Adamantine armor and DR [Archive] - Wizards Community

Adamantine armor and DR [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
bgimmy83
04-24-07, 11:08 AM Hi,
Damage Reduction from adamantine armor 3/- and damage reduction from innate ability (for example 2/-), give 5/- Damage Reduction?

Thank you (Sorry for my bad english):D
tarkin
04-24-07, 11:14 AM No.

DR does not stack, it overlaps, unless it expressely states otherwise.

The only case I know of where it says it states otherwise in in Prestige Classes that stack with barbarian.
eggplantm
04-24-07, 02:14 PM I do not know where this is stated but for some reason, the DR /- does stack. I've seen examples of this but I'm not sure where you find it in the rules so a Barbarian's DR does stack with an adamantine armor's DR. I'm sure of this, I just wish I could find the source.
Kursk
04-24-07, 02:25 PM By RAW it doesn't stack. I let it stack for my game if it is innate + armor, similar to natural AC + armor.
tarkin
04-24-07, 03:04 PM I do not know where this is stated but for some reason, the DR /- does stack. I've seen examples of this but I'm not sure where you find it in the rules so a Barbarian's DR does stack with an adamantine armor's DR. I'm sure of this, I just wish I could find the source.

You are using a published House Rule. I believe it was published in the PHB II, or another such book. It is very clearly defined as changing from the standard rules, similar to the way the optional rules for using recharge times instead of spell slots is a published House Rule.

If you check the SRD here http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction

you will see:

"If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation. "
WhiteHarness
04-25-07, 06:51 PM It doesn't stack, but it should. I'd see nothing wrong with permitting DR from adamantine, class features, and the Armour Specialization feat to stack. This would make wearing armour worthwhile again, even at higher levels.
allenchan
04-25-07, 07:04 PM Screw the rules. Definitely allow it to stack.
Kalsyre
04-25-07, 09:00 PM I see two problems with letting DR stack.

The first is, if you let DR stack you will get players arguing to let other things stack. Why is it ok to change the rules and let DR stack for the Barbarian and not let armor bonus' stack for the fighter? Or INT bonus' for the Mage?

The other is anytime you start stacking it can really make things unbalanced. DR1+DR2 isnt so bad... But DR4+DR2+DR2 = DR8 on every hit. Even at high lvls thats too powerful.
Mystic Theurge
04-25-07, 09:18 PM The only DR that stacks at all, even in varient rules, is DR X/-. Most PRCs that grant that type of DR say specificly that it stacks with other sources that grant DR X/-. If a DM uses the armor as DR varient fromthe UA, it specificly states that it stacks. However, even in the varient rules, this seems to be the only instance where one type of DR stacks with another.
Jaxgaret
04-25-07, 09:23 PM Deleted due to inaccuracy.
saidin0111
04-25-07, 09:27 PM actually, doesn't adamantine armor provide DR in standard rules? I think it's the only one that does, but IIRC it does provide some w/o houserules
Mystic Theurge
04-25-07, 09:46 PM actually, doesn't adamantine armor provide DR in standard rules? I think it's the only one that does, but IIRC it does provide some w/o houserules
Yes, and the OP was asking about that. The problem is, if there is any official, core rules that says that the DR from adam. armor stacks with, say, the DR of a barbarian (or dwarven defender, which would be the more likely user of adam. armor), it is difficult to find, at least in the core books.

I don't see a problem with it. I typically run games with the armor as DR variant from the UA, so there are a few characters with high DR. It's still bypassable (especially with energy and magic), so when a character gets high in level, alot of monsters also have a high DR. Alot of magic is being flung around, so DR sometimes doesn't even come into play at all.
saidin0111
04-25-07, 10:28 PM yes, I understand the debate, my post was in reply to the post directly above it, which has now been deleted, that said something akin to no armor has inherent dr without using the armor as dr variant rule
Qube
04-26-07, 04:36 AM Yes, and the OP was asking about that. The problem is, if there is any official, core rules that says that the DR from adam. armor stacks with, say, the DR of a barbarian (or dwarven defender, which would be the more likely user of adam. armor)I'dd said mythral full plate: allows higher dex -> more AC

DR that stacks? thats the first I here of it. IMO it would be stated diffrenlty if it did stack (like amulet of natural armor).
mvincent
04-26-07, 02:08 PM If you check the SRD here http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction

you will see:

"If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation. "Yup.
Kursk
04-26-07, 06:18 PM I see two problems with letting DR stack.

