Why does resistance to non-magical BPS exist?

[Crucius]

Heya,

Why does resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage exist on so many monsters? It seems that after a certain CR a lot of monsters get this trait and I'm not quite understanding why.

The only reason I can think of is that it acts as a gear-gate, where you need to have the proper weapons from exploration or questing to overcome these challenges. Which is, in my opinion a very dumb reason. Not only is this DM dependent, it is also highly likely that magical weapons trickle into the game, meaning that in the beginning only a select few party members have access to magical weapons while the other partymembers are bummed out. And, although not the point of this thread, it only serves to exacerbate the rift between martial and magic because the latter do not have this setback when it comes to this highly common damage resistance.

I do get for some monsters why they have it, most notably the monsters that have the adamantite or silver weapon clause, because for them it is ingrained in the lore and flavor.

I hope you folks have some helpful insight here that can hopefully change my mind on this topic. I'm really hoping there is some genius design reason I'm just not seeing.

[Christew]

No, you hit the nail on the head. It is a gate. This is highlighted by the monk's Ki Empowered Strikes ability at level 6. It implies that characters of 6th level should be able to overcome said resistance through magic items and since monk's don't use items they get this ability.

That said, not being able to overcome resistance doesn't mean you can't have an effect on things. You just have to hit the monster twice as many times. Philosophically, try to be glad that your friend has a weapon that can cut through the monsters resistance instead of jealous that you don't.

[prabe]

The impression I have of the intent--how well executed it is is a different question--is that it's not exactly supposed to be a gear-gate, as you put it, but a way to have different classes, or at least different class abilities, be solutions to different problems; also, if the PCs run into monsters with that trait before finding magical weapons, it makes any magical weapon seem like a bigger deal. Some of the monsters with that resistance are likely to show up before magical weapons are, and the jackalwere is like CR 1, IIRC, and it's immune to non-magical weapon damage.

In practice, what it seems to tend to do is make some monsters awful glass-cannony when they go up against a party wherein everyone has magical damage. Kinda the mirror-image of the inference I'd draw from the term "gear-gate" but that might just be a POV thing.

[Dienekes]

Yeah it’s basically a gear gate. It does have two minor uses: one it can provide a reason why villagefolk with pitchforks can’t deal with the problem. Two it can provide tension to low level PCs to make weird encounters.

On my current campaign I have used this sort of thing twice. The first time no one could really damage the creature but they knew of a magic trap a few rooms away so the encounter changed from killing the monster to surviving luring the creature to the trap which was interesting.

The second was a magic hunt where each of the characters were given a limited number of magic arrows and otherwise no equipment. Which really upped the tension of the hunt as they ran lower on arrows. The last 5 or so really saw them trying to figure out how to make the most of their resources.

[Crucius]

In practice, what it seems to tend to do is make some monsters awful glass-cannony when they go up against a party wherein everyone has magical damage. Kinda the mirror-image of the inference I'd draw from the term "gear-gate" but that might just be a POV thing.

I can feel this. A monster could be an appropriate challenge for a party pre-magical weapons, and after obtaining magical weapons they become easy to kill, thereby validating the progression of the party by making them feel badass for slaying this monster with minimal effort now.

[nickl_2000]

Don't forget that resistance and immunity to non-magical damage also has a serious impact on summons. Animate objects and Conjure X becomes pretty useless when you are up against something that is immune to non-magical damage.

[OldTrees1]

1) In mythology there are stories of creatures that are immune to mortal blades. In these cases it is usually used to explain why the Hero is needed instead of an angry mob slaying the monster.
2) D&D includes those creatures and comes up with some mechanic to represent that hurdle.
3) D&D places these monsters at higher CR to allow the PCs time to possibly find a magic weapon
4) D&D grants Monk magical strikes
5) For some odd reason, suddenly non-magical BPS proliferates like crazy

yes, it is a gear gate, but one rooted in the mythology of some of those monsters

My quick take: What if Martials had threats other than damage? Sure Dracula might not be injured if Conan just wails on him with a warhammer (DR and regen). But Conan might be able to keep Dracula off balance, dazed by the impact, and knocked to the ground long enough for someone else to get a stake ready.

[47Ace]

In general I think its is mostly held over effects that don't really fit in to 5e and ends up as poor game design. However I think it is part is related to monsters that need special weapons (silver) to harm them. Then the 5e designers felt like they didn't want to force people to carry two weapons so they let magical weapons bypass it as well. In the end it could have been interesting to give up you preferred weapon for a backup but now it is mostly meaningless with its only real effect being to occasionally give magic users a slight advantage. It also may help a bit with world building but I personally thing commoners have 4 hp does most of that already.

[thereaper]

Don't forget that resistance and immunity to non-magical damage also has a serious impact on summons. Animate objects and Conjure X becomes pretty useless when you are up against something that is immune to non-magical damage.

Animated objects are magical, so their attacks would bypass it.

[Specter]

Because some monsters just can't be bothered by commoner axe attacks, which is exactly what makes them feared (like a Gargoyle). Some monsters simply need to ignore or resist the mundane to be fearful, otherwise they're "bunch of HP with X amount of attacks" and you could just gather 15 kids and murder them.
The same happens to some subclasses like War Cleric and Blackguard. The idea is that they are simply beyond some guys throwing rocks at them.

[MrStabby]

Don't forget that resistance and immunity to non-magical damage also has a serious impact on summons. Animate objects and Conjure X becomes pretty useless when you are up against something that is immune to non-magical damage.

I think this is one thing, and quite an important reason.



There are a few more; now how intended they were is something that could be debated:

1) At levels where warriors are less likely to have magic weapons, such characters still tend to be very powerful and at these low levels it is a great equalizer

2) A lot of monsters with this immunity are also immune to things like fire damage or have magic resistance - so it is just one part of the package

3) It gives DMs an option to pace combat. These monsters, in the right match up will last a good lenths of time. It means that things like control abilities get to shine rather than just MOAR DAMAGE! builds.

4) It makes even relatively modest items a plot hook when there is a threat from a fiend or similar.

[MaxWilson]

Animated objects are magical, so their attacks would bypass it.

