Why did cold iron not make the cut for 5e?

[Boci]

I'm just wondering why cold iron doesn't appear to be a thing in 5th ed. The creatures that were previous vulnerable to (well, hurt normally by) it are still in the game, fey and demons, but now if they have damage resistance its only overcome by magical weapons. Fey aren't exactly central to 5e I feel, but they're not insignificant or token like oozes can often feel, and 5e kept the detail of the Feywild, giving them their own plane. A weakness to cold iron is a fairly significant part of fey lore generally.

And demons are, demons. The only reason the game isn't called Dungeons & Dragons & Demons & Devils is that would be a mouthful. Devils kept their "vulnerability" to silver, why did cold iron not make it through for demons?

The obvious answer is to keep things simple, but with silver and adamantine based weapon resistances present, it seems adding a third options wouldn't have been too much to keep track of. Besides, 5e already fixed that issue by making such resistances and immunities "special material X or magic", so a group wouldn't be disadvantaged by adding cold iron, it would give them another way to hurt demons properly without magical weapons, and they still wouldn't need to bother with special materials as soon as the weapon wielders have magic weapons.

I can actuallyt think of one thing that would be complicated by adding cold iron: the fiend pact warlock's ability to give itself resistance to a specific damage type. Currently it is bypassed by magical or silvered weapons, with cold iron it would be come a little awkward, but is that reason enough to cut the material entirely?

[Nifft]

My uninformed assumption is that Silver was a significant thing back in AD&D, while Cold Iron was more of a 3e-ism.

Simplifying the system for 5e may have been biased in favor of cutting off newer things and bringing back older things.

[Keltest]

It may be that "silvered" is easy enough to wrap your head around (its a sword or whatever made with a silver edge), while "cold iron" is just... regular iron. Certainly I was personally unclear on how "cold" iron was any different a material from regular iron or steel. Google seems to indicate that in D&D it is raw iron that has never been melted, but that's highly unintuitive and, frankly, silly if you know anything at all about how iron ore is actually mined or worked (you basically have to melt it to get anything remotely usable out of it. It doesnt form in pure chunks.)

[Boci]

It may be that "silvered" is easy enough to wrap your head around (its a sword or whatever made with a silver edge), while "cold iron" is just... regular iron. Certainly I was personally unclear on how "cold" iron was any different a material from regular iron or steel. Google seems to indicate that in D&D it is raw iron that has never been melted, but that's highly unintuitive and, frankly, silly if you know anything at all about how iron ore is actually mined or worked (you basically have to melt it to get anything remotely usable out of it. It doesnt form in pure chunks.)

Yes, its short for cold wrought iron. Silly? Quite possible, but so is a silver edged sword. And its not like D&D invented cold wrought iron, its a folklore staple. In the context of "thing that exist or work in D&D that wouldn't in reality", cold wrought iron weapons really shouldn't be noteworthy.

[Keltest]

Yes, its short for cold wrought iron. Silly? Quite possible, but so is a silver edged sword. And its not like D&D invented cold wrought iron, its a folklore staple. In the context of "thing that exist or work in D&D that wouldn't in reality", cold wrought iron weapons really shouldn't be noteworthy.

Actually, from my understanding, Cold Iron as is used in D&D is completely original. The sources it draws from simply has the creature be affected by any iron, cold, hot, solid, worked, in a sword, in a frying pan, in somebody's teeth fillings, anything. The term "cold iron", like "cold steel" just meant regular iron, and was frequently though not exclusively used to refer to iron that had been worked into a sword or other weapon.

[Boci]

Actually, from my understanding, Cold Iron as is used in D&D is completely original. The sources it draws from simply has the creature be affected by any iron, cold, hot, solid, worked, in a sword, in a frying pan, in somebody's teeth fillings, anything. The term "cold iron", like "cold steel" just meant regular iron, and was frequently though not exclusively used to refer to iron that had been worked into a sword or other weapon.

That's seems far from proven. Cold wrought iron is not a common reference, but it does exist enough to not seem like something D&D invented. Even if it did, it certainly did not invent "special iron". Thunderbolt/meteoritc iron were considered to have something extra in them above regular iron, sacred even, long before D&D was invented.

[Keltest]

That's seems far from proven. Cold wrought iron is not a common reference, but it does exist enough to not seem like something D&D invented. Even if it did, it certainly did not invent "special iron". Thunderbolt/meteoritc iron were considered to have something extra in them above regular iron, sacred even, long before D&D was invented.

That's because they did: higher quality iron. Especially in places like Japan or Scandinavia with fairly poor natural iron available, meteoric iron was down and out the best thing they could get their hands on short of invading somebody else and taking theirs instead, and even that wouldn't necessarily net them better material.

At any rate, "cold iron" is a relatively well documented term, and you do need to consider that English did not exist when most of these myths were actually being told in earnest. If you can find anything that refers to "cold wrought iron" specifically, i'd be interested in looking at it, but everything I can find talking about it is specifically within the context of D&D, usually and amusingly being some variant of "but what actually is it?" Otherwise its just "cold iron" which is always explained as just being a poetic name for iron, or plain wrought iron, and explaining the actual blacksmithing processes.

Personally I would be hugely surprised if you could fine anything about "cold wrought iron" out of D&D because again, its not something that can actually exist, but im open to being proven wrong if you have something.

[Christew]

Also a thing in Changeling: The Dreaming which peaked during 3e days. The banality of cold iron being anti-fey was a common 90s/00s mechanic based broadly on Celtic folklore.

[Boci]

That's because they did: higher quality iron. Especially in places like Japan or Scandinavia with fairly poor natural iron available, meteoric iron was down and out the best thing they could get their hands on short of invading somebody else and taking theirs instead, and even that wouldn't necessarily net them better material.

At any rate, "cold iron" is a relatively well documented term, and you do need to consider that English did not exist when most of these myths were actually being told in earnest. If you can find anything that refers to "cold wrought iron" specifically, i'd be interested in looking at it, but everything I can find talking about it is specifically within the context of D&D, usually and amusingly being some variant of "but what actually is it?" Otherwise its just "cold iron" which is always explained as just being a poetic name for iron, or plain wrought iron, and explaining the actual blacksmithing processes.

Personally I would be hugely surprised if you could fine anything about "cold wrought iron" out of D&D because again, its not something that can actually exist, but im open to being proven wrong if you have something.

"Cold-Wrought Iron / The Tempering of Steel (Art Workers Guild), 1906"

https://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/event.php?id=msib2_1215773917

Doesn't look like this is from D&D.

Besides, if cold wrought iron bothers you so much, meteoric iron would also work well. High end demons, like balors, would now have a mundane source for bypassing their resistance, like the pitfiend do, and maybe it can be worked into some fey's stateblocks too, especially hags.

[Amechra]

My uninformed assumption is that Silver was a significant thing back in AD&D, while Cold Iron was more of a 3e-ism.

Simplifying the system for 5e may have been biased in favor of cutting off newer things and bringing back older things.

Honestly, I'm debating simplifying it further and changing resistance/immunity bypassed by magic to also be bypassed by silver. Maybe make silvered weapons a bit rarer.

[Boci]

Honestly, I'm debating simplifying it further and changing resistance/immunity bypassed by magic to also be bypassed by silver. Maybe make silvered weapons a bit rarer.

Why not just cut silvered then? You're effectivly making silvered weapons +0 magics weapons, other than the situational utility that they don't ping detect magic and can function in antimagic fields (and admitedly silvered is a bit more flavourful than +0).


Also a thing in Changeling: The Dreaming which peaked during 3e days. The banality of cold iron being anti-fey was a common 90s/00s mechanic based broadly on Celtic folklore.

Was that cold iron or just regular iron? I'm pretty sure the fey bloodline of the lasombras were weak to iron in general.

[Amechra]

Why not just cut silvered then? You're effectivly making silvered weapons +0 magics weapons, other than the situational utility that they don't ping detect magic and can function in antimagic fields (and admitedly silvered is a bit more flavourful than +0).

My preference for magic items is that they're flashy and weird. The only magic items that the game requires you to have are magical weapons (due to resistances and immunities), and I'd prefer to skip all that. Magic weapons should be reserved for Blackrazors and Stormbringers, not a hoop to jump through so that your Barbarian or Fighter can do their job.

[Christew]

Why not just cut silvered then? You're effectivly making silvered weapons +0 magics weapons, other than the situational utility that they don't ping detect magic and can function in antimagic fields (and admitedly silvered is a bit more flavourful than +0).

Was that cold iron or just regular iron? I'm pretty sure the fey bloodline of the lasombras were weak to iron in general.
A) Yeah, we lost some categories from 3e, like iron and masterwork, presabably to streamline resistance mechanics. Mundane<silver<magical.

B) Honestly, away from book and unwilling to research atm. I recall cold being a poetic moniker to reference the extra banal nature of iron culture a la Tuatha de Danaan v Fomorians v Man.

[Boci]

A) Yeah, we lost some categories from 3e, like iron and masterwork, presabably to streamline resistance mechanics. Mundane<silver<magical.

But there's also adamantium. If you have "Mundane<silver/adamntium<magical" then "Mundane<silver/adamantium/cold iron<magical" really doesn't seem any worse.

[Christew]

But there's also adamantium. If you have "Mundane<silver/adamntium<magical" then "Mundane<silver/adamantium/cold iron<magical" really doesn't seem any worse.
Pre Xanathar's, I think adamantine was just for armor, Post Xanathar's, adamantine weapons are good at breaking things, but don't actually factor into resistance (correct me if I'm wrong).

[Trask]

Cold Iron was always a bit nonsensical from a folk tale/myth point of view IMO. The whole point of why iron hurts fey is because its a piece of worked metal that represents progress, science, modernity, etc etc and burns away the sort of mythical, magical, and pastoral fairies that dont understand our world of metal and wheels. "Cold forging" the iron should be the only way that fey can use iron, not the one thing that hurts them.

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, "Cold Iron" was never something that made a lot of sense to me. Especially in regards to the fey.

"This iron never touched by heat of flame is super effective against naturally occurring creatures" means that naturally occurring metal in rock is the weakness of naturally occurring creatures (fey).

The original idea (as it has been presented to me in mythology) was that that Iron was their weakness, because it was unnatural, made by man and not by nature. But even then, some fey didn't care about Iron. Some fey were smiths, and some creatures like Baba Yaga had iron teeth or redcaps with their iron boots.


And then there is the big problem. If creatures are weak to iron, or steel, then they are weak to every attack because every single martial weapon, medium or higher armor, and shield uses iron or steel.


It just didn't have enough sense and presence to be important. Adamantium weapon resistance is pointless to a degree, because Adamantium weapons are listed as magic weapons. So, really only silver survived and of course it did, because of werewolves.

[Christew]

Valid. This is what I'm talking about.

[Lord Vukodlak]

That's seems far from proven. Cold wrought iron is not a common reference, but it does exist enough to not seem like something D&D invented. Even if it did, it certainly did not invent "special iron". Thunderbolt/meteoritc iron were considered to have something extra in them above regular iron, sacred even, long before D&D was invented.

In old folklore Fey creatures were vulnerable to iron. But this was at a time when iron weapons were rare. Having Fey vulnerable to iron in a Middle Ages era D&D would be rather meaningless so they invented cold iron.

[Nifft]

Maybe "cold iron" is iron which remembers killing a star, and it feels cold because it remembers endothermic fusion reactions (and feels smug about it).

Fey, which are connected to stars in some vague mystical way, are more susceptible to a thing which remembers killing a star.


That or they're actually allergic to ironic coldbrew, so they avoid hipster cafes as much as possible (which also helps them avoid vampires).

[Keltest]

"Cold-Wrought Iron / The Tempering of Steel (Art Workers Guild), 1906"

https://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/event.php?id=msib2_1215773917

Doesn't look like this is from D&D.

Besides, if cold wrought iron bothers you so much, meteoric iron would also work well. High end demons, like balors, would now have a mundane source for bypassing their resistance, like the pitfiend do, and maybe it can be worked into some fey's stateblocks too, especially hags.

Interesting. That appears to be in the context of art and sculpture, and fairly modern, so certainly not relating to faeries at all, but it is indeed referencing "cold wrought iron."

As for meteoric iron/steel, I wouldn't mind that as a material type at all, though frankly I'm inclined to agree with others who say that having materials for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction or immunity mostly only bogs down the game and hurts martials even more.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I don't care much for cold iron by itself, but i do think expanding greatly on resistance, immunity and especially weakness is one area where 5e can benefit from some expansion, and it's one of my most frequent areas of NPC statblock alteration.

I can respect why that they cut most of this stuff for simplicity though.

[Boci]

Pre Xanathar's, I think adamantine was just for armor, Post Xanathar's, adamantine weapons are good at breaking things, but don't actually factor into resistance (correct me if I'm wrong).

No, gargoyles were in MM, and they're resistant to non-magical weapons not made of adamantium, and Volos added 4 monsters that were immune to non-magical, non-adamantium. Bronze scout, shield defender, oaken bolter and I more I think.


As for meteoric iron/steel, I wouldn't mind that as a material type at all, though frankly I'm inclined to agree with others who say that having materials for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction or immunity mostly only bogs down the game and hurts martials even more.

But...it doesn't. Currently martials have two options for hurting demons with resistance: have a magic weapon, or eat resistance. With cold iron, they would have 3 options: have a magic weapon, have a cold/meteoric iron weapon, or eat resistance.

This would benefit martials (or do nothing at worse), not hurt them.

[Keltest]

But...it doesn't. Currently martials have two options for hurting demons with resistance: have a magic weapon, or eat resistance. With cold iron, they would have 3 options: have a magic weapon, have a cold/meteoric iron weapon, or eat resistance.

This would benefit martials (or do nothing at worse), not hurt them.

Nominally sure, but you really should already have a magic weapon by the time youre going demon hunting, and not just because its currently the only thing that breaks resistance. The game's loot progression just assumes that they'll be available by that level of power.