The first is, if you let DR stack you will get players arguing to let other things stack. Why is it ok to change the rules and let DR stack for the Barbarian and not let armor bonus' stack for the fighter? Or INT bonus' for the Mage?

The other is anytime you start stacking it can really make things unbalanced. DR1+DR2 isnt so bad... But DR4+DR2+DR2 = DR8 on every hit. Even at high lvls thats too powerful.

Hmm, no. I just allow armor DR & natural DR stack. Just like armor & natural AC. Pretty narrow and logical.

Also, my players aren't allowed to argue with me. ;)
Mystic Theurge
04-26-07, 06:29 PM From the Unearthed Arcana:
The damage reduction granted by armor stacks with other damage reduction of the same type (that is, damage reduction that has a dash after the number). A 7th-level barbarian wearing a breastplate has DR 3/- (1/- from his class levels and 2/- from his armor). A fighter wearing full plate armor who is the target of a stoneskin spell, however, has DR 4/- from the armor and 10/adamantine from the spell.
This is not to say that it has to stack, but I get the distinct impression by those who are against it stacking that it "just isn't done". If anything, the UA says otherwise. It is OK to allow the DR of adam. armor to stack with other DR of the same type. It's not going to ruin your game.
HappyGhoul
04-26-07, 06:56 PM That quote is from the section on a specific houserule, and is irrelevant unless you're using that rule.

It's like how the spell point variant says that prepared casters set a list of spells known for the day and then cast them in any proportion they wish. Doesn't affect how wizards normally work, just explains how the variant functions.
mvincent
04-26-07, 06:58 PM From the Unearthed Arcana:That can be seen here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm#stackingDamag eReduction).

However (for context) that is part of the "Armor As Damage Reduction" rules. In that context, you would have to allow some stacking for balance sake.

In context, it does not appear that UA is advocating the stacking of DR outside of the "Armor As Damage Reduction" rules. Your quote seems misleading, as it seems to imply that they do advocate such (when taken out of context).
Mystic Theurge
04-26-07, 07:31 PM There's nothing misleading about it, since I have stated a few times that it is a house rule and everyone knows that the UA is a book of house rules. My point is, and always has been that there IS an option to allow DR of the X/- type to stack. I have NEVER stated that this is the official stance of the core rules (in fact, I have agreed that the rule is not core). My point has also been that it's OK to use that rule. I dont' see anywhere that my points have been ambiguous or misleading in any way. Nor is it irrelavent or taken out of context.

The point is, bringing up the UA "house rule" is that you CAN allow the X/- type of DR to stack. It has been done. I have years of experience playing it this way and I can testify that it hasn't hurt the game in the least. I have NEVER claimed that it HAS to be this way it is done. The reason why I brought up the quote is because the SRD was quoted giving the leaning that this sort of thing CAN'T or SHOULDN'T be done and I think that it CAN be done. Wether or not it SHOULD be done is left up to the individual DM. That is my stance. Hopefully that clears up any ambiguity.
mvincent
04-26-07, 08:05 PM There's nothing misleading about itIt seemed misleading to me, as it meant something entirely different once placed into context.

there IS an option to allow DR of the X/- type to stack.Certainly. One can house rule anything.

My point has also been that it's OK to use that rule.I don't disagree. I was just surprised to hear of something in UA that was done that way. On further investigation, I discovered it actually did not do it that way. In context, it is actually doing something entirely different.

I dont' see anywhere that my points have been ambiguous or misleadingI merely tried to help you see such. Your understanding here isn't really vital to me though.