I see no evidence for this claim in the Animate Objects spell text, or in the spell text or stat block for Tiny Servants or Skeletons or Zombies. If their weapon attacks counted as magical, it would say so.


Because some monsters just can't be bothered by commoner axe attacks, which is exactly what makes them feared (like a Gargoyle). Some monsters simply need to ignore or resist the mundane to be fearful, otherwise they're "bunch of HP with X amount of attacks" and you could just gather 15 kids and murder them.

Honestly, nonmagical BPS resistance doesn't really change this equation. You might need 40%-50% more kids but the same basic approach still works.

[Specter]

Honestly, nonmagical BPS resistance doesn't really change this equation. You might need 40%-50% more kids but the same basic approach still works.

15 kids? Lame. 30 kids? Epic!

[DeadMech]

I miss damage reduction which resistance replaced. Since with DR you could set up a wider array of resistance levels. Occasionally even relatively low levels of DR like 5 points could be enough to make a creature outright immune to sources of consistently low damage.

But yeah non-magic weapon resistance exists to make monsters more flavorful and in keeping with the lore they came from. As well as more mechanically interesting to engage with before parties gain magic weapons and to make players feel more powerful once they have magical weapons.

Just be glad it is something you can work around by simply getting a magic item. Unlike magic resistance and legendary resistance.

[BurgerBeast]

I tend to think of it more as presenting a combat challenge in which control and magical damage are the only real solutions. It challenges the characters to use alternate strategies.

You could still defeat the resistant enemies with weapons but it would be a slog best assisted by control and magical damage attacks. In the case of immune enemies you would need the magical damage. This could also be a reason to ensure that magical classes are conserving spells, if they know what’s coming.

In this sense it’s sort of the opposite of a gate. Giving out magic weapons to the party actually defeats the purpose.

I hadn’t really thought about his before. Now I’m feeling inspired...

[SLOTHRPG95]

15 kids? Lame. 30 kids? Epic!

Gargoyles are just generally terrible against mobs due to poor damage output (and lack of AoEs), though. Looking at standad stablock Guards instead of kids for a second, they lose more than half the time in a straight slugfest against five guards if they don't have resist. B/P/S, or seven if they do.

The Gargoyle has a 45% chance to hit per swing, with two attacks per round, and the average damage per swing is exactly half a Guard's health. Ignoring over/underkill problems and just looking at average damage, it takes 11 rounds to kill five guards, during which time they get in 34 attacks. Without resistance, it'll take them an average of about 26 attacks (accounting for AC and average damage) to kill the Gargoyle, so they win this fight.
If there were only four guards, that's one fewer per round, meaning 23-ish attacks before they're all dead, meaning the Gargoyle probably wins. Similar calculations after resistance up the number of guards needed to seven.

[Arkhios]

Originally these "gear-gates", as you put it, stem from folklore. That's where Gygax and Co. took most of their creatures anyway, and then some of their own creations either took on some of their aspects or evolved from there.

But the thing is that, in folklore, several magical beings are only vulnerable to specific types of weapons or materials. For example, werewolves and silver. I seem to recall that in some epic(s) it was required a specially crafted (or magical, in a sense) weapon to slay a certain beast, but I can't remember which one(s).

The point being, the reason why they exist is rooted deep in real world folklore.

[thereaper]

I see no evidence for this claim in the Animate Objects spell text, or in the spell text or stat block for Tiny Servants or Skeletons or Zombies. If their weapon attacks counted as magical, it would say so.



Honestly, nonmagical BPS resistance doesn't really change this equation. You might need 40%-50% more kids but the same basic approach still works.

So, you're telling me that objects that have been animated by magic and attack with their own magical bodies are not themselves magical? :smallconfused:

The primary difference between animating a zombie and animating an object is that one is instantaneous (after which the creature is self-sustaining), while the other is an ongoing magical effect (which is why the animated objects go away in an antimagic field).

[Dork_Forge]

So, you're telling me that objects that have been animated by magic and attack with their own magical bodies are not themselves magical? :smallconfused:

The primary difference between animating a zombie and animating an object is that one is instantaneous (after which the creature is self-sustaining), while the other is an ongoing magical effect (which is why the animated objects go away in an antimagic field).

The Animate Objects spell turns the object into a construct, there is nothing inherently magical about a construct hitting something with it's body. On the same token why wouldn't a familiar's damage be magical or a summons? They're created by magic after all the same way (more so, seeing as no mundane objects comprise their bodies unlike the Animated Objects).

[MoiMagnus]

Heya,
Why does resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage exist on so many monsters? It seems that after a certain CR a lot of monsters get this trait and I'm not quite understanding why.

It's a NPC gear gate.
It makes the monster harder to be killed by low levels soldier NPCs, and help to justify calling a team of heroes that have specialised tools (magical weapons and spells) to do the job.

At least, that's how I understand it.
(And as a DM, I really felt the usefulness of this resistance when one of the players started to have 4, then 8 and 12 raised skeletons with him)

[Composer99]

So, you're telling me that objects that have been animated by magic and attack with their own magical bodies are not themselves magical? :smallconfused:

The primary difference between animating a zombie and animating an object is that one is instantaneous (after which the creature is self-sustaining), while the other is an ongoing magical effect (which is why the animated objects go away in an antimagic field).

Unless the spell's description explicitly states that the animated objects' attacks are magical, they aren't. Unless I missed the appropriate text somehow, no such statement exists in the spell description.

If in your games, you decide animated objects deal magical damage, well and good. However, the text of the spell does not support it.

[MrStabby]

Unless the spell's description explicitly states that the animated objects' attacks are magical, they aren't. Unless I missed the appropriate text somehow, no such statement exists in the spell description.

If in your games, you decide animated objects deal magical damage, well and good. However, the text of the spell does not support it.

I would add that some abilities do specifically add it to differentiate them from others - like the shepherd druit making conjured animals attacks magical or a moon druid making a wildhapes attacks magical. Tunring into a bear is clearly magical but where the magical attacks apply it still needs saying.

[MagneticKitty]

The part that bothers me most is designers and players saying "5e doesn't require magical weapons" but this exists. Immunity and resistance to mundane weapons.

