Any monsters that need a "+2 or greater" enchantment anymore?

[eyebreaker7]

In 3rd there were some monsters that said they needed a certain "+" of a weapon enchantment but it 3.5 I don't see any. Are they all changed or am I missing something? If I make a +1, holy, flaming, shock, freezing silver weapon will that work? Or will I need a higher "+" weapon for some things?
The entry for a Pit Fiend: just says "Damage reduction 15/good and silver," Nothing about it being "+2" or better for example. It just needs to be a holy silver weapon.
or
The entry for a Marilith: "Damage reduction 10/good and cold iron," so it just needs to be "+1" and holy and cold iron?

[Boci]

That was a 3.0 thing, 3.5 dropped it. And +1, +2 ect is replaced with a flat magic. Since neither maralith nor pitfiend specify it, the weapon doesn't need to be magic, as long as it counts as good (which typically but always will mean its magic) and is made of silver or cold iron you will get through the respective damage reductions.

DR: 15/+6 or greater was replaced with DR: 15/epic however.

[eyebreaker7]

Ok that's what I thought. Thanks for confirming :)
I'm surprised a Pit Fiend doesn't need epic. They seem like they should.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The only DR requiring a specific number of plusses is X/epic, which requires an effective +6 or greater.

[RNightstalker]

That was a 3.0 thing, 3.5 dropped it.

They shouldn't have.

[eyebreaker7]

I agree they should have left the "+X" to DR. Now all you need is anything with at least "+1".

Related question:

If I have a +1 holy, flaming, frost, shock alchemical silver glaive-guisarme and I attack a Pit Fiend (Damage reduction 15/good and silver) will it only deal the holy damage un-reduced? Or ALL of it together? In other words, will it even deal the fiery, frost shock damage being that those can only do up to 1d6 each therefore does it NOT get by the DR?

[inuyasha]

I agree they should have left the "+X" to DR. Now all you need is anything with at least "+1".

Related question:

If I have a +1 holy, flaming, frost, shock alchemical silver glaive-guisarme and I attack a Pit Fiend (Damage reduction 15/good and silver) will it only deal the holy damage un-reduced? Or ALL of it together? In other words, will it even deal the fiery, frost shock damage being that those can only do up to 1d6 each therefore does it NOT get by the DR?

If the weapon is Good and silver, then allll of the weapon's damage will go through, however the elemental damage will be lessened by the Pit Fiend's immunities/resistances.

[Thurbane]

IIRC, not exactly relating to DR, but a weapon must have an equal or higher + to be able to sunder another magic weapon/shield. I can't find a citation right now, so I may be misremembering.

[edit] Here we go, tucked away in the DMG:

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.

[/edit]

[Psyren]

They shouldn't have.

This comes down to personal preference, but they did provide their rationale in a Rules Compendium sidebar if that helps:

EVOLUTION OF DR

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.

—James Wyatt, designer

Pathfinder took this a step further - if your weapon is "magic enough" then the materials don't matter either.

[Mike Miller]

Psyren already quoted the good bit. I just want to add that the change helps martials a lot. It is one of the few things that specifically is there to make martials more effective. Imagine having a +3 weapon, but still having to eat through DR 30 because your weapon isn't a +4. Pretty irritating, no?

[Buufreak]

I just want to add that the change helps martials a lot.

Literally came here to say this. Now if there was ever a system of "for each +, reduce the DR by X," it would suddenly be a whole different situation. But it ain't, so it ain't...

[SirNibbles]

IIRC, not exactly relating to DR, but a weapon must have an equal or higher + to be able to sunder another magic weapon/shield. I can't find a citation right now, so I may be misremembering.

[edit] Here we go, tucked away in the DMG:



[/edit]

That was changed in the errata:

"Solution: Delete the first sentence after the boldface header. Change the next sentence to read as follows: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The only real benefit to having a higher enhancement bonus on weapons and armors/shields that isn't practically incidental is that you can apply better weapon and armor crystals to them, and that's only up to +3. The better hp and hardness really aren't very good, and neither are the boosts to hit and damage. Not when you could be getting touch attacks and much larger amounts of damage for those same bonuses. And even that's utterly negated by the greater magic weapon spell. That pretty much obviates everything but a +1, and even that's only necessary because you can't effectively enhance a weapon without it.

[Thurbane]

That was changed in the errata:

"Solution: Delete the first sentence after the boldface header. Change the next sentence to read as follows: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points.

Great to know, thank you!

[Gusmo]

With the way cost scales on magic weapons, 3.0 DR also made the question of whether to put special abilities on your weapon more difficult. In 3.5, most people now only do a +1 enhancement bonus then go straight for special abilities.