Now if you wanted to make it so that the material of the weapon gave it other properties besides overcoming resistance, then im interested. Let it bring some advantages rather than resetting to the baseline performance.

[Boci]

Nominally sure, but you really should already have a magic weapon by the time youre going demon hunting, and not just because its currently the only thing that breaks resistance. The game's loot progression just assumes that they'll be available by that level of power.

That's debatable. 5e was heavily promoted as an edition where even a +0 magic sword would be a big find. Whilst actual numbers tend to disagree with that, loot is still up to the DM, and cold/meteoric iron would be a way to help martials if the Dm wants to run the game that way.

And if pitfiends can pointlessly have their damage resistance overcome by magic or silvered weapons, balors can probably handle pointlessly having their resistance overcome by magic or cold/meteoric iron.

Edit: Also imps are challenge 1, non-silver, spined devils are challenge 2 and bearded devils are challenge 3. All of them are resistance to non-magical weapons not made of silver. Demons actually have fewer low level monsters (in the MM at least), possibly to reflect the lack of cold iron, but they do still have quasits (challenge 1) and shadow demons (challenge 4), both of who are resistant to nonmagical weapons. Adding cold iron to what overcomes their resistance seems like it could be relevant, not every pPC is going to have a magical weapon when they face those guys.

Volos added babau and Mord's added dybek, both challenge 4 and likewise resistant. The next one in the progression is vrock at challenge 6.


Now if you wanted to make it so that the material of the weapon gave it other properties besides overcoming resistance, then im interested. Let it bring some advantages rather than resetting to the baseline performance.

Sure, that's possible too. The easiest would probably be vulnerability to cold, but you could also give magic resistance against fey and demons to someone holding a cold/meteoric iron weapon.

[Razade]

My uninformed assumption is that Silver was a significant thing back in AD&D, while Cold Iron was more of a 3e-ism.

Simplifying the system for 5e may have been biased in favor of cutting off newer things and bringing back older things.

Cold Iron is mentioned a great deal in AD&D, especially Planescape. It actually seems less common in 3. and 3.5

[Chaosmancer]

That's debatable. 5e was heavily promoted as an edition where even a +0 magic sword would be a big find. Whilst actual numbers tend to disagree with that, loot is still up to the DM, and cold/meteoric iron would be a way to help martials if the Dm wants to run the game that way.

And if pitfiends can pointlessly have their damage resistance overcome by magic or silvered weapons, balors can probably handle pointlessly having their resistance overcome by magic or cold/meteoric iron.

Edit: Also imps are challenge 1, non-silver, spined devils are challenge 2 and bearded devils are challenge 3. All of them are resistance to non-magical weapons not made of silver. Demons actually have fewer low level monsters (in the MM at least), possibly to reflect the lack of cold iron, but they do still have quasits (challenge 1) and shadow demons (challenge 4), both of who are resistant to nonmagical weapons. Adding cold iron to what overcomes their resistance seems like it could be relevant, not every pPC is going to have a magical weapon when they face those guys.

Volos added babau and Mord's added dybek, both challenge 4 and likewise resistant. The next one in the progression is vrock at challenge 6.



Sure, that's possible too. The easiest would probably be vulnerability to cold, but you could also give magic resistance against fey and demons to someone holding a cold/meteoric iron weapon.



So, since you seem to consider this something for just overcoming damage resistance, why don't you make "Cold Iron" a +0 homebrew magical item in your game?

Or, have your player's buy the common magical "moontouched" items from Xanathar's guide. Those items only have the ability to dimly glow about 10 ft, but are magical weapons.

It seems that what you want, (cheap way to overcome resistance to non-magical weapons) already exists in the game.

[Boci]

So, since you seem to consider this something for just overcoming damage resistance, why don't you make "Cold Iron" a +0 homebrew magical item in your game?

Or, have your player's buy the common magical "moontouched" items from Xanathar's guide. Those items only have the ability to dimly glow about 10 ft, but are magical weapons.

It seems that what you want, (cheap way to overcome resistance to non-magical weapons) already exists in the game.

I don't want it to be magical, special material tends to be more flavourful than +0 magic weapons, plus I don't want cold iron weapons to pierce all mundane weapon resistance, just the resistance of fey and demons.

[Chaosmancer]

I don't want it to be magical, special material tends to be more flavourful than +0 magic weapons, plus I don't want cold iron weapons to pierce all mundane weapon resistance, just the resistance of fey and demons.

I've never found them to be more flavorful per se. In 5e you have adamantium weapons do double damage to items.... something that rarely if ever shows up. Mithril weapons wiegh half as much, which again, nothing really flavorful.

And, frankly, even in this, there isn't really any flavor here. Ignores resistance to non-magical weapons for demons and fey. That isn't interesting or flavorful, it doesn't do anything. If I handed out a moontouched Longsword or a Cold Iron Longsword to a fighter, and had them fight a a demon and then an orc, both weapons perform identically. Except the Moontouched sword glows.


You might be able to argue that the material makes the fey and demons more interesting.... except like we've discussed, it kind of doesn't. First of all, why are demons weak to this at all? I mean, "I hit you with a piece of iron that has never been melted" is essentially just hitting them with a rock.

And that gets into the other effect we've talked about. Cold Iron just can't exist. To get an iron ingot from iron ore, you need to melt it, and forge it. That makes it Iron, not Cold Iron. To make Cold Iron you would need to somehow smash a rock into an iron sword. And even if you did that, why does it have anti-demon and fey (but not anti-devil or elemental or abberation) properties?

It makes things confusing, raises too many issues, and I just don't see the point. If it added flavor, I'd be all for it. But in this case, it makes things worse instead of more flavorful.

And again, the original intent of the myth was that Iron was a sign of human progress and technology, so of course it banished creatures of supernatural origin. Science trumps superstition. Silver worked because it was thought to be pure, so it banished evil. We can still talk about good vs evil in dnd, but science vs magic isn't a paradigm that makes sense, so Cold Iron was dropped.

[Boci]

And again, the original intent of the myth was that Iron was a sign of human progress and technology, so of course it banished creatures of supernatural origin. Science trumps superstition. Silver worked because it was thought to be pure, so it banished evil. We can still talk about good vs evil in dnd, but science vs magic isn't a paradigm that makes sense, so Cold Iron was dropped.

How is "iron = progress" superstiution, but "silver = pure" not? They're both superstitious. (And why is silver only good against evil devils and not evil demons?)

I can understand dropping both or neither, but keeping only one seems strange. The concern that cold iron can't actually exist is easily fixed by making it meteoric iron instead of cold iron, and even then its a wierd concern to have in D&D, where you can totally have cold forge iron by using magic instead of heat, which would also explain why its more expensive.

[Keltest]

How is "iron = progress" superstiution, but "silver = pure" not? They're both superstitious. (And why is silver only good against evil devils and not evil demons?)

I can understand dropping both or neither, but keeping only one seems strange. The concern that cold iron can't actually exist is easily fixed by making it meteoric iron instead of cold iron, and even then its a wierd concern to have in D&D, where you can totally have cold forge iron by using magic instead of heat, which would also explain why its more expensive.

I think you misunderstood. The point was that Iron = progress and that progress > superstition, not that iron equaling progress was superstition.

[Boci]

I think you misunderstood. The point was that Iron = progress and that progress > superstition, not that iron equaling progress was superstition.

Then that doesn't apply to D&D, where magic isn't superstitous. Humans have magic, this is openly known and accepted. Special iron isn't vs. magic, its against fey and demons. You dont need to drop special iron to avoid science vs. magic, because that wouldn't happen to begin with.

[Rfkannen]

I don't like "resistant to damage from non magical weapons" thing as I find it really boring. So far in my campaign I have made it so that all monsters like that can be hurt normally by 1 of: adamantine, silver, or cold iron weapons.

The players have not found any magical weapons yet, but I am debating making it so that all weapons are made of one of those three materials, so you can't hit a devil with a magical weapon unless it is also a silver magical weapon.

[Boci]

I don't like "resistant to damage from non magical weapons" thing as I find it really boring. So far in my campaign I have made it so that all monsters like that can be hurt normally by 1 of: adamantine, silver, or cold iron weapons.

I think I prefer that list to. Since this seems to be an issue for many people in this thread, what is cold iron in your game? Is it mined from deep underground and/or forged at low temperatures or even without a flame, is it meteoric iron?

[Chaosmancer]

Then that doesn't apply to D&D, where magic isn't superstitous. Humans have magic, this is openly known and accepted. Special iron isn't vs. magic, its against fey and demons. You dont need to drop special iron to avoid science vs. magic, because that wouldn't happen to begin with.

Exactly. There is no superstition to combat. The existence of these creatures is a fact, so the theme of progress pushing them back, showing them to be fake and powerless doesn't work. They are real forces and creatures.

The themes and ideas that caused Iron to be effective against magic do no exist in a world where magic is definitely 100% real and a fundamental force. You would have to invent an entirely new reason why it works,


How is "iron = progress" superstiution, but "silver = pure" not? They're both superstitious. (And why is silver only good against evil devils and not evil demons?)

I can understand dropping both or neither, but keeping only one seems strange. The concern that cold iron can't actually exist is easily fixed by making it meteoric iron instead of cold iron, and even then its a weird concern to have in D&D, where you can totally have cold forge iron by using magic instead of heat, which would also explain why its more expensive.

Huh, though demons were vulnerable to silver.

It could be that they decided Silver (being a element of purity) fights against corruption instead of evil. All devils are corrupted souls who were once either celestials or mortals. Lycanthropes are cursed and corrupted mortals. Vampires are corrupted and cursed mortals.

But Demons are spawned from the Abyss. They were not once something else, they are born pure evil and destructive, so Silver has no special hold on them.


Tangent: If you were to forge cold iron by using magic to shape the metal, wouldn't you just be creating a magical item?


And to your last point, sure, you could make Meteoric Iron have special properties. But you are running head first into the same problem. Why does it only have special properties against Demons and Fey? Why doesn't it have special properties against Genies or Etheral creatures? The entire point of special materials is to add to the story, so what is the story?

[Theodoric]

Putting it 'back in' is exceedingly minute work for a DM though. I tweak monster vulnerabilities (especially to weapon materials) all the time, sometimes to make things easier (silver is a lot more useful), others less (like 'generic' magical weapons). Makes figuring out monster weaknesses more rewarding at very little cost on my part.

[Boci]

The themes and ideas that caused Iron to be effective against magic do no exist in a world where magic is definitely 100% real and a fundamental force. You would have to invent an entirely new reason why it works,

You keep saying cold iron vs. magic, but its not in D&D. You're framing the issue wrong.


But Demons are spawned from the Abyss. They were not once something else, they are born pure evil and destructive, so Silver has no special hold on them.

Demons can still be spawned from mortal souls though. And what about evil undead, like a banshee? They're definitly corrupted.


Tangent: If you were to forge cold iron by using magic to shape the metal, wouldn't you just be creating a magical item?

Because fabricate doesn't make magical weapons? What printed 4th level spell are you thinking of that would make permanent magical weapons?


And to your last point, sure, you could make Meteoric Iron have special properties. But you are running head first into the same problem. Why does it only have special properties against Demons and Fey? Why doesn't it have special properties against Genies or Etheral creatures? The entire point of special materials is to add to the story, so what is the story?

Ethereal aren't chaotic and djinni don't have damage resistance. AndW as mentioned before, why doesn't silver effect other evil, corrupted creatures like the banshee?

[Eldariel]

You keep saying cold iron vs. magic, but its not in D&D. You're framing the issue wrong.

3e Cold Iron weapons were superexpensive to enchant for this very reason. Though this did not extend to historical uses such as harming spirits, damaging magic, etc. (iron as the only way to damage a force effect but one that eats enchantments and magic on/from the wielder could be cool).

[Chaosmancer]

You keep saying cold iron vs. magic, but its not in D&D. You're framing the issue wrong.

That was the thematic reason it appeared in stories for decades if not centuries in the myths and stories that inspired Dungeons and Dragons. I never said it was in DnD. In fact, I keep pointing out that the fact that theme does not work for DnD and that is likely a reason the element was removed from the game.

You want to frame it differently, that's fine, but the issue then seems to be "this thing used to exist, now it doesn't, and I don't know why" and I'm trying to show a why.




Demons can still be spawned from mortal souls though. And what about evil undead, like a banshee? They're definitly corrupted.

You are correct, partially.

It is possible for evil souls to become demons (specifically manes) and you will also note that they do not have damage resistance to non-magical weapons. In fact, demons are a little hit or miss on that resistance. Some have it, some don't (including dretches, chasmes, barlgura) so in the case of silver vs Manes, I think it was more a matter that giving something with 9 hp vulnerability wasn't really worth it.


Some evil undead do count, some don't. I think it is the curse aspect (like with vampires) that is more important. Banshees are evil because of their action in life. Also, most of the undead that could fit under a curse and aren't vulnerable to silver are incorporeal. Their resistance is coming from the fact that they are not being hit solidly by the attack. Which silver doesn't help with it seems. Notably the Wight which is a physical cursed undead, is vulnerable to silver.




Because fabricate doesn't make magical weapons? What printed 4th level spell are you thinking of that would make permanent magical weapons?

I wasn't thinking of a specific spell at all. I didn't realize Fabricate made something permanent, I was mixing it up with the 5th level Creation spell which only creates items for a short time.

But, great. If you are 7th level wizard, and proficient with Blacksmith tools (required because otherwise you cannot make weapons) you could take a hunk of iron from a mountain and shape it into a sword, probably with low quality since it specifically states "the quality of the item is commensurate with the quality of the materials" and unrefined ore is the lowest quality material you could get.

Why is this more powerful against Fey, who could do the exact same thing? Why does this make anti-demon weapons?



Ethereal aren't chaotic and djinni don't have damage resistance. AndW as mentioned before, why doesn't silver effect other evil, corrupted creatures like the banshee?

I already answered part of this but I see a few things of interest here.

Why is cold iron anti-Chaos? I didn't realize that was an important part of your reason for both Demons and Fey to be affected.

