What's Better, DR or miss chance? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

torrasque666

2016-01-01, 08:02 PM

Its a toss up for me.

DR over Miss Chance means that when you'll get hit more often, but sometimes that little bit you shave off of the damage is enough to keep you standing while you get healed, by whichever method. Also, very valuable against mobs of little minions. And swarms. Swarms tend to not deal too much damage, and with no bonus damage rider (I.E. they don't get STR to damage, and its not considered a natural attack so no sort of Magic Fang on them) so DR is useful against them, while Miss Chance doesn't even bother (its not an attack, just conditional damage. You're in the square? you take damage. Much like lava or acid if you think about it)

Miss Chance over DR means that you'll get hit less often, but you often don't have any sort of backup or counter for when you eventually do get hit. A 50% miss chance isn't hard to get, but often times if you have that you don't have the CON or Hit Die size to survive that 1 in 2 chance that you get hit with a truck.

Quertus

2016-01-01, 08:22 PM

DR10/Evil and it would be level 13. I would have DR 8/ Evil at level 11 and DR 6/Evil at level 9 and so on,

Does it continue to improve as you level past 13? And how does the miss chance scale as you level? At what level will you be starting? Is 13 the expected level cap for the campaign?

Remind me - is DR/evil negated by anything with an evil alignment? Or is there more to it than that?

And, if you take the DR, will you have any way (items, class features, etc) to get a miss chance?

J-H

2016-01-01, 08:27 PM

Endarire

2016-01-01, 08:31 PM

At this level, miss chance. Especially if said miss chance is (Ex), meaning true seeing does nothing against it.

Nifft

2016-01-01, 08:40 PM

What % of incoming damage would DR 10/evil actually remove?

Less than 20%, I'd guess.

(That said, the best answer is both.)

stanprollyright

2016-01-01, 08:50 PM

What would you take, as a skirmisher/front melee attacker, 20% miss chance, or DR 10?

DR, even though miss chance scales better, works against more things, and is probably better numerically on average. Assuming as a frontliner you'll have good AC, and the higher your AC the less helpful miss chance is (if you're only getting hit 20% of the time, miss chance only makes 20% of those attacks miss, meaning 4% overall reduction in damage. If you are getting hit 50% of the time, it's 10% reduction in overall damage). Miss chance is also easier to get via normal means from concealment.

Jack_Simth

2016-01-01, 09:19 PM

What % of incoming damage would DR 10/evil actually remove?

Less than 20%, I'd guess.
At 13th?

Well, let's take a look at some CR 13 critters from the SRD.

I'm going to skip the dragons, as they're not pre-statted.
We have:
12 headed Cryohydra. Hits for 2d8+6, average 15. DR 10 would cut about 2/3rds of it's damage, ignoring crits.
Glabrezu: Bypasses DR 10/Evil completely.
Ice Devil: Likewise.
Ghaele: Deals 2d6+14 in melee, average 21. DR 10 would cut roughly half the damage off.
Storm Giant: Deals 4d6+21 with the sword, but has power attack. Specific percentage is AC dependant as a result. Ignoring power attack, average is 35, so DR 10 cuts off just under a third.
Iron Golem: Deals 2d10+11, average 22, so DR 10 cuts off just under half.
Golden Protector (Celestial Half-Dragon Lammasu): Deals 1d6+9 or 1d8+4, average 12.5 or 10.5. DR 10 pretty much means you giggle at it in melee.
12 headed Pyrohydra: See 12 headed Cryohydra.
Celestial Charger, 7th-Level Cleric: Horn deals 1d8+10, average 14.5; DR cuts off two-thirds of that, and makes you immune to the hooves.

So at 13th, DR is not all that bad for a melee type, although it's very swingy. A miss chance (assuming that True Seeing doesn't bypass it) is much closer to static in who it affects.

Note, though, that if you've got DR/Evil, you're a lot more likely to be fighting things that hit as Evil, so... go with the miss chance.

Nifft

2016-01-01, 09:40 PM

At 13th?

Well, let's take a look at some CR 13 critters from the SRD.

I'm going to skip the dragons, as they're not pre-statted.
We have:
12 headed Cryohydra. Hits for 2d8+6, average 15. DR 10 would cut about 2/3rds of it's damage, ignoring crits.
Glabrezu: Bypasses DR 10/Evil completely.
Ice Devil: Likewise.
Ghaele: Deals 2d6+14 in melee, average 21. DR 10 would cut roughly half the damage off.
Storm Giant: Deals 4d6+21 with the sword, but has power attack. Specific percentage is AC dependant as a result. Ignoring power attack, average is 35, so DR 10 cuts off just under a third.
Iron Golem: Deals 2d10+11, average 22, so DR 10 cuts off just under half.
Golden Protector (Celestial Half-Dragon Lammasu): Deals 1d6+9 or 1d8+4, average 12.5 or 10.5. DR 10 pretty much means you giggle at it in melee.
12 headed Pyrohydra: See 12 headed Cryohydra.
Celestial Charger, 7th-Level Cleric: Horn deals 1d8+10, average 14.5; DR cuts off two-thirds of that, and makes you immune to the hooves.

So at 13th, DR is not all that bad for a melee type, although it's very swingy. A miss chance (assuming that True Seeing doesn't bypass it) is much closer to static in who it affects.

Note, though, that if you've got DR/Evil, you're a lot more likely to be fighting things that hit as Evil, so... go with the miss chance.

Nice analysis.

To add to it, one area not covered would be spells and non-melee attack powers.

I think the 20% miss chance applies to some spells and (Su) abilities, which the DR would not protect against at all:
- The touch attack of a Shadow or Allip
- Ray of Stupidity
- Ray of Exhaustion
- Beholder eye rays
- Disintegrate (spell or eye ray)
- An NPC Warlock's Eldritch Blast

Touch attacks, and ranged touch spells, can be quite nasty.

John Longarrow

2016-01-01, 09:56 PM

I'd go DR.

You can get a permanent item with enthropic shield to give you a 20% miss chance for 2,000 gp. Its a 1st level spell.
Displacement is a 3rd level spell that gives a 50% miss chance.

Necroticplague

2016-01-01, 10:07 PM

The miss chance is more useful, because it helps protect against things that are way more potent than just HP damage. However, it's pretty easy to get that miss chance or better (i.e, LA 2 for shadow+parasol for perpetual 50% miss chance). Ultimately, I'd guage it against what I knew of the DM and the campaign. If i know the DM prefers to grind through with large amounts of mooks and battles of attrition, I'd take the DR. If i knew he prefered to cripple the PCs with status effects or use enemies that have one big blow (i.e, centaur Jump Attackers with Valorous Lances), I'd take the miss chance.

Malimar

2016-01-01, 10:59 PM

Remind me - is DR/evil negated by anything with an evil alignment? Or is there more to it than that?

Just being evil isn't enough to bypass DR/evil. You need to have the [Evil] subtype (possessed primarily by demons and devils) or an Unholy weapon or probably a couple of other methods but those are the primary ones.

ericgrau

2016-01-01, 11:15 PM

Which is longer, a rope or a string? How long is a rope? How long is a string?

We need some context here. Depends on your level. Usually you want to start with DR at low level and switch to miss chance at higher level. Because it depends how much damage foes are dealing. Pick whichever one stops the most harm, which varies by level. All well and good to say miss chance works against a greater variety, but if it's much less quantity for each then that doesn't say anything. It's all meaningless without some kind of quantification.

DR10/Evil and it would be level 13. I would have DR 8/ Evil at level 11 and DR 6/Evil at level 9 and so on,
There we go. Didn't see this at first. I'll add a new reply or edit this one after I look up some stats.

(Edited in:) I had to estimate since I didn't have precise info, but I think you're looking at around 50 damage per round and often from multiple hits. So the miss chance stops 10 damage per round and the DR stops ~20 on average. Never in my life have I fought a foe with an unholy weapon or similar, but on very rare occasion I have fought [evil] foes with natural attacks. Typically they come together too, so check if your campaign is an assault on hell or some such. Not all attacks with attack rolls are weapon damage, but it's rare for them not to be. Most non-damaging attacks are vs saving throws.

So I'm 99% sure the DR is way better. If your campaign is "The war against the lesser demons" or "The assault on the school of ray casters" then oops.

Zero_Knight

2016-01-02, 12:28 AM

I believe the bigger question is are you the GM making a encounter or a PC looking to set things up?

As a GM you know what DR your players have available to them and can even make it part of the scenario to acquire said equipment. Also it keeps the PC group that much more involved when you start flavor texting that their attacks are "bouncing off the beasts hide" or "the wounds don't seem to cut as deep". While a miss chance just has the chance to ignore hits.

As a PC I'd say a miss chance over DR as again the GM knows what is available and can equip your foes to ignore it. Same can be true of the miss chance in some cases I suppose but not every monster in the encounter should have the natural ability or forethought to ignore it.

Korivan

2016-01-02, 02:11 AM

In general I prefer to try to avoid taking damage. So I'd go for the miss chance first

gtwucla

2016-01-02, 02:16 AM

The nice thing about miss chance is that in most cases its unassailable, 20% of the time attacks miss outright. Since DR doesn't stack, I'd say its better at lower levels, but not so great at later levels.

John Longarrow

2016-01-02, 02:18 AM

OP,

In the game you are in, how hard would it be to purchase an item with enthropic shield on it? If you can get it as a permanent magic item (should be 2K) then you don't need it as a class feature / racial ability / what ever. Then you can have both the DR AND the miss chance.

