Logic behind DR/Magic instead of DR/+X?

[heavyfuel]

Why did the designers behind the 3.0 update to 3.5 decided to unify DR/+X into DR/Magic? It seems a really stupid decision all around.

Basically, the uber dragon can now get hurt by a weapon enchanted with freaking 1st lv spell. It makes it so that any creature with DR/+X might as well not have any DR at all past once the players are past lv5.

I really don't understand why they removed DR/+X, much like I don't know why they removed the requirement of equal enhancement bonus to sunder. Worse than it is with the uber dragon, you can now sunder a +5 weapon of legend with a stick.

Is it to make +X equivalents better? Was it to make Sunder better (hah!) ?

[Urpriest]

+X was sort of a silly enchantment, in that it was pretty meaningless fluffwise and didn't do all that much mechanically unless you really needed the to-hit. Instead, WotC decided to make DR more interesting from a fluff perspective by tying it to special materials, and to lower the numbers across the board to make it less of a "you must be this tall to enter" rule and more "this creature is resistant to common forms of damage".

In general, monsters whose DR is supposed to matter past level 5 or so will have DR keyed to a special material or alignment, not just DR/Magic.

[Zanos]

In 3.0 monsters had very large amounts of DR pierced by weapons with certain enhancement levels. This was rather poor game design because it made anyone without such a weapon basically useless against a creature with DR 40/+3 or whatever.

Of course, it was then replaced with the equally poor design of DR/Magic, which is entirely irrelevant after level 5. Preferable to "you must have this much cash to face this creature", I suppose.

[Tovec]

I started with 3.5. From my perspective it is strange to require a +3 weapon to effectively fight someone, when a +2 will do squat. Seems wrong and counter intuitive unless you get the highest bonus possible, whereas you could be getting something better for your money.

On the flip side the DR/magic as previous posters have said seems like a tax. By the time you are fighting creatures that have DR/magic, you'll have magic weapons and if you don't it unfairly screws you. I would much prefer other types of DR to be emphasized.

One crib or mix of the two systems I saw that I really liked:

+X weapons bypass DR/magic of 5 per point. So DR 20/magic would require a +4 weapon to bypass completely - but a +3 weapon could still bypass 15 of that DR (reducing it down to DR 5/magic).
The "5" per point could be scaled, as high as say 10 per +1, so a +2 weapon bypasses DR 20/magic.

Anyway, that was a fix for the problem and not an outright rules update or anything. I don't know how well it has been tested and I haven't tried it.

But yeah, I get the logic. What mechanical value does a +X weapon have in the world? So, monsters with DR/+4 seem out of place (to me). DR/magic would be cool... if everyone didn't have easy access to it and if it was a little more gradual. Like if you could be partially effective without it instead of all or nothing. *shrugs*

[heavyfuel]

+X was sort of a silly enchantment, in that it was pretty meaningless fluffwise and didn't do all that much mechanically unless you really needed the to-hit. Instead, WotC decided to make DR more interesting from a fluff perspective by tying it to special materials, and to lower the numbers across the board to make it less of a "you must be this tall to enter" rule and more "this creature is resistant to common forms of damage".


In 3.0 monsters had very large amounts of DR pierced by weapons with certain enhancement levels. This was rather poor game design because it made anyone without such a weapon basically useless against a creature with DR 40/+3 or whatever.

Of course, it was then replaced with the equally poor design of DR/Magic, which is entirely irrelevant after level 5. Preferable to "you must have this much cash to face this creature", I suppose.

Ok, I get reducing the DR itself was a good thing., but it' not, and has never been, the point I'm trying to make.

The point is as I said in my OP, much like Zanos mentioned in his post, that DR/Magic is useless, even in low levels.


In general, monsters whose DR is supposed to matter past level 5 or so will have DR keyed to a special material or alignment, not just DR/Magic.

This is just wrong. Unless you're saying the DR 20 of a Red Great Wyrm isn't supposed to matter, in which case, why have DR 20? No schmuck that can't afford a scroll of magic weapon will deal 20 points of damage, and even if they do, it won't matter when relative to the huge pool of HP the Dragon has.

So really, DR 20/magic is as effective as no DR. Just so a bunch of commoners can't kill with a few hundred nat 20s? Well, last I checked Dragons had ridiculous amounts of HP, AoE and Spells. Yes. Spells. The most powerful thing in the game was given to dragons, and yet they need DR/magic to not fear a bunch of commoners armed with light crossbows and a dozen bolts.

It's all just so absurd.

Why not keep it DR/+X? The guy that just got his first magical item shouldn't be able to hurt a great wyrm the same way he can hurt a teenager.

