Magic weapon and party level

[tomjon]

Just a quick question. What level is it appropriate to start giving magic weapon and by what level (if any) is it a must for everyone to have one. Note damage resistant creatures (werewolf and the like) are common.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

For my own games I DM I would say around levels 5-6 is when magic weapons or armor is given. If something requires to get past a resistance of some type, like Werewolves, an option for silver weapons or whatever equivalent is presented at the lower levels usually as a side quest.

[stoutstien]

Still isn't a requirement to hand them out at all let alone a set time or level. As long as the players were aware of the importance of bypassing resistance and immunity they have plenty of options to do so without relying on finding item X.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just a quick question. What level is it appropriate to start giving magic weapon and by what level (if any) is it a must for everyone to have one. Note damage resistant creatures (werewolf and the like) are common. Silvered weapons are achievable after the first or second loot haul, right?

By level 3 or 4: if one of the martial characters doesn't have a magic weapon (common is fine, like a moon touched scimitar, see XGTE) I'd say the DM is being a little miserly. (See as a reference treasures found in Starter Set and Sunless Citadel). At the end of level 5 I'd suggest all of the martial characters have one, unless one of them's a monk who is about to become a magic weapon.

[Dark.Revenant]

What's a common time to give out a magic weapon?
3rd to 5th level for the first magic weapon is fairly common, and casters can cast Magic Weapon at about this point.

When does the game require/expect a magic weapon?
Usually never. It is only mandatory if the entire party lacks a significant source of magical damage (such as a full party of Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues).

When are the treasure tables likely to drop a magic weapon?
If you're following DMG guidelines, you'll probably give the party a magic weapon of some sort by around 5th to 7th level, sliding up to around four to six such weapons by 20th level.

When do officially published adventures give out magic weapons?
Pretty much instantly. For example, you can find a +1 longsword at 2nd level in Lost Mine of Phandelver.

[KorvinStarmast]

When are the treasure tables likely to drop a magic weapon?
If you're following DMG guidelines, you'll probably give the party a magic weapon of some sort by around 5th to 7th level, sliding up to around four to six such weapons by 20th level. FWIW, with xanathar's there are now common magic items that are magical weapons: moon touched sword. No plusses, but is a magical weapon.

[MaxWilson]

Just a quick question. What level is it appropriate to start giving magic weapon and by what level (if any) is it a must for everyone to have one. Note damage resistant creatures (werewolf and the like) are common.

I think it's not a level-based decision in the first place, more of a campaign decision.

If you feel like it you can give out a Vorpal Sword as early as level 1. It won't break your game, per se.

You can also choose NEVER to give out magic weapons, although it's worth discussing player expectations beforehand in case "no magic weapons ever" would affect their willingness to play Fighters, etc.

In general I tend to give out big magic items ASAP, early in a campaign, so the players can get used to them. But it depends, and some items and artifacts are more fun if they require a lot of effort to attain, which probably implies gaining a lot of levels in the process.

Bear in mind that gaining a magic weapon != gaining your favorite kind of magic weapon. A Dexy Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert who gains a Vorpal Greatsword might wish it was a Vorpal Returning Boomerang, but the sword is still an upgrade in versatility.

[strangebloke]

I've handled this a few different ways but most commonly I give out some kind of "legacy weapons" that can level with the player. There's a good dmsguild supplement out there. It has the virtue of being interesting and powerful without introducing a lot of bookkeeping on my part.

I'm in the camp that believes that failing to hand out anything but the most basic of magical weapons skews things against martial classes, which are better positioned to benefit from weapons by a wide margin. For an extreme example, imagine a strength fighter who's level 8 but you've still never gotten enough loot to get a full set of plate.

magic items are like feats. Technically optional but not really. The game is heavily warped if you don't allow for them. (though feats create their own problems, whereas magic items are just strictly a win as long as you aren't too generous.)

[jas61292]

I don't think there is any right or wrong answer to this question. Its whatever works for your campaign.

Personally, I like dropping my first magic weapons around level 4 or so, give or take a level. But I also generally like not giving out optimized magic weapons right away. Just because the party's martial characters have chosen to focus on the glaive and longbow does not mean they will easily find such magic weapons. I find it far more fun and interesting to start with dropping a sickle or greatclub or scimitar something, and without any +X bonuses. Just a basic magical weapon (probably with some fun, non-offensive property) of a suboptimal weapon type. It makes the players think a lot harder about who to have use it and when it is worth using.

Then, once the players have gotten a few levels higher, like 7 or 8 or so, that is when I start providing weapons more specifically tailored to their playstyles. That's not to say they will never find one earlier, nor does it mean will always get one by that point. Its just the general area that I start considering it.

But, yeah, I generally like players having to go through a few levels where non-magic weapon resistance is not uncommon, without them being able to just outright ignore it. Simply giving out ideal magic weapons as soon as resistance comes up defeats the entire point of those resistances existing in the first place.

[Catullus64]

To be honest, I've started to lean away from the assumption of the core game, where magic-weapons for-the-sake-of-resistance-and-immunity is an important thing. Instead of monsters with blanket resistance or immunity to nonmagical weapons, I do specific physical damage resistances or immunities, magic or no. That way, having a magic weapon is nice because magic weapons do cool things, but you never need one just because it's magic.

This has a lot of benefits. Firstly, it frees me up to give out magic items at a slower pace without feeling like I'm somehow screwing up somebody's character. Secondly, when weapon-using characters have the option to buy or pick magic items, they're now more likely to pick a more unique and interesting items instead of a weapon. Thirdly (though less related to magic weapons) it helps differentiate the weapon damage types.

I've also started leaning away from magic weapons with flat to-hit and damage bonuses.

If I were still playing under the assumptions that lots of monsters are going to have nonmagical B/P/S resistance or immunity, I'd say it's reasonable for most weapon-using character to have a magical primary weapon by Level 5.

[Lunali]

I like to start giving out inconvenient magical weapons at about level 3. A moon-touched rapier for the sneaky rogue, a greatclub for the GWM fighter, a shortbow or hand crossbow for the archer (whichever doesn't match their preferences), etc. Whoever ends up last on the list to get their first weapon is the first one that gets a weapon that actually suits them well.

