The power of magical attacks

[ad_hoc]

I've seen a trend of people brushing off abilities which make mundane attacks magical. This must be because in their games magic weapons are plentiful.

Even when people bring up that 5e monster balance is designed without magic items assumed, people still say that this cannot be the case because many monsters have resistance.

My counter to that would be - why bother having monsters have resistance if we're assuming all attacks are magical.

Our table uses random treasure hoards for magic item generation and as such magic weapons are fairly rare. This means even a +1 weapon is a wonderful and memorable item.

So we have some abilities out there like the Horizon Walker's force damage of the Devotion Paladin's Sacred Weapon which turns mundane damage into magical damage. I think these are good abilities and I think WotC does too.

Some evidence:

DMG pg 277 gives advice for how effective resistance to non-magical damage is by tier. So they do assume magic weapons will come about but the rate is much different than what I see people assuming online (where I've even seen some people assume them by level 3).

Levels 1-4 - HP x2
Levels 5-10 - HP x1.5
Levels 11-16 - HP x1.25
Levels 17+ - HP x1


So it's not until tier 4 when WotC assumes that all damage coming from the party is magical. Certainly through tier 2 it is a significant factor. Most of these magical damage abilities occur between levels 3-6 when they are most potent.

When evaluating how good an ability is, take into consideration that other tables may be playing with entirely different paradigms. Also keep in mind that there are many ways to play and it might be fun to mix things up a bit. Make magic items more rare and they become special.

[Slipperychicken]

In games I play, usually the GM doesn't have a ton of resistance-to-nonmagic until he's given us at least some magical weapons. It just feels a bit unfair otherwise.

For the charop discussions, I think it's just a case of people wanting to boil character builds down to clean mathematical constructs (i.e. expected damage), and making assumptions about anything else so they don't have to analyze it in depth or make too many caveats.

[Lunali]

I've seen a trend of people brushing off abilities which make mundane attacks magical. This must be because in their games magic weapons are plentiful.

Even when people bring up that 5e monster balance is designed without magic items assumed, people still say that this cannot be the case because many monsters have resistance.

My counter to that would be - why bother having monsters have resistance if we're assuming all attacks are magical.

While I don't disagree with you overall, there is a good reason to have some monsters with resistance/immunity to non-magical BPS attacks even if the party is assumed to have magical weapons. Monsters like these emphasize the difference between PCs and normal people or even soldiers.

[ad_hoc]

In games I play, usually the GM doesn't have a ton of resistance-to-nonmagic until he's given us at least some magical weapons. It just feels a bit unfair otherwise.



The flip side of this is that it is unfair to those who have magical attacks as abilities.

In the end I think that's the thrust of my post.



For the charop discussions, I think it's just a case of people wanting to boil character builds down to clean mathematical constructs (i.e. expected damage), and making assumptions about anything else so they don't have to analyze it in depth or make too many caveats.

Which, in the end, leaves them with erroneous conclusions.

[Lunali]

Which, in the end, leaves them with erroneous conclusions.

Or baselines that can be adapted to the current situation.

[Spore]

Our table uses random treasure hoards for magic item generation and as such magic weapons are fairly rare. This means even a +1 weapon is a wonderful and memorable item.

Are you serious? I am not trying to antagonize here but I feel a bland +1 weapon, even with a small fluff blurb about it is about as exciting as one's upgrade from a regular horse to a warhorse.

Sure, the numbers get better and the performance improves. But a magical weapon compared to a weapon is just a bland tool. I always feel doodads should have a combat use (like a magical sextant that also can cast Hunter's Mark) or weapons and armor may have an out of combat use (like a dagger that can be used as a skeleton key or a druidic armor that makes you able to cast animal messenger and speak with animals). Those items create memorable moments.

Anecdotal evidence points to the following: Our (Pathfinder) DM gave us a necklace of fresh air that could be used to breathe well in any circumstance. We sold it and bought many upgrades for it. Sure we were stronger for the new equipment but there were a few situations where the necklace would have been extremely helpful. Our room was sabotaged by a fire where breathing is pretty helpful. A vital quest item was drowned in a lake which meant we had to expend resources diving for it. We even got attacked by some devil worshippers spreading an airborne disease via siege weapons.

[JellyPooga]

Are you serious? I am not trying to antagonize here but I feel a bland +1 weapon, even with a small fluff blurb about it is about as exciting as one's upgrade from a regular horse to a warhorse.

I would respectfully disagree. If your entire schtick is hitting things really hard, a magic weapon is the first thing you'll want. Yes, doodads and trinkets with interesting effects are fun (if typically situational), but you don't get to use any of them if you're dead because you were dealing half damage against resistant foes. It's not just +1 to hit/damage; it lets you compete on a much more varied battlefield and that not only gives your GM more rein to throw more exotic foes at you, but also means you're not relying on limited use spells and effects to deal with them.

[MrStabby]

Interesting that this comes up now.

I am preparing a world for my next campaign and am addressing this precise issue. My current approach is a high magic world but almost no magic weapons. Magic rings, wands, helmets, cloaks... but not weapons. I am doing this specifically to give benefits to those who chose to invest character resources in having magic weapons.

[Bjarkmundur]

I like the magical resistances, it's a neat little side-quest for the players. They encounter a mob with resistance, get their asses handed to them, and now have to figure out how to get magical attacks.