I hear things like: it's the casters job to give them spells to mitigate this (like elemental weapon or magic weapon) but this just feels like baby sitting to me. Casters don't always want to occupy their concentration slot because martials can't perform in this situation (especially if a creature is immune) just so fighter man is not near useless. And martials don't want to feel like they can't do anything on their own. Yes it's a team game but i don't like the whole "magic weapons are optional" argument. Sorry for the rant.

[TigerT20]

The part that bothers me most is designers and players saying "5e doesn't require magical weapons" but this exists. Immunity and resistance to mundane weapons.

I hear things like: it's the casters job to give them spells to mitigate this (like elemental weapon or magic weapon) but this just feels like baby sitting to me. Casters don't always want to occupy their concentration slot because martials can't perform in this situation (especially if a creature is immune) just so fighter man is not near useless. And martials don't want to feel like they can't do anything on their own. Yes it's a team game but i don't like the whole "magic weapons are optional" argument. Sorry for the rant.

Well, it doesn't.

There are only bout 9 monsters in the MM with immunity to non-magical BPS. Ther rest will just take twice as long to kill - you can still get at them wiith mundane weapons though.
So provided you avoid those 9 monsters (and, I suppose, any others with it in other books you may have) you can have a party of 4 martials that have only the equipment they began with and get on just fine.
Ok, you will have to treat those with BPS resistance as tougher than their CR states but still.

[MagneticKitty]

Well, it doesn't.

There are only bout 9 monsters in the MM with immunity to non-magical BPS. Ther rest will just take twice as long to kill - you can still get at them wiith mundane weapons though.
So provided you avoid those 9 monsters (and, I suppose, any others with it in other books you may have) you can have a party of 4 martials that have only the equipment they began with and get on just fine.
Ok, you will have to treat those with BPS resistance as tougher than their CR states but still.

First off, it's about 35 immune not 9 (I have an excel sheet with all the monster data and can pretty easily check) and second of all, I think even resistance is a problem. There's about 142 resistant. I might have missed one or two was just a rough count. (This is just mm, not others)
Anyway, you're allowed to think like you want, I just don't agree.

[JNAProductions]

First off, it's about 35 immune not 9 (I have an excel sheet with all the monster data and can pretty easily check) and second of all, I think even resistance is a problem. There's about 142 resistant. I might have missed one or two was just a rough count. (This is just mm, not others)
Anyway, you're allowed to think like you want, I just don't agree.

But there's a difference between "I need my sword to count as magic" and "I need a +1 Collision Echoing Vorpal Bane sword as my main weapon, plus whatever secondary weapons with different properties."

I do agree that, by no later than late T2, weapon users should have a magical weapon. But they don't need it to give a bunch of bonuses-it could just never dull, it could cast Light or Thaumaturgy, it could let you use Thunderwave once per day. It doesn't NEED to be a +X weapon.

[MagneticKitty]

But there's a difference between "I need my sword to count as magic" and "I need a +1 Collision Echoing Vorpal Bane sword as my main weapon, plus whatever secondary weapons with different properties."

I do agree that, by no later than late T2, weapon users should have a magical weapon. But they don't need it to give a bunch of bonuses-it could just never dull, it could cast Light or Thaumaturgy, it could let you use Thunderwave once per day. It doesn't NEED to be a +X weapon.

I'm ok with it being a magic weapon that doesn't do much. I was just saying the logic that you could do the whole game without any magic weapon at all was kinda silly unless your dm is purposely limiting their creature choice

[JNAProductions]

I'm ok with it being a magic weapon that doesn't do much. I was just saying the logic that you could do the whole game without any magic weapon at all was kinda silly unless your dm is purposely limiting their creature choice

Yeah. I can agree with that.

[Mellack]

I'm ok with it being a magic weapon that doesn't do much. I was just saying the logic that you could do the whole game without any magic weapon at all was kinda silly unless your dm is purposely limiting their creature choice

Most classes have some way to do magic damage. Paladins get magic weapon and rangers get hunters mark. Eldritch Knights and Arcane tricksters have some magic damage options. So I think just barbarians, some fighters, and some rogues would need a magic weapon to do damage.

[Vogie]

My quick take: What if Martials had threats other than damage? Sure Dracula might not be injured if Conan just wails on him with a warhammer (DR and regen). But Conan might be able to keep Dracula off balance, dazed by the impact, and knocked to the ground long enough for someone else to get a stake ready.

I mean, those are already in the game. You just described Grappling your target then Shoving them prone, which any strength-based fighter could do. I've played a game that actually had a party of characters would do just that. Tavern Brawler Barbarian would Unarmed Strike, BA Grapple, then Shove the creature, all with advantage due to Reckless attack & Rage. With no movement, the creature can't stand up, and allows the nearby Rogues, Paladins, etc can smash away on the target with free advantage.

[thereaper]

Unless the spell's description explicitly states that the animated objects' attacks are magical, they aren't. Unless I missed the appropriate text somehow, no such statement exists in the spell description.

If in your games, you decide animated objects deal magical damage, well and good. However, the text of the spell does not support it.

That is a very strange interpretation. They're animated by magic, the magic is clearly still going through them (otherwise it wouldn't be concentration), and that logically would carry over to their attacks.

[MagneticKitty]

Most classes have some way to do magic damage. Paladins get magic weapon and rangers get hunters mark. Eldritch Knights and Arcane tricksters have some magic damage options. So I think just barbarians, some fighters, and some rogues would need a magic weapon to do damage.

To me that's like saying: here are your limited options if you still want to have fun, because I (the dm) will not be patching holes in the classes by providing them with a magic weapon they need to function at later levels. Or we can burdon the team's magic users to use their abilities to try and fix your class.

It just bugs me that people say "no magic items required for the whole game" and think it fits the current game design.
To be clear it's not the classes I have a problem with, or the items or the game. Just that statement.

[MrStabby]

I think resistance to non magic weapons is a key feature of a lot of monsters. I am disappointed that some people with that this ability never have any bearing on the game.

[MaxWilson]

So, you're telling me that objects that have been animated by magic and attack with their own magical bodies are not themselves magical? :smallconfused:

The primary difference between animating a zombie and animating an object is that one is instantaneous (after which the creature is self-sustaining), while the other is an ongoing magical effect (which is why the animated objects go away in an antimagic field).

