A DR Change

[Fax Celestis]

What are people's thoughts on making DR apply per-die instead of per-attack? Perhaps in conjunction with a reduction (say, half) in existing DR numbers--possibly more in the case of DR/-.

[Immutep]

I think it would generally make it too powerfull especially against senak attacks and the like. Just my opinion though

[Thrawn183]

So the guy with the giant sword wouldn't be affected much while the rogue with sneak attack would? That would actually kind of make sense to me.

It just starts to break down a little bit as weapon size increases and you have single powerful hits getting more damage subtracted as they get more weapon dice.

Edit: This could be really rough when you run into things with DR 15/good and cold iron for example. I mean, really rough.

[Blood_Lord]

What are people's thoughts on making DR apply per-die instead of per-attack? Perhaps in conjunction with a reduction (say, half) in existing DR numbers--possibly more in the case of DR/-.

How would that even make sense? Would you do more damage attacking with a longsword then a greatsword?

Are you just trying to arbitrarily punish rogues that use weapons, since most creatures with DR usually have DR 10, aka DR 5 against every SA die.

I really see no way that this would either make sense, work, or help encourage any particular style of play.

My current list of your motivations is:

1) Rogue Hate.
2) ???
3) Profit

[mostlyharmful]

Also what about the meleers that get most of their hp damage from static bonusses rather than dice, 2D6 from the Greatsword but +fifty bajillion fromt he power attack style of PC? I suppose you could divide it between the dice and then take from each but you'd just end up with a lot of Greataxes rather than swords...

[Stupendous_Man]

How would that even make sense? Would you do more damage attacking with a longsword then a greatsword?

Are you just trying to arbitrarily punish rogues that use weapons, since most creatures with DR usually have DR 10, aka DR 5 against every SA die.

I really see no way that this would either make sense, work, or help encourage any particular style of play.

My current list of your motivations is:

1) Rogue Hate.
2) ???
3) Profit

Smite him now, O' Tiny GitP deity!

[Fax Celestis]

How would that even make sense? Would you do more damage attacking with a longsword then a greatsword?

Potentially, unless your attack overcame the DR.

Are you just trying to arbitrarily punish rogues that use weapons, since most creatures with DR usually have DR 10, aka DR 5 against every SA die.

Only a little. I'm more rewarding prepared players who have weapons of multiple types. Further, it means that when a rogue has a weapon that does overcome the DR, it really really hurts. Which, y'know, is how it should work.

I really see no way that this would either make sense, work, or help encourage any particular style of play.

Again, it rewards players who don't sink all their resources into one item, as they're capable of overcoming multiple kinds of DR.

[Prometheus]

The biggest problem is that the D&D system just isn't set up with that in mind. If you say, changed all the damage die, than you could set it up so that it applied to different attacks differently like I believe the aim is, but you wouldn't get unintended consequences. While it is a good idea, it might be better to use some other system of adjudication such as:
-A minimum Str bonus must be met or DR applies
-DR applies once per attack action, not once per attack
-DR is expressed as a bonus against which an opposed check to Str is rolled, the loss of which is the DR for that attack action.
-DR is a minimum damage, but doesn't subtract if it's more than that.

Of course, those systems aren't very precise either, but they operate within the standard assumptions of the game bonuses.

[Blood_Lord]

Potentially, unless your attack overcame the DR.

And that does what exactly other then punish Monks and characters trying to get large size or larger?

Only a little. I'm more rewarding prepared players who have weapons of multiple types. Further, it means that when a rogue has a weapon that does overcome the DR, it really really hurts. Which, y'know, is how it should work.

Uh, it really really hurts under the current system when a rogue has the right kind of weapon. The rogue just doesn't automatically lose to creatures with DR in addition to those immune to crits.

And no, you aren't rewarding characters for having a wide array of weapons. You are rewarding players for specializing in Greataxes instead of Greatswords.

Now everyone has a greataxe instead, all DR is halved, the lose .5 damage and gain 5 damage against creatures with DR, and they still focus on one weapon, because that's the way the game works, and that's how it was designed to be played, and that's how you keep up.

Yes if you have a Reach/Chain cleric you can GMW across the:

+1 Holy Sword
+1 Evil Sword
Silver Sword
Cold Iron Sword
Adamantium Sword (probably fully enchanted as main weapon).

And still all that versus just buying a Greataxe? Yeah, I think I'll just ignore base damage like everyone does, and kill you hardcore with a single die weapon.

