Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:51:53 -0700, Gary Foss <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET> wrote:
    >At 10:21 PM 6/11/01 -0700, I wrote:
    ...
    >>5a. There was a lot of talk about a BR 3e conversion manual that bogged
    >>down on issues like whether dwarves should take half damage vs bludgeoning
    >>weapons or whether that should be changed to the more 3e damage
    >>reduction. A 3/0 damage reduction or so.
    >
    >Personally, I liked the damage reduction interpretation better, though I
    >would have preferred keeping it out of a straight conversion manual. A
    >totally revamped setting, however, might be OK. 2/0 or 3/0 sounds
    >reasonable to me.

    A thought that occured to me quite a while after reading this:
    A fixed damage reduction for dwarfs against blunt damage of 2 or 3/0 or even
    5/0 will be very useful at early levels, but lose importance very soon, as
    the damage reduction of 2,3 or even 5 is not that great if the character
    reaches higher levels and encounters more dangerous foes, and because of
    magical weapons of higher levels bypass damage reduction.

    So any enemy with a mace +1 will hit the dwarf for full damage because a +1
    weapon bypasses damage reduction X/0.

    So the 3E Damage reduction has 2 major flaws. It does not stay useful for
    the dwarf in the course of his career and it is useless as soon as magical
    weapons even of low power become available.

    The old 2E half damage from blunted weapons is better in both cases:
    Even when hit by magical maces the 2E dwarf took only half damage because of
    the density of his body - why should a magical weapon of +1 bonus be able to
    bypass the dwarven density of body?


    Some people complained, that the half damage from blunted weapons is wrong,
    because the damage not taken will be different, e.g. if hit by a humanoid
    with a mace perhaps 3 of an 1D6, but if a giant hits the dwarf with a club
    it will be 20 or even 30 points of damage not taken.

    Now balance is established in the way that a character will (or should)
    encounter only enemys approbiate to his level - the massive amount of posts
    regarding ECL´s is all about balance. So our dwarf will at low levels meet
    low-level enemys where he will not take low-level amounts of damage, and
    later in his career when he meets high-level enemys like giants he will not
    take high-level amounts of damage. This only means that the 2E half damage
    perfectly scales with character level :-)
    bye
    Michael Romes

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:51:53 -0700, Gary Foss <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET> wrote:
    >At 10:21 PM 6/11/01 -0700, I wrote:
    ...
    >>5a. There was a lot of talk about a BR 3e conversion manual that bogged
    >>down on issues like whether dwarves should take half damage vs bludgeoning
    >>weapons or whether that should be changed to the more 3e damage
    >>reduction. A 3/0 damage reduction or so.
    >
    >Personally, I liked the damage reduction interpretation better, though I
    >would have preferred keeping it out of a straight conversion manual. A
    >totally revamped setting, however, might be OK. 2/0 or 3/0 sounds
    >reasonable to me.

    A thought that occured to me quite a while after reading this:
    A fixed damage reduction for dwarfs against blunt damage of 2 or 3/0 or even
    5/0 will be very useful at early levels, but lose importance very soon, as
    the damage reduction of 2,3 or even 5 is not that great if the character
    reaches higher levels and encounters more dangerous foes, and because of
    magical weapons of higher levels bypass damage reduction.

    So any enemy with a mace +1 will hit the dwarf for full damage because a +1
    weapon bypasses damage reduction X/0.

    So the 3E Damage reduction has 2 major flaws. It does not stay useful for
    the dwarf in the course of his career and it is useless as soon as magical
    weapons even of low power become available.

    The old 2E half damage from blunted weapons is better in both cases:
    Even when hit by magical maces the 2E dwarf took only half damage because of
    the density of his body - why should a magical weapon of +1 bonus be able to
    bypass the dwarven density of body?


    Some people complained, that the half damage from blunted weapons is wrong,
    because the damage not taken will be different, e.g. if hit by a humanoid
    with a mace perhaps 3 of an 1D6, but if a giant hits the dwarf with a club
    it will be 20 or even 30 points of damage not taken.

    Now balance is established in the way that a character will (or should)
    encounter only enemys approbiate to his level - the massive amount of posts
    regarding ECL´s is all about balance. So our dwarf will at low levels meet
    low-level enemys where he will not take low-level amounts of damage, and
    later in his career when he meets high-level enemys like giants he will not
    take high-level amounts of damage. This only means that the 2E half damage
    perfectly scales with character level :-)
    bye
    Michael Romes

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  3. #3
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    388
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Sun, 11 May 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
    > >Personally, I liked the damage reduction interpretation better, though I
    > >would have preferred keeping it out of a straight conversion manual. A
    > >totally revamped setting, however, might be OK. 2/0 or 3/0 sounds
    > >reasonable to me.
    >
    > A thought that occured to me quite a while after reading this:
    > A fixed damage reduction for dwarfs against blunt damage of 2 or 3/0 or even
    > 5/0 will be very useful at early levels, but lose importance very soon, as
    > the damage reduction of 2,3 or even 5 is not that great if the character
    > reaches higher levels and encounters more dangerous foes, and because of
    > magical weapons of higher levels bypass damage reduction.
    >
    > So any enemy with a mace +1 will hit the dwarf for full damage because a +1
    > weapon bypasses damage reduction X/0.