Tiny Servant is not instantaneous, and the Tiny Servant stat block does not have the "magical weapons trait." If your theory were correct, it would.


That is a very strange interpretation. They're animated by magic, the magic is clearly still going through them (otherwise it wouldn't be concentration), and that logically would carry over to their attacks.

Does Haste make the fighter's weapons (or punches) capable of killing a werewolf?


Most classes have some way to do magic damage. Paladins get magic weapon and rangers get hunters mark. Eldritch Knights and Arcane tricksters have some magic damage options. So I think just barbarians, some fighters, and some rogues would need a magic weapon to do damage.

Zealots, Ancestor Barbs, and Storm Whatchamacallit barbs all have ways to do magical damage, so some barbs are covered too. There's no class I can think of which has zero access to inherent magical damage.

(There's also racial cantrips and Magic Initiate on top of that.)

Plus, technically by RAW even a pure nonmagical Champion can kill werewolves by climbing up something high and shoving them off the edge when they follow him, since technically falling damage is not a "weapon". I think that's stupid because hitting someone with a gigantic planet at terminal velocity is indistinguishable from hitting them with a gigantic club at terminal velocity, but there are plenty of DMs out there who apparently go by the RAW on this because Jeremy Crawford once tweeted so...

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I don't mind the resistance, but a lot of the monsters don't seem to have the abilities you'd expect for their CR for either hitting or being hit. The total immunity for even low powered Lycanthropes for instance while unique Demons like Domogorgon only have resistance. I was DMing last night and in the final fight against a CR 14 monster with legendary actions I just gave the critter magical attacks which (besides making sense to me) avoided the Paladin's Heavy Armor Mastery.
As someone else mentioned in the thread. I always thought the requirement of a silver weapon in the older editions to harm some monsters was an interesting way to encourage fighters to use a variety of different tactics/ weapons and took the pressure off the DM to provide magical weapons. Unfortunately, that isn't an option for most monsters in 5e, so depending on the campaign we are back to basically needing to hand out magic at fairly low levels to keep some classes comparable.

[thereaper]

Tiny Servant is not instantaneous, and the Tiny Servant stat block does not have the "magical weapons trait." If your theory were correct, it would.

It doesn't need it to be stated, because it's implied by the fact that it's magical, just like how a Sword of Answering doesn't technically state that it's a magic weapon (you know it's a magic weapon because it's a magic item and it's a weapon).


Does Haste make the fighter's weapons (or punches) capable of killing a werewolf?

The Fighter's weapons are not affected by Haste, so they wouldn't be. Unarmed Strikes would be, because the Fighter is now magical, and unarmed strikes are considered weapon attacks.

It makes sense, if you think about it. A Moontouched Sword is just a sword with a permanent Light spell cast on it, and yet it's able to harm werewolves. Logically, therefore, casting a spell on a character would give their unarmed strikes the same benefit.

I can understand why you wouldn't run it that way, but I maintain that it is the logical way for things to work.

[MaxWilson]

I don't mind the resistance, but a lot of the monsters don't seem to have the abilities you'd expect for their CR for either hitting or being hit. The total immunity for even low powered Lycanthropes for instance while unique Demons like Domogorgon only have resistance. I was DMing last night and in the final fight against a CR 14 monster with legendary actions I just gave the critter magical attacks which (besides making sense to me) avoided the Paladin's Heavy Armor Mastery.
As someone else mentioned in the thread. I always thought the requirement of a silver weapon in the older editions to harm some monsters was an interesting way to encourage fighters to use a variety of different tactics/ weapons and took the pressure off the DM to provide magical weapons. Unfortunately, that isn't an option for most monsters in 5e, so depending on the campaign we are back to basically needing to hand out magic at fairly low levels to keep some classes comparable.

Actually Demogorgon and the demon lords do have immunity, not just resistance, to nonmagical weapons.

However, issues with demon lords are not limited to their lame combat abilities. They typically have very low ability to project power--low strategic mobility only slightly better than the Tarrasques', limited spellcasting, no ability to use the very same abilities (like True Polymorph) that they are apparently capable of granting to warlocks, etc.

Fundamentally the issue is that high-CR monsters like demon lords and Tiamat are designed to provide a few minutes of exciting dice-rolling for players, and that's it.

For some reason the archdevils are designed quite differently, if haphazardly.


The Fighter's weapons are not affected by Haste, so they wouldn't be. Unarmed Strikes would be, because the Fighter is now magical, and unarmed strikes are considered weapon attacks.

It makes sense, if you think about it. A Moontouched Sword is just a sword with a permanent Light spell cast on it, and yet it's able to harm werewolves. Logically, therefore, casting a spell on a character would give their character's unarmed strikes the same benefit.

I can understand why you wouldn't run it that way, but I maintain that it is the logical way for things to work.

Oh, if we're talking about logic instead of game rules, I'll go the other way. There is no reason at all why a Moontouched sword should be particularly good at damaging air elementals or misty vampiric clouds, although it makes perfect sense for it to damage werecreatures. (There's also no logical reason why hail from Ice Storm should be treated differently just because it's "magical".)

In AD&D, there's an implied cosmology that makes a certain amount of sense out of the requirement for certain levels of magic weapons to damage certain creatures: plane-shifting makes weapons less magical until you go back to your original plane, and there's some implication there that what you're actually doing when you hit a Fire Elemental with a +2 sword is, essentially, reaching across the Ethereal Plane to the Plane of Fire to damage it on its home plane, and a +1 sword just doesn't have the reach. (Nor does a +2 sword which is already being "stretched" across one plane and is functionally +1 right now.)

But 5E doesn't have this same cosmology, and IMO they should have made creatures that are immune to weapons vulnerable to [XYZ special material or condition], like silver for werewolves, cold iron for fey, and attacks on their life (wherever it is hidden) for demons. You could have certain exceptionally powerful weapons which, as part of their enchantment, can emulate silver or iron or can reach across spacetime to cut the locks of hair on a beautiful maiden's head in which a demon lord has hidden his life--somewhere, the maiden's hair suddenly falls to the ground shorn, and Orcus screeches in agony and dies. But other than that, magical weapon and attacks should be treated like any other physical attacks.

