What happens if we remove magical attacks?

[sithlordnergal]

So, I was reading a thread about about magical attacks, and I got to thinking. If the devs of 5e made it with the idea of not needing magical items, then why do classes like the Monk, Shepherd Druid, Moon Druid, Revised Ranger and Warlock get magical weapon attacks at level 6?

Why not push it back to about level 16 or 20, which is supposedly when the Devs feel the party should be getting magical weapons? Or maybe remove it entirely? What would happen with the balance of those classes if we removed the magical weapons they gain?

[MrStabby]

I think it is a useful part of the game, at least it seems to me as a DM. It is one more leavers to pull in a campaign to balance classes.

It doesn't require in any way that classes that are weak get this ability, just that classes that might be disadvantaged in a particular campaign might suffer.

So if you have a party with Warlock and monk in bit also a fighter and barbarian but short rests will be rare (for whatever narrative reason) you can somewhat rebalance the classes by throwing more non-magic resistant enemies at the party.

Should it be higher level? Probably not - then you are taking something special and remarkable and making it worthless. This is a chance to shine.

The other side is should resistance just be a ribbon ability on monsters? They have it but it is never allowed to have an effect? At low levels warriors tend to dominate and giving other classes a helping.hand by throwing some weapon resistant enemies at the party seems reasonable. It is a great plot hook - this demon is out of your league but get the magic sword of +1ness and you have a much better chance.

[Dork_Forge]

So, I was reading a thread about about magical attacks, and I got to thinking. If the devs of 5e made it with the idea of not needing magical items, then why do classes like the Monk, Shepherd Druid, Moon Druid, Revised Ranger and Warlock get magical weapon attacks at level 6?

Why not push it back to about level 16 or 20, which is supposedly when the Devs feel the party should be getting magical weapons? Or maybe remove it entirely? What would happen with the balance of those classes if we removed the magical weapons they gain?

The Warlock actually gets access to it at 3rd level and whilst 5e isn't based on the assumption of magic weapon treasure, the spell Magic Weapon is available from 3rd level and then there's Elemental Weapon, Shadow Blade and Shillelagh (which is a cantrip available multiple ways).

Resistance to non magical weapon damage is a hurdle and like all hurdles the game also presents the solution, if it didn't then you might as well just scrap the resistance and give the monster more hit points.

[stoutstien]

Probably due to how AL works is why they tend to give it out around lv 6.

I'd keep it low on monks. Monks bypassing resistance with ki powered strikes should be a thing.

Moon druids could lose it and be no worse for wear. They still have good CC potential and some elemental forms bypass it so it's mostly redundant.

Shepherd druids could have it pushed back for the same reasons.

AA is a toss up for me. Haven't seen one in play to decide how much of a ribbon magic arrows are.

Beast master is a mess and if the beast was focused on support or CC then the magic damage would be a non issue.

I think using magic attack/ weapons as subclass features was lazy for the most part out side of monks who don't have magic unarmed items options.

[Keravath]

So, I was reading a thread about about magical attacks, and I got to thinking. If the devs of 5e made it with the idea of not needing magical items, then why do classes like the Monk, Shepherd Druid, Moon Druid, Revised Ranger and Warlock get magical weapon attacks at level 6?

Why not push it back to about level 16 or 20, which is supposedly when the Devs feel the party should be getting magical weapons? Or maybe remove it entirely? What would happen with the balance of those classes if we removed the magical weapons they gain?

Could you cite the reference where you get the idea "level 16 or 20, which is supposedly when the Devs feel the party should be getting magical weapons".

It seems to me that the "devs" expect the first magical weapons to start appearing in tier 2 content somewhere around 6th level since this is where both druid and monk attacks become magical. It is likely due to more opponents with resistance to non-magical damage starting to appear around this level (though of course there can be enemies at lower levels, they are just harder to defeat).

If you look at Adventurers League content, which is at least "approved" at some level, +1 weapons can typically be found starting in tier 1 content (levels 1-4). If you look at most of the published hardcover adventures (which are also presumably somehow related to the "devs"), magical weapons are also fairly frequent in tier 1 and more powerful magical items and weapons are pretty common in tier 2. Of course, some adventures have more magic items than others.

Some examples:
Ghosts of Salt Marsh Chapter 3 (levels 1-4) - +1 longsword
Lost Mines of Phandelver Chapter 2 (levels 1-4) - Magic staff, Chapter 3 (levels 1-4) - +1 Battleaxe, Chapter 4 (levels 1-5) - +1 mace, magic staff

LMoP is only level 1-5 content and GSM chapter 3 is intended for levels 1-4, most likely around 2 or 3. All of these officially published modules contain magic weapons at low level so I really don't know where the idea that the devs did not intend magic weapons to be available until level 16-20 comes from except perhaps chatting to a DM who doesn't like to give out magic weapons but that is a DM choice not a design choice.

