" and "Only a holy sword can harm the demon's flesh" pretty much has the opposite definition of the word flavorful than I have.

IMO, 3.5's variety-based DR was a humongous improvement over what came before.

Not really, you can still add weakness:
Example, Silver deals extra 1d6 untyped energy damage with each hit to werewolves.
in 2.0: magic or silver was required to harm them at all.

[Novawurmson]

In Pathfinder.

And here they are! (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Overcoming-DR)

[Segev]

I like that 3.5 made /silver, /adamantine, etc. not trumped by magic weapons. I still prefer the gradation of /+x over /magic for the magic-penetrated DR.

Though I do confess that the post somebody made earlier talking "in character" gives some indication why /magic is "easier, flavor wise" is compelling. I think I still, from a game mechanical perspective, prefer /+x to /magic.

[Big Fau]

That... Was actually very insightful. :smalleek: Even though people mentioned it before, put in those terms, it does sound a bit silly. It's exactly the same as an NPC asking your character what did he do for a living, and said character answering "I'm a 7th level bard"!

Thing is, that's exactly what the developers expected you to do. There's an in-character quote from Tordek regarding his armor in the MiC, and he explicitly states it's + value as if doing so were a mundane thing.

[Rubik]

Thing is, that's exactly what the developers expected you to do. There's an in-character quote from Tordek regarding his armor in the MiC, and he explicitly states it's + value as if doing so were a mundane thing.Way to take the magic out of magic, WotC.

[Melayl]

To me, the whole point of having DR is to make some monsters harder to kill. Having variable DR (DR x/+y where y= +1-+5 or so and various materials and alignments) means not everyone will have the "right" weapon every time. It means things will be more challenging, more dangerous, and (IMO) more fun.

If everyone has the right weapon every time for every monster, what's the point of having resistances and magic weapons at all?

Just my :twocents:

[ryu]

To me, the whole point of having DR is to make some monsters harder to kill. Having variable DR (DR x/+y where y= +1-+5 or so and various materials and alignments) means not everyone will have the "right" weapon every time. It means things will be more challenging, more dangerous, and (IMO) more fun.

If everyone has the right weapon every time for every monster, what's the point of having resistances and magic weapons at all?

Just my :twocents:

Why to annoy your party by forcing them to spend two hours attacking a bfced monster or die unless they get a good save or die going rendering your dr pointless of course. This is why I despise DR as a concept. It's either irrelevant, annoying, or needlessly deadly if escape isn't possible.

[Eldan]

To me, the whole point of having DR is to make some monsters harder to kill. Having variable DR (DR x/+y where y= +1-+5 or so and various materials and alignments) means not everyone will have the "right" weapon every time. It means things will be more challenging, more dangerous, and (IMO) more fun.

If everyone has the right weapon every time for every monster, what's the point of having resistances and magic weapons at all?

Just my :twocents:

That's a strange argument, though: it means that as soon as you have a +5 weapon or the spell Greater magic Weapon available, you never need another weapon again.
On the other hand, if it goes by material, at least at the mid levels, you probably want at least one adamantine, silver and cold iron weapon per party.

[Psyren]

Thing is, that's exactly what the developers expected you to do. There's an in-character quote from Tordek regarding his armor in the MiC, and he explicitly states it's + value as if doing so were a mundane thing.

LOL I totally missed that. Wow, WotC, just wow. :smalltongue:

Scanning Ultimate Equipment, but I think Paizo managed to avoid that bit of silliness.

[Shalist]

Marginally relevant:


Regarding the nigh-uselessness of /magic DR... 'Dampen Magic' (cleric 4, Complete Champ) can effectively change it into potentially useful /+2, /+3, or /+4 DR:


This spell surrounds the subject with a mystical field that dampens the effects of magic. While it is in effect, the enhancement bonus of any magic weapon used against the subject is lowered by 1. For instance, a +4 longsword would have only a +3 enhancement bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls when wielded against the subject. However, even if a weapon's enhancement bonus is reduced below +1, its masterwork bonus still applies.

...For every six caster levels above 7th that you possess, the spell reduces incoming effects by one additional point. Thus, if your caster level is 13th-18th, the reduction to the enhancement bonus of weapons and the caster levels and save DCs of spells used against the subject is 2, and if your caster level is 19th or higher, the reduction is 3.

Sure, +5 GMW would still bypass it, and I dunno if it'd shut down natural attacks that 'count as magical weapons'...but if you've got 20/ or 30/magic DR from whatever laying around, collecting dust...*shrug*.

Also worth noting that graduated DR makes 'bane' weapons more useful, since they count as +2 higher than normal vs. their respective targets. Incidentally, a 'bane' weapon GMW'd to +5 would count as +7, allowing it to overcome 'epic' DR.

edit:


I'd also like to see the DR and energy resistance mechanics unified. Having two subsystems for essentially the same concept is just confusing, more so since one is "you are safe against this", and the other "you are safe against anything except this (except if it is an energy attack)".

In many ways, 'hardness' is DR + energy resistance.

[TuggyNE]

In many ways, 'hardness' is DR + energy resistance.

Situation: There are two competing standards (http://www.xkcd.org/927/). :smallsigh:

[Rubik]

In many ways, 'hardness' is DR + energy resistance.Hardness is actually better than the combination of those, since hardness blocks everything except the few things that specifically bypass it. (Mainly psionic [sonic] energy powers and a few ToB maneuvers.)