[Mellack]

To me that's like saying: here are your limited options if you still want to have fun, because I (the dm) will not be patching holes in the classes by providing them with a magic weapon they need to function at later levels. Or we can burdon the team's magic users to use their abilities to try and fix your class.

It just bugs me that people say "no magic items required for the whole game" and think it fits the current game design.
To be clear it's not the classes I have a problem with, or the items or the game. Just that statement.

I don't see it as being different than asking a caster for Fly or needing a magic item to get your Great-Weapon fighter up to the flying monster. It is a team game, and sometimes the team members need to help each other. Not every build is going to be good against every monster.

[MaxWilson]

I don't see it as being different than asking a caster for Fly or needing a magic item to get your Great-Weapon fighter up to the flying monster. It is a team game, and sometimes the team members need to help each other. Not every build is going to be good against every monster.

Or offering to cast Fly on your buddy so he can kill the monster that's out of range of your spells. (Same situation, different perspective.)

[OldTrees1]

Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
My quick take: What if Martials had threats other than damage? Sure Dracula might not be injured if Conan just wails on him with a warhammer (DR and regen). But Conan might be able to keep Dracula off balance, dazed by the impact, and knocked to the ground long enough for someone else to get a stake ready.


I mean, those are already in the game. You just described Grappling your target then Shoving them prone, which any strength-based fighter could do. I've played a game that actually had a party of characters would do just that. Tavern Brawler Barbarian would Unarmed Strike, BA Grapple, then Shove the creature, all with advantage due to Reckless attack & Rage. With no movement, the creature can't stand up, and allows the nearby Rogues, Paladins, etc can smash away on the target with free advantage.

1) I think you missed the majority of the threat. A prone grappled vampire is neither dazed nor kept off balance mentally (and they might even have their physical balance).
2) Threats is plural. Incapacitation mentally via blunt force trauma is one and incapacitation physically via strong arms is a second. And that was not meant to be the end of the list.
3) In 5E a grappled prone individual is not really physically incapacitated. They can attack just fine and don't have to move to find a target.

A Strength based Human Monk with Tavern Brawler and Prodigy (Expertise) could combine Stun with Shove and Grapple to get 80% of what I said.

[Snails]

While I get what they were going for, beyond silver weapons as a clever means for the low level PCs to deal with werewolves, I just do not think these resistances/immunities really worked for mechanically expressing flavor in a way that improved the game experienced.

In my 1e experience, so many of the big bads had multiple immunities, Spell Resistance, good saves, plus immune to weapons of insufficient +N. After fighting such things twice, there was just no intellectual challenge or excitement to these battles. The spellcasters did not bother to directly attack them, buffed/healed the best fighters, and cleared out distracting mooks. It came down to one or two beefy meatshields with the Big +N Weapon doing almost all the damage.

In my mind, I think the 5e designers recognized that these things never really worked all the well, and they tended to work less well when outright immunities were involved. Sometimes swapping from a slashing weapon to a blunt weapon because of resistance is something I am good with. Sometimes swapping from Fire to something else because of resistance ditto.

[Crucius]

I think resistances are only useful/fun when the flexibility afforded to the PC is not too low, but not too high either. That's pretty vague, let me explain:

If a character is unable to overcome a resistance right now, they should have the option to overcome that resistance somehow later on. Excluding any environmental interactions in this case, playing around with resistances as a gameplay mechanic (or weaknesses for that matter) should be about tactics and insight (or experience). In other words; counterplay. Examples are of course Pokemon and Final Fantasy VIIR. There the resistances make sense because you can adapt at a reasonable 'timescale' by swapping pokemon or materia. This is what I mean by having flexibility available.

Now, when it comes to levels of flexibility I think that at-will overcoming of resistances is too flexible (see Lore Wizard), but a level up to change something is already very restrictive and not flexible enough in my opinion. To that end, I think that a short or long rest is the perfect 'scale' at which I would put the options to overcome resistances. Sadly this is rarely the case (most often these are prepared casters who have access to magic weapon spells (see below for my thoughts on that)), therefore I think that resistances are not a very interesting gameplay mechanic for players to interact with; you can either overcome resistances, or you can't. There's no really enticing counterplay to be had there, is there?

I see a lot of statements arguing that every class has a subclass that has access to magical damage. This to me is not a solution; while I appreciate the option is there, there is no way to swap to that subclass at any point in the game in an organic manner. The flexibility here is low to non-existent.

Also, I see that some people mention spells that turn weapons into magical weapons and teamwork as an argument. While I am always all for teamwork, I think this tends to diminish the fun/effectiveness that the spellcaster is having by being forced to concentrate on that spell. Tactics are determined on a party-wide scale, but fun is determined on a personal scale.

Edit: this last thing of course does not apply to spellcaster that identify as support or buffer, because for them that IS the fun. I'm sure they're out there, I just haven't met them :P

[Mellack]

There is also the option of the magic initiate feat. Any character can take it and get two cantrips and a 1st level spell that can do magical damage, regardless of class or subclass. So unless you have a feat-less game, everyone can chose to get magic damage if they want.

[Composer99]

That is a very strange interpretation. They're animated by magic, the magic is clearly still going through them (otherwise it wouldn't be concentration), and that logically would carry over to their attacks.

The plain meaning of a spell description is not a "very strange" interpretation, last I checked.

[Tvtyrant]

I rather liked the randomness for world building reasons. Like lycanthropes can kill any beast without taking losses, so living in the wild isn't any sort of threat to them.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Actually Demogorgon and the demon lords do have immunity, not just resistance, to nonmagical weapons.
My bad there. Must have been thinking of something else.

[MaxWilson]

My bad there. Must have been thinking of something else.

Archdevils maybe. They have regen, but not immunity. They also have better spells than the demon lords, and better legendary actions.