The more important thing is that until everyone has at least one attack that can hit immune creatures, I don't have them face immune creatures (unless it's a horror genre one shot). Resistant creatures can show up much earlier, but their resistances are taken into account.

[Jerrykhor]

Just to give you an idea, an official module like Lost Mines of Phandelver which is set for levels 1 to 5, has magic items appearing from as low as level 2. By level 4 the fighter can afford a full Plate. This is supposed to be the classic D&D experience.

[Sigreid]

It depends. Adventures I make usually start giving out small magic items pretty early, in the 1-3 range they may get an item that is mostly designed to remove something as a concern that I as DM don't want to deal with. A bag of holding, handy haversack, quiver of whatever, or something of that nature. What most adventurers think of as the real magic items will start dropping slowly sometime around 3-5. Still nothing earth shattering. Then they get things they either actively research and look for or that I feel like. Or sometimes I'll use a random loot table just for fun.

If it's a WoTC module? they practically fall from the sky like raindrops starting at level 1.

Sorry, with the exception of CoS, and the starter kit adventure I'm pretty salty about the modules I bought.

[chainer1216]

To be honest, I've started to lean away from the assumption of the core game, where magic-weapons for-the-sake-of-resistance-and-immunity is an important thing. Instead of monsters with blanket resistance or immunity to nonmagical weapons, I do specific physical damage resistances or immunities, magic or no. That way, having a magic weapon is nice because magic weapons do cool things, but you never need one just because it's magic.

This has a lot of benefits. Firstly, it frees me up to give out magic items at a slower pace without feeling like I'm somehow screwing up somebody's character. Secondly, when weapon-using characters have the option to buy or pick magic items, they're now more likely to pick a more unique an interesting item instead of a weapon. Thirdly (though less related to magic weapons) it helps differentiate the weapon damage types.

I've also started leaning away from magic weapons with flat to-hit and damage bonuses.

If I were still playing under the assumptions that lots of monsters are going to have nonmagical B/P/S resistance or immunity, I'd say it's reasonable for most weapon-using character to have a magical primary weapon by Level 5.

So you're putting more of a burden on martials by forcing them to spend resources on having multiple damage types(gold to have them, stats to use/carry them, and actions to switch them when needed.)

Have you similarly burdened spellcasters in some way?

[KorvinStarmast]

...an official module like Lost Mines of Phandelver which is set for levels 1 to 5, has magic items appearing from as low as level 2. By level 4 the fighter can afford a full Plate. This is supposed to be the classic D&D experience. Good example.

Sorry, with the exception of CoS, and the starter kit adventure I'm pretty salty about the modules I bought. I noticed that Ghosts of Saltmarsh has a healthy dribbling of magic items, but quite a few of them are consumables.

[Keravath]

Whatever works for your campaign is probably the best answer.

However, in terms of game "expectations" - druid and monk attacks are considered magical at level 6. A blade pact warlock has a magical weapon at level 3 and with the Improved Pact Weapon invocation it can be a +1.

The magic weapon spell is second level - available to a 3rd level caster. It creates a +1 weapon at level 3, a +2 weapon at level 7 and a +3 weapon at level 11. You could use this as a baseline for the minimum level to provide such weapons - add a level or two to keep this spell relevant for a while. As a result, +1 weapon at level 5, +2 at level 9 and +3 at level 13 could be possible as minimums.

Adventurers League makes it possible for any character to have a magic weapon by level 5 if they haven't found one in an adventure.

Published adventures will often have ONE magical weapon available to a party by level 2-3. However, most of these are not tailored to a specific party so the weapon may not be useful for specific characters though it is available. A +1 dagger for example can also be a fairly common magic item to find - it can be used by a wide range of classes proficient with simple weapons and other than being magical for the purposes of bypassing resistance/immunity - it only does the same damage on average as a d6 weapon so it doesn't unbalance anything (though it also isn't very interesting unless it has additional properties).

[Catullus64]

So you're putting more of a burden on martials by forcing them to spend resources on having multiple damage types(gold to have them, stats to use/carry them, and actions to switch them when needed.)

Have you similarly burdened spellcasters in some way?

Carrying a backup weapon doesn't really amount to a great burden in any of the ways you mentioned.

Gold? The most expensive weapon in the PHB is 75 GP, and even that isn't a remarkable expense after a while. Most combat-oriented classes will start with at least two weapons, often of different damage types.

Stats? There are two weapon-wielding stats in this game, and plenty of weapons to be used with both.

Carrying Capacity? Again, with a few outliers like Pikes or Heavy Crossbows, most weapons are only around 3-7 lbs. And a character carrying the heavier weapons is likely to have good Strength.

Actions? Dropping a weapon and drawing another falls under Interacting with the Environment, no action required.

As for the comparison with spellcasters, well, I do design encounters where certain spell damage types or conditions will be more or less useful; I think casters are therefore incentivized to have spells for diverse situations.

Even if you think these things constitute a burden, it's a burden that most players seem to instinctively impose on themselves; most players I've encountered will, without prompting, seek to carry a backup weapon.

[Unoriginal]

I don't consider there is a direct corellation between levels and getting magic weapons.

As one gets more powerful, they get more chances to acquire powerful weapons, be it by going where such items can be found and claimed, by facing enemies using said weapons, or by attracting the attention of people willing to gift or exchange them, sure, but it's not "at X level you have Y ammount of magic weapon".

Of course an adventurer who regularly faces opponents immune to non-magical weapons will likely dedicate some time/effort/money to get one, but as mentioned above in the thread it could be a Common magic weapon that isn't that difficult to find or acquire.

[Sigreid]

Good example.
I noticed that Ghosts of Saltmarsh has a healthy dribbling of magic items, but quite a few of them are consumables.

Oh, I'm less salty about the magic items than I am about the way they are written. I just find them railroady ridiculous and unfun to DM.

[chainer1216]

Carrying a backup weapon doesn't really amount to a great burden in any of the ways you mentioned.

Gold? The most expensive weapon in the PHB is 75 GP, and even that isn't a remarkable expense after a while. Most combat-oriented classes will start with at least two weapons, often of different damage types.

Stats? There are two weapon-wielding stats in this game, and plenty of weapons to be used with both.