Again, it rewards players who don't sink all their resources into one item, as they're capable of overcoming multiple kinds of DR.

No, it doesn't. Because having a Silver Sword is inferior to having a +3 Raging Greataxe.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Yeah, all this does is nerf precision damage further while the Uberchargers, Tripmonkeys, Batmen, and CoDzillas go untouched.

[Fiendish_Dire_Moose]

Some weird guy in a suit told me to tell you this should you choose to implement this rule: "Prepare for unforeseen consequences."
Seriously, there are, certain drawbacks to every homebrew and supplemental rule. Especially ones such as this. I'm not sure what the major flaw in this kind of rule is, but it's Cthulu-esque. You know it's there, lurking just behind the shadows, but you can't place your finger on it.

[monty]

Or you just make a charger, have over nine thousand damage from Power Attack, and ignore DR completely. All I can see this doing is discourage die-based damage builds even more than they already are.

[BobVosh]

Quick change to the proposal: DR per weapon die...

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Quick change to the proposal: DR per weapon die...

So it means people favor Greataxes over Greatswords, and Monks are screwed even more than normal? Why?

[kpenguin]

Perhaps if DR were a % rather than a flat number subtracted from damage?

[monty]

Perhaps if DR were a % rather than a flat number subtracted from damage?

That would be a better idea, I think. As it is, DR applies per hit, so more damage per hit at the expense of number of hits gives increasing returns (one of several reasons why TWF is generally inferior to THF). A percentage reduction would even things out more.

[The_Snark]

Only a little. I'm more rewarding prepared players who have weapons of multiple types.

I'm not sure this is something I'd want to encourage, really.

Under this system, a prepared character would be well advised to carry one piercing weapon, one slashing weapon, and one bludgeoning weapon, as well as one silvered weapon, one cold iron weapon, and one adamantine weapon. These overlap, of course, so let's assume three weapons at least. Plus a ranged weapon (most characters should have one), with corresponding special-material arrows and maybe those impractical alternate-damage type arrows from Races of the Wild. Most characters have a backup weapon like a dagger, too, which could be one of those three melee weapons—but a cautious player might want to be able to use a two-handed weapon (or whatever weapon type they favor) against any foe, rather than switching to their backup.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing wrong with the idea of the grizzled veteran who is paranoid or weapon-happy enough to carry around an extra 10-20 pounds of metal on their back, but I don't think all or even most characters ought to be like that. It annoys me enough as-is, because very often people do this because it's a good option for their characters—not because their characters are actually the kind of person who would carry around multiple extra weapons, just because they once heard that some beasts can only be harmed with silver weapons, and some others are impervious to all but specially forged iron, and... you get the idea.

Again, it rewards players who don't sink all their resources into one item, as they're capable of overcoming multiple kinds of DR.

I can see why you might want to do that, but the exponential price scale of magic weapons means that sinking all your resources into one item is already a risky proposition, generally speaking. If they're the kind of person/character who wants focus completely on offense, let them.

There's also the other concerns about how this doesn't affect anybody except rogues very much, which is valid. DR halved, applied twice to each of a greatsword's die... not very much difference. It also gives 1d12 and 1d8 weapons an advantage over 2d6 and 2d4 weapons, which isn't adding much to your game...

If you want to have your players focus on overcoming damage reduction rather than battering through it, my advice would be to do the following:

-Double the damage reduction on the relevant monster (or more; DR 20/(something) is a good amount).
-Don't use the monster lightly. Include hints that they'll crop up and that they're incredibly tough but have a weakness; then allow quests and opportunities to pick up whatever overcomes that weakness. If you do it right, players will hopefully catch on and seek out what they need without too much nudging on your part.

This sort of approach gives you a chance to play around with more exotic damage reduction, too; rather than just silver weapons before setting out to hunt the werebeast that's been plaguing the town, you might have a powerful demon that can only be harmed by weapons that have been dipped in a particular sacred fountain, or some such.

[BobVosh]

So it means people favor Greataxes over Greatswords, and Monks are screwed even more than normal? Why?

Because monks should know thier place.

And the poor D12, come on. Let it out to play. Besides everyone uses greatswords over greataxes, does it really matter if we switch it to the other way around?

[monty]

Because monks should know thier place.