Personally I'd go for displacement. 50% is much nicer.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-01-02, 02:41 AM

If you're not a spellcaster and you can't choose what magic items you get, go with the miss chance; if you can choose your magic items or you've got access to spells that grant miss chances, go with the DR.

There're cheap items and low level spells that grant miss chances, so if you have free access to them, nab 'em and take the DR.

Of course, if the DM rules that the 20% miss chance stacks with the items and spells, you should seriously consider taking the miss chance, especially at higher levels where it'll have more of an effect against stronger attacks than the DR.

bekeleven

2016-01-02, 02:54 AM

Which is longer, a rope or a string? How long is a rope? How long is a string?
Rope is longer, Eric. I think we've all been playin D&D long enough to know this.

Unless it's elven rope. Then string.

Florian

2016-01-02, 03:23 AM

I´d go for the DR as miss chance is easier to get with spells and items.
If that is not an option, I´d go for the miss chance, though.

Andezzar

2016-01-02, 03:51 AM

20% miss chance. It's not just about the HP damage. A 20% miss chance applies to things like Disintegrate, Scorching Ray, Trip, Harm, Vampiric Touch, Entangling Ectoplasm, and many other Things That Make You Suck.exactly. And DR does not even protect from damage of a fireball.

I'd go DR.

You can get a permanent item with enthropic shield to give you a 20% miss chance for 2,000 gp. Its a 1st level spell.
Displacement is a 3rd level spell that gives a 50% miss chance.Try that with the DM. I doubt many would allow it for that price. If they do follow up with a True Strike item.

ShneekeyTheLost

2016-01-02, 04:01 AM

I'd go with the 20% miss chance, personally.

Damage is meaningless unless it deals so much damage that DR is pointless. Doing damage does nothing to a character unless it is enough to kill him. The 20% miss chance, however, gives him a way out of most means of avoiding saving throws (i.e. make it an attack roll instead). I wouldn't be worried about being hit by a club. I'd be worried about being hit by Enervation.

The only thing DR is really good at is making you literally immune to masses of very weak enemies. Who aren't much of a threat anyway. Go with the 1 in 5 'get out of SoL free' card.

Instead of DR, get something like persisted lesser vigor or something that heals over time. Much more efficient.

SangoProduction

2016-01-02, 05:31 AM

DR, even though miss chance scales better, works against more things, and is probably better numerically on average. Assuming as a frontliner you'll have good AC, and the higher your AC the less helpful miss chance is (if you're only getting hit 20% of the time, miss chance only makes 20% of those attacks miss, meaning 4% overall reduction in damage. If you are getting hit 50% of the time, it's 10% reduction in overall damage). Miss chance is also easier to get via normal means from concealment.

Actually, Armor doesn't even factor in to this, as it has an opportunity cost against your DR just as much as your hit chance. Wait, I take that back. Armor is actually working very highly in favor of miss chance as opposed to DR.

DR is good against: low level, lightly-hitting swarms with mundane weaponry. Not effective against heavy hitters (meaning those who are of decent level)

Armor is best against: low level, low-skilled martial classes (which are what most swarms are made of). Only effective against a small subset of attacks.

Miss chance is good against: Everything equally. But it works on more types of attacks.

-

Me personally, I buff DR such that it's universal damage reduction (even against fire and what have you), but that still doesn't fix the overlap of DR and AC. Those who are most likely to break through your AC are also the ones that are most likely to not give a damn about your DR because they are dealing a bunch of damage.

Miss chance: you will always negate 20% of those attacks that make it through your armor.

-

Of course, there are easy ways to get miss chance from other sources, in all likelihood, so it's possible that DR is actually more valuable here. It depends entirely on the campaign. If you actually have to choose, exclusively, which one to pick up, take miss chance.

Waazraath

2016-01-02, 05:45 AM

I´d go for the DR as miss chance is easier to get with spells and items.
If that is not an option, I´d go for the miss chance, though.

Second this. A cloack of displacement is easy enough to get, while a DR 10/- item doesn't even exist as far as I know.

Esprit15

2016-01-02, 05:46 AM

Take the one that's harder to get, then grab the other one from the easier method.

Andezzar

2016-01-02, 06:35 AM

Second this. A cloack of displacement is easy enough to get, while a DR 10/- item doesn't even exist as far as I know.The OP is talking about DR 10/Evil at level 13 not DR 10/-. Stoneskin grants DR 10/adamantine. While not DR 10/-, I think adamantine weapons are a lot less common than foes with the Evil subtype.

John Longarrow

2016-01-02, 07:10 AM

Andezzar

As DM, I'd have no problem with a cheap 20% miss chance item. Most players would like it less, as it would be more common with monsters and NPCs, but it falls into the group of magic items artificially overpriced. A 1 level dip in warlock gives you a 20% miss chance if you want it. Since its the kind of item that benefits melee and skill monkey builds most, I'm not very concerned about party balance. Same cost as a +1 weapon to help out the character types that need the most help.

I understand the action economy well enough to know that its a reasonable trade-off. A single scroll is 25gp. A wand doing the same is 750.

For a ring of true strike, so long as it works like the spell its not really that broken. Burn a standard action turn one, +20 turn two. Just means someone besides the wizard gets a chance to do it. Very few builds can actually take advantage since it only applies to a single attack every other round. Actually gets less useful at higher levels because everyone is trying to do more than just 'hit it once'.

Waazraath

2016-01-02, 08:44 AM

The OP is talking about DR 10/Evil at level 13 not DR 10/-. Stoneskin grants DR 10/adamantine. While not DR 10/-, I think adamantine weapons are a lot less common than foes with the Evil subtype.

Ah, check. In that case: I agree that /adamentine is better then /evil. Don't like stoneskin though, cause it adds to cases of book keeping (the component, and the damage prevented by every use). The usefulness of /evil depeds a bit on the campaign, against the giants it's almost just as good as /-, but into the abyss to fight demons it's pretty useless.

ericgrau

2016-01-02, 08:56 AM

The OP is talking about DR 10/Evil at level 13 not DR 10/-. Stoneskin grants DR 10/adamantine. While not DR 10/-, I think adamantine weapons are a lot less common than foes with the Evil subtype.

Stoneskin isn't 24 hours.

A cloak of minor displacement OTOH is 20,000 gp which is a bit pricey at level 13. But there are much cheaper ways in splatbooks. But you can also get cheap armor crystals that give around DR 3/adamantine IIRC.

Rope is longer, Eric. I think we've all been playin D&D long enough to know this.

Unless it's elven rope. Then string.
Lol, thank you for that.

Actually this is what everyone keeps assuming. Duh, doesn't it seem like rope would be longer than string? Which sounds right but without quantities it's complete nonsense.

Can someone please look up the cheapest way to get 24 hour or swift/immediate activated 20% miss chance? Can someone please dig up the best deal on 24 hour or swift/immediate activated DR, giving price and amount of DR? Type usually doesn't matter, because just about everything except DR/piercing or DR/slashing or DR/bludgeoning or DR/magic is uncommon for foes to defeat. Personally I totally forgot what the miss chance items are and I only remember the armor crystals for minor DR; I dunno if there are other affordable items.

Once we get those figures we can make a better comparison. In a vacuum at level 13 I said the DR is much better, but items could change that or further enforce that.

Jack_Simth

2016-01-02, 09:13 AM

Can someone please cheap up the cheapest way to get 24 hour or swift/immediate activated 20% miss chance?+1 Smoking (Lords of Darkness, page 180) weapon. Standard action to activate, but no duration listed. Put it on armor spikes, a shield spike, or some other weapon you can wield without eating up a hand / body slot (perhaps a Braid Blade, Dungeon Magazine # 120, page 35; Complete Scoundrel also has a nice set of options on page 110 - Boot Blade, Elbow Blade, Knee Blade, or Sleeve Blade; Poison Ring from Dragon Compendium... oh yes, also the lowly Gauntlet... fair number of options, really).

Grants partial concealment, and a stinking cloud effect in your square only. You are explicitly able to see through the smoke without penalty, and are unaffected by the stinking cloud effect. Everyone else, however, gets some vision blocked and maybe chokes if they enter your square. 8k + the base weapon used (a masterwork boot, elbow, or sleeve blade would be 304). Doesn't work on AoO's for movement, though, as it reforms when you stop. Standard action activation, but no duration, so set it and forget it.

ExLibrisMortis

2016-01-02, 09:57 AM

Andezzar

2016-01-02, 09:59 AM

Entropic shield only works against ranged attacks.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-01-02, 10:52 AM

There's the ring of entropic deflection from the MIC p123 that grants you a 20% miss chance against ranged attacks if you finish the round 10' or more from your starting position for 8,000 gp. Combining it with an item that enhances your speed (which can be similarly inexpensive), this miss chance increases to 50%. Much less expensive than buying DR.

Of course, if you're a monk and give your unarmed strike an enhancement bonus, you gain hardness, which is superior to DR in every possible way. You can also enhance your hardness directly through spells and psionic powers.

Rope is longer, Eric. I think we've all been playin D&D long enough to know this.

Unless it's elven rope. Then string.I knew those longbows and longswords were compensating for something.

[edit] Also, a ring of the darkhidden + the darklight cantrip = full concealment from everything.

Nifft

2016-01-02, 12:43 PM

Actually this is what everyone keeps assuming. Duh, doesn't it seem like rope would be longer than string? Which sounds right but without quantities it's complete nonsense.