The devs did NOT make 5e with the idea that characters would not have magic items, they made it with the idea that magic items might not be as game changing as in previous editions. It ties into the idea of bounded accuracy which makes even low CR monsters a potential threat to high level characters.

For example, limiting characters to 3 attuned magic items helps prevent Monty Haul issues while still allowing a DM to choose to run a game that way if they wish. However, just looking at published content, it is clear that the designers plan content with the idea that characters will likely have some magic items, just not as much or as impactful in general as in previous versions of the game.

[Anymage]

Could you cite the reference where you get the idea "level 16 or 20, which is supposedly when the Devs feel the party should be getting magical weapons".

There's a chart on P. 277 of the DMG, giving a multiplier to differentiate how many HP are on the sheet vs. how much damage it can practically take. Monsters with broad resistances (E.G: all nonmagical weapon damage) have x2 effective HP at low levels (which makes sense), that only goes down to x1 at the highest levels of play.

It's worth noting that this number drops from x2 to x1.5 at level 5, implying that you expect to see weapon users having some magic handy at those levels. The "this attack counts as magical" abilities and weapon enhancing spells coming on line around then reinforces that idea. So while you shouldn't expect your summons, pets, and hirelings to all be magically kitted out until much later, the table very much should not be read as saying that you should only expect magical weapons towards the end of your career.

[Tanarii]

If the devs of 5e made it with the idea of not needing magical items, then why do classes like the Monk, Shepherd Druid, Moon Druid, Revised Ranger and Warlock get magical weapon attacks at level 6?
Exactly because you aren't guaranteed to find a magical weapon by that level using the Treasure Hoard system, and even if you do there might easily be someone in the party that gets first priority.

Even by level 11, it's not an automatic assumption that everyone who wants a magic weapon will find one, especially if they've narrowed the weapons they're willing to use with feat support.

[Slipperychicken]

To remove the disparity in a more elegant way, how about just removing all resistance/immunity-to-nonmagical-weapons?


If the purpose of those resistances/immunities is to gate off challenges by level (or explain why heroes are supposed to deal with them instead of masses of soldiers), it might make more sense to just use a hit-die or level restriction. Say that only characters with X or more hit dice can hurt it, presumably because those characters are such awesome warriors.

[JackPhoenix]

To remove the disparity in a more elegant way, how about just removing all resistance/immunity-to-nonmagical-weapons?


If the purpose of those resistances/immunities is to gate off challenges by level (or explain why heroes are supposed to deal with them instead of masses of soldiers), it might make more sense to just use a hit-die or level restriction. Say that only characters with X or more hit dice can hurt it, presumably because those characters are such awesome warriors.

That's incredibly gamist approach, though, and doesn't make any sense from in-world perspective. You couldn't hurt the demon yesterday, so you've killed few orcs instead, and now the demon's vulnerable?

[Dr. Cliché]

Personally, I think the bigger issue is with Resistance on monsters in general.

I know 3.5 did it this way but I'm really not fond of the 'Magic weapon - yes/no?' thing, wherein even the most minor of magic weapons is sufficient to overcome any and all Resistance.

What's more, at least 3.5 had a lot of other types of Resistance. You had monsters vulnerable only to Good weapons or to Cold Iron weapons, or to Silver weapons or to weapons that were both Good and Silver etc.

However, in addition to removing a lot of Resistance types outright, 5e actually changed a lot of monsters so that their Resistance could be overcome by Good *or* Magic weapons. Even werewolves - one of the most iconic monsters known to be vulnerable to silver - were changed to be vulnerable to magic weapons as well.

It just seems like magic weapons are a little too effective in terms of the sheer number of immunities and resistances they eliminate.


On a related note, I thought the old version of Damage Reduction and Elemental Resistance was vastly superior. It seems so much better to have scalable Damage Reduction/Resistance (and reducing damage by 5,10, 15 etc. wasn't exactly complicated), rather than only ever being able to halve damage.

[Keravath]

There's a chart on P. 277 of the DMG, giving a multiplier to differentiate how many HP are on the sheet vs. how much damage it can practically take. Monsters with broad resistances (E.G: all nonmagical weapon damage) have x2 effective HP at low levels (which makes sense), that only goes down to x1 at the highest levels of play.

It's worth noting that this number drops from x2 to x1.5 at level 5, implying that you expect to see weapon users having some magic handy at those levels. The "this attack counts as magical" abilities and weapon enhancing spells coming on line around then reinforces that idea. So while you shouldn't expect your summons, pets, and hirelings to all be magically kitted out until much later, the table very much should not be read as saying that you should only expect magical weapons towards the end of your career.

Here is a link to my post in the other thread debunking this idea

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24188162&postcount=21

That table specifically states in the text ...

"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."

The table is intended to aid a DM in balancing a monster against a party that SPECIFICALLY does not have means to overcome resistance or immunity. If your party has magical weapons then the DM doesn't need to apply the values in the table. It has NOTHING to do with some idea that the game is designed around not having magical weapons until higher levels.