The point is, bringing up the UA "house rule" is that you CAN allow the X/- type of DR to stack. It has been done.Not by UA (at least, not in a similar manner at all to what you were refering to). Allowing for some stacking when using the "Armor as DR" rules is actually completely different. Those rules necessitate some stacking in order to preserve balance (i.e. because it turns all regular armor into DR X/-)

I have years of experience playing it this way and I can testify that it hasn't hurt the game in the least.Again, I do not actually disagree with that. That is a subjective issue. I was merely pointing out an objective fact.
Mystic Theurge
04-26-07, 09:15 PM Again, I do not actually disagree with that. That is a subjective issue. I was merely pointing out an objective fact.
Your point is hardly objective fact. If you would kindly explain exactly how the "rule" in the UA was taken out of context, by all means, educate me. The context of the question is "does the DR of adamantine armor stack with other sources of the same type of DR". The context of the RAW is that it does not. The context of the armor as DR rules in the UA is that one can reasonably say that it does if that's how the DM runs their game. The rest of the arguments are merely for the benefit of convincing others of why it should or shouldn't.
chucky
04-27-07, 07:32 AM Roll with the blow, that gives 2/- dr every time you take the feat, stacks with everything.

Unless they have come out with a official errate to the feat that i dont know of.
saidin0111
04-27-07, 10:12 AM If I may interject, I believe that he was referring to the possibility that by omitting the specific situation in which the DR/- stacks, it can be construed that you are implying that the variant rule in UA allows all DR/- to stack all of the time, no matter the source, not just that your armor DR/- stacks with your best DR/- from other sources. I understand that due to the OP, you are assuming the context of armor stacking with some other source of DR, but the posts have expanded slightly beyond the bounds of the OP and thus omitting the circumstantial conditions of the variant rule has the potential to mislead. This is, at least, what I can surmise from the posts by both you and mvincent.
mvincent
04-27-07, 01:38 PM If you would kindly explain exactly how the "rule" in the UA was taken out of context, by all means, educate me.I (and several others) have already explained this to you several times (and also stated that I have no vested interest in you understanding anyway). I have reason to believe that I may not be able to make you understand at all, so this will be my last effort:

The UA method that allows DR stacking does so because it changes all armor to DR. If they did not allow some instances of DR stacking, then pretty much all (non armor) DR would be worthless (affecting game balance)... they stack DR because they pretty much have to due to their rule changes. They are not proposing stacking DR as an alternate rule... they are proposing an alternate armor rule that needs some stacking in order to be balanced.

In effect, this is actually an entirely different concept that what you were proposing (which was DR stacking using normal D&D armor rules). However, the quote you used made it seem like the same thing as what you were proposing. I'm not saying this was purposeful, merely that a clarification was in order for readers to fully understand the implication.
Mystic Theurge
04-27-07, 05:35 PM I (and several others) have already explained this to you several times (and also stated that I have no vested interest in you understanding anyway). I have reason to believe that I may not be able to make you understand at all, so this will be my last effort:
For someone who has no vested interest in my understanding, you are certainly making a fuss about this. :rolleyes: It's funny because all of this argument seems to be simply because you fail to understand. And yet, you are trying to get me to understand you (for which you have no vested interest, if I need to remind you).

I have endeavored to merely point out an instance. "See? If you look here, there is an instance where DR stacks." No matter how you slice it, it was merely an example.

If you want to go with misleading, your argument has given me the impression that your stance is that DR doesn't ever stack. That's fine. It's in the RAW. I've said that's fine.

Perhaps I'm not getting what you are trying to point out. I have clarified my stance, so I don't get what all the fuss is about. But somehow, I have the impression that you do have a vested interest in making me understand, and so I doubt I have heard the last from you. So spare me the "I'm more intellectual" crap.
Kursk
04-27-07, 06:11 PM Perhaps I'm not getting what you are trying to point out. I have clarified my stance, so I don't get what all the fuss is about. But somehow, I have the impression that you do have a vested interest in making me understand, and so I doubt I have heard the last from you. So spare me the "I'm more intellectual" crap.

I think he is pointing out the UA isn't a CORE product and thus isn't considered under RAW for D&D in general. I may be wrong.
Dragonteuthis
04-27-07, 07:03 PM Perhaps I'm not getting what you are trying to point out.

I appears to me he's trying to point out something I thought of when I read this thread yesterday, but decided against posting. The case that you pointed out, where DR x/- stacks with barbarian damager reduction, is only instituted with a change to some very fundamental rules.