[Fax Celestis]

DR in general is a pretty terrible mechanic. It either is practical immunity or completely irrelevant. Continuing with the great red wyrm example, it deals 4d8+17 (bite), 4d6+8 x2 (2 claws), 2d8+8 x2 (2 wings), and 4d6+25 (tail). 8d8+12d6+74, or 152 average damage. If Mister ECL20 Barbarian happens to be at the receiving end of this unfortunate barrage, he gets to knock off a whole 30 damage. And that's only because he has DR 5/--, one of the biggest sources of DR/-- that's readily available. Even including the DR, he's either dead or not dead, and moving the point where he dies by 30 points isn't much. Especially considering the presence of bigger single-hit opponents: someone swings once, and he gets to knock off a whole five points. Basically, the things it should be good against (getting slapped so hard you go through a wall) it does practically nothing against.

[Urpriest]

Ok, I get reducing the DR itself was a good thing., but it' not, and has never been, the point I'm trying to make.

The point is as I said in my OP, much like Zanos mentioned in his post, that DR/Magic is useless, even in low levels.



This is just wrong. Unless you're saying the DR 20 of a Red Great Wyrm isn't supposed to matter, in which case, why have DR 20? No schmuck that can't afford a scroll of magic weapon will deal 20 points of damage, and even if they do, it won't matter when relative to the huge pool of HP the Dragon has.

So really, DR 20/magic is as effective as no DR. Just so a bunch of commoners can't kill with a few hundred nat 20s? Well, last I checked Dragons had ridiculous amounts of HP, AoE and Spells. Yes. Spells. The most powerful thing in the game was given to dragons, and yet they need DR/magic to not fear a bunch of commoners armed with light crossbows and a dozen bolts.

It's all just so absurd.

Why not keep it DR/+X? The guy that just got his first magical item shouldn't be able to hurt a great wyrm the same way he can hurt a teenager.

At that level, it's to make sure you don't get dealt with by comparative chaff, like a Summoned Dire Tiger or something. It's not intended to be a deterrent to the party Fighter.

[Segev]

I think their reasoning was that, since /material was no longer a "lesser" DR to the +X, /magic would be sufficient. I happen to disagree, and agree with the sentiments of the OP.

The overall reduced DR values are good.

The change to /material being its own thing, and not overridden by a hierarchy of superior materials/enchantments is a good thing. (I like my werewolves requiring silver, magical or otherwise, and not just being chumped by magic weapons of any material, for instance.)

However, the DR/+X had a very useful subsidiary effect: it made enhancement bonuses beyond +1 useful. It also made the +1 not merely useful because it was a "magic weapon tax." Having 5/+2 doesn't mean a +1 weapon is useless - far from it, it's still a +2 to hit and damage, and you only need to do 6+ damage on a hit to get something through - but it means a +2 weapon is significantly more useful than a +1 weapon in this fight, and that you weren't better off buying Flaming with that extra +1 equivalent.

I think 3.5 is strengthened if you house-rule the old /+X requirements back in, while leaving the new DR levels themselves in place.

[heavyfuel]

I started with 3.5. From my perspective it is strange to require a +3 weapon to effectively fight someone, when a +2 will do squat. Seems wrong and counter intuitive unless you get the highest bonus possible, whereas you could be getting something better for your money.

On the flip side the DR/magic as previous posters have said seems like a tax. By the time you are fighting creatures that have DR/magic, you'll have magic weapons and if you don't it unfairly screws you. I would much prefer other types of DR to be emphasized.

One crib or mix of the two systems I saw that I really liked:

+X weapons bypass DR/magic of 5 per point. So DR 20/magic would require a +4 weapon to bypass completely - but a +3 weapon could still bypass 15 of that DR (reducing it down to DR 5/magic).
The "5" per point could be scaled, as high as say 10 per +1, so a +2 weapon bypasses DR 20/magic.

Anyway, that was a fix for the problem and not an outright rules update or anything. I don't know how well it has been tested and I haven't tried it.

But yeah, I get the logic. What mechanical value does a +X weapon have in the world? So, monsters with DR/+4 seem out of place (to me). DR/magic would be cool... if everyone didn't have easy access to it and if it was a little more gradual. Like if you could be partially effective without it instead of all or nothing. *shrugs*

I use a similar howuserule, but yours is honestly better. I just might start implementing it.