[MrStabby]

I like the magical resistances, it's a neat little side-quest for the players. They encounter a mob with resistance, get their asses handed to them, and now have to figure out how to get magical attacks.

From a world building perspective it is also nice to have things resistant to non magic weapons. It gives a reason to send adventurers after a target rather than an army.

[Chronos]

Quoth Spore:

Are you serious? I am not trying to antagonize here but I feel a bland +1 weapon, even with a small fluff blurb about it is about as exciting as one's upgrade from a regular horse to a warhorse.

Quoth JellyPooga:

I would respectfully disagree. If your entire schtick is hitting things really hard, a magic weapon is the first thing you'll want. Yes, doodads and trinkets with interesting effects are fun (if typically situational), but you don't get to use any of them if you're dead because you were dealing half damage against resistant foes.
You're both right, which highlights a serious design flaw in the game. You really, really need that magical weapon, even if it's bland and boring, because the game is balanced on the assumption that you have it (no matter how often the devs say it's not). You need it so much that you'll prioritize getting something bland and boring over something cool and interesting. Any rule that incentivizes players to do something boring is a bad rule.

[Bigmouth]

I think it's an interesting take to see abilities that transform mundane attacks to magical ones as an advantage, and certainly a way of approaching the game that is valid, the truth of the matter is that these kind of things were created back when D&D was definitely built with the assumption that players were going to get a ton of magic items. Fighters were going to be tossing magic weapons into the trash even a few levels into the game. Even if the design philosophy of 5E says that this is no longer the case, published adventures tend to point towards the reality that magic items are still not quite as rare as the designers might theorize about. Some people really love loot, and power boosting loot makes even more players happy.

Personally, I've never been a fan of getting or giving a ton of magic items. I find it diminishes the heroic feel. However, if I as a GM was going to throw out resistant opponents in a game where magic weapons were rare to non-existent, it would only be to highlight a character that didn't get to shine very often or to start the characters down the path to getting magic weapons. Monk feels underpowered compared to the fighter in the party? The occasional resistant mob isn't bad. If it happens often, then it goes from highlighting the monk to punishing the fighter.

[firelistener]

I would respectfully disagree. If your entire schtick is hitting things really hard, a magic weapon is the first thing you'll want. Yes, doodads and trinkets with interesting effects are fun (if typically situational), but you don't get to use any of them if you're dead because you were dealing half damage against resistant foes. It's not just +1 to hit/damage; it lets you compete on a much more varied battlefield and that not only gives your GM more rein to throw more exotic foes at you, but also means you're not relying on limited use spells and effects to deal with them.

It's the same for my games. I've had a few players say they thought +1 weapons were lame rewards, but those same players actually ended up changing their tune completely in a subsequent campaign that had lots of demons. They had to figure out ways to deal magical damage, but the fighter just honestly didn't have any options to do so. I let him buy a magical weapon later, and he spent literally all his money on it and was ecstatic to finally have one.

[MaxWilson]

While I don't disagree with you overall, there is a good reason to have some monsters with resistance/immunity to non-magical BPS attacks even if the party is assumed to have magical weapons. Monsters like these emphasize the difference between PCs and normal people or even soldiers.

It also helps blunt the impact of non-Shephard Druid minionmancy.

[stoutstien]

I wpuld be interested in how excess to magic weapons/damage effects the over all CR rating on NPCs. I'm assuming at low levels that it could potentially double it and as the game progresses it is acting as an artificial inflation.
It's the troll puzzle all over but with a ton of variables.

[ad_hoc]

Are you serious? I am not trying to antagonize here but I feel a bland +1 weapon, even with a small fluff blurb about it is about as exciting as one's upgrade from a regular horse to a warhorse.

Sure, the numbers get better and the performance improves. But a magical weapon compared to a weapon is just a bland tool. I always feel doodads should have a combat use (like a magical sextant that also can cast Hunter's Mark) or weapons and armor may have an out of combat use (like a dagger that can be used as a skeleton key or a druidic armor that makes you able to cast animal messenger and speak with animals). Those items create memorable moments.

Anecdotal evidence points to the following: Our (Pathfinder) DM gave us a necklace of fresh air that could be used to breathe well in any circumstance. We sold it and bought many upgrades for it. Sure we were stronger for the new equipment but there were a few situations where the necklace would have been extremely helpful. Our room was sabotaged by a fire where breathing is pretty helpful. A vital quest item was drowned in a lake which meant we had to expend resources diving for it. We even got attacked by some devil worshippers spreading an airborne disease via siege weapons.

This is the problem with magic marts. They turn what should be magical items into mundane ones.


You're both right, which highlights a serious design flaw in the game. You really, really need that magical weapon, even if it's bland and boring, because the game is balanced on the assumption that you have it (no matter how often the devs say it's not). You need it so much that you'll prioritize getting something bland and boring over something cool and interesting. Any rule that incentivizes players to do something boring is a bad rule.

The source was listed in the OP. Pg 277 of the DMG shows the assumption of magical attacks that the game is balanced around.

Magic marts aren't assumed in 5e. There is no 'prioritizing something bland over something cool'. That was how 3e was designed.

Using the treasure hoards it is easy to get to tier 3 without a magic weapon and the game works just fine.

[Chronos]

That's a source for the devs saying that the game is balanced. But we all know that the devs are terrible judges of what actually is balanced.

