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

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Damage reduction was changed between D&D 3.0 and 3.5 - the reduction was reduced, and the DR bypass was changed.

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

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

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

Discuss!

[Oslecamo]

I liked more of the 3.0 version personaly.

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

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

[Zeta Kai]

I'll admit that the 3.5 version is simpler, but I agree the the 3.0 version was better overall.

[Chrono22]

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

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

[BobVosh]

3.0 DR was much better IMO. Although a great improvement on 2ed where if you didn't have the +3 weapon, you didn't hurt them. Period.

[Kaiyanwang]

DR X/magic is useful only low level.

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

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

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

Nothing bad in adding similar reductions in homebrew, too.



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

[magic9mushroom]

DR/magic is indeed pretty pointless, but it does allow you to overcome the same with natural weapons.

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

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

[Optimystik]

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

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

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

[Runestar]

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

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

Rules compendium sums it up quite well.

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

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

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

[Zergrusheddie]

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

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

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Agreed, the lower reduction to damage in the 3.5 version of DR is good.

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

[SpikeFightwicky]

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

How many Cold Iron Swords does he need?

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

[Runestar]

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

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

[Optimystik]

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

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

Another excellent point.

Rules compendium sums it up quite well.

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

[Foryn Gilnith]

It has more verisimilitude than DR/+x because "+x" is an abstraction which isn't supposed to exist in the game world.

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

Greater Magic Weapon can still subvert this whole paradigm.

[Optimystik]

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

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

[Foryn Gilnith]

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

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

[Roderick_BR]

DR X/magic is useful only low level.

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

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

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

Nothing bad in adding similar reductions in homebrew, too.

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

[Optimystik]

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

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

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

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

[Kaiyanwang]

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

Not bad at all. I like it.

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

[Optimystik]

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

[Viletta Vadim]

So - what's wrong with DR X / +2, or X / +3 or higher? In high level games, shouldn't the monsters be immune to damage from all but the most heroic heroes?

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

[Foryn Gilnith]

And now, you're getting into one of the more fundamental problems of 3.5.

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

[Optimystik]

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

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

3.5 did away with the problem you are citing.

[Viletta Vadim]

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

3.X, really. Externalized power is still a massive issue. A level 20 Fighter isn't powerful because he's a mighty warrior. He's powerful because he has level 20 gear. Pretty much all of his power is external.

[Optimystik]

3.X, really. Externalized power is still a massive issue. A level 20 Fighter isn't powerful because he's a mighty warrior. He's powerful because he has level 20 gear. Pretty much all of his power is external.

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

[Viletta Vadim]

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

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

[Optimystik]

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

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

[RagnaroksChosen]

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

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

[AstralFire]

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

Eh. Sorta.

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

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

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