[Scow2]

I'm confused as to how anything about a statblock could translate into an aura of terror. It's a statblock. If you make the change then the players *have* to be made aware of the change and they have to be able to get their +Xs on time or you're being a jerk as a DM. And if they're getting their +Xs on time then the only difference is that their weapons are all pretty much the same boring old +X weapon until they're high enough level that they don't have much more time playing their characters.This is incorrect on all counts.

Players are not entitled to the knowledge of the statblocks of the monsters they're facing, and the DMG highly encourages DMs who's players do know the statblock to swap them out to keep the players from metagaming.

They are also not entitled to having means to bypass Damage Reduction when they run into it - They can either plow through it anyway, or run away if they can't handle it. If anything, the removal of DR/+X has completely defanged any bonus greater than +1 on magic weapons, which is really not a desirable outcome.

Players are also not entitled to "CR-appropriate encounters." Expecting them/forcing them to prevail against Overwhelming encounters is a **** move, but surprising the players with one is not.

[Endarire]

The problem with this is it punishes non-casters, who don't need it.

It's reasons like this that Tome of Battle has the Mountain Hammer maneuver line to overcome DR and hardness.

[Coidzor]

This is incorrect on all counts.

Players are not entitled to the knowledge of the statblocks of the monsters they're facing, and the DMG highly encourages DMs who's players do know the statblock to swap them out to keep the players from metagaming.

They are also not entitled to having means to bypass Damage Reduction when they run into it - They can either plow through it anyway, or run away if they can't handle it. If anything, the removal of DR/+X has completely defanged any bonus greater than +1 on magic weapons, which is really not a desirable outcome.

Players are also not entitled to "CR-appropriate encounters." Expecting them/forcing them to prevail against Overwhelming encounters is a **** move, but surprising the players with one is not.

You might think that, but then you'd be incorrect on that count.

Granted, the OP is talking about the herculean task of going through and restatting most of the creatures in the game, but otherwise that's a ridiculous stance to take since the books exist, the players have to read the books in order to be competent at character building, and any player with even base-line system familiarity is going to default to "oh, the DM implemented his houserule with this monster, that's what's going on." Unless the DM is now entitled to keep houserules a secret? Because you're kinda left in the position of having to argue that kind of hogwash.

If the DM wants to continue running the game and not having the players mutiny on him, they do, in fact, need to be able to bypass DR more often than not if they aren't playing characters who automatically obviate DR anyway. As has been shown by other posters, this is not a universal position that the removal of DR/+X has made the game poorer, indeed, there have been legitimate arguments which point towards the game being enriched by their removal and the direction DR took instead. Personally I'm with the people who find DR to be rather low-impact in terms of any positives that it adds to the game, honestly I'd say that it's entirely the sort of thing where it's 100% derived from the DM and they'd do just as well without that particular tool.

The game, however, is predicated on the PCs having some way to prevail and continue to play the game. Or, again, you're not going to be DMing for very long. So trying to bring up player entitlement is both misguided in this case and doesn't quite hit the mark.

[Larkas]

Once again, thanks for all the input, guys. Even with a few hot headed responses here and there, I begin to understand the problems with DR/+x, and the problems with DR as a whole. A few pointers:

- Of course I'd let my players know if I implemented any house rules. That's just common sense.

- I think it's pretty clear that huge numbers for DR can be quite problematic. However, a few monsters could live with a slightly higher number, IMHO (the Tarrasque could be 20/epic, for example, as could the Iron Golem be 20/adamantine).

- I know am mostly sold that discrete +x shouldn't exist. I don't think that "high magic" as a material of sorts is bad stuff, however.

- The fact that DR screws skull-bashing characters is certainly problematic when put in perspective, specially because it screws two-weapon warriors more. I don't think that DR is a terrible idea, however, I merely think it (a) might be poorly implemented and (b) defenses that shut down casters should be equally common and not so easily bypassed (think "No SR" spells here). (a) could maybe be complemented by another, percentage-based defense (discussed a little here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15918937#post15918937), and a very undeveloped idea, mind you). I haven't really been able to come up with an answer for (b), however, save for distributing SR more generously, and giving monsters kind of "improved SR", where it applies even to spells and effects that generally bypass it.

With those given, however, carry on with the discussion.

[nobodez]

THe things is, it's quite easy to determine caster level in D&D, even in character.

"My mage armor lasts three hours" or "When I cast magic missile I can target three enemies". For that basis, you also know that "If this wizard cast's a mage armor that lasts for nine hours, and he knows how to make magic swords, I can pay him eighteen thousand gold pieces to make me a magic sword", and know that that magic sword would be a +3 sword (IIRC). Determining these sorts of things is quite easy in-character.

So, to compare:

Instead of "I need a +3 sword", it's "I need a sword made by a mage who can cast mage armor that lasts for nine or more hours".

Instead of "You need a +3 sword to defeat hurt this monster", it's "you need a sword enhanced by a mage capable of casting mage armors that last nine hours or more to hurt this monster".

So, why not just term them "+3 swords" from the get go?

[Larkas]

Okay. Hardness, damage reduction, energy resistance. These three mechanics need to be unified.

I don't think DR and ER can be reconciled. ER gives resistance to a damage source X, DR gives resistance to everything but damage source X. That's not to say ER couldn't be expanded upon to encompass non-energy attacks (i.e.: a creature that is resistant only to bludgeoning attacks), but the ideas behind both mechanics are completely different.

Hardness, on the other hand, is pretty much DR/- with a twist.