[KillianHawkeye]

I find 3.5's dropping of the extra +'s to DR and using the "and/or" system, coupled with the much wider variety of DR blockers (alignment, damage type, special materials) actually makes the DR system a lot more interesting and varied.

Also, by dropping the overall DR values (max is typically 15 now), it made it tolerable to not have the right kind of weapon. A much more usable system overall, IMO.

[Quertus]

And, with the opposing PoV, Quertus.

Pathfinder took this a step further - if your weapon is "magic enough" then the materials don't matter either.

Or, arguably, a step backwards, seeing as that's how it was in 2e (and 3.0, iirc). I'm not sure which is *better*, but 3.5 definitely involved more variety.

Psyren already quoted the good bit. I just want to add that the change helps martials a lot. It is one of the few things that specifically is there to make martials more effective. Imagine having a +3 weapon, but still having to eat through DR 30 because your weapon isn't a +4. Pretty irritating, no?

Literally came here to say this. Now if there was ever a system of "for each +, reduce the DR by X," it would suddenly be a whole different situation. But it ain't, so it ain't...

I'd actually argue that, in practice this actually *hurt* martial characters.

"Quertus, have you forgotten your meds again?" Maybe. But bare with me, this actually makes more sense than is apparent at first glance.

So, back in 3.0, monsters would have crazy things like DR 50/+3, at CR 12(ish), iirc. It rather clearly laid out the metrics that martials were supposed to hit.

But show a 3.5 GM a Martial that can hit those beats? Like, say, a level 9 Fighter getting 1d8+45 damage on each of their 4 attacks? That character could barely scratch that monster (if used as a ECL+ 4 boss monster). But show it to a 3.5 GM, and you'll likely get "ZOMG dude, that's 2 OP!"

I want muggles to have nice things. 3.0 DR laid out a roadmap of what that might look like, with massively scaling DR, and provided tools to give muggles nice things, like (some) cheaper items, better buff durations, better crit stacking, and better Haste.

With the way cost scales on magic weapons, 3.0 DR also made the question of whether to put special abilities on your weapon more difficult. In 3.5, most people now only do a +1 enhancement bonus then go straight for special abilities.

Yeah, 3.5 was kinda samey in that regard

[Psyren]

With the way cost scales on magic weapons, 3.0 DR also made the question of whether to put special abilities on your weapon more difficult. In 3.5, most people now only do a +1 enhancement bonus then go straight for special abilities.

Not seeing the issue here. Those abilities (a) much more interesting than a vanilla +X, (b) you inherently want the +X anyway because none of those fancy abilities matter if you can't hit, and (c) you get the +X anyway with a simple Greater Magic Weapon buff, which is on nearly every caster's list - that's the real reason prioritizing +X over more flavorful abilities fell out of favor.

Or, arguably, a step backwards, seeing as that's how it was in 2e (and 3.0, iirc). I'm not sure which is *better*, but 3.5 definitely involved more variety.

Pathfinder's approach avoids the "golf bag" problem which is yet another unnecessary hurdle for martials to deal with - archers especially.

[Gusmo]

Not seeing the issue here.

I didn't mean to imply it was a problem.

[Zanos]

Literally came here to say this. Now if there was ever a system of "for each +, reduce the DR by X," it would suddenly be a whole different situation. But it ain't, so it ain't...

Yeah, that'd be much better. If DR was x/Magic and each +1 took like 5 off the DR or something, that would be interesting. As is, DR/magic is basically irrelevant unless you're running a very low magic world. Anyone doing weapon damage should have a +1 weapon a few levels in, and it's bizarre that a great wrym gold dragons DR 20/magic is completely irrelevant if you drop 2k worth of enchanting(or a level 1 spell, magic weapon) on anything. Alignment and material DR meanwhile are very powerful because they require specific weapons or spells to overcome that aren't often accounted for or difficult to attain without compromises.

3e was definitely too far in the other direction with ridiculous values like DR 40/+4 basically telling you to lose unless you ran away and came back with a stronger weapon.

[Fizban]

Not seeing the issue here. Those abilities (a) much more interesting than a vanilla +X, (b) you inherently want the +X anyway because none of those fancy abilities matter if you can't hit, and (c) you get the +X anyway with a simple Greater Magic Weapon buff, which is on nearly every caster's list - that's the real reason prioritizing +X over more flavorful abilities fell out of favor.

I think it's also a significant indicator of the original intent- people complaining that the fighter can't hit things at high levels when they refuse to use more than +1 enhancement, when 3.0 made it explicitly clear how much enhancement you're supposed to have to fight X. This combined with the fact that entire swathes of foes (such as just about every aligned outsider) are effectively immune to multiple 1d6 energy abilities, makes it pretty clear what one should prioritize.