Carrying Capacity? Again, with a few outliers like Pikes or Heavy Crossbows, most weapons are only around 3-7 lbs. And a character carrying the heavier weapons is likely to have good Strength.

Actions? Dropping a weapon and drawing another falls under Interacting with the Environment, no action required.

As for the comparison with spellcasters, well, I do design encounters where certain spell damage types or conditions will be more or less useful; I think casters are therefore incentivized to have spells for diverse situations.

Even if you think these things constitute a burden, it's a burden that most players seem to instinctively impose on themselves; most players I've encountered will, without prompting, seek to carry a backup weapon.

Thats a lot of words to say "no".

[KorvinStarmast]

... the way they are written. I just find them railroady ridiculous and unfun to DM. Yeah, kind of clunky. The way Danger at Dunwater was put together didn't make sense: a bunch of strangers show up in your home lair and all of a sudden are given free reign to go and talk with anyone and everyone. I liked the idea behind "negotiate rather than fight" and the incentives for it, but its implementation was clunky.
And amen to a bit of 'railroad' but I think that's a carryover for "make this easy for newbies to play and to DM" - new players and new DM's do in many cases benefit from being closer to the railroad half of the spectrum than the sandbox half.

But most experienced DMs I know who were running Hoard of the Dragon Queen were less than pleased with it since it was the first adventure beyond the starter set LMOP (which is pretty good) a lot of new DMs ran.

[MaxWilson]

I'm in the camp that believes that failing to hand out anything but the most basic of magical weapons skews things against martial classes, which are better positioned to benefit from weapons by a wide margin. For an extreme example, imagine a strength fighter who's level 8 but you've still never gotten enough loot to get a full set of plate.

Now imagine a Fighter 8 who's never gotten his hands on a full set of plate and is still wearing chainmail, but who has inherited a Bag of Tricks and an intelligence network of faerie spies and smugglers. Is he being treated unfairly? IMO no.

[Keravath]

One thing to consider when looking at magic items in modules is that the OLD ones have far more than the newer ones.

If you look at the adventures in Tales from the Yawning Portal, most of the adventures, especially the older ones are laden with magic items. Similarly, some of the adventures from Ghosts of Saltmarsh (another compendium of mostly older adventures) contain a lot of magic items. GoS even has a magic item shop where a wide range of items can be purchased. Curse of Strahd is another great example with a large number of magic items.

On the other hand, Tomb of Annihilation, Dungeon of the Mad Mage, Rime of the Frost Maiden all appear to have far fewer magic items than these other adventures. Dragon of Icespire Peak is also relatively sparse. For example ToA has almost no magic weapons of any kind.

[Unoriginal]

Now imagine a Fighter 8 who's never gotten his hands on a full set of plate and is still wearing chainmail, but who has inherited a Bag of Tricks and an intelligence network of faerie spies and smugglers. Is he being treated unfairly? IMO no.

Sounds like a great character.


One thing to consider when looking at magic items in modules is that the OLD ones have far more than the newer ones.

If you look at the adventures in Tales from the Yawning Portal, most of the adventures, especially the older ones are laden with magic items. Similarly, some of the adventures from Ghosts of Saltmarsh (another compendium of mostly older adventures) contain a lot of magic items. GoS even has a magic item shop where a wide range of items can be purchased. Curse of Strahd is another great example with a large number of magic items.

On the other hand, Tomb of Annihilation, Dungeon of the Mad Mage, Rime of the Frost Maiden all appear to have far fewer magic items than these other adventures. Dragon of Icespire Peak is also relatively sparse. For example ToA has almost no magic weapons of any kind.

Yeah, most of the TftYP and GoS scenarios were written for previous editions, and the adaptation process didn't necessarily diminish the magic item quantity.

Although it is possible to buy magic items in ToA. Also in DotMM, if you go back to Waterdeep.

[Lunali]

Carrying a backup weapon doesn't really amount to a great burden in any of the ways you mentioned.

Gold? The most expensive weapon in the PHB is 75 GP, and even that isn't a remarkable expense after a while. Most combat-oriented classes will start with at least two weapons, often of different damage types.

Stats? There are two weapon-wielding stats in this game, and plenty of weapons to be used with both.

Carrying Capacity? Again, with a few outliers like Pikes or Heavy Crossbows, most weapons are only around 3-7 lbs. And a character carrying the heavier weapons is likely to have good Strength.

Actions? Dropping a weapon and drawing another falls under Interacting with the Environment, no action required.

As for the comparison with spellcasters, well, I do design encounters where certain spell damage types or conditions will be more or less useful; I think casters are therefore incentivized to have spells for diverse situations.

Even if you think these things constitute a burden, it's a burden that most players seem to instinctively impose on themselves; most players I've encountered will, without prompting, seek to carry a backup weapon.

Most players instinctively impose the burden on themselves because they know that some DMs impose that burden and they don't want to be caught unprepared. If the players felt they could trust that their weapons would never break or be less effective than similar weapons, you'll end up with players picking the 1-3 weapons that fit their aesthetic.

[Catullus64]

Most players instinctively impose the burden on themselves because they know that some DMs impose that burden and they don't want to be caught unprepared. If the players felt they could trust that their weapons would never break or be less effective than similar weapons, you'll end up with players picking the 1-3 weapons that fit their aesthetic.

I suppose there are plenty of players who just want their weapon to be a part of their character concept, without the damage of the weapon they picked ever coming back to bite them. But if thet's really the case, and you're bothered by the notion that your preferred weapon might be rendered ineffective in some situations, then the whole notion of damage resistances (and indeed, weapon statistics) itself cuts against you, and you'd be better served scrapping it.

That's why I feel that reliance on "Resistance/Immunity to nonmagical bludgeoning/piercing/slashing" is one of the weaker aspects of 5e creature design. It seems geared so that players who don't find damage-type management to be fun never really have to engage with it, so long as they can get hold of a magic weapon. But if that's the gameplay experience you're looking to service, why have the damage resistances and immunity system in the first place?

[Chronos]

The developers have said again and again that the game was designed without the expectation that the characters would ever get magic weapons. And every time they've said that, it's been a lie. The game is absolutely designed with the expectation that the party will eventually get magic weapons. As an example, look in the DMG section on determining CRs for new monsters: At low levels, immunity or resistance to non-magical weapons results in a big increase in CR, but at high levels, it makes no difference at all. Why? Because they expected that high-level weapon-users would always be using magic weapons anyway.