Why are you assuming that all rope is identical? Duh, non-illusionary miss chances are much more valuable than stuff that can be blown through by True Seeing. The cheapest source of Concealment is not as great at level 13 as it was at level 2.

Does this miss chance stack with the miss chance from Concealment? Does it stack with the miss chance from Greater Blink?

Having 20% miss chance over and above the 50% miss chance from Improved Invisibility would be rather spiffy.

ericgrau

2016-01-02, 12:54 PM

Why are you assuming that all rope is identical? Duh, non-illusionary miss chances are much more valuable than stuff that can be blown through by True Seeing. The cheapest source of Concealment is not as great at level 13 as it was at level 2.

Does this miss chance stack with the miss chance from Concealment? Does it stack with the miss chance from Greater Blink?

Having 20% miss chance over and above the 50% miss chance from Improved Invisibility would be rather spiffy.

Uh oh now we've brought chain and cords into the mix.

Jack_Simth

2016-01-02, 01:16 PM

Why are you assuming that all rope is identical? Duh, non-illusionary miss chances are much more valuable than stuff that can be blown through by True Seeing. The cheapest source of Concealment is not as great at level 13 as it was at level 2.

Does this miss chance stack with the miss chance from Concealment? Does it stack with the miss chance from Greater Blink?

Having 20% miss chance over and above the 50% miss chance from Improved Invisibility would be rather spiffy.

A +1 Smoking Weapon Enhancement on an Elbow, Sleeve, or Boot Blade would be 8,304 gp, and is a concealment miss chance from a cloud - True Seeing doesn't help. Can be added for that price to almost any character that's not already maximizing the number of wielded weapons.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-01-02, 01:56 PM

A +1 Smoking Weapon Enhancement on an Elbow, Sleeve, or Boot Blade would be 8,304 gp, and is a concealment miss chance from a cloud - True Seeing doesn't help. Can be added for that price to almost any character that's not already maximizing the number of wielded weapons.You've also got the potential to add it to knee blades, armor spikes, your shield (because shield bashes are a thing), shield spikes, gauntlets, braid blades, tail scythe/club, poison rings, either side (or the bow aspect) of an elvencraft longbow, a bow blade, a horned helm, a dorje (as they can be used as weapons) in a wand bracer or wand chamber, and a close combat blade attached to any or all of those.

Jack_Simth

2016-01-02, 02:02 PM

You've also got the potential to add it to knee blades, armor spikes, your shield (because shield bashes are a thing), shield spikes, gauntlets, braid blades, tail scythe/club, poison rings, either side (or the bow aspect) of an elvencraft longbow, a bow blade, a horned helm, a dorje (as they can be used as weapons) in a wand bracer or wand chamber, and a close combat blade attached to any or all of those.

Yes, with a small amount of work you can be weilding a rather lot of weapons simultaneously in D&D. Hmm... actually, that does bring up an interesting question: How many weapon properties are there which don't require attacking to use? I think I'll start a thread to ask....

John Longarrow

2016-01-02, 04:01 PM

(Not a response to ericgrau's question, but to John Longarrow's suggestion further up)

Entropic shield would cost 4000 gp for a permanent item. It has a native duration of 1 minute per level, so it has a 2x cost multiplier to the base price of 1 * 1 * 2000. It won't work on melee attacks, only for anything that requires a ranged attack roll, so it's not a proper 20% miss chance. In addition, it's pretty easy to dispel, at that point, but that's probably not a big drawback in this campaign.

Keep forgetting the x2 for minutes instead of 10 minute durations. Still, shows just how badly overpriced some of the items in DMG are, especially when one level dips in classes can get you exactly the same thing without seriously nerfing most builds.

Warblade 5 VS warblade 4 / Warlock 1 should illustrate the point.
Straight warblade is going to have a 3rd level maneuver. Warlock gets an invocation and eldritch blast.
Straight warblade is up a point of BAB and 2 HP. Warlock has stronger saves.
Next level the warblade gets a 2nd attack. If the DM's cool with it, the Warlock could take a feat to up their Warlock caster level by 4 and up their blast to 3d6.

Both are very playable and still comparable in ability. The tens of thousands of gold you have to pay for a 20% or 50% miss chance (per DMG) is not in line to what simply dipping a class level can give. I know, you can always get more gold. Problem is with the same gold the warlock dip gets a lot more neat toys than a straight warblade.

Bottom line is some of the most outrageous prices are on items that non-casters need the most. Casters can easily get that ability or don't need it near as much.

Andezzar

2016-01-02, 05:32 PM

Breath of the Night is quite different from a minor cloak of displacement. The "fog cloud" does not move with the caster and activating it requires a standard action.

Nifft

2016-01-03, 12:05 AM

Uh oh now we've brought chain and cords into the mix.

You had a problem about string vs. rope, but the answer was always spiked chain.

Eladrinblade

2016-01-03, 12:42 AM

DR10/Evil and it would be level 13. I would have DR 8/ Evil at level 11 and DR 6/Evil at level 9 and so on,

Take the DR. You can get miss chance from other sources, like blur or better yet, entropic shield.

zergling.exe

2016-01-03, 01:32 AM

Take the DR. You can get miss chance from other sources, like blur or better yet, entropic shield.

Why does entropic shield keep being brought up? It only works on ranged attacks, so blur would be better.

John Longarrow

2016-01-03, 01:39 AM

zergling.exe

Blur would be a better choice for most situations. Same level and duration, just different caster.

Eladrinblade

2016-01-03, 02:00 AM

Why does entropic shield keep being brought up? It only works on ranged attacks, so blur would be better.

Yes, but it's not a concealment effect, so it isn't lost to improved precise shot or true sight or whatever.

oxybe

2016-01-03, 08:39 AM

mathmatically speaking? miss chance.

let's say two characters, Bob and Tim, have about 34 AC, to where monsters hit about 40% of the time already and are at the point where monsters deal ~50 damage. which in pathfinder terms is level 13 (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html). hooray for charts! i use the pf one since the game is generally pretty close to standard 3.5 and i don't have that one on hand.

in the first case assuming those 50 damage averages collide, DR applies and it's reduced to 40. 40x a 40% hit rate = an average 16 damage taken per round or so.

in the second case, you still get the same 16 damage per round average. if 40% of those 50 damage attacks hit, you'll be taking 20/round. the miss chance turns 1/5 attacks into a miss, which further reduces the damage per round to 16!

now, that's just raw "big numbers" talking. how that damage is delivered matters: if it's in a volley of multiple attacks, DR's effect will be more significant while how easy it is to negate may also come into play. same with miss % : against big hits, especially those in the above 50 damage attacks, you'll get more mileage, and like DR there are ways around it.

HOWEVER, as mentionned, miss chance is exacly that: chance to miss. any effect that requires enemies to land a blow or connect is affected by this and can give you a buffer on the off-chance that something does connect.

to quote earlier

20% miss chance. It's not just about the HP damage. A 20% miss chance applies to things like Disintegrate, Scorching Ray, Trip, Harm, Vampiric Touch, Entangling Ectoplasm, and many other Things That Make You Suck.

I've lost characters to those effects before and they are among the worst out there. As long as you're alive after it connects, you can heal that damage. some of those effects? you might simply not survive because that's what it does.

Florian

2016-01-03, 11:12 AM

Well, that mainly showcases how a layered defense should work and how two of the three main pillars (Damage Evasion, Damage Negation) should work (The missing pillar is (Reactive) Damage Healing).
In a sense, that´s also my main problem with the question, as it compares the first line with nearly the last line of defense you could have.

Imho, it should look like this:

- Damage Evasion:
1) Check for static Miss Chance (Cover, Concealment, Spell)
2) Check for AC/Save/SR
- Damage Mitigation
3) Reduce incoming damage by DR/Immunity/Resistance
4) Check Regeneration
5) Reduce hp

Now me, I´m always in favor of an even-handed approach, as any of these lines of defense can be breached and your next line should be up and holding.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-01-03, 11:16 AM

Again, I put forth that it's how much access you have to sources of miss chances and whether this miss chance stacks with those which should determine which one you take. If you'll have native access or you can buy some cheap sources of miss chances, take the DR, since it's comparatively VERY hard to get cheaply in any quantity. Otherwise, you should probably take the miss chance, since it'll get even more valuable as you level up as it mitigates more and more damage.

CharonsHelper

2016-01-03, 11:27 AM

Zancloufer

2016-01-03, 12:18 PM

There's actually not a lot of monster than do enough DPH that mathematically DR 10-13/Evil is worse than 20% miss chance. Not to mention that getting miss chance is easier and cheaper from items and spells.

Also someone mentioned that round level 13 enemies would do ~50+ damage in an attack right? Looking at, let's say an adult green dragon (CR 13) it does about 63 damage in a full attack from 6 different attacks. With some buffs it does a good 20-30 more. The problem is that's ~80 damage from 6 different attacks. Your miss chance would probably negate about 10-20 damage depending on which attack missed. Your DR 10-13/Evil would reduce that 80 damage to >10 as most of it's attacks do 8-18 points of damage. Yes monsters can do massive damage at later levels, but 80% of the time it's from 2+ attacks, which makes that DR a lot more useful.