    There`s no such notation as DR 5/0. Do you mean 5/-, like a barbarian
    gets? Magical items don`t bypass that.

    Dwarves should have DR 5/(slashing or piercing). This is equivalent to
    what skeletons will be getting, which is DR 5/blunt. That means that a
    powerful hit will overwhelm it, even if it`s with a sword. That is the
    intention.

    In fact, this is an improvement. Skeletons might not be damaged much by a
    spear, but a ballista should hurt them quite a bit, as should a giant with
    a sword. Dwarvish damage reduction shouldn`t allow them to take half
    damage from a giant`s club, or from a mountain being dropped on them.
    But against a normal person with a club, they wouldn`t be very concerned.

    It`s not supposed to stay equally as useful for his entire career. 1st
    level spells aren`t as useful for a 20th level wizard, a skeleton should
    be easy to defeat at high level even if the warrior has a sword, and
    neither should the dwarf`s damage reduction help him out a lot at high
    level.

    > Even when hit by magical maces the 2E dwarf took only half damage
    > because of the density of his body - why should a magical weapon of +1
    > bonus be able to bypass the dwarven density of body?

    This is a bad argument. In the revised edition, magical weapons don`t
    trump immunity. A +1 sword doesn`t bypass DR 10/silver, for instance.
    --
    Communication is possible only between equals.
    Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  4. #4
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Pretty much everything Dan said is correct.

    I'd also add a more specific note that racial benefits rarely scale well with levels - they tend to be the most useful at the lowest levels, then slowly phase out in terms of importance. A +1 bonus to search checks means a lot more when your search skill total is +5 than when your search skill total is +35. Of course, it still makes a difference at the higher level (especially with scaling DCs), just that it's a relatively marginal benefit at that level anyway. The same thing is the case with most racial benefits - they make the relatively greatest difference at first level. Later, most racial abilities can be bought as magic items anyway - I seem to recall there's a belt that gives you most of the standard PHB dwarven package, for instance.

    Finally, just to elaborate a bit on the 3.5e damage reduction system: There's going to be a lot of different materials that penetrate different forms of damage reductions, and some forms that remain impenetrable. A barbarian gains DR 1/- at 7th level or so - which scales to 5/- at around 20th level, and isn't negatable by any weapon (possibly except for that artifact sword that nullifies all DR and hardness). Then there's DR x/magic, which simply requires a magic weapon - there's no longer a hierarchy of "DR x/+y" - and then there's a lot of new categories, like cold iron, holysilver, blessed weapons, whatever - the bottom line is that DR will probably be a more pronounced story feature of most monsters.

    Giving dwarves a simple DR x/piercing or slashing is a good benefit, but not nearly overpowering. They'll still have the same DR at 20th level, only it'll mean that they'll be able to withstand a giant's club a bit better than most, but they'll still feel it. Even at 20th level, there aren't that many things causing 50 points of bludgeoning damage in one blow (which is why combats tend to last longer at higher levels).

    The bottom line is really that the mechanics should be the most streamlined and standardized ones, in order to facilitate gameplay.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    daniel mcsorley wrote:

    >On Sun, 11 May 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
    >
    ...

    >>So any enemy with a mace +1 will hit the dwarf for full damage because a +1
    >>weapon bypasses damage reduction X/0.
    >>
    >There`s no such notation as DR 5/0. Do you mean 5/-, like a barbarian
    >gets? Magical items don`t bypass that.
    >
    Not? I read the Monks Damage reduction of 20/+1 which he gets at 20th
    level and this is bypassed by +1 weapons.
    I assumed that damage reduction of X/whatever is bypassed by the next
    higher material like /normal weapons, /silver, /+1, /+2 and so on. Isn´t
    that so in 3E?

    >Dwarves should have DR 5/(slashing or piercing). This is equivalent to
    >what skeletons will be getting, which is DR 5/blunt. That means that a
    >powerful hit will overwhelm it, even if it`s with a sword. That is the
    >intention.
    >In fact, this is an improvement. Skeletons might not be damaged much by a
    >spear, but a ballista should hurt them quite a bit, as should a giant with
    >a sword. Dwarvish damage reduction shouldn`t allow them to take half
    >damage from a giant`s club, or from a mountain being dropped on them.
    >But against a normal person with a club, they wouldn`t be very concerned.
    >
    >It`s not supposed to stay equally as useful for his entire career. 1st
    >level spells aren`t as useful for a 20th level wizard, a skeleton should
    >be easy to defeat at high level even if the warrior has a sword, and
    >neither should the dwarf`s damage reduction help him out a lot at high
    >level.
    >
    Yes, but in the 2E version of half damage from blunt weapons it did stay
    useful throughout the entire life of the dwarf.

    >>Even when hit by magical maces the 2E dwarf took only half damage
    >>because of the density of his body - why should a magical weapon of +1
    >>bonus be able to bypass the dwarven density of body?
    >>
    >
    >This is a bad argument. In the revised edition, magical weapons don`t
    >trump immunity. A +1 sword doesn`t bypass DR 10/silver, for instance.
    >
    In the 3.5 release?
    If they changed that, then in that point you are right. If blunt damage
    from all weapons, including magical maces +1 is reduced, then my 1st
    argument is void.
    bye
    Michael

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.