That said, it's not a binary question of "have magic weapons" vs. "doesn't have magic weapons". From an old post of mine, so I don't have to re-remember it:

It's not just a dichotomy of weapons being effective or ineffective. The party might have weapons that work, but are still suboptimal. To illustrate, with the arcane trickster I played from level 1 to 14 (who ordinarily used a bow): The first magic weapon we found was a greataxe, around level 2, which naturally went to the barbarian. Next was a rapier, at around level 4, which my rogue could have used, but the (dex-based) paladin needed it more. Shortly after that, my rogue got a magic staff, which he was mostly interested in for the spells it cast, but it could also be used as a weapon... but since it's not a finesse weapon, he'd be using his low strength instead of his high dex, and wouldn't be sneak attacking. Then there was an oathbow, which my character would have loved, but since it was a longbow, not a shortbow, he wouldn't be proficient, so the paladin got that, too. Somewhere in there, the party got a mace of disruption (which would be a natural fit for the war cleric, except by this time, he was almost always casting spells anyway) and a tentacle rod (which nobody was particularly interested in). Finally, at level 11, we found a sun sword... which also went to the paladin, but enabled him to hand down the rapier to me, and so I had a finesse magic weapon. And at 14, we found a magic shortbow, so now he had a magic ranged weapon, too.

In other words, there was a span of 12 levels between when we started getting magic weapons, and when all of the weapon-users got the magic weapons they wanted.

[stoutstien]

The developers have said again and again that the game was designed without the expectation that the characters would ever get magic weapons. And every time they've said that, it's been a lie. The game is absolutely designed with the expectation that the party will eventually get magic weapons. As an example, look in the DMG section on determining CRs for new monsters: At low levels, immunity or resistance to non-magical weapons results in a big increase in CR, but at high levels, it makes no difference at all. Why? Because they expected that high-level weapon-users would always be using magic weapons anyway.

That said, it's not a binary question of "have magic weapons" vs. "doesn't have magic weapons". From an old post of mine, so I don't have to re-remember it:

To be fair the designers under shot the power of average PCs by like 30% per tier and CR breaks down as anything more than a rough estimate when placed under any real examination. I don't disagree with you but they don't even have the steps to make your own NPC using the CR system in order in the DMG.

[MaxWilson]

The developers have said again and again that the game was designed without the expectation that the characters would ever get magic weapons. And every time they've said that, it's been a lie. The game is absolutely designed with the expectation that the party will eventually get magic weapons. As an example, look in the DMG section on determining CRs for new monsters: At low levels, immunity or resistance to non-magical weapons results in a big increase in CR, but at high levels, it makes no difference at all. Why? Because they expected that high-level weapon-users would always be using magic weapons anyway.

...which doesn't require finding magic weapons. It can come from class features (Shepherd 6, Monk 6, Moon Druid 6, Arcane Archer 7, Forge Cleric 1) or spells (Magic Weapon, Holy Weapon, Elemental Weapon).

Flying is another feature which stops impacting CR at high CR, but surely you don't think that the devs expect every party to find Boots of Flying?

No, the responsibility is on the PCs to have either (1) found some solution for flying enemies by Tier 3, or (2) gotten good enough at killing non-flying enemies to balance out the occasional difficulty with flying ones.

[Catullus64]

Anyone else think that the binary of "magic weapons" for the purposes of bypassing resistance and immunity is kind of lame on a thematic level? Like they're missing out on the possibility to really lean into cool fantasy tropes of invulnerability and weaknesses. To cite some of the most widely known examples:

Mythology: Loki's dart doesn't succeed in killing Baldr because it was "magic", but because he found the one material, mistletoe, that Freya didn't make swear an oath not to harm him.

Fantasy Literature: Merry's barrow-blade doesn't succeed in wounding the Witch King because it's "magic", but because it's "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor."

In D&D, by contrast, the same sword will cut through the unnatural resilience of werewolves, devils, ghosts, wizards with Stoneskin, all because it's got the generic juice called "magic." This is part of a larger thematic gripe I have with D&D's implicit worldbuilding, where magic is treated as a kind of vague stuff that things either have or don't; this is just a rather glaring example.

The more interesting approach is suggested by things like resistance being bypassed by silver or adamantine or what have you, but all those instances wuss out and say "or just do it with magic weapons. Whatever."

[strangebloke]

Now imagine a Fighter 8 who's never gotten his hands on a full set of plate and is still wearing chainmail, but who has inherited a Bag of Tricks and an intelligence network of faerie spies and smugglers. Is he being treated unfairly? IMO no.

Honestly? Yeah sorta. One of the main reasons to build a strength-based fighter is to have good AC. Sure those items you listed are cool and could make for a fun game, but I don't think there's anything good about denying basic gear to your party.

[MaxWilson]

Anyone else think that the binary of "magic weapons" for the purposes of bypassing resistance and immunity is kind of lame on a thematic level? Like they're missing out on the possibility to really lean into cool fantasy tropes of invulnerability and weaknesses. To cite some of the most widely known examples:

Mythology: Loki's dart doesn't succeed in killing Baldr because it was "magic", but because he found the one material, mistletoe, that Freya didn't make swear an oath not to harm him.

Fantasy Literature: Merry's barrow-blade doesn't succeed in wounding the Witch King because it's "magic", but because it's "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor."

In D&D, by contrast, the same sword will cut through the unnatural resilience of werewolves, devils, ghosts, wizards with Stoneskin, all because it's got the generic juice called "magic." This is part of a larger thematic gripe I have with D&D's implicit worldbuilding, where magic is treated as a kind of vague stuff that things either have or don't; this is just a rather glaring example.

The more interesting approach is suggested by things like resistance being bypassed by silver or adamantine or what have you, but all those instances wuss out and say "or just do it with magic weapons. Whatever."

Yes, absolutely. These are great examples. In addition it bugs me that the lamest common Moon Touched Blade is as effective at damaging Tiamat as a Holy Avenger.

