Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lgw 09-14-04, 10:43 AM	i really, really wonder about, what sense it makes for, eg, a mighty solar to have dr\evil, when 90%+ the fighting he does is actually against evil, so his dr is naught. or am i misunderstanding here something, someway ? as, for roleplaying reasons, i would give him dr\good - so only creatures as "strong in faith" as he is, might be able to overcome his dr (if ever necessary).
Lina_Inverse 09-14-04, 11:01 AM	i really, really wonder about, what sense it makes for, eg, a mighty solar to have dr\evil, when 90%+ the fighting he does is actually against evil, so his dr is naught. or am i misunderstanding here something, someway ? as, for roleplaying reasons, i would give him dr\good - so only creatures as "strong in faith" as he is, might be able to overcome his dr (if ever necessary). so good should only fight good?that makes no sense from a roleplaying standpoint,the reason hes WEAK to evil is just that.being made from good evil is more disruptive to him.
Razorblade Smile 09-14-04, 11:13 AM	His point is that it doesn't make sense to have it in the first place. Oh goody, if some other equally nice guy comes up and smacks you on the head, you're not going ot feel it. But if that evil dude across the street wants to see you dead, your divine essence isn't going to do jack to stop it from hurting you. I can see why it would be beneficial to evil creatures to have it (since in-fighting is a common phenomenon there), but anyone of good alignment who has DR/evil is just... pointless. Unless they focus on picking on neutral middle-of-the-road opponents. Alignment-based resistances are silly to the nth-degree. It made a lot more sense "back in the day" when your ability to puncture damage resistance was based upon your own resistances; if you were big and bad enough to hurt an angel, you were big and bad enough to hurt a demon, a dragon, and just about anything else on the same or lower rung as you. Alignment should be a roleplaying consideration anyway. I hate how D&D forces it to be a solid game mechanic that actually impacts aspects of the game. It's probably the single most loathed aspect of D&D beyond the whole class/level-based system.
Dreamer3333 09-14-04, 11:52 AM	the damage reduction "#/alignment" is based on the alignment of the weapon, not the alignment of the enemy. as an example, when fighting a devil with dr 10/good, my paladin (who has a +1 greatsword currently) was still having 10pts taken off of every shot. It doesn't matter that *I'm* LG, it's the weapon. Hence the "Align Weapon" spell. You can have "Good/Evil/Chaotic/Lawful" weapons. Monk's for example, eventually get their unarmed attacks to be "considered" magic, then lawful, and then adamantite......just for the purposes of getting past damage reduction (ie: once has "magic", doesn't do more damage, or have pluses to hit...just gets past n/magic dr) Hope this helps. -Dreamer
Razorblade Smile 09-14-04, 01:37 PM	Might wanna take a look at the examples used, cowpoke. Angels vs. demons. Both are considered good vs. evil as far as their natural weapons are concerned, and both were basically designed to fight each other with almost no concern towards anyone else unless they specifically get in the way. But of course their primary opponent, with whom they will be battling the vast majority of the time, gets through one of their most potent god-gifted defenses as if it was non-existant. Because it is non-existant. It's a silly, illogical, and downright stupid mechanic. It's silly, illogical, and stupid because it's a game mechanic based upon whether you think stealing candy from a baby is fun or abhorent -- and only if you're from a culture that gives it any consideration whatsoever in the first place! It's even worse with law vs. chaos... especially since any place that has "chaos" for a descriptor, chaos is law there and trying to inflict your law somewhere other than where it's law is chaos.