Unless your fighting hoards of Demons or Devils. Anything with the Evil Subtype really. Then the miss chance is better. Also DR 10+ really helps against volleys of attacks, like archers and TWF type characters.

ericgrau

2016-01-03, 12:21 PM

Against physical attacks DR 10/- is better against damage up to 49. (As it reduces the damage more than 20%) Against non-physical damage (elemental attack rolls etc.) and/or damage over 50 the 20% miss chance is better. Plus the 20% miss chance has secondary benefits such as defending against some precision damage and giving you concealment for stealth checks and some other secondary benefits. (Ex: If you're playing Pathfinder it helps with the Moonlight Stalker feats.)

So... it depends. As others have said - the higher the level the more the scale shifts towards the 20% miss chance.

That's 49 damage per hit not damage per round though. That's a lot, especially at level 13.

While concealment allows hiding and concealment can provide miss chance, miss chance does not provide concealment.

I've heard of a few 20% miss chance items before, but not affordable 24 hour DR 10 items. I think the best bet would be to take the DR 10/evil and then get some kind of item that gives 24 hours of miss chance (or swift/immediate activated, or at-will, etc.).

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-01-03, 12:26 PM

There's actually not a lot of monster than do enough DPH that mathematically DR 10-13/Evil is worse than 20% miss chance. Not to mention that getting miss chance is easier and cheaper from items and spells.You also have to take into account the fact that DR doesn't work against anything but physical attacks, while miss chances work against anything with an attack roll that doesn't have a buff specifically designed to overcome said miss chance. DR doesn't work against spells, for instance. There's also the idea that miss chances also negate some things entirely, such as sneak attacks.

P.F.

2016-01-03, 12:56 PM

Comparative Benefit Analysis
% Miss Chance
DR x/evil

Protection vs Magic
Yes
No

Protection vs Evil Outsiders &c.
Yes
No

Protection from 1000 Papercuts
Partial
Total

Hard-to-Find as Item/Spell
No
Yes

Better than Similar Item/Spell
Probably
No

Avg. Dmg. from Heavy Hitter at Lvl 13
16
16

Starbuck_II

2016-01-03, 01:42 PM

What about Hardness 10, DR 10/evil, or 20% miss?

Hardness reduces elemental damage and stacks with energy resistance.

ExLibrisMortis

2016-01-03, 01:48 PM

Hardness 10 is really hard to get as player character. I'd definitely take it over 20% miss chance. Not only is it rare, it protects against practically everything.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-01-03, 01:50 PM

Hardness 10 is really hard to get as player character. I'd definitely take it over 20% miss chance. Not only is it rare, it protects against practically everything.A monk who enhances his unarmed strikes automatically gains hardness from enhancement bonuses, and since his unarmed strike counts as both a manufactured weapon AND a natural weapon, gaining enhancement bonuses isn't terribly difficult, especially if you're a spellcaster with a monk dip. Plus, it's a perfectly valid target for both the hardening spell and the matter manipulation power (which stack, by the way).

Necroticplague

2016-01-03, 02:03 PM

A monk who enhances his unarmed strikes automatically gains hardness from enhancement bonuses*,

and since his unarmed strike counts as both a manufactured weapon AND a natural weapon, gaining enhancement bonuses isn't terribly difficult, especially if you're a spellcaster with a monk dip.

Plus, it's a perfectly valid target for both the hardening spell and the matter manipulation power*

(which stack, by the way).

Can I get a source on the ones I put asterisks after in the quote? The first seems to require that a Monk IS his unarmed strike, not an unarmed strike being something monks have. And using the same logic, it would also mean monks get 10 HP for every +1 on their unarmed strike.

The second seems flat-out false. Hardening targets an item, which an Unarmed Strike does not seem to be. Matter Manipulation specifically mentions 'inanimate material', of which an Unarmed Strike definitely is not (as it has no material).

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-01-03, 02:21 PM

Can I get a source on the ones I put asterisks after in the quote? The first seems to require that a Monk IS his unarmed strike, not an unarmed strike being something monks have. And using the same logic, it would also mean monks get 10 HP for every +1 on their unarmed strike.A monk can use any part of his body for unarmed strikes, so it follows that enhancing the monk's unarmed strikes must enhance every part of the body that can be used for them. Headbutts (head), shoulder-checks (shoulders), body-slams (torso), clotheslines (arms), elbow-strikes (elbows), punches (hands), finger-jabs (fingers), hip-checks (hips), choke-hold/neck-snaps (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MurderousThighs) (thighs), knee-strikes (knees), shin-strikes (shins), kicks (feet). Literally every section of the body can be used to strike with, and they all count as unarmed strikes, so literally every section of the body must be enhanced the same way if you enhance your unarmed strike.

The second seems flat-out false. Hardening targets an item, which an Unarmed Strike does not seem to be. Matter Manipulation specifically mentions 'inanimate material', of which an Unarmed Strike definitely is not (as it has no material).Monk unarmed strikes explicitly count as manufactured weaponry, and any manufactured weapon can be affected by hardening, though I think you're right about matter manipulation.

Platymus Pus

2016-01-03, 02:43 PM

Monk unarmed strikes explicitly count as manufactured weaponry, and any manufactured weapon can be affected by hardening, though I think you're right about matter manipulation.

Some very crude jokes could be made at a monk's expense here if they haven't already.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-01-03, 02:49 PM

Some very crude jokes could be made at a monk's expense here if they haven't already.Vegeta took a level in monk. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlf0PBO1ed0)

And badass. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNOYeaRWmxU)

Necroticplague

2016-01-03, 02:55 PM

A monk can use any part of his body for unarmed strikes, so it follows that enhancing the monk's unarmed strikes must enhance every part of the body that can be used for them. Headbutts (head), shoulder-checks (shoulders), body-slams (torso), clotheslines (arms), elbow-strikes (elbows), punches (hands), finger-jabs (fingers), hip-checks (hips), choke-hold/neck-snaps (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MurderousThighs) (thighs), knee-strikes (knees), shin-strikes (shins), kicks (feet). Literally every section of the body can be used to strike with, and they all count as unarmed strikes, so literally every section of the body must be enhanced the same way if you enhance your unarmed strike. Or, alternatively, it means that an unarmed strike exists separately from the body used to deliver it. After all, an Adamantine Golem Monk and a Half-Goristro Monk of the same amount of monk levels and Stregnth hit for the same, even though one is made of metal, and the other flesh. An Unarmed Strike doesn't exist as a physical object.

Monk unarmed strikes explicitly count as manufactured weaponry, and any manufactured weapon can be affected by hardening, though I think you're right about matter manipulation.

Bolded part is false. Hardening's target is "One item of a volume no greater than 10 cu. ft./level". Most weapons are a subset of this, but an Unarmed Strike is not (an Unarmed Strike not being an object).

Either way, you run into a problem: those things only increase hardness. However, an unarmed strike lacks a hardness to begin with, and you can't increase something that isn't present (much like how putting a +2 headband on intelligence on a skeleton doesn't do anything).

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-01-03, 03:37 PM

Or, alternatively, it means that an unarmed strike exists separately from the body used to deliver it.Which makes no sense whatsoever.

Bolded part is false. Hardening's target is "One item of a volume no greater than 10 cu. ft./level". Most weapons are a subset of this, but an Unarmed Strike is not (an Unarmed Strike not being an object). An unarmed strike can be an item. It's a weapon, just like all the rest, though it does have its own rules for some things.

There's nothing restricting a creature from also being an item. If there were, intelligent items wouldn't exist.

Unless you have an official source?

Either way, you run into a problem: those things only increase hardness. However, an unarmed strike lacks a hardness to begin with, and you can't increase something that isn't present (much like how putting a +2 headband on intelligence on a skeleton doesn't do anything).Then how do you get DR on someone who doesn't already have it? Natural armor? Obviously creatures who don't already have those things can't acquire it. Obviously.

What's your source for this?

Jack_Simth

2016-01-03, 04:08 PM

Then how do you get DR on someone who doesn't already have it?
The majority of sources of DR just say that they give the target a fixed amount of a particular type - they don't stack. Those that do specify that they stack. So with adamantine, for instance, it's "Armor made from adamantine grants its wearer damage reduction of 1/- if it’s light armor, 2/- if it’s medium armor, and 3/- if it’s heavy armor" - it doesn't increase existing DR, it just sets the DR property - sort of like how PaO deals with Int.

Natural armor? Obviously creatures who don't already have those things can't acquire it. Obviously.Most instances that grant natural armor (such as the Barkskin spell) include the line: "A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0" or equivalent. Both this, and the DR setup, are exceptions to the normal rules...

What's your source for this?
... which are found in the nonabilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities) section.

Andezzar

2016-01-03, 04:14 PM

Then how do you get DR on someone who doesn't already have it? Natural armor? Obviously creatures who don't already have those things can't acquire it. Obviously.Getting an ability is different from improving an ability. The former can be done with any creature, but the latter only with those that already have that ability. It's just like an enhancement bonus to INT. If you have INT it is improved, but if you don't the +X means nothing. Compare that to spells like Awaken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/awaken.htm) which grant an INT score.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-01-03, 04:22 PM

Andezzar

2016-01-03, 04:33 PM

Creatures are perfectly capable of having hardness. Otherwise, psicrystals and other constructs wouldn't get it.It's not that creatures cannot have hardness, but that an enhancement bonus only improves existing hardness:
Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield and +10 to the item’s hit points.
Unfortunately it is not so clear cut for the hit points. I'd still say the monk does not get extra hit points because the unarmed strike is a natural or manufactured weapon and thus not the monk himself. The monk however has hit points and attacking the monk depletes his hit points, not the hit points of his weapon.