My workaround on this point tends to be monsters who regenerate, but not when damaged by special weapons (e.g. silver for werewolves, iron for faeries, wood for vampires). It's not a very satisfactory workaround sometimes, but I feel doing more would break the 5E idiom. Obviously when I play AD&D I'm a lot more liberal with unusual immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities, because in AD&D it's expected, but 5E likes to keep things binary.

[Boci]

So, are monsters with magic resistance weaker if the party has full magic damage? How is it factored into their challenge? Say at, 5, 10 and 15, if a monster has resistance to non-magic weapons, is the CR 10 monster on the weak side of 10 if the party has all magic damage, or is it average then and on the strong side if the party martials without magic weapons? Is there a general trend, or does it vary from monster to monster and just generally can be filed in the "Challenge is an approximation not a science" department?

[Amnestic]

...which doesn't require finding magic weapons. It can come from class features (Shepherd 6, Monk 6, Moon Druid 6, Arcane Archer 7, Forge Cleric 1) or spells (Magic Weapon, Holy Weapon, Elemental Weapon).

Flying is another feature which stops impacting CR at high CR, but surely you don't think that the devs expect every party to find Boots of Flying?

No, the responsibility is on the PCs to have either (1) found some solution for flying enemies by Tier 3, or (2) gotten good enough at killing non-flying enemies to balance out the occasional difficulty with flying ones.

"Why don't the martials take responsibility and beg the spellcasters to allow them to perform in their core duty?" Aight sure.

[strangebloke]

"Why don't the martials take responsibility and beg the spellcasters to allow them to perform in their core duty?" Aight sure.

TBF to maxwilson, IIRC he does also run with lots of completely magic-immune monsters.

[stoutstien]

"Why don't the martials take responsibility and beg the spellcasters to allow them to perform in their core duty?" Aight sure.

If they are reliant on the DM handing out magical item X or another party members to cover down then they never had the ability to perform in that regard to begin with. Does that mean some classes are actively bad at there conceptual goal.yea but that has nothing to do with magical weapon distribution.

[Trask]

Anyone else think that the binary of "magic weapons" for the purposes of bypassing resistance and immunity is kind of lame on a thematic level? Like they're missing out on the possibility to really lean into cool fantasy tropes of invulnerability and weaknesses. To cite some of the most widely known examples:

Mythology: Loki's dart doesn't succeed in killing Baldr because it was "magic", but because he found the one material, mistletoe, that Freya didn't make swear an oath not to harm him.

Fantasy Literature: Merry's barrow-blade doesn't succeed in wounding the Witch King because it's "magic", but because it's "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor."

In D&D, by contrast, the same sword will cut through the unnatural resilience of werewolves, devils, ghosts, wizards with Stoneskin, all because it's got the generic juice called "magic." This is part of a larger thematic gripe I have with D&D's implicit worldbuilding, where magic is treated as a kind of vague stuff that things either have or don't; this is just a rather glaring example.

The more interesting approach is suggested by things like resistance being bypassed by silver or adamantine or what have you, but all those instances wuss out and say "or just do it with magic weapons. Whatever."

Good point. This is something to think about.

[Boci]

If they are reliant on the DM handing out magical item X or another party members to cover down then they never had the ability to perform in that regard to begin with. Does that mean some classes are actively bad at there conceptual goal.yea but that has nothing to do with magical weapon distribution.

One big difference is relying on the DM's kindness once, at no real cost to them, vs. relying on the caster buddy in every fight it comes up, at a cost to them in spell slots and actions.

[Eric Diaz]

Just a quick question. What level is it appropriate to start giving magic weapon and by what level (if any) is it a must for everyone to have one. Note damage resistant creatures (werewolf and the like) are common.

Well, werewolves (CR3) are immune to nonmagic weapons. So you're either giving everyone that fights using weapons some magic weapon at level 3, or they must get silver weapons. You also have the 2nd-level magic weapon spell. So, it depends on which other resources the PCs have at hand.

But I think level 3 is a good start.

OTOH monks get theirs on level 6...

[PhoenixPhyre]

One complicating factor in this is that non-magical BPS resistance is irregularly distributed across the monster spectrum.

For example, if most of your game involves beasts, humanoids, monstrosities, giants, and/or dragons (not improbable), then it will basically never come up. 0% of beasts/dragons and ~5% of humanoids/giants/monstrosities have a BPS resistance or immunity (basically were creatures). But facing mostly fiends...ouch.

The breakdown is as follows by creature type:



Type
Immune %
Resistant %


Aberration
0
14


Beast
0
0


Celestial
25
38


Construct
17
7


Dragon
0
0


Elemental
0
58


Fey
0
18


Fiend
11
67


Giant
4
7


Humanoid
4
5


Monstrosity
4
6


Ooze
13
38


Plant
0
0


Undead
9
51



Note: This includes things like "resistant except to non-silvered non-magical attacks", etc; it's just counting "has at least one listed resistance or immunity to one of B, P, or S. Having a silvered weapon (which is only 100 gp) defeats something like half of those, especially for fiends and undead and the few immune humanoids. Adamantine weapons are needed for those pesky constructs.

So you could run a 1-20 campaign where it was only relevant a few times. Or you could run a 1-10 campaign where it was needed from level 1.

[Eric Diaz]

There is another part of regeneration, BTW, that doesn't require gaining HP:

Regeneration: The troll regains 10 hit points at the start of its turn. If the troll takes acid or fire damage, this trait doesn’t function at the start of the troll’s next turn. The troll dies only if it starts its turn with 0 hit points and doesn’t regenerate.
Actions

Might be a decent idea to use that more often. So the werewolf can, if fact, be stomped to (near) death by a Tarrasque, but it will regenerate (instead of being unscathed).

[stoutstien]

One big difference is relying on the DM's kindness once, at no real cost to them, vs. relying on the caster buddy in every fight it comes up, at a cost to them in spell slots and actions.

I think considering it kindness is a red herring. A DM could could use a randomized table to generate treasure and sometimes RNG doesn't favor the party or Maybe they placed lots of magical weapon in the game but the party failed to stumble across them or actively avoided the risks necessary to obtain them. They could just not like what they do to the math so they don't include them. None of those are unkind actions.