But, more importantly, why is it that damage resistance is a good reason for something not to be vulnerable? Importantly, most fey do not have damage resistances either. Only seven of them do that I can find. The four Eladrin, the Annis Hag, the Bheur hag, and the Korred. Every other fey does not have physical damage resistance.

So, cold iron vs fey was either going to be pointless, or deal double damage. So, if you see that as the important reason, maybe that is why the element was removed. No fey in the Monster Manual had damage resistances to pierce. And Cold Iron verus Demons is far less commonly thought of. In fact, if you hadn't said something I wouldn't have even known that was a thing. It is almost exclusively presented as a Fey weakness is media.

[Boci]

You want to frame it differently, that's fine, but the issue then seems to be "this thing used to exist, now it doesn't, and I don't know why" and I'm trying to show a why.

That's a fair explanation. We can agree to disagree on the rest.

[Throne12]

I heard about cold iron from fairy tales about fey & fairies. I haven't heard anything about it hurting demons or devil's. I also haven't heard anything about D&D untell 2014 other then I know it was some kind of game.

Cold ironis a poetic term for iron or weapon in different stories. These stories would involve Fey, spirits and other supernatural creatures.


In modern fantasy, cold iron may refer to a special type of metal, such as meteoric iron or unworked metal. Weapons and implements made from cold iron are often granted special efficacy against creatures such as fairies and spirits.

[Chaosmancer]

That's a fair explanation. We can agree to disagree on the rest.

Shrug

Okay, a lot of the rest of that post was asking questions and trying to figure out what you even want out of this (since most fey turn out to not have damage resistance anyways) but if you don't want to discuss, then we don't need to discuss.

[Boci]

Shrug

Okay, a lot of the rest of that post was asking questions and trying to figure out what you even want out of this (since most fey turn out to not have damage resistance anyways) but if you don't want to discuss, then we don't need to discuss.

I want 5th ed to have cold iron so there's 3 types of non-magical material that overcomes resistant. You don't. There's not much point in discussing it further because its two differences about a game. At best we copuld talk about why each of has that preference, but even that's a limited discussion. I big part of my preference (but not all of it) is likely that I got into D&D in 3.5 which had cold iron, and since its easy to port to 5th ed, I can, as others in this thread have too.

[Chaosmancer]

I want 5th ed to have cold iron so there's 3 types of non-magical material that overcomes resistant. You don't. There's not much point in discussing it further because its two differences about a game. At best we copuld talk about why each of has that preference, but even that's a limited discussion. I big part of my preference (but not all of it) is likely that I got into D&D in 3.5 which had cold iron, and since its easy to port to 5th ed, I can, as others in this thread have too.

I probably shouldn't, but eh.

If you just wanted to add it and you never wanted to discuss it, why make an entire thread?

If you just want a third material, why not have Fulgurite as an anti-ethereal material?


I never intended to say that you adding it to your game the way you wanted it was wrong or anything, but you seemed to have been asking why it was dropped and why it hasn't been added back in. So I gave answers and explanations. Again, you don't want to discuss it, we don't need to discuss it. But you started a thread that asked a question.

[Boci]

I never intended to say that you adding it to your game the way you wanted it was wrong or anything, but you seemed to have been asking why it was dropped and why it hasn't been added back in. So I gave answers and explanations. Again, you don't want to discuss it, we don't need to discuss it. But you started a thread that asked a question.

And I accept that explanation. I don't agree with it personally, but I can now see why cold iron was dropped by WotC yet silver wasn't.

[Chaosmancer]

And I accept that explanation. I don't agree with it personally, but I can now see why cold iron was dropped by WotC yet silver wasn't.

Ah, I misunderstood your intent then. My apologies.

[Galaxander]

I appreciate the simplicity of 5e, but I do sort of miss the flavor of cold iron. I like stories of sneaky fairies being annoyed or repelled by a well placed horseshoe or an iron clasp on a cloak or something. Little ways for ordinary folks to protect themselves against the mischief of the fey.

In my mind, most typical weapons are made of steel. Some creatures are especially vulnerable to silver or pure iron, but those materials aren't all that great for making a weapon, at least not as good as steel. So "alchemical silver" and "cold iron" are these special materials that are silver and iron respectively, but can hold an edge and not tarnish just as well as steel can.

I always imagined "cold iron" to be highly purified iron, smelted through normal means, but of much higher quality than would normally be used. It would then be worked at relatively low temperatures using techniques completely different to normal smithing. Maybe a blade would be stretched and carved from a rod rather than hammered out. Something that would require great expertise and probably unusual tools, but no magic.

[Anymage]

Demons in 3.5 got a cold iron weakness because the 3.5 devs wanted to make special materials a thing, and because they wanted to highlight how demons and devils are different. Otherwise cold iron is an anti fae thing, and there aren't enough powerful fairy foes to make it worth a listing. Maybe it'll show up when a feywild book comes out.

Silver as a special material can serve two uses. It can be an intermediate step for tier one martials to get a special anti-monster weapon before they get proper magic weapons, and it can help justify why a monster can bedevil mundane authorities until someone gets around to grabbing a special weapon. Similarly, it can help make certain monsters much more pricey to throw minion swarms at, without the full minion-nerfing effect of resistance to all nonmagical weapons.

But going too far down the rabbit hole and including too many different materials just means that PCs will have to invest in redundant weapons. That, or magic becomes a universal resistance breaker and the point becomes moot as soon as magic weapons staff showing up. It misses out on a lot of folkloric flavor, but then PCs and their peers do tend to cross from "folkloric" to "legendary" rather early in their careers.

[Mjolnirbear]

From David Eddings' The Elenium series;

Iron interferes with superhuman beings and abilities because iron is magnetic.

So bring that to D&D, Fey and Demons, from different worlds without naturally occurring iron, come to earth. They are made of nearly pure magic, and while on earth discover a naturally-occurring metal that interferes with their abilities and is actively poisonous to them.

I just thought of something: what would it break if one made the following changes:

* resistance and immunity to weapon attacks also includes spell attacks;

* a focus made of meteoric iron/silver/byeshk counts as a weapon made of the material

* magical weapons do not bypass this system.

Silver works against the corruption of evil; magnetic iron works against fey and demons (from realms without iron) and byeshk works against aberrations (a Far Realm metal maybe? Or like iron interferes with Far Realm magic?)

[Democratus]

I like all the different materials and the creatures with vulnerabilities/immunities based on them.

They are weird, byzantine, and seemingly nonsensical - which exactly what I want from magic. Magic is weird. Magic enforces rules that make no sense to normal people.

That's a feature, not a bug, as far as I'm concerned.

[Galaxander]

Did anyone else ever find it weird that the default, and often only, mechanic for special materials is bypassing damage reduction? Like in some cases I get it, werewolves traditionally can't be killed with non-silver weapons, but there are other cases where the "special metal" is known to actually burn the skin of the mythical critter. Would adding a d6 of "silver damage" or something instead of giving the creature damage reduction in the first place be a not-as-good mechanic?

[NorthernPhoenix]

Did anyone else ever find it weird that the default, and often only, mechanic for special materials is bypassing damage reduction? Like in some cases I get it, werewolves traditionally can't be killed with non-silver weapons, but there are other cases where the "special metal" is known to actually burn the skin of the mythical critter. Would adding a d6 of "silver damage" or something instead of giving the creature damage reduction in the first place be a not-as-good mechanic?

Those seem to be representing two different things. One represents that material other than the special one is particularly inneffective, while the other represents a certain material being especially effective without other materials being ineffective.

[Galaxander]

Those seem to be representing two different things. One represents that material other than the special one is particularly inneffective, while the other represents a certain material being especially effective without other materials being ineffective.

Yes, that's what I'm asking about. You never see the second scenario in the rules. Anyone think that's odd or is there a good reason for it I'm just not seeing?

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, that's what I'm asking about. You never see the second scenario in the rules. Anyone think that's odd or is there a good reason for it I'm just not seeing?

The only thing I would say is that it would be odd in terms of balance. Adding a 1d6 of damage is fine for a magical weapon, but if this is going to be a non-magical weapon and the 1d6 is gated behind a creature type (like the sword of dragonslaying) then it should be easier to get.

Which might make these materials more common, which may not be a good thing for some tables.



I like all the different materials and the creatures with vulnerabilities/immunities based on them.

They are weird, byzantine, and seemingly nonsensical - which exactly what I want from magic. Magic is weird. Magic enforces rules that make no sense to normal people.

That's a feature, not a bug, as far as I'm concerned.


Nitpicky, but I'm saying it anyways.

Magic has always made sense when it came to creatures and their functions.

Vampires didn't have reflections in mirrors, because mirrors used to be backed with silver and being a "pure" metal silver wouldn't hold the image of an impure creature. They couldn't cross running water because water is an element strongly associated with death and the river that takes souls to the next life. Vampires are souls who are defying the natural order, so crossing running water would pull at their soul to return to it's natural place.

Lines of salt to repel ghosts? Salt is a purifying element that repulses evil spirits. That is why it prevents food from rotting, because the spirits can't get to it.

Iron repelled fey because Iron represented progress and humanity moving away from the dark forests where those specific fey lived stuck in time.

There is always a logic to it, some sense in the symbolism, because humans naturally gravitate towards symbolism and order when telling stories.

[Boci]

From David Eddings' The Elenium series;

Iron interferes with superhuman beings and abilities because iron is magnetic.

So bring that to D&D, Fey and Demons, from different worlds without naturally occurring iron, come to earth. They are made of nearly pure magic, and while on earth discover a naturally-occurring metal that interferes with their abilities and is actively poisonous to them.

That's a cool way of fluffing it too if you want to keep iron in D&D, (though it wouldn't work for 3.5 where fey weren't from another world). It does have some world implications, I can't think of any explicit references to iron in the feywild or abyss, but you are now locked in to their being none, but nothing a DM shouldn't be able to handle.


I just thought of something: what would it break if one made the following changes:

* resistance and immunity to weapon attacks also includes spell attacks;

* a focus made of meteoric iron/silver/byeshk counts as a weapon made of the material

* magical weapons do not bypass this system.

Group dependant obviously, but could work if they like special materials matering. Others might find it annoying, especially if they have to choose between their +2 weapon and eat resistance, and their cold iron weapon when fighting a balor.


Nitpicky, but I'm saying it anyways.

Magic has always made sense when it came to creatures and their functions.

I think you're overreaching by saying "always". Sooner or later your going to run in X folklore creature's Y quality and be unable to explain it, either because the symbolism is lost or there never was any to begin with. You're right that folklore is rich with sylbolic logic, but overcommiting when you claim always.


Did anyone else ever find it weird that the default, and often only, mechanic for special materials is bypassing damage reduction? Like in some cases I get it, werewolves traditionally can't be killed with non-silver weapons, but there are other cases where the "special metal" is known to actually burn the skin of the mythical critter. Would adding a d6 of "silver damage" or something instead of giving the creature damage reduction in the first place be a not-as-good mechanic?

Likely a consequence of 5e simplicity. No damage/half damage/full damage is easy to remember, introducing full damage +1d6 and stuff is harder, but some groups will have no problem remembering it. 3.5 and pathfinder had some materials that gave bonuses too. Slashing and piercing weapons amde of baatorian green steel did +1 damage (independent of the target's creature type), whilst pathfinder's celestial mithril did I think +2d6 damage agaist undead.

[JackPhoenix]

I just thought of something: what would it break if one made the following changes:

* resistance and immunity to weapon attacks also includes spell attacks;

* a focus made of meteoric iron/silver/byeshk counts as a weapon made of the material

* magical weapons do not bypass this system.

Silver works against the corruption of evil; magnetic iron works against fey and demons (from realms without iron) and byeshk works against aberrations (a Far Realm metal maybe? Or like iron interferes with Far Realm magic?)

What would break? Nothing, though how would you deal with spells that do not require M component, or that have M component that can't be replaced by a focus (and remember, focus is replacement for the M component, not default). Or spells that don't do damage, i.e. the stuff that actually decides battles?

And having to bring along a golf bag of weapons was not considered a good idea back when that was a thing. It's why first the practice of having at least +X weapon to hurt a creature was discontinued when 3e changed to 3.5, then the material requirement were overcame by having a sufficient +X in PF, and I suspect why 5e uses "material or magic weapon" in its weapon resistances/immunities.

[Democratus]

Nitpicky, but I'm saying it anyways.

Magic has always made sense when it came to creatures and their functions.

I don't think this can be true, since magic and creatures has been different in every edition of the game. Some editions undead are healed by Cause Wounds spells. In other editions they are unaffected by it. Still others, it actually wounds them.

Other creatures have powers in one edition, it's gone the next. Others come from entirely different planes of existence depending on the edition. Same with materials that affect various creatures. Inconsistency through the decades, which means it can't have "always made sense".

[Keltest]

I don't think this can be true, since magic and creatures has been different in every edition of the game. Some editions undead are healed by Cause Wounds spells. In other editions they are unaffected by it. Still others, it actually wounds them.

Other creatures have powers in one edition, it's gone the next. Others come from entirely different planes of existence depending on the edition. Same with materials that affect various creatures. Inconsistency through the decades, which means it can't have "always made sense".

Its entirely possible to have two ideas that are mutually exclusive but also each make sense.

[MrCharlie]

Well, it's worth noting that, unlike many other mythical things in DnD, Cold Iron is purely a case of (at best) mistranslation. Cold iron was never supposed to have special properties against magic beings. Iron was. Cold iron is poetry, in the same way one might say "pump 'em full of hot lead".

Given that cold iron isn't in any capacity real, but the old stories did give these creatures vulnerability to normal iron, they are either vulnerable to 95% of weapons or you have to add in a new magical "cold iron" despite this making zero sense.

Given that, from my 3.5 experience, cold iron was either A. ignored in favor of hitting harder of blowing them up with magic, B. handed out by the DM suspiciously, C. accidentally bypassed by magic weapons, I never saw a point to it. People used silver weapons because enemies which had vulnerability to them were more common/well known, but even that was rare.