Necroticplague

2016-01-03, 04:35 PM

Which makes no sense whatsoever.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. it's not my body that intrinsically has an unarmed strike, there are many creatures with a body like mine. The unarmed strike is in my knowledge of how to use my body to inflict injurry. Just as the knowledge in a book is not intrinsic to any physical property of the book, my unarmed strike is not instrinsic to any physical property of my body.

Which makes no sense whatsoever.
An unarmed strike can be an item. It's a weapon, just like all the rest, though it does have its own rules for some things.

There's nothing restricting a creature from also being an item. If there were, intelligent items wouldn't exist.

Unless you have an official source?[/quote]
1. Because of the basic way the DnD rules work, the burden of evidence is not on me to prove a negative. You can not do something unless the rules state that you can. The burden is on your to prove your statement is correct, while mine (An unarmed strike is not same as the creature with it) is true simply by refutation of yours.

2. An unarmed strike is a weapon, true. This does not mean it's an item. Natural Weapons are also weapons, but are not items (instead being a property of the creature, much like an unarmed strike).

3.Actually, yes, there are restriction against items being creatures. Here's a link to them (scroll down to 'wisdom' or 'charisma' (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_nonabilities&alpha=N). If you'll note, the rules for intelligent items actually bring this up, by mentioning that intelligent items are, in fact, creatures.

Magic items sometimes have intelligence of their own. Magically imbued with sentience, these items think and feel the same way characters do and should be treated as NPCs. Intelligent items have extra abilities and sometimes extraordinary powers and special purposes. Only permanent magic items (as opposed to single-use items or those with charges) can be intelligent. (This means that potions, scrolls, and wands, among other items, are never intelligent.) In general, less than 1% of magic items have intelligence.

Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise.

Unlike most magic items, intelligent items can activate their own powers without waiting for a command word from their owner. Intelligent items act during their owner’s turn in the initiative order.

Then how do you get DR on someone who doesn't already have it? Natural armor? Obviously creatures who don't already have those things can't acquire it. Obviously.

What's your source for this?

Because you can gain DR and natural armor bonuses. However, if you don't have any you can't increase it. Yes, you can acquire things you don't have. however, you can't do it using things that add on top of stuff.There is a very big difference between "you gain DR 1/-" and "you increase your DR/- by one" The latter won't give you anything if you don't already have the DR. For an example of this, look at the Barbarian class feature. Note it makes a distinction between gaining the first point, and improving it later. Most instances of such things that I can think of tend to take this into account. However, those rules about hardness and hardness-increasing spells don't have any caveat for what happens if you use it on something that doesn't have a defined hardness. So, let's say you have an enhancement bonus to your unarmed strike. Amulet of Mighty fists, Necklace of Natural Attacks, Magic Fang, whatever. This increases the Hardness of the weapon by two. Now tell me: what is the Unarmed Strike's hardness after this is done? Since the normal hardness of an unarmed strike isn't defined anywhere, so how do you know what number you end up with after the addition?

Anyway, you have so far, not in any way proven that an unarmed strike is, physically, the creature itself. So an enhancement bonus to the unarmed strike will increase the unarmed strike's hardness (ill-defined as that may be). Why would this translate into increasing the creature's hardness? I fail to see anything in the rules for unarmed Strikes that create this equivalence.

Creatures are perfectly capable of having hardness. Otherwise, psicrystals and other constructs wouldn't get it. And giving a creature an enhancement bonus gives it hardness and extra hp, like the rules say it does.

It says that giving enhancement bonuses to weapon, armor, or shield increases it's hardness and hit points. This is quite distinct a statement from saying a creature with enhancement bonuses get those benefits. And even so, you have yet to show any way of giving a creature an enhancement bonus, instead of merely one of it's natural weapons.

draxsiss

2016-01-03, 04:48 PM

P.F.

2016-01-03, 06:17 PM

Miss chance all the way. If things are attacking you for physical damage/attacks you are doing something wrong at high levels. At low levels its closer but miss chance IMO still gets the points. Spells/spell like abilitys nature, everything is affected by miss chance not just physical damage.

All other concerns aside, physical attacks do more than just HP damage: often they have rider effects. This includes all sorts of thins from poison to negative levels or ability drain to things like Snatch/Improved Grab.

While miss chance might be easier to get from spells or items, a static, always-on miss chance against all attack rolls, ranged and melee, is probably hard to beat. Unless you can get it to also grant concealment:smallbiggrin:

ryu

2016-01-03, 06:44 PM

All other concerns aside, physical attacks do more than just HP damage: often they have rider effects. This includes all sorts of thins from poison to negative levels or ability drain to things like Snatch/Improved Grab.

While miss chance might be easier to get from spells or items, a static, always-on miss chance against all attack rolls, ranged and melee, is probably hard to beat. Unless you can get it to also grant concealment:smallbiggrin:

Also if this always on miss chance stacks with other easily obtainable miss chances the value is incredible.

Beheld

2016-01-03, 07:01 PM

Creatures are perfectly capable of having hardness. Otherwise, psicrystals and other constructs wouldn't get it. And giving a creature an enhancement bonus gives it hardness and extra hp, like the rules say it does.

I want to know what source you are using to turn your unarmed strike into a magical weapon. Because the rules for what a +1 Do to magical weapons don't apply except if you are explicitly enchanting your unarmed strike.

Both Amulet of Natural Attacks and Greater Magic Weapon merely give an enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls, which is completely different from being a magical weapon, which is the thing that gives a hardness increase.

Andezzar

2016-01-03, 07:21 PM

I want to know what source you are using to turn your unarmed strike into a magical weapon. Because the rules for what a +1 Do to magical weapons don't apply except if you are explicitly enchanting your unarmed strike.

Both Amulet of Natural Attacks and Greater Magic Weapon merely give an enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls, which is completely different from being a magical weapon, which is the thing that gives a hardness increase.A weapon with a +1 (or greater) enhancement bonus that is caused by magic, is a magic weapon. Or are you trying to tell us that weapons enhanced with the magic weapon spell are not magic weapons?

There is also this:
Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield and +10 to the item’s hit points.

Beheld

2016-01-03, 07:49 PM

A weapon with a +1 (or greater) enhancement bonus that is caused by magic, is a magic weapon. Or are you trying to tell us that weapons enhanced with the magic weapon spell are not magic weapons?

There is also this:

Yes, a magic weapon that is a magic item gets increased hardness. That doesn't mean that the an item with the magic weapon spell cast on it gains increased hardness anymore than it means a weapon with Magic weapon cast on it becomes Masterwork, or has a +1 bonus for the purpose of adding additional enchantments. All it means is that it has a bonus to attack and damage rolls:

"Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls."

Note that it does not say it turns it into a magic weapon, or that it turns it into a magic item, which is required for you to argue that you get the hardness.

Andezzar

2016-01-03, 08:10 PM

Applying the Magic Weapon spell definitely makes the weapon a magic weapon:
Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters.

The unarmed strike though would not get the increased hardness though unless it had hardness in the first place.

Beheld

2016-01-03, 08:27 PM

Applying the Magic Weapon spell definitely makes the weapon a magic weapon:

The unarmed strike though would not get the increased hardness though unless it had hardness in the first place.

Applying the Magic Weapon spell allows it to bypass DR, that doesn't turn it into a magic weapon, and I have no idea why you would think it does. There are tons of statements about Magic Weapons and it would make no sense for a spell to trigger any of them. Hardness is the least problematic. If the spell turned weapons into masterwork, or allowed you to make +0 Eager/Warning/Spell Immunity weapons just by casting a spell that would be far more problematic than making your unsunerderable natural weapons harder to sunder and giving people an opportunity to make tortured arguments to grant themselves hardness.

The very next sentence describes another method of using things that aren't magic weapons to bypass DR/Magic.

P.F.

2016-01-03, 09:51 PM

No. The rule for this is very specific.

Her unarmed attacks are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction ... At 16th level, her unarmed attacks are treated as adamantine weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction and bypassing hardness.

In other respects a monk's unarmed attacks are treated as unarmed attacks, except where specific rules say otherwise. Furthermore, while the monk's unarmed attacks are treated as magic weapons (and manufactured and/or natural weapons) for specific purposes, the monk's unarmed attacks have the specific property of adamantine which bypasses hardness, not the property of hardness itself.

Platymus Pus

2016-01-03, 10:01 PM

Anyway get the DR, you can just get the miss chance from a certain minor cloak.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/c-d/cloak-of-displacement
Of course if that miss chance stacks with that cloak I'd suggest the miss chance instead.

P.F.

2016-01-03, 10:04 PM

Platymus Pus

2016-01-03, 10:11 PM

Would not the cloak still be negated by true seeing or similar?

Only true seeing as far as I know.
But that means it's either constant, which is rather uncommon far as I know, or someone wasted a round casting it.
Or in the other case a wizard prepped which means you're going to have other problems to worry about and your flat miss chance will help you anyway.
It'll "stack" miss chances otherwise I believe if it's just a flat 20% miss chance no matter what due to different miss effects. And since miss effect a lot of things it'd be an investment.
Could stack it with Starmantle Cloak into one item if you had enough money.
The DM will honestly have a harder time with the miss chance he's giving than DR because DR is reliable and constant.

Beheld

2016-01-04, 01:03 AM

No. The rule for this is very specific.