In this case, they're splitting up armor bonuses, such that Full plater no longer gives +8 armor bonus, but instead gives +4 armor bonus to AC and DR 4/-.

Obviously they'd have to allow a Barbarian's damager reduction to stack, otherwise all of a sudden a barbarian is getting less effect out of armor, while everyone else is getting some benefit at the cost of the reduced AC bonus.

But, the whole point is that this is a specific case, where in order to make some "house rules" they have to change a something else (DR stacking rules) in order to keep it balanced an internally consistent.

Also, your first post came off as incomplete; it looked like you were trying to imply that UA stated that all DR x/- always stacks. I figured you weren't; that's why I didn't post to clarify yesterday; but perhaps others didn't give you the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: Oh, and for the record,
I have endeavored to merely point out an instance. "See? If you look here, there is an instance where DR stacks." No matter how you slice it, it was merely an example.

Isn't entirely accurate. It's actually an instance where, with house rules, DR stacks. Not in the game as a whole.
Toki_Wartooth
04-27-07, 07:33 PM For someone who has no vested interest in my understanding, you are certainly making a fuss about this. :rolleyes: You specifically asked him to this last time. Now you're rolling your eye because he did as you requested?

all of this argument seems to be simply because you fail to understand.Actually, it seems to be because you don't understand. You're acting stupid over a trivial matter, and can't seem to understand (or you're pretending to not understand) why the context of your earlier quote might be germane. You were representing an entirely different concept as being similar to your own.