[Boci]

I think considering it kindness is a red herring. A DM could could use a randomized table to generate treasure and sometimes RNG doesn't favor the party or Maybe they placed lots of magical weapon in the game but the party failed to stumble across them or actively avoided the risks necessary to obtain them. They could just not like what they do to the math so they don't include them. None of those are unkind actions.

That's another difference, its not neccissarily a kindness from a DM, but it typically is a kindness to get a spell from a party member.

[MaxWilson]

"Why don't the martials take responsibility and beg the spellcasters to allow them to perform in their core duty?" Aight sure.

Playing Monk 6+, Arcane Archer 7+, Eldritch Knight 7+, and dipping in Forge Cleric 1 or Artificer 2 are all solutions that don't rely on other people.

At the same time, 5E is (normally played as) a game of teamwork, so if you'd rather play a Battlemaster who (when fighting those relatively few weapon-resistant monsters, as outlined above by PhoenixPhyre) cooperates with an Artificer or a War Cleric or something to do weapon damage even higher than an Arcane Archer, go ahead.

Spellcasters are likewise sometimes reliant on warriors to do the killing, against monsters like Rakshasas and Astral Dreadnoughts and TSR-style golems.


That's another difference, its not neccissarily a kindness from a DM, but it typically is a kindness to get a spell from a party member.

IMO that's not a kindness, it's a tactical choice. If the monster can be defeated more cheaply with a Magic Weapon spell to bring the Battlemaster's damage dealing into the fight, go ahead and cast Magic Weapon. If it's just a single werewolf or something, maybe don't use any spell slots at all, just cantrip the thing to death while the Battlemaster keeps the thing tangled up in nets or grappled. Doing damage isn't the only way to contribute to a fight, but in any given fight the party should know who it expects to be the damage dealers.

[Pex]

Personal opinion the warrior should have a magic weapon they want to use by level 5, accepting it is part of the treasure hoard earned at level 4 in the adventure where they got the XP to become level 5.

Want to use is key. If the great weapon master great axe barbarian doesn't get a magical great axe by level 5, it's not a tragedy. If he has a magical long bow +1 that helps compensate his weakened range attacks for when he needs it that's cool but not necessary. However, at some level greater than 5 if the player never gets a magical great axe but the party has some combination of magical short swords, rapiers, long swords, short bows, and daggers, he's quite right to be ticked off. It doesn't have to be any specific magical great axe, but he should have something and it does significantly more than just being a +0 great axe that provides a continuous puff of wind that makes the wielder's hair flow.

It has nothing to do with balance or fairness or campaign Plot. It has everything to do with the player having fun playing, and that's the most important thing.

[Tanarii]

I calculated rough odds here, as part of a discussion on PAM and getting Magic weapons:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23352716&postcount=92

Using the DMG, the chance that a party will hit 5th level and have found 0 magic weapons is 57.7%.

And note there's a decent chance (~10% each) that if you found one it will be a javelin of lighting or trident of fish command.

Using the DMG, there is a 13.3% chance that a party will hit level 11 and have found 0 magic weapons. (Edit2: that's 13.3% from start of level 5 through end of level 10.)

That means approximately 1 in 20 tables running a campaign using the DMG guidelines for a single party might expect not to find any magic weapons by level 11. That's a non-trivial number.

[Eric Diaz]

Personal opinion the warrior should have a magic weapon they want to use by level 5, accepting it is part of the treasure hoard earned at level 4 in the adventure where they got the XP to become level 5.

Want to use is key. If the great weapon master great axe barbarian doesn't get a magical great axe by level 5, it's not a tragedy. If he has a magical long bow +1 that helps compensate his weakened range attacks for when he needs it that's cool but not necessary. However, at some level greater than 5 if the player never gets a magical great axe but the party has some combination of magical short swords, rapiers, long swords, short bows, and daggers, he's quite right to be ticked off. It doesn't have to be any specific magical great axe, but he should have something and it does significantly more than just being a +0 great axe that provides a continuous puff of wind that makes the wielder's hair flow.

It has nothing to do with balance or fairness or campaign Plot. It has everything to do with the player having fun playing, and that's the most important thing.

I've been on both sides of this coin... and I agree.

It sucks to get a +1 sword when you are build around PAM and Sentinel. So, the DM just let me pay a blacksmith to turn it into a +1 polearm, and it was very cool.

When running CoS by the book, I've notice that the party's thief became useless for a while; there was no magic weapon with finesse available (the party was carrying two magic axes, one form a previous adventure, a magic spear and a magical sword - which, to be fair, could have been used but it was left with the fighter who could attack with it multiple times). I eventually gave him a magical rapier in exchange of something else.

I usually run OSR games where they PCs have to deal with the cards they are dealt - but 5e uses feats, and builds, etc., so it feels unfair to make an existing character unable to use the features he or she chooses.

(assuming these kinds of foes are common, obviously, which was the case in CoS IIRC)

[Boci]

IMO that's not a kindness, it's a tactical choice. If the monster can be defeated more cheaply with a Magic Weapon spell to bring the Battlemaster's damage dealing into the fight, go ahead and cast Magic Weapon. If it's just a single werewolf or something, maybe don't use any spell slots at all, just cantrip the thing to death while the Battlemaster keeps the thing tangled up in nets or grappled. Doing damage isn't the only way to contribute to a fight, but in any given fight the party should know who it expects to be the damage dealers.

D&D isn't a tactical combat simulator though, its a roleplaying game. Whilst what makes tactical sense can influence some decisions made, it won't be the sole considerations. Between not learning the spell, because your character concept has them valuing other spells far more highly, not preparing / casting the spell because you like the other ones you have more, "just rely on your caster buddy" can be a very bad solution to a mechanical obstacle, depending on the specifics of the group and characters.

[strangebloke]

D&D isn't a tactical combat simulator though, its a roleplaying game. Whilst what makes tactical sense can influence some decisions made, it won't be the sole considerations. Between not learning the spell, because your character concept has them valuing other spells far more highly, not preparing / casting the spell because you like the other ones you have more, "just rely on your caster buddy" can be a very bad solution to a mechanical obstacle, depending on the specifics of the group and characters.

I think you're missing his point. He plays with regeneration in place of non-magic resistance, with the regeneration being keyed to deactivate in the presence of something like fire/silver/iron. This means that only one person in the party actually needs the correct counter. He then also plays with monsters who are outright magic-immune (TSR golems) which forces casters to rely on martials.