And even without magic marts, have you ever actually seen a game where the players have no say at all in what magic items they have? Maybe you're starting at something above first level, and the DM says "You can start with one uncommon magic item of your choice". Maybe the king says "As a reward, you may each pick out one item from my armory". Maybe the McGuffin at the end of the first dungeon is a forge that can be used to craft magic items. Maybe the party meets a traveling merchant who doesn't have a full selection of magic items, but has a handful of them. And maybe the fighters in the party have just gotten tired of being useless in a significant fraction of encounters, and go on a quest to find magic weapons.

[NaughtyTiger]

The flip side of this is that it is unfair to those who have magical attacks as abilities.

It would be unfair, IF mundane attacks/PCs were nearly as powerful as the least of their magical counterparts.

[sithlordnergal]

You see, the fact that the devs gave certain classes natural magical attacks is why I think they did design around everyone having a magical weapon. Otherwise, why give those classes magical attacks at all? If you're meant to go through to level 20 without magic items, shouldn't a magical attack be something you get at a higher level then 6?

And take a look at the classes and subclasses that get those magical attacks. Monk, Revised Ranger, Moon Druid, and Shepherd Druid. The Shepherd Druid and Revised Ranger get the magical attack for their summons and beast companions. Meanwhile the Monk and Moon Druid don't really use normal martial weapons at all. They use unarmed strikes and Wild Shape attacks. These are classes that don't really have to make use of a normal weapon, instead they use other things to deal damage.

If you really don't need magic items, how about we remove the magical attacks from those classes? Oh wait, one subclass did. The standard PHB Beastmaster Ranger's Animal Companion doesn't get magical attacks. And what was the complaint I hear most often about it? The Beast Companion doesn't have enough HP, and their attacks fall off big time once you reach higher levels because they lack ways to get past resistances.

The devs can claim that they didn't make 5e with magic items in mind as much as they want. But I'm looking at what they made, not what they claim. And despite their claims, they made a game where if you are a martial character without a magical weapon, you become more or less useless at high levels because you start doing little to no damage.

Also, to answer why have the resistance/immunities if they expect you to have those items. Its sort of two fold. First, it gives a reason as to why other people aren't dealing with these threats. An army of standard guards with a standard loadout couldn't kill a werewolf, no matter their numbers, because the werewolf is immune to them.

Second, it helps bring minionmancy under control. Resistance and Immunity to non-magical weapons makes it so your average minionmancer can't curb stomp everything they see.

[MaxWilson]

That's a source for the devs saying that the game is balanced. But we all know that the devs are terrible judges of what actually is balanced.

And even without magic marts, have you ever actually seen a game where the players have no say at all in what magic items they have? Maybe you're starting at something above first level, and the DM says "You can start with one uncommon magic item of your choice". Maybe the king says "As a reward, you may each pick out one item from my armory". Maybe the McGuffin at the end of the first dungeon is a forge that can be used to craft magic items. Maybe the party meets a traveling merchant who doesn't have a full selection of magic items, but has a handful of them. And maybe the fighters in the party have just gotten tired of being useless in a significant fraction of encounters, and go on a quest to find magic weapons.

And maybe the travelling merchant has a magic staff, which the GWM fighter can use effectively, but isn't eligible for GWM attacking. And maybe the king's armory has a Vorpal Greatsword and a Mace of Disruption, but no magical Hand Crossbow that can be used for Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert attacks.

Being able to enchant your own weapons via Magic Weapon spell (or similar features) is very valuable even in some cases where the players do get a say in which magic items they have.

[Keravath]

Some evidence:

DMG pg 277 gives advice for how effective resistance to non-magical damage is by tier. So they do assume magic weapons will come about but the rate is much different than what I see people assuming online (where I've even seen some people assume them by level 3).

Levels 1-4 - HP x2
Levels 5-10 - HP x1.5
Levels 11-16 - HP x1.25
Levels 17+ - HP x1


So it's not until tier 4 when WotC assumes that all damage coming from the party is magical. Certainly through tier 2 it is a significant factor. Most of these magical damage abilities occur between levels 3-6 when they are most potent.



No. If you actually READ that section of the DMG it says the following:

"Effective Hit Points. If a monster has resistance or immunity to several damage types- especially bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons-and not all the characters in the party possess the means to counteract that resistance or immunity, you need to take these defenses into account when comparing your monster's hit points to its expected challenge rating. Using the Effective Hit Points Based on Resistances and Immunities table, apply the appropriate multiplier to the monster's hit points to determine its effective hit points for the purpose of gauging its final challenge rating."

The table you cite above ONLY applies if "not all the characters in the party possess the means to counteract the resistance or immunity". The table applies IF the party has no magical weapons. By tier 4, spells and other abilities are powerful enough that the absence of magical weapons in a party is less of a consideration.

If a DM has already given the party tools that overcome the resistance/immunity then there is no effective increase in hit points when calculating the CR of the creature. The DM ignores that table.

The table has NOTHING to do with dev assumptions about the availability or lack of magical weapons. It has to do with "How do you calculate the challenge rating of a creature you created at different levels if it has resistance and IF your party has no magical weapons to overcome the resistance. The table is to help the DM design balanced monsters and encounters for their specific party and has nothing to do with some concept that the game is designed around not having magical weapons until high levels.

[ad_hoc]

That's a source for the devs saying that the game is balanced. But we all know that the devs are terrible judges of what actually is balanced.

The game is balanced just fine. It's not the designers fault if you stubbornly play differently than the base assumptions.