[Zalabim]

Plus, technically by RAW even a pure nonmagical Champion can kill werewolves by climbing up something high and shoving them off the edge when they follow him, since technically falling damage is not a "weapon". I think that's stupid because hitting someone with a gigantic planet at terminal velocity is indistinguishable from hitting them with a gigantic club at terminal velocity, but there are plenty of DMs out there who apparently go by the RAW on this because Jeremy Crawford once tweeted so...
The completely nonmagical frenzy barbarian, circumstances otherwise permitting*, is capable of hurting all but 2 monster entries in the Monster Manual with their starting gear. One of those two could be hurt with a technically nonmagical adamantine weapon. The other is the Tarrasque. Lacking proficiency makes the high AC ones rough, but a Tavern Brawler might well prefer a torch over a +1 simple weapon against a Demilich.

*Like reaching the target and keeping a torch lit.

To me that's like saying: here are your limited options if you still want to have fun, because I (the dm) will not be patching holes in the classes by providing them with a magic weapon they need to function at later levels. Or we can burdon the team's magic users to use their abilities to try and fix your class.

It just bugs me that people say "no magic items required for the whole game" and think it fits the current game design.
To be clear it's not the classes I have a problem with, or the items or the game. Just that statement.
It's only necessary if you, the dm, will be using creatures with resistance or immunity often and the entire party would have their damage severely curtailed against these creatures at once. It's expected that these creatures will take reduced damage from some part of the average party. If they resist none of the party's damage, they're easier than expected, and if they'll resist all of the party's damage, they'll be harder. If there is something totally immune to your current party, you can probably spot that ahead of time.

[Tes]

Yup, non magical BPS Weapon damage Immunity is only a problem if you forget those aren't covering everything.

You don't need a caster to concentrate on making your sword glow, the torch will do fine to make you able to hurt stuff immune to BPS.
Peasant mobs with torches are the reason the world isn't overrun by were creatures.

[Chaosmancer]

That is a very strange interpretation. They're animated by magic, the magic is clearly still going through them (otherwise it wouldn't be concentration), and that logically would carry over to their attacks.


It doesn't need it to be stated, because it's implied by the fact that it's magical, just like how a Sword of Answering doesn't technically state that it's a magic weapon (you know it's a magic weapon because it's a magic item and it's a weapon).

The Fighter's weapons are not affected by Haste, so they wouldn't be. Unarmed Strikes would be, because the Fighter is now magical, and unarmed strikes are considered weapon attacks.

It makes sense, if you think about it. A Moontouched Sword is just a sword with a permanent Light spell cast on it, and yet it's able to harm werewolves. Logically, therefore, casting a spell on a character would give their unarmed strikes the same benefit.

I can understand why you wouldn't run it that way, but I maintain that it is the logical way for things to work.


I get where you see the logic Reaper, but there is a glaring problem with your point.

Shepherd Druids.

A summoned creature is formed out of magic. They disappear when killed, lending credence to the idea that their entire body is magical.

If your logic held up, all of their attacks would bypass non-magic damage resistance. However, the Shepherd Druid has a level 6 ability that specifically gives their summoned creatures magical attacks on their natural weapons. Which would be a pointless ability if you were right and summoned creatures already bypass the resistance.

Also, look at constructs. Animated Armor and other construct creatures lack the "magic weapons" trait, and you might argue they didn't need it because it was obvious, except that golems like Clay Golems and Iron Golems do have that trait. So, armor animated by a spell does not bypass the resistance, but an Iron Golem does.

It may make less sense, but that is the RAW ruling on the table. You do not have magical attacks unless something states that you do, or you are attacking with a magical item.

[MrStabby]

I get where you see the logic Reaper, but there is a glaring problem with your point.

Shepherd Druids.

A summoned creature is formed out of magic. They disappear when killed, lending credence to the idea that their entire body is magical.

If your logic held up, all of their attacks would bypass non-magic damage resistance. However, the Shepherd Druid has a level 6 ability that specifically gives their summoned creatures magical attacks on their natural weapons. Which would be a pointless ability if you were right and summoned creatures already bypass the resistance.

Also, look at constructs. Animated Armor and other construct creatures lack the "magic weapons" trait, and you might argue they didn't need it because it was obvious, except that golems like Clay Golems and Iron Golems do have that trait. So, armor animated by a spell does not bypass the resistance, but an Iron Golem does.

It may make less sense, but that is the RAW ruling on the table. You do not have magical attacks unless something states that you do, or you are attacking with a magical item.

I think that there is a bit of a scale with some things being more clear than others.

Thinks like animated skelatons or animated objects are very much on the non magical end of the scale

Heat metal - say on someones sword. The spell heats the sword, the sword does the damage not the spell directly. If itsamagic weapon that gets hot.

Dust devil - you conjure a mini-storm, and is a conjuration spell. Also does bludgeoning damage. Do we differentiate between something a spell conjures doing magical damage simly depending on if it is animate or inanimate?

Spiritual weapon - conjures a weapon... but it does make a spell attack rather than a physical one

Firebolt - yes you conjure a mote of fire and throw it but I think this is clearly magical damage (not that I can think of anything that resists only non-magical fire damage)

[Chaosmancer]

I think that there is a bit of a scale with some things being more clear than others.

Thinks like animated skelatons or animated objects are very much on the non magical end of the scale

Heat metal - say on someones sword. The spell heats the sword, the sword does the damage not the spell directly. If itsamagic weapon that gets hot.

Dust devil - you conjure a mini-storm, and is a conjuration spell. Also does bludgeoning damage. Do we differentiate between something a spell conjures doing magical damage simly depending on if it is animate or inanimate?

Spiritual weapon - conjures a weapon... but it does make a spell attack rather than a physical one

Firebolt - yes you conjure a mote of fire and throw it but I think this is clearly magical damage (not that I can think of anything that resists only non-magical fire damage)

Spiritual weapon also does force damage, to prevent this problem. Same with there are no creatures immune to "non-magical" elemental damage, because the assumption is that the damage of that type is usually from a spell anyways.

The Dust Devil example is the tricky one, same with hail from Ice Storm. It is a spell doing damage, but the thing it is doing the damage with is not necessarily magical. those are grey areas for sure.

[Composer99]

The rule of thumb I would use is:
- Spells that directly deal damage do magical damage unless they say they don't
- Creatures conjured or animated by spells don't do magical damage unless the spell descriptions or their statblocks say they do

[MaxWilson]

The completely nonmagical frenzy barbarian, circumstances otherwise permitting*, is capable of hurting all but 2 monster entries in the Monster Manual with their starting gear. One of those two could be hurt with a technically nonmagical adamantine weapon. The other is the Tarrasque. Lacking proficiency makes the high AC ones rough, but a Tavern Brawler might well prefer a torch over a +1 simple weapon against a Demilich.