So in summary, cold iron was not used very often, made no sense, and had no mythology backing it up.

[Boci]

So in summary, cold iron was not used very often, made no sense, and had no mythology backing it up.

Depends on your table. I'm playing Wrath of the Righteous, so cold iron has come up one or two hundred times.

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually, from my understanding, Cold Iron as is used in D&D is completely original. I am not so sure about that. I first encountered cold iron having certain properties in Runequest back in the early 80's.
Elves were subject to its harmful effects.
You can also read up on its impact on the faeries in Poul Anderson's Three Hearts/Three Lions novel, which far predates D&D in time.
I seem to recall something like that in Chivalry and Sorcery, but I can't find the sourcebook and am not sure if my memories are overlapping on that one.

[Boci]

I am not so sure about that. I first encountered cold iron having certain properties in Runequest back in the early 80's.
Elves were subject to its harmful effects.
You can also read up on its impact on the faeries in Poul Anderson's Three Hearts/Three Lions novel, which far predates D&D in time.
I seem to recall something like that in Chivalry and Sorcery, but I can't find the sourcebook and am not sure if my memories are overlapping on that one.

That was the 5th reply in the thread. By now it been pretty clearly established that cold iron was a poetic way of saying iron (or iron in the specific shape of a weapon), but many people took it be a special kind of iron, and it is entirely possible D&D was not the first to implement it as such.

[KorvinStarmast]

That was the 5th reply in the thread. And none of you mentioned Runequest nor Chivalry and Sorcery.

As to the OP's larger point: there is no need for some special 'cold iron' thing in 5e. And as this was mentioned, it didn't arrive in AD&D until 2d edition, or very late in 1st as they were getting ready for 2d. (I can't be expected to remember every Dragon Mag article I ever read). In AD&D, you ran into a lot of creatures that 'needed at least + this much weapon to hit' which then led to the UA thing with Barbarians of increasing levels "being able to hit monsters that needed +x to hit" ... I can't swear to this, but I suspect that the cold iron thing in AD&D 2d (and as noted, in Planescape) was an attempt to clean up part of that mess.

Silvered for does what needs doing for fiends and lycanthropes (and a few other critters). And, 5e achieves a core design aim - an attempt to streamline and simplify. (Granted, only partially achieved, see my post about scimitars from a few days ago).

[NorthernPhoenix]

That was the 5th reply in the thread. By now it been pretty clearly established that cold iron was a poetic way of saying iron (or iron in the specific shape of a weapon), but many people took it be a special kind of iron, and it is entirely possible D&D was not the first to implement it as such.

A lot of myth is a poetic way of saying stuff, or otherwise influenced by game-of-telephone style interpretations. I don't think stuff made up later in the chain is of less value or truth (especially in the context of DnD influence) than what drunk greeks/vikings/celts made up around the campfire.

[Keltest]

I am not so sure about that. I first encountered cold iron having certain properties in Runequest back in the early 80's.
Elves were subject to its harmful effects.
You can also read up on its impact on the faeries in Poul Anderson's Three Hearts/Three Lions novel, which far predates D&D in time.
I seem to recall something like that in Chivalry and Sorcery, but I can't find the sourcebook and am not sure if my memories are overlapping on that one.

Do they draw a distinction between cold iron and regular iron? If so, is that distinction that "cold" iron has never been melted?

If not, I stand by my statement.

[KorvinStarmast]

Do they draw a distinction between cold iron and regular iron? If so, is that distinction that "cold" iron has never been melted?

If not, I stand by my statement. I'd have to open up the source books to verify that for your, but as neither is in my position, your guess is still a guess. Unless you've done an exhaustive study of all Swords and Sorcery fiction, folklore, and fantasy games published since 1974.
That's why I said "I am not so sure about that" rather than "no, you are incorrect." It's been over 30 years since I played either of those two games.

[Boci]

Silvered for does what needs doing for fiends and lycanthropes (and a few other critters). And, 5e achieves a core design aim - an attempt to streamline and simplify. (Granted, only partially achieved, see my post about scimitars from a few days ago).

As mentioned previously in the thread, silver is not for fiends, only devils. There's been attempt to explain this with D&D lore, but it is incorrect to say silver is for fiends in 5e.

[KorvinStarmast]

As mentioned previously in the thread, silver is not for fiends, only devils. There's been attempt to explain this with D&D lore, but it is incorrect to say silver is for fiends in 5e. Indeed, yes, and for some but not all undead. (A Wight's melee damage resistance is negated by silver or magical weapon attacks, for example).

Damage Resistances necrotic; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks not made with silvered weapons Hmm, I just checked, Mummy, and silver is no help against them nor versus vampires.

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think this can be true, since magic and creatures has been different in every edition of the game. Some editions undead are healed by Cause Wounds spells. In other editions they are unaffected by it. Still others, it actually wounds them.

Other creatures have powers in one edition, it's gone the next. Others come from entirely different planes of existence depending on the edition. Same with materials that affect various creatures. Inconsistency through the decades, which means it can't have "always made sense".

Well, I was referring to the myth origins of magic, not to the mechanics of the game. But even there being inconsistecy in different versions doesn't mean it doesn't make sense within those versions. For example:

Ver 1: Undead are damaged by Cause Wounds because it is divine magic that harms organic matter.

Ver 2: Undead are not effected by Cause Wounds, it is negative energy which already floods their system and more doesn't harm them.

Ver 3: Undead are healed by Cause Wounds, the negative energy reinforcing the negative energy in their bodies, just as positive energy does humanoids.


Each of them makes sense taken by themselves, it is good logic. It is only taking them as a whole that would cause problems, and even then you can make sense out of it.

[Democratus]

Well, I was referring to the myth origins of magic, not to the mechanics of the game.

I was referring to the mechanics of the game, not the myth origins of magic.

I like that there are magic items that have no thematic cohesion, and that there are NPCs who flatly ignore the PC spell rules. Magic is better when it's mysterious and bizarre, rather than formulaic and predictable.

[KorvinStarmast]

Magic is better when it's mysterious and bizarre, rather than formulaic and predictable. This. And to a large extent, this is sort of where Jack Vance, HP Lovecraft, and RE Howard were coming from with magic in the swords and sorcery genre, as was Fritz Lieber.

[Chaosmancer]

Magic is better when it's mysterious and bizarre, rather than formulaic and predictable.

Not necessarily. Jim Butcher and Brandon Sanderson have both done excellent jobs at portraying magic in a way that is both wonderful, interesting, and predictable.

For example, in Allomancy from Sanderson's Mistborn series, if you eat and then "burn" zinc (and have the ability to do this, not everyone can do allomancy) then you can "riot" emotions, driving them up and making them more intense in other people. If you are a rioter then you always do this, it is always zinc, and the amount and intensity of your ability to do so increases the more zinc you consume.

It is a formula, it is predictable in its application. But it goes beyond that.

In the related field of Feruchemy, Zinc stores mental speed and clarity of the user, allowing them to retrieve it at a later date to heighten their mental speed and ability to focus.

And if you use it in Hemalurgy, you can (through a terrible process) steal a person's emotional fortitude, to bolster yourself at a later date.

It all hangs together and it is interesting, and since you can predict it, you can work within the logic of the world.

And frankly, looking at Korvin's post above me, I have to point out that even Cthulu mythos there is an order and predictability. People learn magic and can say "Hey, if I do this thing something terrible will happen to me, but this effect will also happen" This may seem less likely, because I bet Lovecraft doesn't repeat spells very often, but it is none the less true, because their are characters who say "if we do this spell/ritual this effect will happen" that is predictability.

Now, there can be trappings and consequences that are bizarre, and maybe even seem contradictory from our limited information, but every magic system where you can insert A and reliably expect B if you don't mess it up, is predictable at its core.

[MrCharlie]

Not necessarily. Jim Butcher and Brandon Sanderson have both done excellent jobs at portraying magic in a way that is both wonderful, interesting, and predictable.

For example, in Allomancy from Sanderson's Mistborn series, if you eat and then "burn" zinc (and have the ability to do this, not everyone can do allomancy) then you can "riot" emotions, driving them up and making them more intense in other people. If you are a rioter then you always do this, it is always zinc, and the amount and intensity of your ability to do so increases the more zinc you consume.

It is a formula, it is predictable in its application. But it goes beyond that.

In the related field of Feruchemy, Zinc stores mental speed and clarity of the user, allowing them to retrieve it at a later date to heighten their mental speed and ability to focus.

And if you use it in Hemalurgy, you can (through a terrible process) steal a person's emotional fortitude, to bolster yourself at a later date.

It all hangs together and it is interesting, and since you can predict it, you can work within the logic of the world.

And frankly, looking at Korvin's post above me, I have to point out that even Cthulu mythos there is an order and predictability. People learn magic and can say "Hey, if I do this thing something terrible will happen to me, but this effect will also happen" This may seem less likely, because I bet Lovecraft doesn't repeat spells very often, but it is none the less true, because their are characters who say "if we do this spell/ritual this effect will happen" that is predictability.

Now, there can be trappings and consequences that are bizarre, and maybe even seem contradictory from our limited information, but every magic system where you can insert A and reliably expect B if you don't mess it up, is predictable at its core.
To expand on this (excellent) point, DnD takes it a step further; magic flows along clearly defined and predictable rules. The only gap in a wizards magical understanding comes to interactions with extremely powerful beings-the "gods"-and you can easily explain them as basically aliens whom exploit a known magical resource-souls/belief-to further empower themselves. But irrespective of that, a Wizard can explain how cleric magic works, predict the spell slots of a cleric, know what spells they might be able to cast, even figure out how strong the effect will be for each cleric. He can even do the same with a wild-mage; he just has greater uncertainty when it comes to if wild-magic will occur, but even wild-magic has limits.

In essence, there are rules, in and out of character. Now, the places where there aren't rules are the same places where people have always looked for the divine; in the narrative elements of the world. But DnD as a system lends itself to predictable, rational magic, even when exploring irrational themes. The players are supposed to understand the world, interact with it, and change it.

If you want an example of a setting where magic is truly irrational, look towards lovecraft. Magic exists, and it defies all logic. And the world is broken by this fact. A world with true gods and true magic, a true "divine mystery" and the truly inexplicable, is incomprehensible to the core and indifferent to life. Humans don't understand the world and can barely even comprehend how much they don't understand it, they interact with it shallowly, and the only changes they make are as transitory and pointless as their lives.

While chaosmancer is right that even lovecraft has predictable rituals, the why of these rituals is beyond all understanding. The logic and rationale may exist, but it's not made for us to understand it. And it is entirely possible that one day you'll go outside, and the sun will have been turned into a giant, staring void of darkness-with no warning, reason, prophesy, or spell to aid you. The ritual that helped last time might do nothing now. Magical forces are mysterious and wonderful. But wonder isn't always a good thing.

[Spriteless]

I had thought cold iron was referring to iron age iron, with impurities making it kind of grainy, and not enough carbon to become steel. Heated up enough to be worked, not forged, or in the language of the day, wrought.

And if wrought iron works better than steel on fairies, as it does in The Dresden Files, the symbolism becomes: back in the iron age, people worried about fairies and used this substance to protect themselves, whenever they made a metal tool that didn't need an edge. By the time steel became cheaper, people no longer feared fairies as much and forgot about protecting themselves. Also, I wonder if Jim Butcher will decide that Fairies are responsible for it being cheaper to make new steel from iron than to recycle steel, to get rid of the cursed substance.

Umm, anyways. Damascus steel is cooler than modern steel anyways. Would have loved that more than a retread of 3e's very symmetrical system.

[Luccan]

If you're going to reintroduce "cold iron" it pretty much has to be a special material that costs more. If it's just regular iron, you're going to run into the problem of either it not being anything meaningful to have (there aren't really any rules for using weaker materials and should cost about the same) or you're gonna have to homebrew drawbacks to using it compared to steel (which means two more problems to deal with for the sake of this, instead of the one of needing the cold iron in the first place)

[Democratus]

And frankly, looking at Korvin's post above me, I have to point out that even Cthulu mythos there is an order and predictability. People learn magic and can say "Hey, if I do this thing something terrible will happen to me, but this effect will also happen" This may seem less likely, because I bet Lovecraft doesn't repeat spells very often, but it is none the less true, because their are characters who say "if we do this spell/ritual this effect will happen" that is predictability.

You're viewing predictability on a smaller scale than I was speaking of. Effect following cause - as opposed to primary motive principals.

There's no rhyme or reason for the nature of the magics in the worlds of authors of the bizarre, like Howard and Lovecraft. Only that it serve the plot and evoke the feel of the world - which is intentionally alien and mysterious. Heck, I've written magic for published Call of Cthulhu modules and there was no 'system' behind them other than what best moved the story and mood along.

Vance's magic is a grab-bag of whatever the author felt fit in any given moment; vestige of a world and glory long since past.

I like this much better as a premise. Magic not as a kind of science but as something never fully comprehended by mortals and only wielded 'through a glass darkly'.

[Chaosmancer]

You're viewing predictability on a smaller scale than I was speaking of. Effect following cause - as opposed to primary motive principals.

There's no rhyme or reason for the nature of the magics in the worlds of authors of the bizarre, like Howard and Lovecraft. Only that it serve the plot and evoke the feel of the world - which is intentionally alien and mysterious. Heck, I've written magic for published Call of Cthulhu modules and there was no 'system' behind them other than what best moved the story and mood along.

Vance's magic is a grab-bag of whatever the author felt fit in any given moment; vestige of a world and glory long since past.

I like this much better as a premise. Magic not as a kind of science but as something never fully comprehended by mortals and only wielded 'through a glass darkly'.

Okay, then let me ask you this as an example:

You are in a world and learn the Ritual of Kulesh. Doing the ritual while wielding a shard of obsidian glass allows you to create a barrier that mystical creatures cannot pass.

How is this different from using an arcane focusing crystal to cast Magic Circle?


If you are talking the meta-physics and such, why can a wizard grab an iron rod covered in sigils and runes and fire beams of scorching energy from it? Or a cleric praying to a god of balance, and ripping a bloody gash in your chest from divine retribution?