In other respects a monk's unarmed attacks are treated as unarmed attacks, except where specific rules say otherwise. Furthermore, while the monk's unarmed attacks are treated as magic weapons (and manufactured and/or natural weapons) for specific purposes, the monk's unarmed attacks have the specific property of adamantine which bypasses hardness, not the property of hardness itself.

They aren't arguing that a Monk has hardness because of that line, they are arguing the following:

1) Monks weapons are treated as manufactured weapons for the purpose of spells and effects.
2) Casting Magic Weapon has a completely unstated effect of incorporating all the rules under the section on Magic Weapons, including turning them masterwork, and also increasing their hardness.
3) Monks unarmed strikes have a hardness of zero, not a hardness of -. (This is one part of the argument that people are arguing with that I agree with the pro Monk-hardness people.)
4) Monks, the character, have the same hardness as monk unarmed strikes, because they can hit with different parts of their body, it follows that every part of their body has this hardness.

Notice that 4 doesn't even, and couldn't possibly even, have any actual rules citation, since it amounts to "I sure feel like my burning hands spell should start a fire that burns down this entire forest instead of just doing 5d4 damage to some trees in a cone."

But notice that no part of it relies on the line about piercing damage reduction.

Eladrinblade

2016-01-04, 02:54 AM

Applying the Magic Weapon spell allows it to bypass DR, that doesn't turn it into a magic weapon, and I have no idea why you would think it does.

Uhhhh....what.

ryu

2016-01-04, 03:01 AM

Uhhhh....what.

His contention that it doesn't is that in order for a weapon to become magical it must first be masterwork. The spell spoken of can target non-masterwork weapons. Therefore it's effect doesn't indicate magic weapon status. He further contends that you can't use this spell to turn a weapon magic, then add properties without paying the actual masterwork and enhancement costs.

Beheld

2016-01-04, 03:02 AM

Uhhhh....what.

So there are regular swords, and there are magic swords. When you cast a spell that makes your weapon do more damage, do you expect it to become masterwork quality? Do you expect to be able to add the Holy enchantment without giving it a +1 first? Do you expect it to glow 30% of the time?

Or do you expect it to do what the spell actually says it does, which is do more damage?

His contention that it doesn't is that in order for a weapon to become magical it must first be masterwork. The spell spoken of can target non-masterwork weapons. Therefore it's effect doesn't indicate magic weapon status. He further contends that you can't use this spell to turn a weapon magic, then add properties without paying the actual masterwork and enhancement costs.

Actually my contention is that the spell doesn't say it turns your weapon into a magical item, and therefore none of the rules under the magical items section of the DMG apply to it. I then point out that several of those rules would not sensibly be applied by casting a magic weapon spell. Nor in fact, does the spell say it turns it into a Magical Weapon either just FYI. What it says, is the weapon gets a bonus to attacks and damage.

Andezzar

2016-01-04, 03:05 AM

Applying the Magic Weapon spell allows it to bypass DR, that doesn't turn it into a magic weapon, and I have no idea why you would think it does.Actually it does. DR x/magic is only pierced by magic weapons. A weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage pierces DR x/magic. Thus a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage must be a magic weapon, ergo it gets improved hardness.

There are tons of statements about Magic Weapons and it would make no sense for a spell to trigger any of them. Hardness is the least problematic. If the spell turned weapons into masterwork, or allowed you to make +0 Eager/Warning/Spell Immunity weapons just by casting a spell that would be far more problematic than making your unsunerderable natural weapons harder to sunder and giving people an opportunity to make tortured arguments to grant themselves hardness.A +0 Eager/... weapon cannot exist, because it is explicitly forbidden. If however you continuously had the magic weapon spell on a weapon though out the duration of the enchatment process you could further enchant it with weapon special abilities. It is unclear what happens if the spell ws dispelled or its duration ran out and you cast magic weapon on the weapon again.

The very next sentence describes another method of using things that aren't magic weapons to bypass DR/Magic.Huh? the next sentence is:
Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.It only tells us that natural attacks of creatures that have DR x/magic overcome DR x/magic with their natural weapons, even though their natural weapons are not magic weapons (no magic +1 enhancement bonus). It does not tell us that natural weapons that benefit from a magic fang/weapon spell are not magic weapons.

BTW do you think that a mundane sword with magic weapon on it can harm incorporeal creatures? It either is a magic weapon or it is not.

Beheld

2016-01-04, 03:09 AM

Actually it does. DR x/magic is only pierced by magic weapons. A weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage pierces DR x/magic. Thus a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage must be a magic weapon, ergo it gets improved hardness.

...

Huh? the next sentence is:It only tells us that natural attacks of creatures that have DR x/magic overcome DR x/magic with their natural weapons, even though their natural weapons are not magic weapons (no magic +1 enhancement bonus). It does not tell us that natural weapons that benefit from a magic fang/weapon spell are not magic weapons.

So... no. It looks like things besides magic weapons can in fact pierce DR x/Magic. And perhaps, the two sentences that describe the two things that pierce such damage reduction adjacent to each other might possibly be similar statements about ways to bypass the DR. Since that is all they say.

I mean, you literally start your argument with a claim that applies equally as much to weapons with magic weapon cast on them as to the natural attacks of a creature with DR x/Magic.

Andezzar

2016-01-04, 04:01 AM

So... no. It looks like things besides magic weapons can in fact pierce DR x/Magic. And perhaps, the two sentences that describe the two things that pierce such damage reduction adjacent to each other might possibly be similar statements about ways to bypass the DR. Since that is all they say.Yes, those are two different things that pierce DR x/magic but the second one only does so because those natural weapons count magic weapons. A Monk benefiting from Magic Weapon/Fang and without DR x/magic however has a magic weapon, because his unarmed strike has a magic +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage.

You claim that a monk's unarmed strike with magic fang/weapon cannot be a magic weapon because the unarmed strike is not masterwork. That statement cuts both ways. You have just prohibited warforged from enchanting their plating:
Warforged can be enchanted just as armor can be.Composite plating is not masterwork. So, just as armor, it cannot be enchanted.

Eladrinblade

2016-01-04, 04:09 AM

His contention is that...

I know, I was just being comical.

It's called MAGIC WEAPON. Yes, it turns your weapon magic; of course it does! If they only wanted it to increase attack/damage, they'd call it "enhance weapon" or something, and then explicitly state that it doesn't make the weapon magical (so can't bypass DR/magic or harm incorporeal beings).

ryu

2016-01-04, 04:33 AM

I know, I was just being comical.

It's called MAGIC WEAPON. Yes, it turns your weapon magic; of course it does! If they only wanted it to increase attack/damage, they'd call it "enhance weapon" or something, and then explicitly state that it doesn't make the weapon magical (so can't bypass DR/magic or harm incorporeal beings).

You seem to laboring under the delusion that I consider their intention relevant. Why is that? Have I ever once hinted that I believed they spent more than thirty seconds reading half the things they wrote let alone testing them?

Eladrinblade

2016-01-04, 05:09 AM

At some point you have to admit that it's silly. They can't spell literally everything out for everybody.

Platymus Pus

2016-01-04, 05:15 AM

Have I ever once hinted that I believed they spent more than thirty seconds reading half the things they wrote let alone testing them?
Doesn't mean you have to do the same.

ExLibrisMortis

2016-01-04, 05:39 AM

At some point you have to admit that it's silly. They can't spell literally everything out for everybody.
A magic weapon is not necessarily the same as a weapon improved by magic. Yes, it's silly, but that's how the game works.

A 'magic weapon', in the specific sense Beheld is using here, is a type of magic item created through Craft Magic Arms and Armour (or the psionic equivalent, or perhaps wish). It's subject to the DMG rules on creating magic items, and it has a number of properties shared by all magic items: it can be surpressed for 1d4 rounds by dispel magic, it must be identified using identify, and it can be improved by further crafting, according to the MIC rules and the DMG rules.

The spell magic weapon grants a weapon an enhancement bonus, but it does not use the DMG or MIC rules on magic items. In other words, it's not a proper magic weapon, just a weapon with a (temporary) magical improvement.

It's pretty well established that monk can't enhance their body using Craft Magic Arms and Armour, because fists aren't masterwork. However, the question is whether that means a monk can't gain benefits of the DMG rules on magic item hardness. There are some reasons they could and couldn't.

The rules only refer to 'each point of enhancement bonus', which magic weapon does seem to grant*. This rule is listed in the chapter on magic items, in the context of magic weapons (and shields, incidentally), but it should still apply. In fact, it should also apply to anything else that grants an enhancement bonus to a weapon. If you consider a monk's body a weapon, a +20 enhancement bonus on Jump checks also grants hardness 20 (and 20 hp). That's probably a ruling very few DMs will be okay with, and as such, it's safest to assume you can't get hardness this way.

*It could be argued that 'each point of enhancement bonus' refers specifically to the magic item bonus, which can be improved point by point through crafting, and that it is different than '+X enhancement bonus to Y rolls'. I don't buy that.

Florian

2016-01-04, 05:45 AM

The whole argument breaks down when looking at class features that grant temporary enhancement boni to weapons/natural attacks for a limited time. Does the hardness of an object change back and forth then? In a permissive system, only when it is mentioned as such.

Andezzar

2016-01-04, 05:52 AM

What about other ways of creating magically enhanced weapons like the ancestral relic feat, the Hammer of Thunderbolts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm#hammerofThunderbolts) or similar artifacts or wishing for a +1 longsword? Are those not magic weapons?None of them are made through Craft Magic Arms and Armors feat.