Nitpick: a torch only does 1 damage, with no indication of bonuses from Strength, nor is a strength bonus diegetically appropriate, so he's better off with the magic weapon.

[Zalabim]

Nitpick: a torch only does 1 damage, with no indication of bonuses from Strength, nor is a strength bonus diegetically appropriate, so he's better off with the magic weapon.
From Player's Handbook, page 196, "Damage Rolls": When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier -- the same modifier used for the attack roll -- to the damage.

It does not need to because the normal rule is that when you attack with a weapon, you add your ability modifier to the damage. This is just like shadow blade adding strength or dexterity bonus to its damage. You would also add your dexterity modifier to the damage of an acid flask.Unarmed strikes say to add strength bonus because an unarmed strike is not an attack being made with a weapon.

[MaxWilson]

From Player's Handbook, page 196, "Damage Rolls": When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier -- the same modifier used for the attack roll -- to the damage.

It does not need to because the normal rule is that when you attack with a weapon, you add your ability modifier to the damage. This is just like shadow blade adding strength or dexterity bonus to its damage. You would also add your dexterity modifier to the damage of an acid flask.Unarmed strikes say to add strength bonus because an unarmed strike is not an attack being made with a weapon.

But a torch isn't a weapon. It's gear.

Type: Adventuring Gear Cost: 1 cp Weight: 1 lb
A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage.

Furthermore, it says specifically what happens when you hit someone with the torch: you deal 1 fire damage, and that's it. Nor is it diegetically appropriate for torches to get hotter when wielded by stronger people.

If you want to deal nonmagical fire damage, you'll probably do more damage with flaming oil, grappling the opponent if necessary to keep them inside the flames. Torches are a pretty bad stopgap unless you're a whole mob of peasants with hundreds of torches.

[Chaosmancer]

But a torch isn't a weapon. It's gear.

Type: Adventuring Gear Cost: 1 cp Weight: 1 lb
A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage.

Furthermore, it says specifically what happens when you hit someone with the torch: you deal 1 fire damage, and that's it. Nor is it diegetically appropriate for torches to get hotter when wielded by stronger people.

If you want to deal nonmagical fire damage, you'll probably do more damage with flaming oil, grappling the opponent if necessary to keep them inside the flames. Torches are a pretty bad stopgap unless you're a whole mob of peasants with hundreds of torches.


Honestly, alchemist fire is devastating.

I had a pixie familiar drop a vial of alchemist fire on a hill giant. The damage keeps happening until they make the dex save (or at least that is what my memory states) so it took 20d4 damage since it kept failing it's save.

And since oil adds more damage to that... the burn it with fire plan can be nasty.

[Zalabim]

But a torch isn't a weapon. It's gear.

Type: Adventuring Gear Cost: 1 cp Weight: 1 lb
A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage.

Furthermore, it says specifically what happens when you hit someone with the torch: you deal 1 fire damage, and that's it. Nor is it diegetically appropriate for torches to get hotter when wielded by stronger people.

If you want to deal nonmagical fire damage, you'll probably do more damage with flaming oil, grappling the opponent if necessary to keep them inside the flames. Torches are a pretty bad stopgap unless you're a whole mob of peasants with hundreds of torches.
A ladder is not a weapon either, but attacks with improvised weapons still add the associated ability bonus to damage. The torch isn't hotter, but proximity, duration, and location of exposure can all influence how effective the attack is. A hero warding off monsters with a torch is also a scene that goes back at least to Aragorn at Weathertop.

With high strength and multiple attacks, one hero with a torch can be worth a dozen peasants. Combining oil with torches means there are affordable options for nonmagical characters with either high strength or high dexterity to contribute fire damage against creatures like mummies, trolls, and flesh golems. The torch being usable for the whole fight and usable with extra attack is also another way that melee fighters can benefit from choosing to focus on strength rather than dexterity. Running torches according to the rules is a matter of internal balance and genre emulation.

[MaxWilson]

A ladder is not a weapon either, but attacks with improvised weapons still add the associated ability bonus to damage. The torch isn't hotter, but proximity, duration, and location of exposure can all influence how effective the attack is.

If you use a torch as improvised club, sure, it will add Str to its bludgeoning damage--but if you use it as a torch it does 1 fire damage. Unfortunate for Aragorn perhaps, but there are lots of scenes from literature that 5E can't replicate. (The original Troll scene from Three Hearts and Three Lions works in AD&D but not 5E. http://sacnoths.blogspot.com/2017/07/poul-andersons-troll.html?m=1)

I don't plan to beat this dead horse further--feel free to have the last word.

[Snails]

I would let the PCs have the stat mod added to the damage, because their great skill allows them to shove the torch into a very painful location.

As for Aragorn at Weathertop, there is reason to believe that the Nazgul were specifically vulnerable to fire. It is not that they necessarily are even physically damaged by fire (we do not know one way or another), but (1) they do not like fire/light and it probably causes the sensation of pain to have intimate proximity to such, (2) they are not quite physical beings; so, if their cloaks are badly damaged or destroyed their semblance of physical form is disrupted, and then they need to crawl back to Sauron to get help re-forming into a being that can pick up a sword and be useful in the war.

[sithlordnergal]

There are a few reasons for it:

1) It is a gear-gate system. It makes sure players can't just blow through a difficult encounter without the proper gear. As much as the people claim "You don't need magical weapons because spells exist to make weapons magical", that just isn't true. By giving a Fighter that +1 weapon, you lose your ability to effectively control the battlefield, outside of using the few non-concentration spells out there.

2) It helps flesh out the world. There's a reason why a village might hire an expensive group of adventurers to handle a group of four or five Fire Elementals, despite having a 16 guards patrolling. The guards would all die long before they killed a single Fire Elemental thanks to that weapon resistance.