DnD is very very unclear about the "why" of magic. So how is magic predictable and formulaic in this world, if all we know is cause and effect (with a few random bits and bobs like 'needs magic words' or 'can be done with a crystal'), but Cthulu magic isn't predictable and Formulaic with the same constraints?

Edit: And I would point out novels creating magic "as the plot needs" is fine, but that simply cannot be done in a system like DnD. Because telling the wizard "you can do whatever you want, you just have to roll for consequences" is a recipe for disaster.

[Mr Adventurer]

If cold iron is star iron, in 5e it could be bane to fey because it is associated with Great Old Ones.

[Democratus]

Okay, then let me ask you this as an example:

You are in a world and learn the Ritual of Kulesh. Doing the ritual while wielding a shard of obsidian glass allows you to create a barrier that mystical creatures cannot pass.

How is this different from using an arcane focusing crystal to cast Magic Circle?

Why does it need to be different?


If you are talking the meta-physics and such, why can a wizard grab an iron rod covered in sigils and runes and fire beams of scorching energy from it? Or a cleric praying to a god of balance, and ripping a bloody gash in your chest from divine retribution?

Entirely depends on the fluff of the world. The answer could be, "you can't".


DnD is very very unclear about the "why" of magic. So how is magic predictable and formulaic in this world, if all we know is cause and effect (with a few random bits and bobs like 'needs magic words' or 'can be done with a crystal'), but Cthulu magic isn't predictable and Formulaic with the same constraints?

Because they are two different worlds with different fluff and different rules.


Edit: And I would point out novels creating magic "as the plot needs" is fine, but that simply cannot be done in a system like DnD. Because telling the wizard "you can do whatever you want, you just have to roll for consequences" is a recipe for disaster.

I've played games just like that that were fantastic. The old "wish" spell from D&D was very much like that.

[FilthyLucre]

Okay, then let me ask you this as an example:

You are in a world and learn the Ritual of Kulesh. Doing the ritual while wielding a shard of obsidian glass allows you to create a barrier that mystical creatures cannot pass.

How is this different from using an arcane focusing crystal to cast Magic Circle?


If you are talking the meta-physics and such, why can a wizard grab an iron rod covered in sigils and runes and fire beams of scorching energy from it? Or a cleric praying to a god of balance, and ripping a bloody gash in your chest from divine retribution?

DnD is very very unclear about the "why" of magic. So how is magic predictable and formulaic in this world, if all we know is cause and effect (with a few random bits and bobs like 'needs magic words' or 'can be done with a crystal'), but Cthulu magic isn't predictable and Formulaic with the same constraints?

Edit: And I would point out novels creating magic "as the plot needs" is fine, but that simply cannot be done in a system like DnD. Because telling the wizard "you can do whatever you want, you just have to roll for consequences" is a recipe for disaster.
I'm not really sure we want to broach the philosophical topic of metaphysics. Strictly speaking, you can ask those very same questions about the laws of physics in our very real world. We know that the laws describe certain phenomena, (and are able to do so with reliability if no longer the certainty of newtonian/pre-quantum era), but we don't know what that phenomena is in-and-of-itself nor do we know why they are the way they are.

[raygun goth]

"Cold-Wrought Iron / The Tempering of Steel (Art Workers Guild), 1906"

https://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/event.php?id=msib2_1215773917

Doesn't look like this is from D&D.

Besides, if cold wrought iron bothers you so much, meteoric iron would also work well. High end demons, like balors, would now have a mundane source for bypassing their resistance, like the pitfiend do, and maybe it can be worked into some fey's stateblocks too, especially hags.

Artist here, my roommate is a blacksmith. "Cold" "wrought iron" is something you might use to refer to fine details. When you're working with iron and you've got the rough edges of the piece laid out, you might quench it several times in order to get it cold enough that when you bang on it you don't cause much change, it's how you get hair-thin details and the like. It's still hot enough to peel off your skin or make your bones break if you try to grab it, though.

I'd bet three to one odds that's what this talk is about, either that or it's about curling iron flats, which are made of low quality iron that you can make into coils easily, then temper them, to make cemetery gates.

edit: seems like that's it - From Plain and Ornamental Forging, 1916

"Wrought iron has fibrous structure and is light gray in color, approaching silvery whiteness. Silicon and phosphorus impart lighter tint, while sulphur, manganese and carbon make the iron somewhat darker. While cold, wrought iron can be bent, hammered out, twisted or stretched. By cold manipulation it becomes denser, harder, more elastic and brittle. It may be brought to its original condition by annealing, that is, by heating it to red heat and allowing it to cool slowly. Excessive cold hammering makes wrought iron easily breakable, splits it and renders it useless. In the proper red hot condition it may easily be forged, and while hot it is so soft that it may be worked, bent, stretched and forged into various forms or shapes with ease. At the white heat, two or more pieces of wrought iron may, by hammering or pressure, be united physically, that is, welded together."

Your reference is literally referring to decorative iron that has no actual purpose other than for decoration, and is still heated on a regular basis during shaping. Note that these referred techniques are from the late 19th and 20th Century.

"Cold iron" as in "iron made while it's cold" is straight up a modern lore invention. You just can't make iron ore into anything resembling iron without actually heating it, and even if you did grind down an iron bar into an edge it's still an iron bar and you still smelted it.

Speaking of: there's a lot of piddling around in the folklore study community as to when the fey allergy to iron came online - it seems to coincide with demons not being able to enter the iron gates of cemeteries, and since the terms "faerie," "demon," and "ghost" were interchangeable up until the 20th Century, a lot of those weaknesses were shared.

I'm fine seeing it go, honestly, but if you wanted to drop it back in, just say that faeries are vulnerable to metal weapons. It'd give something to martials, and D&D is notorious for not giving things to martials.

[Chaosmancer]

Because they are two different worlds with different fluff and different rules.

Ok, so the problem with DnD magic is that the fluff says people understand it? Even though we don't understand it?

Help me out here man, you seem to be confused by my even questioning that the two examples are somehow different, then saying that of course they are different... but why? Because Elminster didn't go crazy when he learned magic like [insert cult leader here]?

If both have the same vagueness of purpose, and both have the same knowledge of cause and effect, why is one mysterious and the other formulaic?


I'm not really sure we want to broach the philosophical topic of metaphysics. Strictly speaking, you can ask those very same questions about the laws of physics in our very real world. We know that the laws describe certain phenomena, (and are able to do so with reliability if no longer the certainty of newtonian/pre-quantum era), but we don't know what that phenomena is in-and-of-itself nor do we know why they are the way they are.

Exactly.

So, since even in Science in the real world there is uncertainty about the hows and why of how it all works, why are we saying magic in DnD is somehow too predicable and needs to be uncertain in the hows and whys it works?

[Boci]

If both have the same vagueness of purpose, and both have the same knowledge of cause and effect, why is one mysterious and the other formulaic?

Granted I've never played with a Cthulu game, but if I had to speculate I might point to that fact that I would assume in those games a wizard can't take a defeated wizard's spellbook and add them to their own in an afternoon. Its kinda hard to have magic be vague and mysterious when you can learn 3 new spells before dinner.

D&D also has a tradition of being able to ID spells with a skill check, which got codified into 5e in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. The ability to ID a spell strongly implies a caster has heard of every spell ever, and the check to see if they recognize it on the fly. This also dents the mystery of magic. Does Cthulu games have such an ID system for magic?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I figure it's mostly a thing to streamline the game. These materials are already a stepping stone towards magical weapons. By the time the whole party has both a silvered and a cold iron version of their weapons of choice and know when to use which they have long since started moving into magical gear and all of it just clutters their gear list. Have just one of them and you have an awesome weapon upgrade that comes at just the right time and becomes redundant at just the right time.

I assume that's roughly what the reasoning was like (actual experience during play may vary). Between the two materials silver has more modern cultural connotations of being damaging to special creatures, even if it's just because of vampire movies where they speculate whether that doesn't only work on werewolves. So silver wins it.

[Boci]

I figure it's mostly a thing to streamline the game. These materials are already a stepping stone towards magical weapons. By the time the whole party has both a silvered and a cold iron version of their weapons of choice and know when to use which they have long since started moving into magical gear and all of it just clutters their gear list. Have just one of them and you have an awesome weapon upgrade that comes at just the right time and becomes redundant at just the right time.

I assume that's roughly what the reasoning was like (actual experience during play may vary). Between the two materials silver has more modern cultural connotations of being damaging to special creatures, even if it's just because of vampire movies where they speculate whether that doesn't only work on werewolves. So silver wins it.

But its not just silver, there's also adamantium. Now someone else mentioned that does also deal double damage to objects, so maybe that's why it made its why in, but it is still another material used to get through weapon resistance and immunity.

[Chaosmancer]

Granted I've never played with a Cthulu game, but if I had to speculate I might point to that fact that I would assume in those games a wizard can't take a defeated wizard's spellbook and add them to their own in an afternoon. Its kinda hard to have magic be vague and mysterious when you can learn 3 new spells before dinner.

D&D also has a tradition of being able to ID spells with a skill check, which got codified into 5e in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. The ability to ID a spell strongly implies a caster has heard of every spell ever, and the check to see if they recognize it on the fly. This also dents the mystery of magic. Does Cthulu games have such an ID system for magic?

I haven't play a lot of Cthulu but you can grab a tome from a cultist and read it for the magic inside if you want. It is generally considered a bad idea, but you can.

I believe they also have mythos checks which allow you to identify monsters and magical effects, but I can't guarantee that.


Now, if it is the "magic will slowly drive you insane (aka you risk killing your character by getting more)" aspect, then that is because it is a horror game. DnD is an adventure game and increasing in power and knowledge (for any character) isn't meant to risk driving them insane and leaving them a drooling wreck in an insane asylum.

[Boci]

I haven't play a lot of Cthulu but you can grab a tome from a cultist and read it for the magic inside if you want. It is generally considered a bad idea, but you can.

And in D&D you can and its not considered a bad idea. Its also easy, a wizard can do it in what, an hour? A day at most. That's quite a big difference.


I believe they also have mythos checks which allow you to identify monsters and magical effects, but I can't guarantee that.

Its very unlikely to work as it does in D&D. "Oh you rolled an 11 on your mythos check? Then you know the cultist just cast Scuttling Jubilation. It has a range of 50ft, affects up to 5 targets, ddealing X damage and forcing a secondary roll or suffer..."


Now, if it is the "magic will slowly drive you insane (aka you risk killing your character by getting more)" aspect, then that is because it is a horror game. DnD is an adventure game and increasing in power and knowledge (for any character) isn't meant to risk driving them insane and leaving them a drooling wreck in an insane asylum.

Hey, you were the one who wanted to compare Cthulu magic and D&D magic and say maybe they're not that different.

[Democratus]

Ok, so the problem with DnD magic is that the fluff says people understand it? Even though we don't understand it?

Help me out here man, you seem to be confused by my even questioning that the two examples are somehow different, then saying that of course they are different... but why? Because Elminster didn't go crazy when he learned magic like [insert cult leader here]?

If both have the same vagueness of purpose, and both have the same knowledge of cause and effect, why is one mysterious and the other formulaic?



Exactly.

So, since even in Science in the real world there is uncertainty about the hows and why of how it all works, why are we saying magic in DnD is somehow too predicable and needs to be uncertain in the hows and whys it works?

I've made my points. It isn't my job to convince you, personally.

In the end, each of us has to seek out the games and worlds that appeals most to us. Good luck in your own quest. :smallsmile:

[Anymage]

Its very unlikely to work as it does in D&D. "Oh you rolled an 11 on your mythos check? Then you know the cultist just cast Scuttling Jubilation. It has a range of 50ft, affects up to 5 targets, ddealing X damage and forcing a secondary roll or suffer..."

My bigger problem with D&D magic is that it just works, and does so with remarkable reliability. (See Knock autosuccess vs. the rogue needing to roll.)

Some amount of magic predictability is unavoidable. Firstly because this is a game and as such effects need to interface with the game rules, and second because unless the GM is an amazingly talented creator (at which point they don't need to buy books), they'll be getting ideas from published sources that the players can read as well.

If I were rewriting D&D from scratch, I'd require casting rolls for spells the same as we do skills, and have a more robust system. I'd have casters roll 1d20 while mundane skill uses used 3d6. Even if we don't go into the idea of magic backlash, I like the idea that magic is less predictable/controllable than mundane means.

[Chaosmancer]

Hey, you were the one who wanted to compare Cthulu magic and D&D magic and say maybe they're not that different.

No, actually I didn't. People are claiming "oh, magic in DnD is just so formulaic and predictable, not like magic is in H.P. Lovecraft" and when I try and dig into what they see as the differences that aren't just the DM's description, a lot of people clam up.

In fact, when I presented an example, comparing both, the person I was discussing it with seemed confused that there should even be a difference between the two different examples. I believe that was Democratus, since he responded above.

Now, some people have put forth ideas, such as having DnD casters roll to even cast a spell as they do in Warhammer games, making it less certain you will succeed (but not less predictable). But, to my knowledge, DnD didn't even do that back in 1e, and if they did it certainly was gone by 2e. And, if you did so, you'd have to make magic more powerful, since they would need to roll to succeed and then likely have the enemy roll to resist, so spells would have two points of failure instead of one.

You might also say you want Spells to cost more. That casting or learning magic should inflict permanent penalties and physical damage on the caster, such as Cthulu does. But again, you would need to increase the power of spells to compensate for that.

And none of that makes magic less of a formula or less predictable. I can pull up a Warhammer sheet, look at the casting skill for an Astropath, and tell you that I have a 65% chance of casting a spell that will deal 5d10 damage to the enemy. That is a prediction, it is predictable, and I can do the math and make it a formula. None of the game systems mentioned actually make magic less predictable or less formulaic.

So calls that DnD magic is too predictable and formulaic are still making no sense to me, but people don't seem to know what they want.




And in D&D you can and its not considered a bad idea. Its also easy, a wizard can do it in what, an hour? A day at most. That's quite a big difference.