The only conclusion left is that you are genuinely denser than a white dwarf, or you are actually being dishonest. All over something trivial.
kalstrand
04-28-07, 02:55 PM Even using the UA armor as DR rules all DR/- doesn't stack. Only the DR/- given by your armor stacks. A Dwarven Defender/Barbarian (if you can make them work together)would not add the DR/- from their classes even if you are using the UA rules but they could add their DR/- from the armor they are wearing to the better of the DR/- ratings granted by the class.
Sciron
04-28-07, 03:39 PM Getting away from the UA debate, an Iron Ward Diamond from Magic Item Compendium allows for a stacking of damage reduction. Its damage reduction properties stack with similar damage reduction granted by any other source.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bgimmy83 04-24-07, 11:08 AM	Hi, Damage Reduction from adamantine armor 3/- and damage reduction from innate ability (for example 2/-), give 5/- Damage Reduction? Thank you (Sorry for my bad english):D
tarkin 04-24-07, 11:14 AM	No. DR does not stack, it overlaps, unless it expressely states otherwise. The only case I know of where it says it states otherwise in in Prestige Classes that stack with barbarian.
eggplantm 04-24-07, 02:14 PM	I do not know where this is stated but for some reason, the DR /- does stack. I've seen examples of this but I'm not sure where you find it in the rules so a Barbarian's DR does stack with an adamantine armor's DR. I'm sure of this, I just wish I could find the source.
Kursk 04-24-07, 02:25 PM	By RAW it doesn't stack. I let it stack for my game if it is innate + armor, similar to natural AC + armor.
tarkin 04-24-07, 03:04 PM	I do not know where this is stated but for some reason, the DR /- does stack. I've seen examples of this but I'm not sure where you find it in the rules so a Barbarian's DR does stack with an adamantine armor's DR. I'm sure of this, I just wish I could find the source. You are using a published House Rule. I believe it was published in the PHB II, or another such book. It is very clearly defined as changing from the standard rules, similar to the way the optional rules for using recharge times instead of spell slots is a published House Rule. If you check the SRD here http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction you will see: "If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation. "
WhiteHarness 04-25-07, 06:51 PM	It doesn't stack, but it should. I'd see nothing wrong with permitting DR from adamantine, class features, and the Armour Specialization feat to stack. This would make wearing armour worthwhile again, even at higher levels.
allenchan 04-25-07, 07:04 PM	Screw the rules. Definitely allow it to stack.
Kalsyre 04-25-07, 09:00 PM	I see two problems with letting DR stack. The first is, if you let DR stack you will get players arguing to let other things stack. Why is it ok to change the rules and let DR stack for the Barbarian and not let armor bonus' stack for the fighter? Or INT bonus' for the Mage? The other is anytime you start stacking it can really make things unbalanced. DR1+DR2 isnt so bad... But DR4+DR2+DR2 = DR8 on every hit. Even at high lvls thats too powerful.
Mystic Theurge 04-25-07, 09:18 PM	The only DR that stacks at all, even in varient rules, is DR X/-. Most PRCs that grant that type of DR say specificly that it stacks with other sources that grant DR X/-. If a DM uses the armor as DR varient fromthe UA, it specificly states that it stacks. However, even in the varient rules, this seems to be the only instance where one type of DR stacks with another.
Jaxgaret 04-25-07, 09:23 PM	Deleted due to inaccuracy.
saidin0111 04-25-07, 09:27 PM	actually, doesn't adamantine armor provide DR in standard rules? I think it's the only one that does, but IIRC it does provide some w/o houserules
Mystic Theurge 04-25-07, 09:46 PM	actually, doesn't adamantine armor provide DR in standard rules? I think it's the only one that does, but IIRC it does provide some w/o houserules Yes, and the OP was asking about that. The problem is, if there is any official, core rules that says that the DR from adam. armor stacks with, say, the DR of a barbarian (or dwarven defender, which would be the more likely user of adam. armor), it is difficult to find, at least in the core books. I don't see a problem with it. I typically run games with the armor as DR variant from the UA, so there are a few characters with high DR. It's still bypassable (especially with energy and magic), so when a character gets high in level, alot of monsters also have a high DR. Alot of magic is being flung around, so DR sometimes doesn't even come into play at all.
saidin0111 04-25-07, 10:28 PM	yes, I understand the debate, my post was in reply to the post directly above it, which has now been deleted, that said something akin to no armor has inherent dr without using the armor as dr variant rule
Qube 04-26-07, 04:36 AM	Yes, and the OP was asking about that. The problem is, if there is any official, core rules that says that the DR from adam. armor stacks with, say, the DR of a barbarian (or dwarven defender, which would be the more likely user of adam. armor)I'dd said mythral full plate: allows higher dex -> more AC DR that stacks? thats the first I here of it. IMO it would be stated diffrenlty if it did stack (like amulet of natural armor).
mvincent 04-26-07, 02:08 PM	If you check the SRD here http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction you will see: "If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation. "Yup.
Kursk 04-26-07, 06:18 PM	I see two problems with letting DR stack. The first is, if you let DR stack you will get players arguing to let other things stack. Why is it ok to change the rules and let DR stack for the Barbarian and not let armor bonus' stack for the fighter? Or INT bonus' for the Mage? The other is anytime you start stacking it can really make things unbalanced. DR1+DR2 isnt so bad... But DR4+DR2+DR2 = DR8 on every hit. Even at high lvls thats too powerful. Hmm, no. I just allow armor DR & natural DR stack. Just like armor & natural AC. Pretty narrow and logical. Also, my players aren't allowed to argue with me. ;)