DR in general is a pretty terrible mechanic. It either is practical immunity or completely irrelevant. Continuing with the great red wyrm example, it deals 4d8+17 (bite), 4d6+8 x2 (2 claws), 2d8+8 x2 (2 wings), and 4d6+25 (tail). 8d8+12d6+74, or 152 average damage. If Mister ECL20 Barbarian happens to be at the receiving end of this unfortunate barrage, he gets to knock off a whole 30 damage. And that's only because he has DR 5/--, one of the biggest sources of DR/-- that's readily available. Even including the DR, he's either dead or not dead, and moving the point where he dies by 30 points isn't much. Especially considering the presence of bigger single-hit opponents: someone swings once, and he gets to knock off a whole five points. Basically, the things it should be good against (getting slapped so hard you go through a wall) it does practically nothing against.

I partially agree with your second statement. Partially, since I wouldn't call it completely irrelavent. Being forced to use your +1 Silver Holy sword means you're not using your +5 Sword of Awesome. It also takes a small toll on your WBL.

For the rest, isn't this more a problem with the Barbarian's DR than with DR in general? If he has 20 CON his HP will average at 195. With no DR, he will survive the first full attack and die at the second. With his current DR 5, he still survives the first and dies with the second. But if he had DR 10/-, he is now lasting an extra round on average. Since high level fights are usually over by then, it seems to be just a case of mundanes not getting nice things.

[Fax Celestis]

I partially agree with your second statement. Partially, since I wouldn't call it completely irrelavent. Being forced to use your +1 Silver Holy sword means you're not using your +5 Sword of Awesome. It also takes a small toll on your WBL.

Sort of? I mean, if I have an adamantine flaming shocking vampiric longsword of collision +5 (bear with me) and I'm fighting an opponent with DR 10/silver, why would I switch weapons? My collision property coupled with the weapon's enhancement bonus mitigates the DR. Sure, I lose ten points, but if I'm downgrading to, say, a silver longsword +1, the overall loss of damage is greater than if I just sucked it up and dealt with the DR.


For the rest, isn't this more a problem with the Barbarian's DR than with DR in general? If he has 20 CON his HP will average at 195. With no DR, he will survive the first full attack and die at the second. With his current DR 5, he still survives the first and dies with the second. But if he had DR 10/-, he is now lasting an extra round on average. Since high level fights are usually over by then, it seems to be just a case of mundanes not getting nice things.
Not really, it's a problem with DR in general. Consider if the barb did have DR 10/--: that would mean that a plain longsword was incapable of hurting him at all. Pretty cool, right? Unless the person wielding it happens to have, say, 10d6 sneak attack, in which case he's still getting ganked. I would much rather see the Barbarian have, say, +30 temp HP per round while raging instead of DR 10/--. It has effectively the same effect (damage mitigation), but it's more in line with how the rest of HP mechanics are structured and is relevant against both death-by-a-thousand-cuts attacks and knock-you-through-the-wall attacks, rather than completely mitigating one and being next to worthless against the other.

[Zanos]

I still think it was a good decision because it gives people more freedom to customize their weapons. You're not obligated to increase your weapons enhancement bonus just to be relevant. WoTC was actually nice to mundanes with that change, for once.

[StoneCipher]

My theory is that DR is just horribly designed and inconsistent altogether.

[The Insaniac]

I think that DR only really makes sense if it's on a template that makes a big CR boost without adding hp or for DR/- for really strong creatures. One to compensate for the fact that the templated creature is now very vulnerable to damage because it's got really low hp for its CR. The other to show that the thing you're fighting (solar, pit fiend, great wyrm dragon, abomination, etc.) is beyond the "normal" rules of the multiverse and mortality.

Edit: Other times it's ok for thematic reasons. Like how werewolves are always vulnerable to silver in pretty much any story or myth IRL.

[Segev]

Ironically, I'd almost prefer it if werewolves used regeneration/silver rather than DR/silver.

[Fax Celestis]

Ironically, I'd almost prefer it if werewolves used regeneration/silver rather than DR/silver.

Isn't that generally how they're fluffed in myth anyway?

[VoxRationis]

On the plus side, it makes life easier for monks, for once. When my group only had the 3.0 MM, I always scoffed at the "ki strike" ability or whichever ability it is that gives them magic weapons for fists, since it would only be useful at extremely low levels. Now that ability remains useful for 20 levels. Not necessarily the "look at how awesome I am" level of useful, but the monk can still contribute to the fight against the dragon, at least up until the dragon decides to attack him.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Pathfinder has an interesting hybrid where
+3 gets passed DR/cold iron or silver
+4 gets passed DR/adamantine
+5 gets passed DR/alignment

Only actual permanent enchantment grants these abilities. If you cast greater magic weapon to make a weapon plus five it only bypasses DR/magic.

DR/magic does stop few things like hurling a dozen non-magical weapons via telekinesis. Interestingly enough DR/magic can be useful for PC's as many monsters DON'T actually have natural attacks that count as magic.