Oh yes, it is a big difference. Would like a list of other things that are bad ideas in cthulu but not in DnD?

- Fighting Montser
- Going to the Library
- Investigating a Murder
- Visiting large bodies of water
- Going outside at night
- Becoming an artist
- Becoming a Scholar
- Going on Adventures



Its very unlikely to work as it does in D&D. "Oh you rolled an 11 on your mythos check? Then you know the cultist just cast Scuttling Jubilation. It has a range of 50ft, affects up to 5 targets, ddealing X damage and forcing a secondary roll or suffer..."

Why not? The player can grab a book and look up "Scuttling Jubilation" just as easily as they can look up "Crown of Stars" and the DM likely had them hit by the range, and had up to 5 targets taking X damage, so that is all information readily available to the players.




I've made my points. It isn't my job to convince you, personally.

In the end, each of us has to seek out the games and worlds that appeals most to us. Good luck in your own quest. :smallsmile:


As I said in the last post, I don't even understand what your point is anymore, because while it seemed to be one thing, when I brought up an example you indicated it was the opposite.

So, any point you feel you made is completely lost in translation here.

I'm fine with everyone finding the games that appeal to them, I encourage it in fact, but so far I've got "DnD magic is bad for reasons" and that doesn't help anyone figure out what will work for them.

[Boci]

Why not? The player can grab a book and look up "Scuttling Jubilation" just as easily as they can look up "Crown of Stars" and the DM likely had them hit by the range, and had up to 5 targets taking X damage, so that is all information readily available to the players.

Because...the players aren't suppose to look it up. It ruins the feeling of magic as something unnatural and strange. I've played WoD, I know you cannot get the mechanics of a discipline or gift by rolling something when you see it used, and I assume CoC is probably closer to WoD than D&D on how it idying magic.

Multiple people in this thread have had little problem grasping this. Is you still can't understand it yourself, maybe the problem is on your end?

[Keltest]

Because...the players aren't suppose to look it up. It ruins the feeling of magic as something unnatural and strange. I've played WoD, I know you cannot get the mechanics of a discipline or gift by rolling something when you see it used, and I assume CoC is probably closer to WoD than D&D on how it idying magic.

Multiple people in this thread have had little problem grasping this. Is you still can't understand it yourself, maybe the problem is on your end?

So, if the cultist is able to read about this ritual from a book, or another person, theres no specific reason one of the players would be unable to learn about it or its signs from the same source. Maybe the nature of the game means its unlikely they would be exposed to such a source (in which case their roll probably wouldn't be able to meet the DC) but if the ritual is remotely of the "insert X, get Y" nature, then theoretically anybody can learn of it and recognize it.

[Boci]

So, if the cultist is able to read about this ritual from a book, or another person, theres no specific reason one of the players would be unable to learn about it or its signs from the same source. Maybe the nature of the game means its unlikely they would be exposed to such a source (in which case their roll probably wouldn't be able to meet the DC) but if the ritual is remotely of the "insert X, get Y" nature, then theoretically anybody can learn of it and recognize it.

But there's a big difference between "Yes you can learn that, if you have enough occult and roll well enough. It will take 1 month down time and require you to find the following ritual components and also do Y task" and "Yes you can learn that in one afternoon, as you are explicitly permitted to under RAW".

If you cannot see how those two apporaches lead to a different feeling for magic in the setting, I really can't help you further.

[Keltest]

But there's a big difference between "Yes you can learn that, if you have enough occult and roll well enough. It will take 1 month down time and require you to find the following ritual components and also do Y task" and "Yes you can learn that in one afternoon, as you are explicitly permitted to under RAW".

If you cannot see how those two apporaches lead to a different feeling for magic in the setting, I really can't help you further.

I think youre misunderstanding the comparison. They aren't performing it themselves, theyre simply recognizing it. Theyre seeing the cultist insert X, and they know that means youll get Y as a result. They aren't making any statements about the relative difficulties of actually using magic in either variation (although its assumed that a wizard has spent those months and years ahead of time, because theres really no point in making the player totally impotent save for special circumstances if they want to primarily be a magic user).

[Boci]

I think youre misunderstanding the comparison. They aren't performing it themselves, theyre simply recognizing it. Theyre seeing the cultist insert X, and they know that means youll get Y as a result. They aren't making any statements about the relative difficulties of actually using magic in either variation (although its assumed that a wizard has spent those months and years ahead of time, because theres really no point in making the player totally impotent save for special circumstances if they want to primarily be a magic user).

Okay fair, I missed that, but again though, not how D&D works. You don't need to tell the DM "Oh, the NPC we met two levels ago used a similar spell. Can I try and ID this one?" You just see the spell and roll.

Needing to have encountered the spell wirtten down beforehand so that you can ID it is a very big difference to how recognizing spells is handled in D&D, and informs the nature of magic in the two settings.

[Keltest]

Okay fair, I missed that, but again though, not how D&D works. You don't need to tell the DM "Oh, the NPC we met two levels ago used a similar spell. Can I try and ID this one?" You just see the spell and roll.

Needing to have encountered the spell wirtten down beforehand so that you can ID it is a very big difference to how recognizing spells is handled in D&D, and informs the nature of magic in the two settings.

Not really. It informs how much interaction with magic the characters have/have had. A barbarian can "try" to identify a spell, but they are almost certainly not going to succeed. If the stars align and they can for whatever reason figure it out, then we assume they had some exposure to the specific spell at some point in the past and the memory happened to float to the surface here. Ditto with wizards, except their class and general fluff means its extremely likely, if not outright explicit, that they had exposure to the spell of some kind at some point, represented by their enhanced ability to identify spells on their spell list, as well as general bonuses to arcana being available.

[Boci]

Not really. It informs how much interaction with magic the characters have/have had.

You take a skill. Any class can take any skill thanks to backgrounds, so any class can attempt to ID a spell. I cannot help you see how this informs the magic of D&D, that a single skill will let you ID a spell and skills are not locked behind anything.

Not every setting will allow you to ID magic through a background whoch is available to litterally every character. Plus not every system will assume you get a full write up of the spell. You might just get a general districption.

[Keltest]

You take a skill. Any class can take any skill thanks to backgrounds, so any class can attempt to ID a spell. I cannot help you see how this informs the magic of D&D, that a single skill will let you ID a spell and skills are not locked behind anything.

Not every setting will allow you to ID magic through a background whoch is available to litterally every character. Plus not every system will assume you get a full write up of the spell. You might just get a general districption.

That's... kind of a silly complaint. "every player can build their character to be able to identify spells with some measure of success"? I mean, yeah? Again, if magic is of the "insert X, get Y" variety, then anybody capable of understanding basic causality can theoretically identify magic being used. That doesn't mean they'll be good at it, or reliable, but if its learned through books, then its possible for anybody to learn in theory.

[Boci]

That's... kind of a silly complaint.

No it isn't. Its called preference, different people have different preference. I don't mind everyone being able to ID magic in D&D, but understand that as a choice for how magic works people may prefer otherwise. Should they be playing D&D? Eh, that's up for them to decide. There's a fair amount of customization that even if you dislike a core principle of D&D, you may be able to tweak the game to fix that whilst still getting a lot from the system.

[Keltest]

No it isn't. Its called preference, different people have different preference. I don't mind everyone being able to ID magic in D&D, but understand that as a choice for how magic works people may prefer otherwise. Should they be playing D&D? Eh, that's up for them to decide. There's a fair amount of customization that even if you dislike a core principle of D&D, you may be able to tweak the game to fix that whilst still getting a lot from the system.

So, the reason I think your complaint is silly is that this isn't a function of magic working differently between the settings at all. Theyre both "insert X, get Y" systems. Y might be exclusively horrible in CoC or whatever other system, but from the perspective of mechanics, theyre basically the same. Magic is a skill, it can be taught to and learned by anybody with the drive and resources.

Whats different are the settings assumptions about its availability. In CoC magic is rare and mysterious. Nobody "just" has access to magic resources from their local library the way a wizard can go to Waterdeep and find 400,000 mages who could potentially teach them (yes that number is made up). But that doesn't mean the magic itself is radically different, or that theyre wildly different systems. Its just a question of availability. You can get the same feel by playing a party of barbarians (or fighters, or rogues, or any non-int-spellcaster) at high levels where people are mostly using 5th or higher level spells. Its a question of "how much magic is there?" not "how different is the magic?"

[Boci]

So, the reason I think your complaint is silly is that this isn't a function of magic working differently between the settings at all. Theyre both "insert X, get Y" systems. Y might be exclusively horrible in CoC or whatever other system, but from the perspective of mechanics, theyre basically the same. Magic is a skill, it can be taught to and learned by anybody with the drive and resources.

Whats different are the settings assumptions about its availability. In CoC magic is rare and mysterious. Nobody "just" has access to magic resources from their local library the way a wizard can go to Waterdeep and find 400,000 mages who could potentially teach them (yes that number is made up). But that doesn't mean the magic itself is radically different, or that theyre wildly different systems. Its just a question of availability. You can get the same feel by playing a party of barbarians (or fighters, or rogues, or any non-int-spellcaster) at high levels where people are mostly using 5th or higher level spells. Its a question of "how much magic is there?" not "how different is the magic?"

But availability is different. If magic is much more available in Setting X than it is in Setting Y, magic is different in the two settings, because its more available in one. And being more avilable will mean its more understood. Its hard to say "No one understands magic" in D&D where there are academies that teach it and wizard can swap notes over lunch. In CoC saying "No one understands magic" is a much more defensible take.

[Keltest]

But availability is different. If magic is much more available in Setting X than it is in Setting Y, magic is different in the two settings, because its more available in one. And being more avilable will mean its more understood. Its hard to say "No one understands magic" in D&D where there are academies that teach it and wizard can swap notes over lunch. In CoC saying "No one understands magic" is a much more defensible take.

Availability isn't a function of the magic though. Its easy enough to run a low magic setting in D&D. Just... don't have as much magic. Somebody wants to specialize in arcana? Theyre either a rare expert or it isn't allowed in that table. The magic hasn't changed at all, but now suddenly its much more special.

[Boci]

Availability isn't a function of the magic though. Its easy enough to run a low magic setting in D&D. Just... don't have as much magic. Somebody wants to specialize in arcana? Theyre either a rare expert or it isn't allowed in that table. The magic hasn't changed at all, but now suddenly its much more special.

Yeah, try telling yours players "magic hasn't changed at all" in your low magic game where the arcana skill isn't allowed and let me know how readily they buy that from you, because I'm going to assume their interpretation will be that magic very much has changed at your table.

[Anymage]

Because...the players aren't suppose to look it up. It ruins the feeling of magic as something unnatural and strange. I've played WoD, I know you cannot get the mechanics of a discipline or gift by rolling something when you see it used, and I assume CoC is probably closer to WoD than D&D on how it idying magic.

Multiple people in this thread have had little problem grasping this. Is you still can't understand it yourself, maybe the problem is on your end?

I have never seen a player not read through the DMG or other resources past the PHB. Expecting the group to maintain wonder through secrecy is not going to happen


Now, some people have put forth ideas, such as having DnD casters roll to even cast a spell as they do in Warhammer games, making it less certain you will succeed (but not less predictable)...

Less certain is less predictable.

You're right that so long as there are rules those rules can be understood and worked within. That said, the mage who always gets the exact result they want implies a setting where magic is a lot more understandable/controllable than one where they make an unlucky roll and the spell gets away from them.

Cost a'la CoC is another way, as is insanely high risk a'la Warhammer. If learning and using magic can permanently degrade your character, or if every spell has a chance of summoning a demon to eat your face, characters will be a lot less likely to use magic. However, that amounts to a softban on magic using characters. Which works if your rules and setting give enough for muggles to do, but the D&D rules lack both. Being a mighty spellcaster is one of the things you expect to be able to do.

[Boci]

I have never seen a player not read through the DMG or other resources past the PHB. Expecting the group to maintain wonder through secrecy is not going to happen.

I have multiple times. Its not like veterran players will go "Oh my god, he just vanished, how did he do that?" or "The troll is renegenerating! I didn't know monsters could do that" but I have had veterrans perfectly capable of pretending to not know whats going on when they could probably hazard a guess. "is not going to happen" is a wierd statement to make in a world where WoD and CoC system exist, which tend to rely on veteran players pretending they don't know stuff about the system because their characters don't when they obviously do.

[JackPhoenix]

I have multiple times. Its not like veterran players will go "Oh my god, he just vanished, how did he do that?" or "The troll is renegenerating! I didn't know monsters could do that" but I have had veterrans perfectly capable of pretending to not know whats going on when they could probably hazard a guess. "is not going to happen" is a wierd statement to make in a world where WoD and CoC system exist, which tend to rely on veteran players pretending they don't know stuff about the system because their characters don't when they obviously do.

Pretending you don't know is not the same thing as genuinely not knowing. I can, in-, and out-of character pretend I'm surprised a troll or a hydra can regenerate, but it would be a lie. I knew (or suspected, to account for homebrewed monsters) that the hydra is going to grow new heads unless set on fire from the moment the GM described the multi-headed reptilian thing slithering out of the swamp. There's no real wonder involved anywhere. It's the same with magic or, well, pretty much anything else written in the books.

What system I'm using doesn't change that, the game has to include those details to be able to work as a game (ignoring free-form RPGs where the GM, however the game calls him, just make stuff up as he goes), and if it does, I can, and propably will, read it and won't be surprised when it shows up.

[Chaosmancer]

Okay fair, I missed that, but again though, not how D&D works. You don't need to tell the DM "Oh, the NPC we met two levels ago used a similar spell. Can I try and ID this one?" You just see the spell and roll.

Needing to have encountered the spell wirtten down beforehand so that you can ID it is a very big difference to how recognizing spells is handled in D&D, and informs the nature of magic in the two settings.

I don't have a Cthulu rulebook on me, but is that something stated by the rules? That you cannot roll a "Forbidden Knowledge" check and identify a spell?

