Back in the day, just about every Dungeon Master had a set of house rules, or special exceptions to normal play that usually dealt with some offending bit of tech or a gap left in the rules. Some DMs had a few; others had huge binders filled with all sorts of changes and corrections for their games. I was no exception. We had eight ability scores (Perception and Comeliness). We also used Rolemaster’s Arms Law for critical hits and fumbles. One rule I changed that sticks out clearly in my memory was “+x or better to hit,” which was the kiss of death for player characters in my games.
You might say I was a bit stingy with the magic items. Bring a 10th-level character into my ongoing campaign, and I’d tell you to buy your equipment just as if you were a 1st-level character. I knew what happened in “Monty Haul” campaigns and, overcorrecting, went in the opposite direction. You’d be thrilled to find a +1 mancatcher in my games, even if you were double specialized in the two-handed sword.
Magic items’ rarity, fair or not, gave my campaigns a distinctive tone and mood, and I felt empowered to take more liberties with customizing the items I did give out—thus making the items feel even more special. This, I feel, was great. What wasn’t great was how a gargoyle could carve a path through the PCs, their attacks bouncing off the monster’s stony hide.
In the old days, a few monsters had traits that made them immune to weapon damage unless that weapon had a special characteristic, such as being +1 (in the case of the gargoyle), silver or magic (for the wight), or +2 or better (for the elementals). This meant that no matter what Armor Class you hit with your normal, mundane weapon, you could never land a blow against these critters. So, in a magic-item-light campaign, the wizard and the cleric had to deal with gargoyles and woe to the adventuring party that was out of spells when they did have to square off against these bad guys. Run or die.
In hindsight, I’ve warmed a bit to the old “+1 or better” mechanics. It was a rule that told you something about the world and the critters living in it. An earth elemental loosed in a town was a big deal, not just because it was an 8, 12, or 16 Hit Dice monster that could deal 4–32 points of damage on a hit, but because, unless stopped by a spellcaster or some hero with a glowing sword, it would destroy the community and there wasn’t much anyone could do about it.
At the time, though, I felt the restriction was a bit too severe and quickly instituted a “natural 20” always hit rule, regardless of the weapon requirements. This still sucked for the players, but it gave them a chance. I suspect many DMs in my situation ignored the rule, used a similar solution, or came up with something else. In fact, D&D eventually dealt with this mechanic when 3rd edition came around with damage reduction.
Damage reduction simulated what was happening in 1st and 2nd edition by reducing all weapon damage by some value unless the weapon possessed a specific characteristic such as being +1, +2, +3, and so on. The high DR given to these creatures helped them deflect most, if not all, of the damage dealt by weapons under these values, but often it gave PCs a chance to chip away at these critters by expending more resources to do so. Fighters would use Power Attack to dish out buckets of damage. Spellcasters might buff their allies to boost their weapons or damage output. In the end, the PCs could deal with the monster when they didn’t have the requisite item, though doing so would cost them in spells, hit points, and so on.
The 3.5 rules scaled back DR in a big way. The values dropped all across the board, and the DR that could be overcome by +2 or +4 weapons could now be overcome by any magic item (or epic item). This made sense. After all, a monster with DR 40/+3 was essentially immune to weapon damage. Making the DR 20/magic reduced these monsters’ lethality and meant DMs could use them more often and without fear that doing so would wipe out parties. This move did have an unfortunate side effect. It reduced the importance of finding a +3, +4, or +5 weapon. Many players opted to ditch the higher pluses for add-on damage boost enhancements such as shock, flaming, and holy. Furthermore, magic weapon, a 1st-level spell, could trump most forms of DR at level 1. Scribe some scrolls and you never had to worry about DR again.
Resistance swallowed damage reduction and the concept of “+1 or better to hit” whole in the 4th edition rules. Monsters who traditionally had some form of damage reduction either lost the feature (such as the elementals), tucked it inside another feature (the gargoyle’s stone form) or simply had resist x all, which meant that the monster reduced any damage sustained by x regardless of its type or source. Simpler, faster, and easier to manage, the resistance rules became something a DM could absorb easily and implement in game after game, without having to worry that the PCs would not be able to affect the monster.
Across the editions, the issue of “+1 or better” to hit has been a thorny one and each edition after the first has sought ways to address the problem by slowly stripping away the impact this special quality has on game play. My question is this: Does a “+1 or better weapon to hit” or a damage reduction mechanic still belong in the game?
Some feel that damage reduction should be its own thing, outside of resistance. The reason is that damage reduction applies only to weapon attacks and can be overcome with weapons that have certain plusses or materials. Since the DR has special rules attached to it, it ought to be its own thing.
Others feel that damage reduction’s peculiarities do not justify a separate rules mechanic and the entire concept can be folded inside a more general resistance mechanic. In such cases, you might see something like “resist 3 weapon (silver negates)” or “resist 3 bludgeoning, piercing, slashing (+1 negates).”
And then there’s another camp that thinks damage reduction and resistance as broad rules should just go away entirely and the mechanics would be best if just spelled out on a case-by-case basis for the monsters that really need them.
So, what do you think?