3) It helps reign in the power of any class that summons or animates creatures. A necromancer with an army of skeletons is pretty useless if their army can't effectively harm whatever they're fighting. And against the few creatures with immunity to non-magical weapons, they're completely useless. Same with Conjure Animals or Animate Objects. Animate Objects is especially powerful, it can take on entire boss encounters on its own...but toss it against something with immunity or resistance, and suddenly its far less useful.

[Cybren]

There are a few reasons for it:

1) It is a gear-gate system. It makes sure players can't just blow through a difficult encounter without the proper gear. As much as the people claim "You don't need magical weapons because spells exist to make weapons magical", that just isn't true. By giving a Fighter that +1 weapon, you lose your ability to effectively control the battlefield, outside of using the few non-concentration spells out there.


It's not just "spells exist", it's "spells and a variety of class features, available to a multitude of classes, exist, giving most parties of 4 or 5 PCs a variety of tools outside of gear to overcome this obstacle". That there are some characters that won't have a native way to overcome that isn't a problem so long as they have other ways to contribute, and they probably do, be it by using alternative tactics or equipment, having a high enough base damage output to still be relevant, or focusing on enemies that are more vulnerable to your attacks. And that's assuming that no one else in the party is able or interested in using something like Magic Weapon on you.

[Angelalex242]

It exists because minionmancy.

And I saw the example of 30 kids earlier...well, ask those 30 kids how they did against Anakin Skywalker, and that's why resistance must exist.

[Vegan Squirrel]

If you use a torch as improvised club, sure, it will add Str to its bludgeoning damage--but if you use it as a torch it does 1 fire damage. Unfortunate for Aragorn perhaps, but there are lots of scenes from literature that 5E can't replicate. (The original Troll scene from Three Hearts and Three Lions works in AD&D but not 5E. http://sacnoths.blogspot.com/2017/07/poul-andersons-troll.html?m=1)

I don't plan to beat this dead horse further--feel free to have the last word.

I don't see that the torch's description would negate the bludgeoning damage that would result from attacking with an improvised club, so I think it's fair to award both 1d4+Str bludgeoning damage and 1 fire damage. But I'm with you that there's no reason to add Str to the fire damage, just as you wouldn't add Str to the fire damage of a Flame Tongue sword.

[Knaight]

I don't see that the torch's description would negate the bludgeoning damage that would result from attacking with an improvised club, so I think it's fair to award both 1d4+Str bludgeoning damage and 1 fire damage. But I'm with you that there's no reason to add Str to the fire damage, just as you wouldn't add Str to the fire damage of a Flame Tongue sword.
The use cases are somewhat different, to say the least. If you're trying to burn with a torch you want prolonged contact, which means holding it in place for a while. If you're using it as a club you swing it at speed.

As for the fictional emulation argument, every scene I can think of involving a torch either involved the torch being used to light something up that was a bit more dangerous (a line of gunpowder leading to a powder keg, a bunch of oil, a mill full of flour dust, whatever) or the torch being used to drive away. Aragorn at Weathertop is very much the latter, the torch wasn't so much a tool for damage as a tool of fear. The same applies to basically every scene involving something like a pack of wolves; the torch isn't being used to burn them to death in a fight.

[MaxWilson]

As for the fictional emulation argument, every scene I can think of involving a torch either involved the torch being used to light something up that was a bit more dangerous (a line of gunpowder leading to a powder keg, a bunch of oil, a mill full of flour dust, whatever) or the torch being used to drive away.

Or to burn people enough to wake them from the Black Sleep of Kali. :)

[Knaight]

Or to burn people enough to wake them from the Black Sleep of Kali. :)
Which definitely gets back to the torch not really being a serious weapon in the underlying fiction, seeing as that involved the same sort of burning that torch-as-weapon would, which would suck but definitely beats getting stuck with a sword or something.

Inasmuch as there are torch related underlying fictional things that 5e doesn't emulate it's more the absence of morale rules than torches not doing enough fire damage.

[MaxWilson]

Which definitely gets back to the torch not really being a serious weapon in the underlying fiction, seeing as that involved the same sort of burning that torch-as-weapon would, which would suck but definitely beats getting stuck with a sword or something.

Inasmuch as there are torch related underlying fictional things that 5e doesn't emulate it's more the absence of morale rules than torches not doing enough fire damage.

Yeah, 5E doesn't really model the pain avoidance reflex, like, at all.

[Knaight]

Yeah, 5E doesn't really model the pain avoidance reflex, like, at all.
It's more instinctual aversion, really. There might well be pain avoidance going on (and burns really do hurt more than most things), but when your baseline for cuts is some predators claw, your baseline for stabs is some predators tooth, and your baseline for burns is conflagrations as far as the eye can see throwing dense choking smoke up and radiating oppressive heat far from the actual flames while a wall of fire approaches you any humanoid made weapon that threatens the last option just doesn't do good things for your morale. Especially if you're a wolf or something, and not one of the handful of tool using species that light fires intentionally.

As for where this gets into the genre in general, it's not like fire doesn't both capture the human imagination and terrify people really effectively (see: fire as a terror weapon for literally thousands of years of warfare across the globe), and a cleansing, primal force really does make a lot of sense as something to scare away wraiths as well as animals.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Heya,

Why does resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage exist on so many monsters? It seems that after a certain CR a lot of monsters get this trait and I'm not quite understanding why.

The only reason I can think of is that it acts as a gear-gate, where you need to have the proper weapons from exploration or questing to overcome these challenges. Which is, in my opinion a very dumb reason. Not only is this DM dependent, it is also highly likely that magical weapons trickle into the game, meaning that in the beginning only a select few party members have access to magical weapons while the other partymembers are bummed out. And, although not the point of this thread, it only serves to exacerbate the rift between martial and magic because the latter do not have this setback when it comes to this highly common damage resistance.

I do get for some monsters why they have it, most notably the monsters that have the adamantite or silver weapon clause, because for them it is ingrained in the lore and flavor.

I hope you folks have some helpful insight here that can hopefully change my mind on this topic. I'm really hoping there is some genius design reason I'm just not seeing.


I think anyone with a Str of 18+ should be able to overcome the resistance to non-magical BPS.

Commoners aren't going to hurt the monster much, but the fighter doesn't ha e to rely on magic because they're just that damn good.