In an earlier post you also said that "players aren't supposed to look in the rulebook", says who? Are mythos spells not in the player options? We can tell players in DnD not to look at spells during the game either, but player options are player options.



You take a skill. Any class can take any skill thanks to backgrounds, so any class can attempt to ID a spell. I cannot help you see how this informs the magic of D&D, that a single skill will let you ID a spell and skills are not locked behind anything.

Not every setting will allow you to ID magic through a background whoch is available to litterally every character. Plus not every system will assume you get a full write up of the spell. You might just get a general districption.


Most of the other systems people have been talking about are classless, so, in the same way any character can build to have the skills to identify magic.

Literally any character can learn about magic.

And, I would argue, DnD does not in fact assume you will give the players the full write up of the spell. I don't think even the Xanathar spell ID says you give them all the information about how the spell works. It is a cultural difference because in Cthulu being a horror game, limiting all the information players receive increases the tension. Heck, both games tell the DM not to tell the players information about the monster statblock. One does so to increase fear and horror, the other does it to increase the tactical fog of war.

So, really, if you want magic to be magical by making DnD a horror game, it just isn't going to work, the purpose of the game isn't to incite fear and horror. You can, DnD has some of the pieces, but it wasn't built with that goal.




But availability is different. If magic is much more available in Setting X than it is in Setting Y, magic is different in the two settings, because its more available in one. And being more avilable will mean its more understood. Its hard to say "No one understands magic" in D&D where there are academies that teach it and wizard can swap notes over lunch. In CoC saying "No one understands magic" is a much more defensible take.


Setting then is the important part right?

So, Dark Sun where magic is illegal and not taught has more mysterious magic? We have changed nothing about DnD magic, about the system, all we have done is say "people don't teach magic, magic is illegal."

Now, here is the trick. That is still DnD. That is still DnD magic. We haven't changed anything about the system, about the Xanathar rules, nothing.

So, DnD magic isn't the problem. The setting assumptions are.

[Boci]

Pretending you don't know is not the same thing as genuinely not knowing. I can, in-, and out-of character pretend I'm surprised a troll or a hydra can regenerate, but it would be a lie. I knew (or suspected, to account for homebrewed monsters) that the hydra is going to grow new heads unless set on fire from the moment the GM described the multi-headed reptilian thing slithering out of the swamp. There's no real wonder involved anywhere.

I'm pretty sure I've played with both. Veteran players who are very good at pretending they don't know, and veteran players who generally don't know, because they never read the MM and DMG.

Also know and suspected are two very different things that you have lumped together.


In an earlier post you also said that "players aren't supposed to look in the rulebook", says who? Are mythos spells not in the player options? We can tell players in DnD not to look at spells during the game either, but player options are player options.

Players can also lie about the numbers they roll. Options are options. If the Dm doesn't want you as a player to look up spells mid game, don't do it. Talk to them if you think they're being too harsh, but just doing it anyway is a **** move.


Now, here is the trick. That is still DnD. That is still DnD magic. We haven't changed anything about the system, about the Xanathar rules, nothing.

So, DnD magic isn't the problem. The setting assumptions are.

That's a valid way of looking at it, now please tell me you can understand why other people don't.

[JackPhoenix]

Also know and suspected are two very different things that you have lumped together.

Eh, not really. I *know* what hydra does... what I don't know, and can only suspect, is if what the GM uses is, in fact, the hydra I know, and not some homebrewed creation. But that's true about absolutely anything.

[Boci]

Eh, not really. I *know* what hydra does... what I don't know, and can only suspect, is if what the GM uses is, in fact, the hydra I know, and not some homebrewed creation. But that's true about absolutely anything.

So you don't neccissary know what this hydra does. Knowing and not knowing sounds like a pretty important difference to me. And players can make mistake. I had two not execute a troll, but they forgot that in the edition they were playing, reducing a troll to 0 hitpoints with fire didn't actually kill it (ot was 3.5).

[Chaosmancer]

Players can also lie about the numbers they roll. Options are options. If the Dm doesn't want you as a player to look up spells mid game, don't do it. Talk to them if you think they're being too harsh, but just doing it anyway is a **** move.

So, the situation now isn't "players can roll and be told what the spell is" to "players don't look up the spells" to "players who were told mid-session to not look in the book"

And so we slowly transition to it being nothing about the rules themselves, to being about the table expectations and tone the DM wants. If nothing about the rules themselves is being discussed, then how do we have a problem with the system?

In Cthulu players might have certain info hidden from them to illicit certain feels. Maybe the DM will ask players to not even share more than their character's name, to keep the feeling of mystery and not even knowing what your fellow people are capable of.

But that has nothing to do with the game system and everything to do with the tone the DM wants, so you can't complain about it in terms of the system itself.



That's a valid way of looking at it, now please tell me you can understand why other people don't.

I never understand why people always ask me to support their positions for them. I don't know why people are taking a setting issue and complaining about as a rule set issue. Maybe because they can't or won't mentally separate the two? Because the majority of published settings take a very similar stance so people just assume the rules take the same stance?

I mean, if your complaint is "DnD has too many wizard schools and that part of the system ruins the feel of magic" then I would have to challenge you to tell me where in the rules it tells you how many wizard schools exist in the setting. And if you start to say "Well in the Forgotten Realms" then I would have to stop you and let you know that the Forgotten Realms isn't DnD.

And if your position is that there are more subclasses with magic than without, then I would ask how that effects the world. Because, I can build a Cthulu game and a Warhammer 40K game with all casters, in fact, I'd say that you can add magic to any character at all in those settings. So... again, there is a difference on a superficial level but on a mechanical level they are doing the same thing.

[Keltest]

So you don't neccissary know what this hydra does. Knowing and not knowing sounds like a pretty important difference to me. And players can make mistake. I had two not execute a troll, but they forgot that in the edition they were playing, reducing a troll to 0 hitpoints with fire didn't actually kill it (ot was 3.5).

We do necessarily know what a hydra does. What we don't know is if the DM is going to pull the rug out from under us and make up something totally original that superficially resembles the hydra.

But that's frankly pretty irrelevant to the greater point.

[HPisBS]

This seems to have gotten way, way off track lol. Wasn't this all supposed to be about "cold iron" - or some such equivalent - being necessary to harm fey and certain fiends?

For me, my first exposure to the concept came from Gargoyles.

Using an iron bars, or even ringing an iron bell, were the only ways they could overcome the faerie king, Oberon. Sadly, I don't recall if there was any mention of the metal's effect on fey in A Midsummer Night's Dream, though.

Like with so much of D&D, iron's effect on fey is, first and foremost, a cultural nod. It is was in the game because it's a part of those stories, much like how Polymorph and Shapechange exist because of Merlin (at least, as depicted in The Sword in the Stone), and how monks can Astral Project because that's a part of eastern mysticism.

That's all the reason we need to have it in the game.


As for why cold iron didn't make the cut for 5e, I imagine it's just a combination of designing for simplicity and cold iron's general un-intuitiveness, since people tend to see it and go "'Cold iron?' What is that? What makes it special?"


I expect both issues could be addressed with a blurb by the equipment listing,

"Cold Iron is the common name for pure iron, meaning iron that isn't a part of some other alloy, as steel is, nor that contains any other impurities. The purifying process to turn iron ore into Cold Iron is more costly than the process to make steel. In most circumstances, such iron is strictly inferior to steel as it blunts, rusts, and even breaks much easier. However, it has deleterious effects on many fey, and even demons, meaning even small rural villages tend to have at least one such weapon - often stored with great care to prevent rusting.

Weapons made of Cold Iron deal -1 damage to armored targets (including creatures with natural armor), to a minimum of 1 damage, and require constant maintenance. However, Cold Iron weapons often deal double damage to fey and demons, or at least overcome their resistances. Weapons made of Cold Iron cost double the normal price."

[Boci]

I never understand why people always ask me to support their positions for them.

Its not support, more just understanding that there are valid options other than your own, because right now your stance comes across to me as "There are other ways to look at the game I would never say the way other people play the game aren't valid, but you have to justify it to me. No that's not a good enough explanation, do better".

Which is, really not endearing me to continue talking to you.

[Chaosmancer]

Its not support, more just understanding that there are valid options other than your own, because right now your stance comes across to me as "There are other ways to look at the game I would never say the way other people play the game aren't valid, but you have to justify it to me. No that's not a good enough explanation, do better".

Which is, really not endearing me to continue talking to you.

I'm sorry it is coming across that way, but I'm not trying to talk about how people play the game at all.

There was a position put forth "DnD magic is too formulaic and Predictable and that doesn't feel like magic. Magic must be mysterious and unpredictable to me good" (with the assumed "for me" at the end of that sentence)

I challenged that position. I challenged it with highly evocative stories that explain magic systems, I challenged it with examples of how some of the alternate systems people were holding up as examples were also formulaic and predictable. I also have been trying to pin down what people even mean.

It seems that some people think DnD magic is too safe. That would be a valid criticism.
It seems that some people think DnD magic is too reliable. That would be a valid criticism.

But, I also want people to realize that if we want to keep a similar balance to what the game is currently arranged around, then making magic riskier and less reliable also means making it more powerful. And magic is already the dominating force in the game.

[Boci]

I challenged that position.

And that was probably your first mistake: challengeing a "for me" position. Asking people to elaborate on why they feel "x is predictable and formulaic" is fine and it how understand that different people expirience the same game and mediums differently, but doing it with the mindset of "challenging" is probably not the right way.

[Chaosmancer]

And that was probably your first mistake: challengeing a "for me" position. Asking people to elaborate on why they feel "x is predictable and formulaic" is fine and it how understand that different people expirience the same game and mediums differently, but doing it with the mindset of "challenging" is probably not the right way.

I don't feel it was a mistake. I like discussion. Challenging positions is a good way to have discussions when people put forth statements like "this thing is X" and just leaving the assumed (for me) unspoken

[Boci]

I don't feel it was a mistake. I like discussion. Challenging positions is a good way to have discussions when people put forth statements like "this thing is X" and just leaving the assumed (for me) unspoken

In my expirience its generally not. Certainly not for a hobby people do for fun. It creates the wrong tone and will cause people to very quicken out of the conversation.

[Keltest]

In my expirience its generally not. Certainly not for a hobby people do for fun. It creates the wrong tone and will cause people to very quicken out of the conversation.

There isn't really a way to get people to reconsider their positions without first challenging that position in some way. Even with opinions.

[Boci]

There isn't really a way to get people to reconsider their positions without first challenging that position in some way. Even with opinions.

And the need to get other people to reconsider their position is often a good way to quickly run out their desire to talk to you.

[Nifft]

There isn't really a way to get people to reconsider their positions without first challenging that position in some way. Even with opinions.


And the need to get other people to reconsider their position is often a good way to quickly run out their desire to talk to you.

Right now someone is trying to get another guy to reconsider his position regarding getting other people to reconsider their positions.

If it doesn't work, does that prove the point?

[Keltest]

And the need to get other people to reconsider their position is often a good way to quickly run out their desire to talk to you.

Its literally the point of any debate, ever. If you aren't interested in discussion or debate, fine, I wont judge, but I consider it a generally safe assumption that people who seek out discussion forums are interested in discussion.

[The Deej]

Saw the thread topic, thought I'd chime in with something:

The DM for a game I play in homebrewed cold iron into his game. It's effective against Fey, Fiends, and Undead. Specifically, it increases the damage die of your weapon by one step (similar to the versatile property) against those three types of monsters. He's also homebrewed some monsters that have vulnerability to damage from cold iron attacks.

[Arkhios]

I, personally, feel that Cold Iron didn't make the cut for 5e as a side effect of merging several creature types into fewer categories, for example both demons and devils becoming Fiends. Earlier Cold Iron has been effective against Demons while Devils don't like being cut with silver. Since they're one and the same now in all but individual names, silver seems to have taken the first place, and I think that's because traditional folklore depicts silver as much more common as a special type of metal useful against unnatural beings, while Cold Iron is a rather obscure, appearing only in some fiction. From my point of view Folklore seems to have taken precedence over modern fiction in here.

Plus, the explanation of how Cold Iron is created is just odd. The former explanation that I remember was that it's forged deep underground in very low temperatures and almost involves magic. In that sense, I would simply say that if Cold Iron weapons existed, they would just be magical weapons that don't have a bonus to hit or damage.

[Boci]

Right now someone is trying to get another guy to reconsider his position regarding getting other people to reconsider their positions.

If it doesn't work, does that prove the point?

Yes.


Its literally the point of any debate, ever. If you aren't interested in discussion or debate, fine, I wont judge, but I consider it a generally safe assumption that people who seek out discussion forums are interested in discussion.

Now that's just not true. I could discuss cultural motif of the western world with a chinese person and they could in turn share some from their own culture. Neither of us is trying to challenge the other, and there are countless other examples of people discussing something without needing to challenge another view point.

[Keltest]

Now that's just not true. I could discuss cultural motif of the western world with a chinese person and they could in turn share some from their own culture. Neither of us is trying to challenge the other, and there are countless other examples of people discussing something without needing to challenge another view point.

That's not a discussion, that's just lecturing. A discussion requires, at the very least, two active participants with different positions or ideas.

[Boci]

That's not a discussion, that's just lecturing. A discussion requires, at the very least, two active participants with different positions or ideas.

No, that's a discussion. If two people from two different cultures are talking about their cultural motiffs, that is a discussion. A lecture would be if only one person was talking, if they're talking back and forth, its a discussion

Google gives us some definitions

the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

a conversation or debate about a specific topic

the activity in which people talk about something and tell each other their ideas or opinions

Of those, none require challenging the others position.

[Keltest]

No, that's a discussion. If two people from two different cultures are talking about their cultural motiffs, that is a discussion. A lecture would be if only one person was talking, if they're talking back and forth, its a discussion

Google gives us some definitions

the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

a conversation or debate about a specific topic

the activity in which people talk about something and tell each other their ideas or opinions

Of those, none require challenging the others position.