[Segev]

Isn't that generally how they're fluffed in myth anyway?It seems that way to me, yeah. You can overwhelm them with damage...temporarily...but it heals before too long.


Pathfinder has an interesting hybrid where
+3 gets passed DR/cold iron or silver
+4 gets passed DR/adamantine
+5 gets passed DR/alignment

Only actual permanent enchantment grants these abilities. If you cast greater magic weapon to make a weapon plus five it only bypasses DR/magic.

DR/magic does stop few things like hurling a dozen non-magical weapons via telekinesis. Interestingly enough DR/magic can be useful for PC's as many monsters DON'T actually have natural attacks that count as magic.See, I disliked this implementation in 3.0; magic shouldn't trump the materials. It should be its own thing. DR/magic should be DR/+X, but +5 weapons shouldn't overcome DR/silver or DR/adamantine or DR/cold iron or DR/mithral or DR/slashing or whatever. They should all be their own things.

[Lord Vukodlak]

It seems that way to me, yeah. You can overwhelm them with damage...temporarily...but it heals before too long.

See, I disliked this implementation in 3.0; magic shouldn't trump the materials. It should be its own thing. DR/magic should be DR/+X, but +5 weapons shouldn't overcome DR/silver or DR/adamantine or DR/cold iron or DR/mithral or DR/slashing or whatever. They should all be their own things.

But it gives reason to get permanent plus x's on weapons rather then having +1 with just special abilities and relying on greater magic weapon to bring it up to +5.

[Brookshw]

Personally I was okay with the DR/+x and thought the fluff was fine with some weapons being more magic than others, or creatures that had some internal nature requiring some higher form / more potent magic to over come it. I get where the OP is coming from in regards to some creature from before the stars were born needing something with a bit more oomph than cranked out by a low level wizard. One size fits all solutions tend to weaken my immersion and while we still have metals/alignments I still prefer as much of a hierarchy as possible to help establish greater levels of otherworldly or, I don't know what a good word for it would be, chuzpah? I'm sure WoTC cut the mechanism in favor of reducing the tax.

[ericgrau]

The fluff for DR/+x is fine. Mechanically it turned out to be very poor. You can't have the difficulty of an encounter vary dramatically with small differences in weaponry. Have a +3? Sorry you need a +4. Welcome to kingdom of suck on 15 DR. Hope you aren't using a many-attacks build.

If you like DR/+X you can let lower +X weapons partly overcome high +X DR and then it could work out fine.

A simple house rule would be that every +1 overcomes 5 DR/magic. So a +2 against DR 15/magic reduces it to 5 DR. Also makes it easy to deal with natural attacks since a monster with DR 10/magic could likewise overcome 10 of a foe's DR.

[Segev]

But it gives reason to get permanent plus x's on weapons rather then having +1 with just special abilities and relying on greater magic weapon to bring it up to +5.

You can achieve that without making it override /material. Just replace /magic with /+X, and include the caveat about GMW and the like not counting.

Personally, I would prefer not to have GMW not count, and instead to introduce more dispel effects.

[Segev]

The fluff for DR/+x is fine. Mechanically it turned out to be very poor. You can't have the difficulty of an encounter vary dramatically with small differences in weaponry. Have a +3? Sorry you need a +4. Welcome to kingdom of suck on 15 DR. Hope you aren't using a many-attacks build.

This is a good point. We already have a situation where, for the most part, it's better to get big singular attacks. THF is better than TWF. TWF requires twice the WBL and already does reduced damage (from str) per hit over THF, and now you MUST have a DR/+X weapon in each hand or face DR more often than your THF ally.

[Brookshw]

This is a good point. We already have a situation where, for the most part, it's better to get big singular attacks. THF is better than TWF. TWF requires twice the WBL and already does reduced damage (from str) per hit over THF, and now you MUST have a DR/+X weapon in each hand or face DR more often than your THF ally.

Certainly not a bad way to strike for a happy medium though twf is sort of always going to get the short end of the wbl stick. Encounter design additionally plays its part in the balancing act of dr. Not everything is supposed to be in the parties kill zone to begin with so its quite possible for high +X critters to end up as that outlying element to be concerned with.

[VoxRationis]

It's a shame there aren't any monsters with a damage cap per hit, like the immortals in Starcraft.

[Segev]

It's a shame there aren't any monsters with a damage cap per hit, like the immortals in Starcraft.

I suspect that is at least in part due to a difficulty of scaling such a thing in a system with a design philosophy of "higher numbers are better." This would also make it hard to value as anything other than an ad hoc device.

Given the damage numbers that can be achieved, it also would translate to, "must hit this monster (max hp)/(damage cap) times to kill it."