Right there between the CW samurai and the adept.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Could also just encourage sinking everything into a flaming shocking corrosive sonic frost weapon +1 as well, as the extra dice from the energy overcomes DR anyway. Since I dislike golf bag syndrome, that's probably one of the routes I'd go.

I'm really not seeing why you should want to encourage walking amories, really.

[jcsw]

Why, obviously so people can look like the pictures in the sourcebooks! (Seriously, count the average number of weapons per person)

Metalline also becomes a valuable weapon enchantment...

[AmberVael]

Yeah... I'm really not sure this is such a great idea either, just to add my voice to those above. DR is annoying enough as it is, but to do it this way completely nerfs die based damage, which I fail to see as a good thing. Rogues already have a bad enough time dealing with sneak attack resistant people, and I'm sure there are more die based characters out there who would be impeded by this.
It doesn't so much encourage lots of different type weapons as it does discourage die based damage.

[Jasdoif]

It's certainly an interesting idea, but it'd take a lot of other changes to make it worth consideration.

To brainstorm/ramble....

• Damage dice were standardized to always be d6s
• Undiced bonus damage were significantly rarer (ie everything except strength bonus and enhancement bonus were translated into dice)
• DR and energy resistance used the same type of system
• DR was reduced to one-fifth of present values instead of one-half.
• DR applied per die to a minimum of 0, and/or a cap of DR 3 (with a flat -4 per die to the total, additional dice actually reduce total damage since the penalty per die outweighs the average roll)

Then you'd have to somehow resolve the overwhelming nature of non-hit-point-damage-attacks as well....

Is it worth the trouble? I really couldn't tell you.

[Fax Celestis]

Alright, so: bad idea.

Now, what if one were to make it work in that fashion versus energy? That is, for energy resists? Considering most energy damage is d6-based and level-based, it would avoid most of the flaws outlined above.

[Jasdoif]

Alright, so: bad idea.

Now, what if one were to make it work in that fashion versus energy? That is, for energy resists? Considering most energy damage is d6-based and level-based, it would avoid most of the flaws outlined above.

It would certainly be easier to implement reliably.

It would serve to keep basic energy resistance effects relevant (as its usefulness is multiplied by the number of dice in the damage it's resisting). This in turn would promote the use of non-hit-point effects, though that would need to be considered along with any changes that affect hit points directly or indirectly.

Offhand the biggest issues would be how to handle effects that rely on large damage for verisimilitude (i.e. immersion in lava), and effects that are balanced by small amounts of damage applied numerous times (scorching ray comes to mind, but I would be surprised if more extreme examples didn't exist).

[ChaosDefender24]

It would also be another nail in the monk's coffin and be mean for King of Smack in general...

[Zergrusheddie]

Interesting idea, but it would be game breaking against a few characters.
A Monk can get to 8d8 damage pretty easily, but they are probably only going to be +3 at the most; so anything with a DR 10/- and an army of level 20 Monks can't do anything?
Adamantite Full-Plate Armor gives DR 3. Well, that negates 50% of any damage done by a Rogue.

I understand the point, if a Wererat's skin makes him nigh immune to anything but silver, why should he care about a Rogue's Rapier hitting his liver? It makes sense, but screwing with mechanics that are fine for role-playing reasons would really make players --->

That would be like making a Wizard roll for SR for every damage dice he did with his Fireball...

[Kalirren]

I don't actually know how damage reduction works in 4E, but it seems like this would be a more easily implementable idea for 4E than for 3E. Something like,

DR X/(keywords) = for each [W] of weapon damage or die of bonus damage/power damage dealt by sources without the indicated keywords, only rolls of X or greater contribute to the damage total. This does not affect any nonvariable damage modifiers (e.g. Str, vulnerability.)

[Prometheus]

So on the energy resistance, it would have an effect very similar to taking a percent cut of energy damage rather than a flat amount (which brings it closer to the pattern of most RPGs). Your system would be better, though, because it allows some magic to punch through better and the effect to be more erratic at low levels. That one works.

[Tacoma]

This might work if the whole system was structured such that precise attacks were always multiple dice while very powerful attacks were a single block of damage. This way a thief pinking away with sneak attack and a knife wouldn't do anything to a dragon while someone dropping a tower on it would crush it straight away, even if the total damage for each attack before DR were both 300 points.

I think nerfing Power Attack to only offer a trade in attack bonus for damage bonus, with no other rules available even in epic power attack, would result in a more balanced game than changing DR. And such a wide-ranging DR shift would affect myriad rules rather than just one at a time.