If two people are talking about their own cultures to the other, then you are either challenging their preconceived notions of the culture (ie challenging an idea) or they have no input at all into the conversation and it is simply a pair of lectures being had simultaneously or in sequence.

The point being, anything short of a straight informative lecture is challenging somebody's ideas on some level. They may be open to it, but the only way people change their understanding of anything is to have that understanding challenged.

[Boci]

If two people are talking about their own cultures to the other, then you are either challenging their preconceived notions of the culture (ie challenging an idea) or they have no input at all into the conversation and it is simply a pair of lectures being had simultaneously or in sequence.

Or they exchanging ideas/having a conversation, both of which are considered a discussion by those definitions, and neither of which involves challenging the position of the other.

[Keltest]

Or they exchanging ideas/having a conversation, both of which are considered a discussion by those definitions, and neither of which involves challenging the position of the other.

No they aren't. Whoever is being informed has no ideas on the topic of their own to contribute. Or if they do, then those ideas are being challenged. Either way, it still only become a discussion when he has input on the topic one way or another.

[Boci]

No they aren't. Whoever is being informed has no ideas on the topic of their own to contribute. Or if they do, then those ideas are being challenged. Either way, it still only become a discussion when he has input on the topic one way or another.

If "learning something new" is "being challenged" then sure, but that sounds like a wierd definition of challening a position.

[Keltest]

If "learning something new" is "being challenged" then sure, but that sounds like a wierd definition of challening a position.

If they have an incomplete understanding then yes, it absolutely is. They are likely open and agreeable about having it challenged if theyre intentionally going into the conversation to learn about it, but their ideas are certainly being challenged.

[HPisBS]

If "learning something new" is "being challenged" then sure, but that sounds like a wierd definition of challening a position.

Do either of you think that anyone is just "learning something new" here? While this thread was actually on topic, I actually did learn a little something new about symbolism in folklore.

Now? Not so much. Instead, the thread is just going in circles... about something else entirely. This, despite attempts by at least two people to get it back on track. (You know, Cold Iron in DnD.)


This seems to have gotten way, way off track lol. Wasn't this all supposed to be about "cold iron" - or some such equivalent - being necessary to harm fey and certain fiends?

For me, my first exposure to the concept came from Gargoyles.

Using an iron bars, or even ringing an iron bell, were the only ways they could overcome the faerie king, Oberon. Sadly, I don't recall if there was any mention of the metal's effect on fey in A Midsummer Night's Dream, though.

Like with so much of D&D, iron's effect on fey is, first and foremost, a cultural nod. It is was in the game because it's a part of those stories, much like how Polymorph and Shapechange exist because of Merlin (at least, as depicted in The Sword in the Stone), and how monks can Astral Project because that's a part of eastern mysticism.

That's all the reason we need to have it in the game.


As for why cold iron didn't make the cut for 5e, I imagine it's just a combination of designing for simplicity and cold iron's general un-intuitiveness, since people tend to see it and go "'Cold iron?' What is that? What makes it special?"


I expect both issues could be addressed with a blurb by the equipment listing,

"Cold Iron is the common name for pure iron, meaning iron that isn't a part of some other alloy, as steel is, nor that contains any other impurities. The purifying process to turn iron ore into Cold Iron is more costly than the process to make steel. In most circumstances, such iron is strictly inferior to steel as it blunts, rusts, and even breaks much easier. However, it has deleterious effects on many fey, and even demons, meaning even small rural villages tend to have at least one such weapon - often stored with great care to prevent rusting.

Weapons made of Cold Iron deal -1 damage to armored targets (including creatures with natural armor), to a minimum of 1 damage, and require constant maintenance. However, Cold Iron weapons often deal double damage to fey and demons, or at least overcome their resistances. Weapons made of Cold Iron cost double the normal price."



I, personally, feel that Cold Iron didn't make the cut for 5e as a side effect of merging several creature types into fewer categories, for example both demons and devils becoming Fiends. Earlier Cold Iron has been effective against Demons while Devils don't like being cut with silver. Since they're one and the same now in all but individual names, silver seems to have taken the first place, and I think that's because traditional folklore depicts silver as much more common as a special type of metal useful against unnatural beings, while Cold Iron is a rather obscure, appearing only in some fiction. From my point of view Folklore seems to have taken precedence over modern fiction in here.

Plus, the explanation of how Cold Iron is created is just odd. The former explanation that I remember was that it's forged deep underground in very low temperatures and almost involves magic. In that sense, I would simply say that if Cold Iron weapons existed, they would just be magical weapons that don't have a bonus to hit or damage.

What makes this really ridiculous is that the off-topic topic that you're arguing about arguing about isn't even mentioned on the current page of the thread anymore.

[Keltest]

Do either of you think that anyone is just "learning something new" here? While this thread was actually on topic, I actually did learn a little something new about symbolism in folklore.

Now? Not so much. Instead, the thread is just going in circles... about something else entirely. This, despite attempts by at least two people to get it back on track.






What makes this really ridiculous is that the off-topic topic that you're arguing about arguing about isn't even mentioned on the current page of the thread anymore.

I haven't seen Gargoyles, and neither of those quotes are really any different from anything ive personally posted about the topic. What do you expect people to say?

[Arkhios]

What makes this really ridiculous is that the off-topic topic that you're arguing about arguing about isn't even mentioned on the current page of the thread anymore.

EDIT: ehh, sorry, I misread the context, badly.

To people who wittingly or not change the topic from its original purpose: Start a new thread if you have the need to talk about something else than what the thread's title says.

[HPisBS]

I don't recall seeing those particular suggestions. I remember seeing something about changing it to "meteoric" iron, but not about "pure" iron, nor about it potentially having a penalty against armor due to being a generally inferior metal.

Edit 2: cool

[Chaosmancer]

Its literally the point of any debate, ever. If you aren't interested in discussion or debate, fine, I wont judge, but I consider it a generally safe assumption that people who seek out discussion forums are interested in discussion.

That was my assumption, but I didn't want to keep causing Boci distress by discussing it.


Do either of you think that anyone is just "learning something new" here? While this thread was actually on topic, I actually did learn a little something new about symbolism in folklore.

Now? Not so much. Instead, the thread is just going in circles... about something else entirely. This, despite attempts by at least two people to get it back on track. (You know, Cold Iron in DnD.)


What makes this really ridiculous is that the off-topic topic that you're arguing about arguing about isn't even mentioned on the current page of the thread anymore.

I saw your post about Oberon (Goblin king and consort to the Summer Queen) as just a continuation of the iron vs fey mythos that was discussed earlier, so I didn't see a good reason to comment on it.

And I just read Arkhios's post and, yeah, combining monsters is likely a reason Cold Iron didn't make it. Along with an earlier point I made that there are only about, what was it, 4 fey in the entire game with damage resistance anyways and none of them were in the MM

That is likely another reason the material was not included

[Keltest]

In general, I think requiring specific materials to overcome damage resistance is something they should either lean much harder into or cut entirely. As it was in 3.5, you either ignored it, or carried around a golf bag of swords. Either way it just hurt martials more. To do it in 5e, I think, you would have to replace magic weapons entirely to make it meaningful. Let mithral be a +2 sword, adamantine +3, etc. And the specialty weapons +1 or +0, but overcome resistance.

[HPisBS]

In general, I think requiring specific materials to overcome damage resistance is something they should either lean much harder into or cut entirely. As it was in 3.5, you either ignored it, or carried around a golf bag of swords. Either way it just hurt martials more. To do it in 5e, I think, you would have to replace magic weapons entirely to make it meaningful. Let mithral be a +2 sword, adamantine +3, etc. And the specialty weapons +1 or +0, but overcome resistance.

That has a certain appeal, too. Mythril weapons having no special effect is rather annoying in itself. (I think being mythril may let you wield a heavy weapon in one hand, maybe?)

[Chaosmancer]

That has a certain appeal, too. Mythril weapons having no special effect is rather annoying in itself. (I think being mythril may let you wield a heavy weapon in one hand, maybe?)

Yeah, I've looked into giving special properties before and a lot of it is super bland. Mithril weighs 1/2 as much. In most games, that is pointless.

[Arkhios]

That has a certain appeal, too. Mythril weapons having no special effect is rather annoying in itself. (I think being mythril may let you wield a heavy weapon in one hand, maybe?)

I've been thinking about this as well. Mithril/mythril/mithral is a naturally occurring but rare material. Placing weapons made out of it behind a "Looted Only" barrier, I think it would prevent any unwanted "build shenanigans" if said weapons had added uses, such as being able to wield a heavy weapon in one hand. Similarly, one-handed weapons could maybe receive either thrown or finesse property, and light weapons could maybe have increased thrown range or maybe finesse property if they didn't have it yet.

[Boci]

That was my assumption, but I didn't want to keep causing Boci distress by discussing it.

You weren't causing me distress, you just weren't coming across as a someone I wanted to continue talking to. Like now, when you just attributed to me an emotion you came up with. Not destressing, but kinda annoying, and yeah, not helping me think "I should really continue to exchange posts and ideas with this other user".

[Chaosmancer]

You weren't causing me distress, you just weren't coming across as a someone I wanted to continue talking to. Like now, when you just attributed to me an emotion you came up with. Not destressing, but kinda annoying, and yeah, not helping me think "I should really continue to exchange posts and ideas with this other user".

Me and you exchanged about half a dozen posts, and each of your responses seemed to put forth the idea that I was wrong and making people feel bad for not just saying "we are both right" when discussing the magic system and leaving it at that. For actually trying to get people to narrow down what they want and why they want it.

Maybe distress is the wrong word, but I was clearly making you unhappy, and since it was just myself and you, and discussing it more would have just led to more "no, you shouldn't make people actually talk about and define what they like, just let them like it and make blanket statements about the game as a whole" I felt that it would just make you more [insert your preferred negative emotional state here] and stopped.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a bit rude here, but you seem to have a problem with me asking why people like or don't like things, and working to narrow that field down with probing questions. And I'd ask why, but you don't want me to. You want me to just accept it and move on.

[Boci]

Me and you exchanged about half a dozen posts, and each of your responses seemed to put forth the idea that I was wrong and making people feel bad for not just saying "we are both right" when discussing the magic system and leaving it at that.

Not each one, each one after a while. My first posts to you were about the differences in magic system, and specifically how the D&D one worked and how those mechanics might be interpreted for the feeling of magic. It was later when I started saying you were wrong{scrubbed}.


I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a bit rude here, but you seem to have a problem with me asking why people like or don't like things, and working to narrow that field down with probing questions. And I'd ask why, but you don't want me to. You want me to just accept it and move on.

And how did that work out for you? Democratus checked out of the discussion with you pretty quick and I didn't last too long either. Sure maybe the problem is on our end, but perhaps consider an alternative that with a different approach you could have had a longer, more productive discussion. You do after all need the other to participate in the discussion, so even if you feel you are in the right, its not worth much is it drives the other away.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, moving on, I felt the cold iron discussion had run its course, but seems at least a few people are still interested in it, so may as well continue it:


Weapons made of Cold Iron deal -1 damage to armored targets (including creatures with natural armor), to a minimum of 1 damage, and require constant maintenance. However, Cold Iron weapons often deal double damage to fey and demons, or at least overcome their resistances. Weapons made of Cold Iron cost double the normal price."

This is interesting. Its against the design philosophy of 5e, but that doesn't matter if your group likes stuff like gear management and risk and reward, (though the "risk" of -1 damage is pretty low). I do wonder if an iron warhammer or mace would be that much worse than a steel one. A sword I understand, I could even see it dealing a flat -1 damage to all targets because it can't be made as well, but would an iron mace be worse? And would you expand silvered weapons to be -1 damage too?


I, personally, feel that Cold Iron didn't make the cut for 5e as a side effect of merging several creature types into fewer categories, for example both demons and devils becoming Fiends.

This is a bit of a nitpick, but it also relevant and ties back to a point covered earlier: demons and devils were the same creature type in 3.5 too, they both outsiders, and evil. Now demons were chaotic and devils were lawful, and whilst 5e kept that distinction, it mattered a lot less in the new edition. I think 3.5 leaned into cold iron - anti-chaotic in an attempt to give greater identity to the material, and it had some success, I liked it. But 5e focused a lot less on alighment, chaotic vs. lawful more so, so a bit part of cold iron had been was now a largely ignored aspect of the game.

[Segev]

I think leaning into special material vulnerabilities by having creatures that are traditionally less vulnerable to attacks without them would be better done the way troll regeneration is done in 5e. A werewolf regenerates 10 hp per round unless he was dealt damage by silver. He could ALSO be immune to slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning dealt by nonmagical weapons that aren’t silver.

[furby076]

That's debatable. 5e was heavily promoted as an edition where even a +0 magic sword would be a big find

Ill disagree here. 5e isn't that +0 magical weapon should be a big find it's that they didnt want them to be commonplace/non special. If you played 3x edition, by level 10 your party was collecting +2/3 weapons/armor, dumping them in a wagon (or bag of holding) and selling them like they were Made in China cutlery at Wal Mart. So 5e was to try and make each magical item have something special about it's history..."oh you found a cloak of warmth. This cloak once beloged to the lengendary rangers clan who used them to stay warm on long nights. This particular cloak is etched with the AP. Upon making a knowledge check, you believe it was owned by the a ranger who roamed this area over 100 years ago, by he name of Alex Pain". So, they really wanted magical items to have more RP around them. Which is fine, but that doesn't make each minor magic item somehing people are going to ohh and ahh about.

You can start reasonably getting perm magic items by lvl 5, which is the same as 3x and 2e (i cant speak for 4e or pre 2e)

[Nifft]

You can start reasonably getting perm magic items by lvl 5, which is the same as 3x and 2e (i cant speak for 4e or pre 2e)

4e you could start getting magic items around 2nd level, and another 1 per level up to 5. It was a very gear-dependent game, though there were no stat-boost items. You'd expect to replace each slot's item every ~6 levels.

As far as I remember, 1e published modules seemed to be kinda Monty Hall by 3.x standards. You got a lot of magic stuff thrown at you by mid-levels