Personally I don't 100% favor it, as I think non-magic-immune monsters are interesting (for one thing they're a solution to the 1000 commoner army) but there's no way to argue that Max's position is less favorable to martials.

[Boci]

I think you're missing his point. He plays with regeneration in place of non-magic resistance,

When he's DM yes, but he also plays regular D&D, and offers similar advice against non-magic weapon immune enemies from the perspective of a player, so I don't think the scope of his comment was limited only to games using his own houserules.

[Ionathus]

My typical rough estimates for weapons above baseline:

Silvered: partway through Tier I, if at all. When players at Level 3 ask "how can I do more damage to the Ghost/Demon/whatever?", this is the thing that's available in the starting town. They also might breeze past this step.
Minor Benefit Weapons: end of Tier I. Weapons that can overcome resistance & immunity, weapons that let you cast a spell 1x/day, weapons with an added effect, etc.
+1 Weapons: Start of Tier II. These should feel like a big deal, IMO. A permanent flat plus is a big improvement in 5e and so I will make them wait until 6ish level.
Extra Damage/Action Economy: End of Tier II. Say, giving the players an extra 1dX of fire damage, or letting them attack/move/impose effects as a bonus action. They just generally start getting more bang for their buck from every turn.

That's the current list of how both of my campaigns have broken down. I think that I'm generally slower than most to hand out uncommon-tier magic weapons, making the early game a little stingy, but I lose that restraint quickly and become faster to hand out very rare- or legendary-tier ones at higher levels.


Anyone else think that the binary of "magic weapons" for the purposes of bypassing resistance and immunity is kind of lame on a thematic level? Like they're missing out on the possibility to really lean into cool fantasy tropes of invulnerability and weaknesses. To cite some of the most widely known examples:

Mythology: Loki's dart doesn't succeed in killing Baldr because it was "magic", but because he found the one material, mistletoe, that Freya didn't make swear an oath not to harm him.

Fantasy Literature: Merry's barrow-blade doesn't succeed in wounding the Witch King because it's "magic", but because it's "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor."

In D&D, by contrast, the same sword will cut through the unnatural resilience of werewolves, devils, ghosts, wizards with Stoneskin, all because it's got the generic juice called "magic." This is part of a larger thematic gripe I have with D&D's implicit worldbuilding, where magic is treated as a kind of vague stuff that things either have or don't; this is just a rather glaring example.

The more interesting approach is suggested by things like resistance being bypassed by silver or adamantine or what have you, but all those instances wuss out and say "or just do it with magic weapons. Whatever."

I can see that being interesting for players who want that level of Pokemon-style rock-paper-scissors. I would play that kind of campaign because I like having to scrounge about for keys and vulnerabilities, but the people who play in my own campaigns probably wouldn't. Especially for 5e, there are several statements from the designers saying that they often went with resistance instead of immunity for a lot of monsters (especially lower CR ones) because they didn't want to create encounters where there was only a single "right" answer. They wanted you to be able to use whatever attack or playstyle sounded fun for you, and making the "wrong" damage types be merely suboptimal, rather than entirely useless, helped with that.

[MaxWilson]

I calculated rough odds here, as part of a discussion on PAM and getting Magic weapons:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23352716&postcount=92

Using the DMG, the chance that a party will hit 5th level and have found 0 magic weapons is 57.7%.

And note there's a decent chance (~10% each) that if you found one it will be a javelin of lighting or trident of fish command.

Using the DMG, there is a 13.3% chance that a party will hit level 11 and have found 0 magic weapons. (Edit2: that's 13.3% from start of level 5 through end of level 10.)

That means approximately 1 in 20 tables running a campaign using the DMG guidelines for a single party might expect not to find any magic weapons by level 11. That's a non-trivial number.

The odds are even worse if players advance quickly by fighting high-CR monsters, especially if those monsters don't have hoards or the players fail to find those hoards.

Even when you do find something it may well be something like a Staff of Striking or a War Pick +1. If you're highly invested in a specific type of weapon, like halberds or hand crossbows, you will likely need to take proactive measures, which might include talking to your DM about their magical item creation rules, or seeking out information from sages about specific legendary lost artifacts.



My workaround on this point tends to be monsters who regenerate, but not when damaged by special weapons (e.g. silver for werewolves, iron for faeries, wood for vampires). It's not a very satisfactory workaround sometimes, but I feel doing more would break the 5E idiom. Obviously when I play AD&D I'm a lot more liberal with unusual immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities, because in AD&D it's expected, but 5E likes to keep things binary.


I think you're missing his point. He plays with regeneration in place of non-magic resistance, with the regeneration being keyed to deactivate in the presence of something like fire/silver/iron. This means that only one person in the party actually needs the correct counter. He then also plays with monsters who are outright magic-immune (TSR golems) which forces casters to rely on martials.

Personally I don't 100% favor it, as I think non-magic-immune monsters are interesting (for one thing they're a solution to the 1000 commoner army) but there's no way to argue that Max's position is less favorable to martials.

Nitpick: I seem to have given the wrong impression here. I like regeneration better than immunities, but (1) for stuff like werewolves, trolls, faeries, etc., it reduces max HP rather than suppressing regeneration, so it's not correct that only one person needs the correct counter (although one person with Chill Touch can be quite handy against a small number of monsters), and (2) the majority of the monsters I run are straight MM monsters. I.e. my favorite workaround for annoyingly binary immunities only gets used on a minority of monsters, unfortunately. The ones I can't stand not modifying.

Sorry for the confusion.


When he's DM yes, but he also plays regular D&D, and offers similar advice against non-magic weapon immune enemies from the perspective of a player, so I don't think the scope of his comment was limited only to games using his own houserules.

I DM way more than I play, unfortunately (I enjoy playing but I hate playing with RAW initiative), but you are correct: my advice was intended for players at a generic table using R (approximately) AW. Sometimes I forget that my houserules are houserules and give advice that relies on them (e.g. assuming that Necro 9 is a huge power spike over Necro 8 because of increased efficiency of Animate Dead, because I'm forgetting that not everyone uses DMG spellpoints) but I try not to.