And even without magic marts, have you ever actually seen a game where the players have no say at all in what magic items they have? Maybe you're starting at something above first level, and the DM says "You can start with one uncommon magic item of your choice". Maybe the king says "As a reward, you may each pick out one item from my armory". Maybe the McGuffin at the end of the first dungeon is a forge that can be used to craft magic items. Maybe the party meets a traveling merchant who doesn't have a full selection of magic items, but has a handful of them. And maybe the fighters in the party have just gotten tired of being useless in a significant fraction of encounters, and go on a quest to find magic weapons.

Those are magic marts. You're choosing the magic items, you're just using a different currency than gold to buy them.


No. If you actually READ that section of the DMG it says the following:

No. You.


not all the characters in the party possess the means to counteract that resistance or immunity

Exactly.

[gkathellar]

Even when people bring up that 5e monster balance is designed without magic items assumed, people still say that this cannot be the case because many monsters have resistance.

5E monsters aren't balanced for a no-item environment. The game is playable without magic items, but monster attack bonuses and AC broadly assume that characters will have magic items.

[Warwick]

The game is balanced just fine. It's not the designers fault if you stubbornly play differently than the base assumptions.


It is, however, the dev's fault if the game's base assumptions diverge significantly from how most people will play (especially numerous editions into the most popular TTRPG). Most D&D players like magic items and the devs know this. 5e PCs may not be the Christmas tree of magic gear that they were in some previous editions, but it's a pretty safe guess that mid-level PCs will have each several pieces of magic.


I would respectfully disagree. If your entire schtick is hitting things really hard, a magic weapon is the first thing you'll want. Yes, doodads and trinkets with interesting effects are fun (if typically situational), but you don't get to use any of them if you're dead because you were dealing half damage against resistant foes. It's not just +1 to hit/damage; it lets you compete on a much more varied battlefield and that not only gives your GM more rein to throw more exotic foes at you, but also means you're not relying on limited use spells and effects to deal with them.

There's a distinction between something being good and something being exciting. An incremental statistical bonus that also helps you clear height requirements in combat encounters is hard to characterize as bad, but for many (most?) players its less memorable and less exciting than a flashier effect that might be statistically inferior or more niche.

Compare a +1 longbow to one that magically generates flaming arrows that do 1d10 fire damage instead of 1d8 + 1 magical piercing. I'd hazard to guess most players would find the latter cooler even though it's statistically inferior and doing fire damage is often a downside.

[ad_hoc]

It is, however, the dev's fault if the game's base assumptions diverge significantly from how most people will play (especially numerous editions into the most popular TTRPG). Most D&D players like magic items and the devs know this.

How do you know this?



5e PCs may not be the Christmas tree of magic gear that they were in some previous editions, but it's a pretty safe guess that mid-level PCs will have each several pieces of magic.

Just because that is how your table plays doesn't mean that is how most people play.

Resistance is also just that. Half damage. People without magic weapons still contribute. The lycanthropes are a different matter and if I was designing them in 5e I would have probably scaled them back to resistance. Still, they aren't likely to come up often so it can be a fun challenge to face.

[Slipperychicken]

The flip side of this is that it is unfair to those who have magical attacks as abilities.

In the end I think that's the thrust of my post.

The magical attacks they receive aren't meant as an advantage over other classes, but to keep their damage on-par with classes that get the effect from magical weapons, usually around levels 4-10. It's so that a monk can penetrate nonmagical-weapon-immunity around the same time that his fighter buddy has gained his first magic weapon.

It was a common problem in previous editions for monks to struggle with damage-resistances because of how hard it was for their attacks to be treated as magical. Outside of a tailored GM-intervention, it is (and was) very rare for GMs to drop magic weapons which impact unarmed attacks. Usually it had to be homebrewed on top of that, like a magical set of fist/foot-wraps. Just giving it to monks as a native class feature saves that work while preserving that balance inside the existing paradigm of nonmagic-weapon-resistance.



Just because that is how your table plays doesn't mean that is how most people play.

Most tables do give out magic weapons by mid-single digits, precisely so that the party can face level-appropriate enemies which destroy or are resistant/immune to nonmagical weapons. Those include monsters such as lycanthropes, black puddings, rust monsters, wights, succubi, and others.

[ad_hoc]

The magical attacks they receive aren't meant as an advantage over other classes, but to keep their damage on-par with classes that get the effect from magical weapons, usually around levels 4-10. It's so that a monk can penetrate nonmagical-weapon-immunity around the same time that his fighter buddy has gained his first magic weapon.

There are a variety of subclasses which gives the character magical attacks as abilities which other subclasses don't have. Devotion Paladin and Horizon Walker Ranger were given as examples.



Most tables do give out magic weapons by mid-single digits, precisely so that the party can face level-appropriate enemies which destroy or are resistant/immune to nonmagical weapons. Those include monsters such as lycanthropes, black puddings, rust monsters, wights, succubi, and others.

WotC disagrees with you.

[sambojin]

It is, however, the dev's fault if the game's base assumptions diverge significantly from how most people will play (especially numerous editions into the most popular TTRPG). Most D&D players like magic items and the devs know this. 5e PCs may not be the Christmas tree of magic gear that they were in some previous editions, but it's a pretty safe guess that mid-level PCs will have each several pieces of magic.


That some classes do get them by default is a balancing measure. They don't get much else at lvl6, other than heaps more stuff on top of magic attacks with their class features, the ones that do get magic attacks.