Mystic Theurge 04-26-07, 06:29 PM	From the Unearthed Arcana: The damage reduction granted by armor stacks with other damage reduction of the same type (that is, damage reduction that has a dash after the number). A 7th-level barbarian wearing a breastplate has DR 3/- (1/- from his class levels and 2/- from his armor). A fighter wearing full plate armor who is the target of a stoneskin spell, however, has DR 4/- from the armor and 10/adamantine from the spell. This is not to say that it has to stack, but I get the distinct impression by those who are against it stacking that it "just isn't done". If anything, the UA says otherwise. It is OK to allow the DR of adam. armor to stack with other DR of the same type. It's not going to ruin your game.
HappyGhoul 04-26-07, 06:56 PM	That quote is from the section on a specific houserule, and is irrelevant unless you're using that rule. It's like how the spell point variant says that prepared casters set a list of spells known for the day and then cast them in any proportion they wish. Doesn't affect how wizards normally work, just explains how the variant functions.
mvincent 04-26-07, 06:58 PM	From the Unearthed Arcana:That can be seen here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm#stackingDamag eReduction). However (for context) that is part of the "Armor As Damage Reduction" rules. In that context, you would have to allow some stacking for balance sake. In context, it does not appear that UA is advocating the stacking of DR outside of the "Armor As Damage Reduction" rules. Your quote seems misleading, as it seems to imply that they do advocate such (when taken out of context).
Mystic Theurge 04-26-07, 07:31 PM	There's nothing misleading about it, since I have stated a few times that it is a house rule and everyone knows that the UA is a book of house rules. My point is, and always has been that there IS an option to allow DR of the X/- type to stack. I have NEVER stated that this is the official stance of the core rules (in fact, I have agreed that the rule is not core). My point has also been that it's OK to use that rule. I dont' see anywhere that my points have been ambiguous or misleading in any way. Nor is it irrelavent or taken out of context. The point is, bringing up the UA "house rule" is that you CAN allow the X/- type of DR to stack. It has been done. I have years of experience playing it this way and I can testify that it hasn't hurt the game in the least. I have NEVER claimed that it HAS to be this way it is done. The reason why I brought up the quote is because the SRD was quoted giving the leaning that this sort of thing CAN'T or SHOULDN'T be done and I think that it CAN be done. Wether or not it SHOULD be done is left up to the individual DM. That is my stance. Hopefully that clears up any ambiguity.
mvincent 04-26-07, 08:05 PM	There's nothing misleading about itIt seemed misleading to me, as it meant something entirely different once placed into context. there IS an option to allow DR of the X/- type to stack.Certainly. One can house rule anything. My point has also been that it's OK to use that rule.I don't disagree. I was just surprised to hear of something in UA that was done that way. On further investigation, I discovered it actually did not do it that way. In context, it is actually doing something entirely different. I dont' see anywhere that my points have been ambiguous or misleadingI merely tried to help you see such. Your understanding here isn't really vital to me though. The point is, bringing up the UA "house rule" is that you CAN allow the X/- type of DR to stack. It has been done.Not by UA (at least, not in a similar manner at all to what you were refering to). Allowing for some stacking when using the "Armor as DR" rules is actually completely different. Those rules necessitate some stacking in order to preserve balance (i.e. because it turns all regular armor into DR X/-) I have years of experience playing it this way and I can testify that it hasn't hurt the game in the least.Again, I do not actually disagree with that. That is a subjective issue. I was merely pointing out an objective fact.
Mystic Theurge 04-26-07, 09:15 PM	Again, I do not actually disagree with that. That is a subjective issue. I was merely pointing out an objective fact. Your point is hardly objective fact. If you would kindly explain exactly how the "rule" in the UA was taken out of context, by all means, educate me. The context of the question is "does the DR of adamantine armor stack with other sources of the same type of DR". The context of the RAW is that it does not. The context of the armor as DR rules in the UA is that one can reasonably say that it does if that's how the DM runs their game. The rest of the arguments are merely for the benefit of convincing others of why it should or shouldn't.
chucky 04-27-07, 07:32 AM	Roll with the blow, that gives 2/- dr every time you take the feat, stacks with everything. Unless they have come out with a official errate to the feat that i dont know of.
saidin0111 04-27-07, 10:12 AM	If I may interject, I believe that he was referring to the possibility that by omitting the specific situation in which the DR/- stacks, it can be construed that you are implying that the variant rule in UA allows all DR/- to stack all of the time, no matter the source, not just that your armor DR/- stacks with your best DR/- from other sources. I understand that due to the OP, you are assuming the context of armor stacking with some other source of DR, but the posts have expanded slightly beyond the bounds of the OP and thus omitting the circumstantial conditions of the variant rule has the potential to mislead. This is, at least, what I can surmise from the posts by both you and mvincent.