The whole argument breaks down when looking at class features that grant temporary enhancement boni to weapons/natural attacks for a limited time. Does the hardness of an object change back and forth then? In a permissive system, only when it is mentioned as such.It actually is mentioned implicitly. The increased hardness is a function of the enhancement bonus, so if it has an enhancement bonus it gets increased hardness, just like a creature that has the aquatic subtype can breathe underwater even if its entry does not mention it explicitly.

So yes the hardness goes up and down.

Platymus Pus

2016-01-04, 07:03 AM

Regarding actual magic weapons as far as I can tell from things

All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls.
I believe it is the same in 3.5 as well, they just don't stack. The result is a +1 to hit either way you only really gain +1 dmg and the magical properties.
3.5 and PF for the spell Magic Weapon

An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls

So things are simple as opposed to complicated.
I use a magic spell to cast a spell called magic weapon to grant it the effects as if it was a magical +1 weapon and it can't stack on masterwork.
This is effectively the same in everyway, but it can be casted on non-masterwork to the same effect because it's a spell to begin with. Because it's automatically considered a masterwork weapon.
The effect is temporary because it's a spell that grants the effects except it can be dispelled, because it's a spell. Because it's a spell you identify it with spellcraft.
It's possible to use this spell to the same maximum effect of a +5 magic weapon so that is how you improve it.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicWeaponGreater.htm

PF and 3.5

All magic weapons are automatically considered to be of masterwork quality.
Doesn't need to be spelled out like the person said, it's automatically considered masterwork.

With all this information in mind the most logical assumption would be, it's considered the same as a magic weapon except it can be dispelled and identified with spellcraft because it's used as a spell.
It counts as a magical weapon as well as masterwork until dispelled or otherwise.

So yes the hardness goes up and down.

3.5

An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Note the many or uses and that it's used to refer to a bonus to an ability score and other things.
An enhancement bonus doesn't mean the weapon becomes more sturdy necessarily as an enhancement bonus can be other things.
The and/or can be used interchangeably, but of course. The easiest assumption is that it goes up like always if you used it on a weapon albeit temporarily.

Florian

2016-01-04, 07:15 AM

Andezzar

2016-01-04, 07:41 AM

Nah, the logic flaw is two-fold:
- First, Magic Fang is the spell for unarmed strikes and such, not even needing a weapon as a target to work on. So no change to the "base monk" here.
- Second, the weapon affected by Magic Weapon spell is not transformed into a magic weapon for the duration, it is only granted an enhancement bonus or similar effect.

So, reverse engineering stuff from other rules doesn´t really cut it. Like always.Please show me the definition of magic weapon that excludes magic weapons not created through craft magic arms and armor. Sure weapons are always masterwork weapons if they are magic weapons, but AFAIK there is no general rule that a weapon has to be a masterwork weapon to become a magic weapon (except for specific exceptions like Craft Magic Arms and Armors).

Also every monk can receive the benefits of magic weapon spell not just magic fang:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

As far as I can tell the only defining characteristic of any magic weapon is that it has an enhancement bonus to attack and damage of at least +1.

Platymus Pus

2016-01-04, 07:59 AM

Nah, the logic flaw is two-fold:
- First, Magic Fang is the spell for unarmed strikes and such, not even needing a weapon as a target to work on. So no change to the "base monk" here.
- Second, the weapon affected by Magic Weapon spell is not transformed into a magic weapon for the duration, it is only granted an enhancement bonus or similar effect.

So, reverse engineering stuff from other rules doesn´t really cut it. Like always.
1st?

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

Magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.
Monk can get use of both spells.
2nd?
It's from Transmutation school and the spell is called Magic Weapon and functions exactly like a magic weapon would aside from the fact a spell was used to do it.
I suggest using an Occam brand razor here.

Rules for DR.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction

Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters
Sounds like a magic weapon to me.

Florian

2016-01-04, 08:09 AM

Start with the spell and then work your way backwards instead of siderefferencing rules from all over the place.

If the spell would transform the weapon, it would be noted in the description. Compare this, for example, with spells that actually do that, like Masterwork Transformation.

Platymus Pus

2016-01-04, 08:13 AM

Start with the spell and then work your way backwards instead of siderefferencing rules from all over the place.

I didn't know there was a new game coming out called Magic Weapon.:smallconfused:

If the spell would transform the weapon, it would be noted in the description. Compare this, for example, with spells that actually do that, like Masterwork Transformation.
I'd suggest you take a good look at Masterwork Transformation and it's duration,school. spell level, and casting time to know why that comparison falls flat.

Jack_Simth

2016-01-04, 08:29 AM

Only true seeing as far as I know.
Blindsight (as opposed to blindsense) will also bypass a Cloak of Displacement, minor, because it's not visual.

But that means it's either constant, which is rather uncommon far as I know,At higher levels it's moderately common. Most the CR 10+ Demons, Devils, and Angels have True Seeing. There's also a constant item for it - the Hathran Mask of True Seeing (Unapproachable East, 75k, face slot).

Platymus Pus

2016-01-04, 08:47 AM

Blindsight (as opposed to blindsense) will also bypass a Cloak of Displacement, minor, because it's not visual.

Hmmm, I suppose so.

At higher levels it's moderately common. Most the CR 10+ Demons, Devils, and Angels have True Seeing. There's also a constant item for it - the Hathran Mask of True Seeing (Unapproachable East, 75k, face slot).
The mask is rather expensive, you're begging your PCs to take them if you have an enemy with that for gp value alone.
Demons, Devils, and Angels probably wouldn't care much about DR either, but if the natural miss chance is 20% flat no matter what it's far the better option there.
Cloak of displacement would just be a bonus on top of anything that doesn't have those things to beat it outright.

I'd say the answer actually depends on your campaign thinking it through now more than anything.
Low magic, take DR.
Mid-High magic, take Miss chance.
Sound about right?

fishyfishyfishy

2016-01-04, 09:19 AM

A whole page and a half discussion that has nothing to do with the OP's question is a bit much guys. Maybe you should make a new thread to discuss this?

OP can you shed some more light on this miss chance so that we can give you more accurate advice?

Andezzar

2016-01-04, 09:26 AM

There's also a constant item for it - the Hathran Mask of True Seeing (Unapproachable East, 75k, face slot).A scout's headband or three is a lot cheaper. It does not work continuously, but it is something that will be available a lot earlier.

Beheld

2016-01-04, 09:48 AM

Andezzar

2016-01-04, 10:13 AM

I like that multiple people actually believe that the definition of what constitutes a magical item was placed in the DR rules, in a sentence that doesn't even say that items with enhancement bonuses are magical weapons, and only says that they bypass DR.If that is not a valid definition to you, what is? Being created through Craft Magic Arms and Armors definitely is not an all inclusive definition (cf. artifacts that are weapons, ancestral relics etc.)

Beheld

2016-01-04, 11:12 AM

If that is not a valid definition to you, what is? Being created through Craft Magic Arms and Armors definitely is not an all inclusive definition (cf. artifacts that are weapons, ancestral relics etc.)

Well since you are trying to claim the DMG rules for the Hardness under the magic items (weapons) chapter, you could probably use the rules in the DMG for magic items and specifically weapons. Something that is approximately 26 paragraphs long, including this line:

Hardness and Hit Points: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon’s or shield’s hardness and hit points. (See Table 8–8, page 158 of the Player’s Handbook, for common weapon hardnesses and hit points.)

I mean, at least if you are going to string together like eight terrible attempts at rules interpretation at once, you can at least try to get something actually worthwhile out of it by declaring yourself immune to any person or weapon you encounter because their enhancement bonus is less than your GMW CL.

Hey while you are making terrible arguments based on reading sentences out of context, note that it says "damage" not "damage with a melee attack" so in addition to all magic weapons apparently being immune to the Disintegrate spell, and the failed on a 1 rules, you can claim that your monk is immune to all possible damage in the game not coming from weapons. Congrats on getting complete immunity to all damaging spells for the low low cost of being incapable of understanding that the DR rules that don't say weapons with enhancement bonuses are magic weapons don't govern what gets magic item bonuses.

Andezzar

2016-01-04, 11:57 AM

ExLibrisMortis

2016-01-04, 12:19 PM

I'd still honestly like to know what, besides masterwork manufactured weapons/armors on which someone has used Craft Magic Arms and Armor, do you consider magic weapons/armors.
Did you read my post at all? You've made several posts where you fixate on the feat, which wasn't the point at all.

A 'magic weapon' [...] subject to the DMG rules on creating magic items, and it has a number of properties shared by all magic items: it can be surpressed for 1d4 rounds by dispel magic, it must be identified using [I]identify, and it can be improved by further crafting, according to the MIC rules and the DMG rules.

It's not strictly speaking necessary that it has been made with the feat, as I also noted in my post (listing wish, for one). However, it must at least be a magic item, and share the general properties of magic items. From chapter 7 of the DMG, page 211, on magic items:

Magic items are divided into categories: armor, weapons, potions, rings, rods, scrolls, staffs, wands, and wondrous items. [...]

Weapons: Magic weapons are created with a variety of combat powers

Andezzar

2016-01-04, 12:37 PM

What you claim is in direct contradiction to the rules: Not all magic items can be suppressed for 1d4 rounds

If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item’s caster level. If you succeed, all the item’s magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect.
[...]
Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

Artifacts however are explicitly magic items:
Even so, they are magic items that no longer can be created, at least by common mortal means.