But that doesn't actually mean *everyone* should have magic attacks at lvl6. It's meant to be the classes that get them's "powerboost" in 5e, for not multiclassing (also a thing from previous editions). "Always 100% damage, because we gave 1.5x-2x-3x damage a turn for nova'ing at lvl5-6 to heaps of classes, so you've got 100% damage up-time now instead at lvl6, because you can already do heaps of "useful" stuff, but resistances don't effect you now, so that you're still useful" is fine. Balanced. Probably.

Does not mean everyone *must* have a magic weapon at lvl6. If anything, quite the reverse. Although, by lvl7-9, depending on the campaign, it's kind of expected for most characters to have a flat +1 thingy, instead of just cool magic abilities on items. Just before next tier. Where most characters are already pretty damn serious, and seriously powerful, but the gameworld just got serious too. Good thing you got there first.

That's very Vanilla 5e, on what the main books are based on, magic item wise and power-level-wise. Shuffle them up or down two-three levels or so, depending on your campaign. Make heaps of interesting items, with actual "magical abilities", not just "better beat-sticks that just so happen to fit exactly into my player's builds". Don't expect the published adventures to pay even the most basic respect to this though. Which kind of implies, most DMs probably shouldn't or don't anyway. Welcome to DnD. Do what you want :)

[Chaos Jackal]

Regardless of whether or not the game is playable without magic weapons for the first three tiers, or whether these weapons are taken into account when balancing monsters and determining CR, there's a major issue with severely limiting their acquisition.

These weapons are useful solely to those whose main, if not only, job is to hit things repeatedly. By leaving a fighter, a barbarian or even a rogue without a weapon that can bypass common resistances, in a game where a significant number of enemies have resistance, it will simply make them appear completely useless compared to any caster, in addition to most likely killing the players' mood. Halving damage is no joke; a fighter, for example, who depends on his three (and later four) attacks in tier 3 in addition to Action Surge ends up looking like he's using a piece of rubber. He's not only ineffective, he's also probably feeling pretty pissed that his primary purpose cannot work half the time.

Not handing out magic weapons in a game with many resistant enemies is to martials the equivalent of constantly throwing magic immunity or anti-magic fields against casters, except worse since at least the casters can do more things than just target enemies with something.

If you have a party of martials and want to challenge them, or if your players are so cool with everything they don't mind being 50% useless in 90% of their intended job, then go ahead and withhold the weapons. But most people don't like constantly being told that they're doing half damage, especially if there's two more people next to them gleefully shooting fire and making walls. And it definitely doesn't feel very heroic to be a martial in the double level digits and having to beat on something like crazy to even put a dent on it.

[ad_hoc]

And it definitely doesn't feel very heroic to be a martial in the double level digits and having to beat on something like crazy to even put a dent on it.

Once we're getting into Tier 3 I think the likelihood of having a magic weapon for each of the martial characters becomes quite high.

It's Tier 2 that I think they shouldn't be assumed. The chart of pg 277 reflects this.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the entire party could get outfitted by level 5, I just don't think that's very common in a standard game.

[Keravath]

Once we're getting into Tier 3 I think the likelihood of having a magic weapon for each of the martial characters becomes quite high.

It's Tier 2 that I think they shouldn't be assumed. The chart of pg 277 reflects this.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the entire party could get outfitted by level 5, I just don't think that's very common in a standard game.

Folks should read the DMG. The table on 277 is part of text intended for a DM to balance encounters and it specifically states it is applied ONLY when "not all the characters in the party possess the means to counteract that resistance or immunity". If your party has magical weapons that overcome the resistance/immunity then the chart isn't used and means nothing. ALL the table is saying, is that IF your party does not have magical weapons then by tier 4, it won't make much if any difference in terms of monster hit points since the party will have more methods to remove hit points.

The entire premise of this thread is incorrect.

[stoutstien]

Someone should go through all the published adventures and figure out if the challenge for each encounter is factoring in magical weapons at any given point. All mine are perpetually loaned out.


I don't run AL on any regular basis but a few local DM who do voice concern on how guaranteed magical items have shifted the balance to a point where deadly ++ encounter are the only ones that impact the party but are still hold the issue of swingy results based on dice results the higher the lethality of any given one is.

[Slipperychicken]

WotC disagrees with you.

By the level 5-10 tier of play they expect at least half of damage-dealers to have magic weapons from random drops. That is reflected in the table

Most published adventures give magic weapons around that time too



Of course, it's entirely possible that the entire party could get outfitted by level 5, I just don't think that's very common in a standard game.

It is quite common for PCs to have magic weapons around that time

[Zalabim]

All the magic mart addicts are forgetting that fighters can get silver weapons, quite affordably starting in tier 2, and unarmed attacks and natural weapon attacks really don't have that same option. There's also consumable items and temporary spells that can fill in for infrequent needs, that again aren't options for natural or unarmed attacks. There's a sidebar in Xanathar's that explains the magic weapon situation quite clearly as well:
ARE MAGIC ITEMS NECESSARY IN A CAMPAIGN?
The D&D game is built on the assumption that magic
items appear sporadically and that they are always a boon,
unless an item bears a curse. Characters and monsters are
built to face each other without the help of magic items,
which means that having a magic item always makes a
character more powerful or versatile than a generic char-
acter of the same level. As DM, you never have to worry
about awarding magic items just so the characters can
keep up with the campaign's threats. Magic items are truly
prizes. Are they useful? Absolutely. Are they necessary? No.