Though ironically, GMW scaled faster in 3.0 so relying on it in 3.5 actually gets worse results, and there are spells and infusions for getting +1d6 properties of varying or no typing that weren't there in 3.0. But the window is so short that people probably hadn't caught on until 3.5 was rolling, and I expect they deliberately nerfed GMW as a response.

Pathfinder's approach avoids the "golf bag" problem which is yet another unnecessary hurdle for martials to deal with - archers especially.

Incoming rant:

Except it's not some terrible hurdle to deal with! (in 3.5). There are only three primary metal types. One is super expensive, one is super cheap, and one is in the middle but has a mild penalty. The "savvy" warrior starts with a primary weapon made of cold iron, something silver at 2nd (primary or sidearm), doesn't worry about adamantine because that's for much higher level foes, and makes sure one is blunt and the other is slash (because nothing cares about piercing, again, until much higher level foes). Two weapons is not a golf bag. Most people just write "silver dagger" on their equipment list to feel smart about their coverage and then forget about it because it never ends up mattering.

Eventually they might decide adamantine is worth the investment, probably for breaking objects more than actual DR concerns, unless the DM is Stoneskin happy (which is a Dispel problem). And yet, three weapons is still not a golf bag. The whole point of one-handed swords historically (sic) is that you can easily wear them in addition to your actual war weapons, and samurai wear both the katana and the wakizashi on the same side. You have two hips each of which can potentially hold two weapons, plus a torso that can also be filled with bandoleers of knives, maybe even a back scabbard, and yet you only need 2-3 weapons if you actually put some thought into it. Even so, lol extradimensional storage does mean you can just put anything you don't want to wear in your bag. Oh, and that adamantine DR-the classic MM1 monsters which have it, golems, also have a magic item that does the job for less than the cost of the weapon: hey look, you're back down to a golf bag of 2.

Alignment DR is dealt with via the 2nd level Cleric spell that is meant to deal with alignment DR, which is also available as an oil (as is, ya know, Magic Weapon, and Silversheen- hey we're down to 1 weapon again). By the time you actually need to worry about metal+magic, you can afford for your 2-3 (or 1) weapons to be +1. People that are concerned enough about being swallowed whole can make the sidearm their light piercing/slashing weapon, or have two sidearms. Worrying about rakshasa? Great, you've got the morningstar, dagger, halberd, and scythe all with piercing in addition to one of the main two.

No, it's really just people that want to have nothing but greatsword or greataxe or spiked chain on their sheet and not think about it that have a problem. People expecting to have a single big expensive 2-hander that never takes any penalty despite the fact that it can power through said penalties. That and a side of hypothetical straw-DMs apparently throwing every type of DR at you in the same adventure with no warning for any of them, lack of party Cleric/unpreparedness, and an expectation that archers somehow get off the hook for tracking ammo. Throwing characters have to track their weapons, why shouldn't the archer have to make sure to buy the appropriate arrows? Cold iron and silver are still cheap, and having projectile weapons be bad at one type of DR is hardly game destroying, even gives a reason for them to *gasp* own a melee weapon. If someone wants a character that uses nothing but greatsword, then they can pay the price for it (and probably still come out ahead, particularly when the price is a total of 5,050 gp for a magic cold iron surcharge, Golembane Scarab, vial of Silversheen, and an Oil of Align Weapon).

Seriously, I don't see why people complain about having to actually think about more than one weapon when they'll turn around and drool over character art of people covered in multiple weapons. It's not even "unrealistic"- instead of having hammer vs plate/narrow thrust vs mail/razor edge vs non-metal, 3.5 has fantasy metals vs various monster hides. You own what you can, carry what you think you'll need, and deal with it if you don't have the right thing. People carried (and still do carry) multiple weapons into combat situations.


Of course then setting/campaign books might go and add a bajillion new types of DR. Now those can cause a golf bag problem/actual incentive to bother paying for Shadowstriking/etc. But the core system has only 2-3 metals, 3 damage types (which can be found in pairs on multiple weapons), and two 1-2nd level spells, which are easily covered with a normal loadout and don't even matter for most monsters. Spellcasters have 3 saves, 5 energy types, SR, and extra immunities to thread the needle on, some of which applies to almost every monster and spell, and no one bats an eye.

That was changed in the errata:

"Solution: Delete the first sentence after the boldface header. Change the next sentence to read as follows: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points.

Ah yes, the part where they get rid of essentially the only defense against Sunder in the entire game. Probably because someone wanted their monsters with generic greatclubs or natural weapons to be able to smash the PC's gear .