[...]

These are the most potent of magic items, capable of altering the balance of a campaign.

"Being created with a variety of combat powers" isn't an sufficient condition either. A mundane dagger also has a variety of combat powers (combat power is not a game term). It can deal slashing or piercing damage in melee and it can be thrown, again dealing piercing or slashing damage.

Beheld

2016-01-04, 12:39 PM

I never claimed that the monk is a magic weapon but that he has a magic weapon if Magic Weapon/Fang is cast on his unarmed strike. I also didn't claim that the extra hit points applied to his unarmed strike for being a magic weapon had any impact on the monk's hit point total.

I'd still honestly like to know what, besides masterwork manufactured weapons/armors on which someone has used Craft Magic Arms and Armor, do you consider magic weapons/armors.

If Magic Weapon cast on a non-masterwork weapon does not produce a magic weapon, how is a level appropriate party (i.e. party level 1-7, 3 for a "challenging encounter") with appropriate WBL supposed to deal with an allip or shadow?

How do you deal with the fact that Warforged cannot get magic armor unless they take the Unarmored Body feat?

Can you hit incorporeal foes with an Artifact?

1) Is the Artifact a weapon that fits the definition of magical items and weapons? Then yes. If not, maybe, you could arguably punch an Allip with your Belt of Battle, but for the most part I probably wouldn't allow it.
2) Probably also things that reference magic items, like Kensai. Maybe Soulblade I don't know. But definitely not items that have a spell cast on them that gives them a damage bonus. But to be clear, this is not about "magic weapons" this is about "adding hardness to a Magic Item (Weapon)" Because absent explicit function calls to other rules, the rules in the Magic Items section only apply to magic items. Just like the rules in the DR section only apply to DR.
3) You mean the made up construct race in a ****ty setting written by a designer who is famous for writing ****ty half thought mechanics wasn't perfectly integrated to all the Core rules and you have to houserule some things about it? That's amazing, I never would have suspected that!
4) Well a) There is a reason that low level incorporeal foes are generally considered kind of bull****. If you send an Allip at a level 1 party, you probably shouldn't be too surprised if they all die, especially since your argument basically boils down to "I sure hope we 1) Have a Cleric, 2) He prepared Magic Weapon, 3) He didn't cast it earlier, because if not we are all going to die!" I mean, yeah low level parties have problems with Allips before they get magic items, and instead have to rely on "creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities." And so it's very possible that a level 1 party should just run away. Later on a Cleric can just add it to his Allip Army, or send it running in fear, or make it stand there and take no actions, or some other way of auto winning the encounter. Later on, someone can just stab the thing with their magic item (weapon) that might legitimately be the first item that drops (based on random tables). But yeah level 1 parties, have a rough time against Allips... Regardless of whether or not a spell that the cleric that may or may not be in the party and may or may not have prepared allows them to hit Allips.

b) The actual rules are "Incorporeal Subtype: An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities." So it's certainly possible that the definition for what counts as a magic weapon for the incorporeal subtype is different than what counts as a Magic Item (Weapon) and the rules associated with it. I can see two arguments in that sentence alone that a weapon with the magic weapon spell cast on it allows them to damage incorporeal foes, even though it still isn't a Magic Item (Weapon). Certainly, the Incorporeal subtype doesn't define what constitutes a magic weapon, so it must be making a function call to somewhere, but there is no particular evidence that indicates it means Magical Item (Weapon) when it could mean and or all of the definitions of magic weapon in the game. So it could very well just be a function call to both the Magical Item (Weapon) rules and the spell Magical Weapon.

Rules cover the thing they are talking about, that is what context means, but since magic weapon is not defined as an explicit term anywhere, there is good reason to think that each specific use is only talking about the things it is talking about. So the spell magic weapon adds a bonus to damage and attack rolls, because that is what it says it does, and the rules in the DR section say that two types of things pass DR, and that is therefore what bypasses DR, and the rules for Magic Items (Weapon) say that certain things are true of all Magic Item Weapons, and those things are true only of Magic Item Weapons and not other things which are not Magic Item Weapons.

DR/Spell Resistance/Energy Resistance/ect. have an actual glossary definition, magic weapon doesn't, and there is probably good reason for that, because it's not a single specific game mechanical term which all possible rules apply to.

ExLibrisMortis

2016-01-04, 01:37 PM

What you claim is in direct contradiction to the rules: Not all magic items can be suppressed for 1d4 rounds

Artifacts however are explicitly magic items:

"Being created with a variety of combat powers" isn't an sufficient condition either. A mundane dagger also has a variety of combat powers (combat power is not a game term). It can deal slashing or piercing damage in melee and it can be thrown, again dealing piercing or slashing damage.
Very well, that is not a general condition for all magic items (there might be some consumable magic items that don't survive dispelling, either). There are still others.

The last sentence on weapons was just context, I didn't mean that as an argument either way. I didn't want to quote only the header of a paragraph.

Will you respond to my actual point now, instead of picking on the details you don't care about?

ryu

2016-01-04, 02:25 PM

Doesn't mean you have to do the same.

Ah but when the game they actually created is objectively more nuanced and versatile than the game they intended to make I begin to wonder why I should care what the original intention was. Everybody knows the game they originally wanted and what assumptions it was filled with. Why would I bother breaking out pens, paper, dice, mats, screens, miniatures, books, and bother to find a group of like-minded people all to play something ultimately less interesting and interactive than what I could play for free online? That's right. I just compared 3.5 as intended to browser games, and found it wanting.

Platymus Pus

2016-01-04, 04:12 PM

The rules in the DR section only apply to DR.
That line of thinking doesn't make any kind of sense. If you do that the game doesn't work at all.
It'd be like saying any of our laws in real life only apply to that law itself alone and don't define and effect one another.

Ah but when the game they actually created is objectively more nuanced and versatile than the game they intended to make I begin to wonder why I should care what the original intention was. Everybody knows the game they originally wanted and what assumptions it was filled with. Why would I bother breaking out pens, paper, dice, mats, screens, miniatures, books, and bother to find a group of like-minded people all to play something ultimately less interesting and interactive than what I could play for free online? That's right. I just compared 3.5 as intended to browser games, and found it wanting.

Fair enough, though I'd consider a game where you can technically do anything in terms of interaction with even the intended rules less wanting than a limited browser game in the long term.
Also granted nowadays 3.5 is free through PF itself and the SRD pages and you can also play it through your browser without pens, paper, dice, mats, screens, miniatures, books since it is mostly a mental exercise. Play by post is a format used to play it after all and digital dice are a thing.

ryu

2016-01-04, 05:11 PM

That line of thinking doesn't make any kind of sense. If you do that the game doesn't work at all.
It'd be like saying any of our laws in real life only apply to that law itself alone and don't define and effect one another.

Fair enough, though I'd consider a game where you can technically do anything in terms of interaction with even the intended rules less wanting than a limited browser game in the long term.
Also granted nowadays 3.5 is free through PF itself and the SRD pages and you can also play it through your browser without pens, paper, dice, mats, screens, miniatures, books since it is mostly a mental exercise. Play by post is a format used to play it after all and digital dice are a thing.

I've played by skype with a virtual dice app before. Having already spent the mental effort to learn the more complex game that is, I would refuse to go back to the intended way. I think you misunderstand just how limited the intended way was. In the intended way wizards are reduced to glorified black mages, clerics are only good for healing and hitting things with a mace, druids are fighters with a wilderness feel, and the mundanes are somehow even more neutered than they are in game. To put this in perspective they wanted us to play final fantasy one except only controlling one member of the limited group. I can show you multitudes of browser games with deeper learning curves and more playtesting than that.

Platymus Pus

2016-01-04, 05:50 PM

I've played by skype with a virtual dice app before. Having already spent the mental effort to learn the more complex game that is, I would refuse to go back to the intended way. I think you misunderstand just how limited the intended way was. In the intended way wizards are reduced to glorified black mages, clerics are only good for healing and hitting things with a mace, druids are fighters with a wilderness feel, and the mundanes are somehow even more neutered than they are in game. To put this in perspective they wanted us to play final fantasy one except only controlling one member of the limited group. I can show you multitudes of browser games with deeper learning curves and more playtesting than that.

You do know FF1 had a group of spellcasters and warriors contending with monsters that can destroy continents and that the final boss was a self made demongod using a paradoxical time loop and that his mere presence has been able to unmake the universe with his mere existence right? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1QHrM3qH_g)
I'd be fine with playing a blackmage who can decide to wipe all life off the planet if he wanted to or warriors that can take nuclear bombs to the face and laugh. :smallamused:

ryu

2016-01-04, 06:03 PM

You do know FF1 had a group of spellcasters and warriors contending with monsters that can destroy continents and that the final boss was a self made demongod using a paradoxical time loop and that his mere presence has been able to unmake the universe with his mere existence right? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1QHrM3qH_g)
I'd be fine with playing a blackmage who can decide to wipe all life off the planet if he wanted to or warriors that can take nuclear bombs to the face and laugh. :smallamused:

Thing is that's the writing. We were discussing the mechanics of play. Story being told is fine. It was never in contention. It's playing one forth the game of a super nintendo title with drastically more time and effort expended that irks me. Especially when that same game at full complexity was something I was comfortable beating as a small child. There's other issues here like the fact that the technology of the day couldn't really sell the amount of spectacle I'd expect of a story like that, but I consider that more a technical limitation than a design flaw.