Magic items can go from nice to necessary in the rare
group that has no spellcasters, no monk, and no NPCs
capable of casting magic weapon. Having no magic makes
it extremely difficult for a party to overcome monsters that
have resistances or immunity to nonmagical damage. In
such a game, you'll want to be generous with magic weap-
ons or else avoid using such monsters.
If you have the rare party that otherwise has no access to magical attacks, and you still want to use monsters with resistance or immunity to nonmagical damage as regular challenges, then you'll need to be generous with magic weapons. You see pre-made adventures with a lot of magic weapons because they're converting legacy adventures and frequently planning the adventure for the worst party imaginable.

The reason tier 2 party's are expected to only be halfway affected by resistance to nonmagical attacks probably stems from the idea that half an average party is magical in some way already.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I've seen a trend of people brushing off abilities which make mundane attacks magical.

One of the handiest things for this kind of ability is if you're playing a standard adventure path and your player wants to use a rare treasure type weapon (ie Polearm Master, it's usually Polearm Master). That's when things like Greater Pact Weapon shine.

[Dark.Revenant]

Based on the DMG treasure tables, if a group sticks to the guidelines specified and rolls exactly once in each hoard, going down the line for each tier of play, they’ll end up with the following averages:

End of Tier 1: 5.88 rolls on Table A, 2.625 rolls on Table B, 1.75 rolls on Table C, 2.1 rolls on Table F, and 0.21 rolls on Table G. From these rolls, the party will recover 0.5796 magic weapons of some sort.

End of Tier 2: 10.08 rolls on Table A, 8.55 rolls on Table B, 4.95 rolls on Table C, 1.08 rolls on Table D, 6.3 rolls on Table F, 1.8 rolls on Table G, and 0.36 rolls on Table H. From these rolls, the party will recover 2.133 magic weapons of some sort, bringing the total to 2.7126.

End of Tier 3: 4.2 rolls on Table A, 5.88 rolls on Table B, 8.82 rolls on Table C, 4.8 rolls on Table D, 0.96 rolls on Table E, 0.96 rolls on Table F, 2.4 rolls on Table G, 3 rolls on Table H, and 0.96 rolls on Table I. From these rolls, the party will recover 1.8732 magic weapons of some sort, bringing the total to 4.5858.

End of Tier 4: 4.32 rolls on Table C, 8.96 rolls on Table D, 6.16 rolls on Table E, 0.8 rolls on Table G, 1.6 rolls on Table H, and 4 rolls on Table I. From these rolls, the party will recover 1.688 magic weapons of some sort, bringing the total to 6.2738.

[Keravath]

Based on the DMG treasure tables, if a group sticks to the guidelines specified and rolls exactly once in each hoard, going down the line for each tier of play, they’ll end up with the following averages:

End of Tier 1: 5.88 rolls on Table A, 2.625 rolls on Table B, 1.75 rolls on Table C, 2.1 rolls on Table F, and 0.21 rolls on Table G. From these rolls, the party will recover 0.5796 magic weapons of some sort.

End of Tier 2: 10.08 rolls on Table A, 8.55 rolls on Table B, 4.95 rolls on Table C, 1.08 rolls on Table D, 6.3 rolls on Table F, 1.8 rolls on Table G, and 0.36 rolls on Table H. From these rolls, the party will recover 2.133 magic weapons of some sort, bringing the total to 2.7126.

End of Tier 3: 4.2 rolls on Table A, 5.88 rolls on Table B, 8.82 rolls on Table C, 4.8 rolls on Table D, 0.96 rolls on Table E, 0.96 rolls on Table F, 2.4 rolls on Table G, 3 rolls on Table H, and 0.96 rolls on Table I. From these rolls, the party will recover 1.8732 magic weapons of some sort, bringing the total to 4.5858.

End of Tier 4: 4.32 rolls on Table C, 8.96 rolls on Table D, 6.16 rolls on Table E, 0.8 rolls on Table G, 1.6 rolls on Table H, and 4 rolls on Table I. From these rolls, the party will recover 1.688 magic weapons of some sort, bringing the total to 6.2738.

Just for reference the number of rolls on each table expected is in the DMG p133

"You can hand out as much or as little treasure as you want. Over the course of a typical campaign, a party finds treasure hoards amounting to seven rolls on the Challenge 0- 4 table, eighteen rolls on the Challenge 5- 10 table, twelve rolls on the Challenge 11- 16 table, and eight rolls on the Challenge 17+ table."

I wasn't sure if that was included in your calculations above.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just for reference the number of rolls on each table expected is in the DMG p133

"You can hand out as much or as little treasure as you want. Over the course of a typical campaign, a party finds treasure hoards amounting to seven rolls on the Challenge 0- 4 table, eighteen rolls on the Challenge 5- 10 table, twelve rolls on the Challenge 11- 16 table, and eight rolls on the Challenge 17+ table."

I wasn't sure if that was included in your calculations above. FWIW, in Xanathar's, they allude to a four PC party being able to expect 100 drops over the course of levels 1-20, but that includes consumables.

[MagneticKitty]

"Even when people bring up that 5e monster balance is designed without magic items assumed, people still say that this cannot be the case because many monsters have resistance."

I think it's more immunity I look at and say, and the game is designed for magic weapons to be the norm.
I really think it (non magical resistance and immunity) should be gotten rid of .

Vulnerability is more fun and interesting.