mvincent 04-27-07, 01:38 PM	If you would kindly explain exactly how the "rule" in the UA was taken out of context, by all means, educate me.I (and several others) have already explained this to you several times (and also stated that I have no vested interest in you understanding anyway). I have reason to believe that I may not be able to make you understand at all, so this will be my last effort: The UA method that allows DR stacking does so because it changes all armor to DR. If they did not allow some instances of DR stacking, then pretty much all (non armor) DR would be worthless (affecting game balance)... they stack DR because they pretty much have to due to their rule changes. They are not proposing stacking DR as an alternate rule... they are proposing an alternate armor rule that needs some stacking in order to be balanced. In effect, this is actually an entirely different concept that what you were proposing (which was DR stacking using normal D&D armor rules). However, the quote you used made it seem like the same thing as what you were proposing. I'm not saying this was purposeful, merely that a clarification was in order for readers to fully understand the implication.
Mystic Theurge 04-27-07, 05:35 PM	I (and several others) have already explained this to you several times (and also stated that I have no vested interest in you understanding anyway). I have reason to believe that I may not be able to make you understand at all, so this will be my last effort: For someone who has no vested interest in my understanding, you are certainly making a fuss about this. :rolleyes: It's funny because all of this argument seems to be simply because you fail to understand. And yet, you are trying to get me to understand you (for which you have no vested interest, if I need to remind you). I have endeavored to merely point out an instance. "See? If you look here, there is an instance where DR stacks." No matter how you slice it, it was merely an example. If you want to go with misleading, your argument has given me the impression that your stance is that DR doesn't ever stack. That's fine. It's in the RAW. I've said that's fine. Perhaps I'm not getting what you are trying to point out. I have clarified my stance, so I don't get what all the fuss is about. But somehow, I have the impression that you do have a vested interest in making me understand, and so I doubt I have heard the last from you. So spare me the "I'm more intellectual" crap.
Kursk 04-27-07, 06:11 PM	Perhaps I'm not getting what you are trying to point out. I have clarified my stance, so I don't get what all the fuss is about. But somehow, I have the impression that you do have a vested interest in making me understand, and so I doubt I have heard the last from you. So spare me the "I'm more intellectual" crap. I think he is pointing out the UA isn't a CORE product and thus isn't considered under RAW for D&D in general. I may be wrong.
Dragonteuthis 04-27-07, 07:03 PM	Perhaps I'm not getting what you are trying to point out. I appears to me he's trying to point out something I thought of when I read this thread yesterday, but decided against posting. The case that you pointed out, where DR x/- stacks with barbarian damager reduction, is only instituted with a change to some very fundamental rules. In this case, they're splitting up armor bonuses, such that Full plater no longer gives +8 armor bonus, but instead gives +4 armor bonus to AC and DR 4/-. Obviously they'd have to allow a Barbarian's damager reduction to stack, otherwise all of a sudden a barbarian is getting less effect out of armor, while everyone else is getting some benefit at the cost of the reduced AC bonus. But, the whole point is that this is a specific case, where in order to make some "house rules" they have to change a something else (DR stacking rules) in order to keep it balanced an internally consistent. Also, your first post came off as incomplete; it looked like you were trying to imply that UA stated that all DR x/- always stacks. I figured you weren't; that's why I didn't post to clarify yesterday; but perhaps others didn't give you the benefit of the doubt. Edit: Oh, and for the record, I have endeavored to merely point out an instance. "See? If you look here, there is an instance where DR stacks." No matter how you slice it, it was merely an example. Isn't entirely accurate. It's actually an instance where, with house rules, DR stacks. Not in the game as a whole.
Toki_Wartooth 04-27-07, 07:33 PM	For someone who has no vested interest in my understanding, you are certainly making a fuss about this. :rolleyes: You specifically asked him to this last time. Now you're rolling your eye because he did as you requested? all of this argument seems to be simply because you fail to understand.Actually, it seems to be because you don't understand. You're acting stupid over a trivial matter, and can't seem to understand (or you're pretending to not understand) why the context of your earlier quote might be germane. You were representing an entirely different concept as being similar to your own. The only conclusion left is that you are genuinely denser than a white dwarf, or you are actually being dishonest. All over something trivial.
kalstrand 04-28-07, 02:55 PM	Even using the UA armor as DR rules all DR/- doesn't stack. Only the DR/- given by your armor stacks. A Dwarven Defender/Barbarian (if you can make them work together)would not add the DR/- from their classes even if you are using the UA rules but they could add their DR/- from the armor they are wearing to the better of the DR/- ratings granted by the class.
Sciron 04-28-07, 03:39 PM	Getting away from the UA debate, an Iron Ward Diamond from Magic Item Compendium allows for a stacking of damage reduction. Its damage reduction properties stack with similar damage reduction granted by any other source.