What's more fun,
1. Doing less damage because you're unlucky enough for your dm to not provide magic items
2. Or cutting through more hp and experimenting with different types of damage trying to find what's more effective?

Effectively the same effective hp as before this change if they can find the weakness.

Anyway, you'll notice the classes that get magic attacks innately are ones expected to not use weapons all the time, a monk and moon druid in wildshape. I rest my case.

[Dark.Revenant]

Just for reference the number of rolls on each table expected is in the DMG p133

"You can hand out as much or as little treasure as you want. Over the course of a typical campaign, a party finds treasure hoards amounting to seven rolls on the Challenge 0- 4 table, eighteen rolls on the Challenge 5- 10 table, twelve rolls on the Challenge 11- 16 table, and eight rolls on the Challenge 17+ table."

I wasn't sure if that was included in your calculations above.

That’s the guideline I used, yes. It adds up to a little over 100 rolls on the magic item tables, FWIW. Note that for my weapon tally, I include all magic items that are explicitly wieldable as weapons, which for example includes some staves.

An important takeaway here is that the party is rather likely to get a wide variety of magic weapons rather than a full suite of +1s. You might get a +1 Pike and then a Flame Tongue, a Staff of Power, and then a Holy Avenger.

Monk, Moon Druid, and post-errata Beastmaster gain magic attacks because it’s otherwise impossible for them to do so. They gain them at a level where other party members are likely able to use spells or other class features to have magic attacks. For instance, even a half caster can cast Magic Weapon at level 5. Monk has no such option. Even if it were possible for a Monk to find an item that made their fists magical, the class would still include magic attacks as part of the kit because their efficacy would otherwise be left to the mercy of the GM, rather than buffs (teamwork between players).

[ad_hoc]

Based on the DMG treasure tables, if a group sticks to the guidelines specified and rolls exactly once in each hoard, going down the line for each tier of play, they’ll end up with the following averages:

End of Tier 1: 5.88 rolls on Table A, 2.625 rolls on Table B, 1.75 rolls on Table C, 2.1 rolls on Table F, and 0.21 rolls on Table G. From these rolls, the party will recover 0.5796 magic weapons of some sort.

End of Tier 2: 10.08 rolls on Table A, 8.55 rolls on Table B, 4.95 rolls on Table C, 1.08 rolls on Table D, 6.3 rolls on Table F, 1.8 rolls on Table G, and 0.36 rolls on Table H. From these rolls, the party will recover 2.133 magic weapons of some sort, bringing the total to 2.7126.

End of Tier 3: 4.2 rolls on Table A, 5.88 rolls on Table B, 8.82 rolls on Table C, 4.8 rolls on Table D, 0.96 rolls on Table E, 0.96 rolls on Table F, 2.4 rolls on Table G, 3 rolls on Table H, and 0.96 rolls on Table I. From these rolls, the party will recover 1.8732 magic weapons of some sort, bringing the total to 4.5858.

End of Tier 4: 4.32 rolls on Table C, 8.96 rolls on Table D, 6.16 rolls on Table E, 0.8 rolls on Table G, 1.6 rolls on Table H, and 4 rolls on Table I. From these rolls, the party will recover 1.688 magic weapons of some sort, bringing the total to 6.2738.

Those are good stats although I disagree with how many weapons we're recovering.

Well, I disagree about what is relevant here. 'Weapons of some sort' probably includes both ammunition (which I would count as a consumable. There are some like bead of force and potion of fire breathing that allow you to attack. Only getting 1 piece of ammunition isn't great) and Rod of the Pact Keeper.

I did the stats for Tier 1 and Tier 2 and I came up with around 2.2 weapons not 2.7.

By my accounting that's 2.2 weapons on average by level 11. What I'd really like to know is the chance to not find any weapons or only 1 weapon by 11. But I'm not a stats person. I do think, because of how the treasure hoards work, there is going to be a wide variation.

18 rolls on the table only comes up with hitting Table F 2.5 times. There is a decent chance that a party might land on it 0-1 times. Not hitting it at all ends up giving a good chance of not finding a weapon. Only getting Table F once cuts down on the odds of getting a magic weapon considerably.

So some parties will find 4+ weapons by level 11, just as others will find 0-1.


Monk, Moon Druid, and post-errata Beastmaster gain magic attacks because it’s otherwise impossible for them to do so. They gain them at a level where other party members are likely able to use spells or other class features to have magic attacks. For instance, even a half caster can cast Magic Weapon at level 5. Monk has no such option. Even if it were possible for a Monk to find an item that made their fists magical, the class would still include magic attacks as part of the kit because their efficacy would otherwise be left to the mercy of the GM, rather than buffs (teamwork between players).

Don't forget about others too like the Oath of Devotion Paladin and Horizon Walker Ranger.

Regardless of the reason for the abilities they are still good abilities.

1. They guarantee magic weapon attack damage early in Tier 2.
2. They don't tax the party's resources. The Fighter can be given the first magic weapon and now everyone has magic weapon damage because of the ability.


The entire point of this thread is that these should be counted as good abilities to have, not as ribbons or non-abilities as many do.

[Zalabim]

Anyway, you'll notice the classes that get magic attacks innately are ones expected to not use weapons all the time, a monk and moon druid in wildshape. I rest my case.
Then the opposition would like to enter the following items into evidence:
Silver weapons.
Paladin, Oath of Devotion, Sacred Weapon.
Warlock, Pact Boon, Pact of the Blade.
Cleric, War Domain; Wizard; Paladin: 2nd level spell, Magic Weapon.
Druid, cantrip, Shillelagh
Torch

Clearly there's no correlation between a class's ability to cast spells and option to provide magical attacks. It appears to me that classes that don't use weapons can get innately magical attacks because of the variety of mundane and class-based alternatives to permanent magical weapons that are only available as or to weapons.

[Dark.Revenant]

I did the stats for Tier 1 and Tier 2 and I came up with around 2.2 weapons not 2.7.

Don't forget about others too like the Oath of Devotion Paladin and Horizon Walker Ranger.

Regardless of the reason for the abilities they are still good abilities.

I figure came up with a 25% chance for Table F to result in a magic weapon (I’m including Adder, but that’s debatable). Note that the weapon doesn’t need +1 to bypass damage resistance. The other tables are similar. I’m not including consumables, by the way.

Here is my best go at a list of features and spells that make existing physical attacks into magical physical attacks. Not included are the myriad effects that create non-physical damage types. Bold for targetable buffs.
Druid/Nature Cleric 1: Shillelagh
Druid/Artificer/Warlock/Nature Cleric 1: Magic Stone
Magic Initiate: Shillelagh, Magic Stone, Arcane Weapon
Artificer 1: Arcane Weapon
Forge Cleric 1: Blessing of the Forge
Artificer 2: Enhanced Weapon
Arcana Cleric/Forge Cleric/War Cleric/Wizard 3: Magic Weapon
Devotion Paladin 3: Sacred Weapon
Blade Warlock 3: Pact of the Blade
Artificer/Paladin 5: Magic Weapon
Hexblade Warlock/Forge Cleric 5: Elemental Weapon
Monk 6: Ki-Empowered Strikes
Kensei Monk 6: One with the Blade
Lore Bard 6: Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon
Shepherd Druid 6: Mighty Summoner
Moon Druid 6: Primal Strike
Beast Master Ranger 7: Exceptional Training
Arcane Archer Fighter 7: Magic Arrow
Eldritch Knight Fighter/Arcane Trickster Rogue 7/8: Magic Weapon
Cleric/Divine Soul Sorcerer 9: Holy Weapon
Bard 10: Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Holy Weapon

[stoutstien]

I figure came up with a 25% chance for Table F to result in a magic weapon (I’m including Adder, but that’s debatable). Note that the weapon doesn’t need +1 to bypass damage resistance. The other tables are similar. I’m not including consumables, by the way.

Here is my best go at a list of features and spells that make existing physical attacks into magical physical attacks. Not included are the myriad effects that create non-physical damage types. Bold for targetable buffs.
Druid/Nature Cleric 1: Shillelagh
Druid/Artificer/Warlock/Nature Cleric 1: Magic Stone
Magic Initiate: Shillelagh, Magic Stone
Forge Cleric 1: Blessing of the Forge
Artificer 2: Enhanced Weapon
Arcana Cleric/Forge Cleric/War Cleric/Wizard 3: Magic Weapon
Devotion Paladin 3: Sacred Weapon
Blade Warlock 3: Pact of the Blade
Artificer/Paladin 5: Magic Weapon
Hexblade Warlock/Forge Cleric 5: Elemental Weapon
Monk 6: Ki-Empowered Strikes
Kensei Monk 6: One with the Blade
Lore Bard 6: Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon
Shepherd Druid 6: Mighty Summoner
Moon Druid 6: Primal Strike
Beast Master Ranger 7: Exceptional Training
Arcane Archer Fighter 7: Magic Arrow
Eldritch Knight Fighter/Arcane Trickster Rogue 7/8: Magic Weapon
Cleric/Divine Soul Sorcerer 9: Holy Weapon
Bard 10: Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Holy Weapon
You missed arcane weapon spell on the artificers list. Nice to see all the effects on one place.

[Zalabim]

The Warlock's pact weapon can't be targeted, but it takes a minute to disappear if given/taken away.

[ad_hoc]

Here is my best go at a list of features and spells that make existing physical attacks into magical physical attacks. Not included are the myriad effects that create non-physical damage types.

I think those should be included.

Abilities which turn mundane damage into magical damage is important I think not that it is magical bludgeoning/slashing/piercing.

Horizon Walker is hurt by requiring a Bonus Action every turn to have their +1d8 but a big buff is turning their damage into Force.

[Dark.Revenant]

I don’t think it should be included. Magical physical damage is arguably the best damage type in the game, and many many sources all offer non-physical damage. The list would be unwieldy if I tried to list them all.

Besides, the whole purpose of this thread is to discuss the necessity for magic weapons to be distributed to the party. The abilities I listed all offer the exact same benefit as a magic weapon insofar that damage resistance is concerned. The list is already large enough to illustrate the point that most parties will be able to eventually overcome damage resistance even in the absence of magic weapons.

[ad_hoc]

I don’t think it should be included. Magical physical damage is arguably the best damage type in the game, and many many sources all offer non-physical damage. The list would be unwieldy if I tried to list them all.

Besides, the whole purpose of this thread is to discuss the necessity for magic weapons to be distributed to the party. The abilities I listed all offer the exact same benefit as a magic weapon insofar that damage resistance is concerned. The list is already large enough to illustrate the point that most parties will be able to eventually overcome damage resistance even in the absence of magic weapons.

I don't understand why you think Horizon Walker shouldn't be included here.

It's the best thing about them.