In this specific case, if I were playing a public game as a warrior, I would typically play a PC with magic weapons built in, but if I did some reason were playing e.g. a pure Purple Dragon Knight 6 with nonmagical longsword and shield, then when the party encounters a Vrock demon I'm going to prioritize neutralizing its movement (grapple, for other people to kill) over whacking it with my sword. The opportunity cost of grappling just got cut in half!

[Boci]

Anyone else think that the binary of "magic weapons" for the purposes of bypassing resistance and immunity is kind of lame on a thematic level? Like they're missing out on the possibility to really lean into cool fantasy tropes of invulnerability and weaknesses. To cite some of the most widely known examples:

Mythology: Loki's dart doesn't succeed in killing Baldr because it was "magic", but because he found the one material, mistletoe, that Freya didn't make swear an oath not to harm him.

Fantasy Literature: Merry's barrow-blade doesn't succeed in wounding the Witch King because it's "magic", but because it's "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor."

In D&D, by contrast, the same sword will cut through the unnatural resilience of werewolves, devils, ghosts, wizards with Stoneskin, all because it's got the generic juice called "magic." This is part of a larger thematic gripe I have with D&D's implicit worldbuilding, where magic is treated as a kind of vague stuff that things either have or don't; this is just a rather glaring example.

The more interesting approach is suggested by things like resistance being bypassed by silver or adamantine or what have you, but all those instances wuss out and say "or just do it with magic weapons. Whatever."

The problem with the two examples is you'd have to rework the magic system too, otherwise it would be less "Oh gods, we must find a weapon forge of X" and more "Well, the martial characters won't be doing much damage this encounter..."

Though an obvious work around is to not use damage immunity, and rather have them always return from the dead unless they are killed by a weapon forged of X.

On the subject "X material or bust", it might be a good idea to not just have it be weapon, so it becomes less "Okay, we have coppers forged in the absence of fire to take out the guards, then we'll switch to silver for the werebear inside and then finally we'll use blade forged before elf set foot on this island to kill the undead..."

And instead can be "Okay, we have coppers forged in the absence of fire to take out the guards, then we'll face the rune etched golems, rogue remember to crack the stick of the tree struck by lightning etched with the revered runes or we'll never defeat them, and then we'll face the undead mage, make sure everyone has a jade charm or there is a good chance she will straight up kill you with her aura,"


In this specific case, if I were playing a public game as a warrior, I would typically play a PC with magic weapons built in, but if I did some reason were playing e.g. a pure Purple Dragon Knight 6 with nonmagical longsword and shield, then when the party encounters a Vrock demon I'm going to prioritize neutralizing its movement (grapple, for other people to kill) over whacking it with my sword. The opportunity cost of grappling just got cut in half!

That's solid advice and I feel its fair that a player who has made a character that has no ability to innately magicify their weapon is sort of signing up for that to matter at least a few times. On the other hand, its also about frequency, a few fights every once in a while should be fine, but if a DM isn't going to make sure they have a magical weapon, they should bear that in mind when looking up potential threats for the party. Though as always, clear communication of expectations from both player and DM is key.

[MaxWilson]

The problem with the two examples is you'd have to rework the magic system too, otherwise it would be less "Oh gods, we must find a weapon forge of X" and more "Well, the martial characters won't be doing much damage this encounter..."

You don't have to rework the magic system, just the monster stats, which you're doing anyway by messing with immunities and resistances.

Just look at a TSR-era golem to get the idea. Iron Golem: immune to basically everything except +3 weapons and monsters with at least 8+3 HD. That includes immunity to spells, and that's one reason why high-level TSR wizards still need Fighters around, or some equivalent. (Animated undead or conjured animals can substitute to a certain extent but it's simpler just to have a Fighter buddy.)

[Boci]

You don't have to rework the magic system, just the monster stats, which you're doing anyway by messing with immunities and resistances.

Just look at a TSR-era golem to get the idea. Iron Golem: immune to basically everything except +3 weapons and monsters with at least 8+3 HD. That includes immunity to spells, and that's one reason why high-level TSR wizards still need Fighters around, or some equivalent. (Animated undead or conjured animals can substitute to a certain extent but it's simpler just to have a Fighter buddy.)

"Making a bunch of enemies immune to most/all spells" counts as "reworking the magic system" in my book.

[MaxWilson]

"Making a bunch of enemies immune to most/all spells" counts as "reworking the magic system" in my book.

Oh, I didn't realize we were talking about "a bunch of enemies," only a handful of examples.


That's solid advice and I feel its fair that a player who has made a character that has no ability to innately magicify their weapon is sort of signing up for that to matter at least a few times. On the other hand, its also about frequency, a few fights every once in a while should be fine, but if a DM isn't going to make sure they have a magical weapon, they should bear that in mind when looking up potential threats for the party. Though as always, clear communication of expectations from both player and DM is key.

I agree, and I think 5E does a good job even by default of keeping weapon resistances / immunity from being ubiquitous, as PhoenixPhyre's table shows. A high-level party can fight a lich (nonmagical weapon immunity), a dragon (no resistances or immunities), a bunch of Chasme demons (no resistances or immunity), a Beholder (no immunity), some Star Spawns (Manglers and Grues have nothing, Seers/Hulks/Larval Mages have resistance), and/or a dozen Fire Giants (no immunity). All of these are good threats for high-level parties.

[stoutstien]

One thing I've used in the past is adding in consumables that allow for a single attack to be considered magical,silvered, and so on. Could get a similar effect with items already in the game like holy water, acid(might lose the weapon in the process but when the occasion calls for it..), or alchemist fire. It's the same vien of a monk punching a silver coin into the skull of a werewolf.

[heavyfuel]

Anyone else think that the binary of "magic weapons" for the purposes of bypassing resistance and immunity is kind of lame on a thematic level? Like they're missing out on the possibility to really lean into cool fantasy tropes of invulnerability and weaknesses. To cite some of the most widely known examples:

Mythology: Loki's dart doesn't succeed in killing Baldr because it was "magic", but because he found the one material, mistletoe, that Freya didn't make swear an oath not to harm him.

Fantasy Literature: Merry's barrow-blade doesn't succeed in wounding the Witch King because it's "magic", but because it's "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor."

In D&D, by contrast, the same sword will cut through the unnatural resilience of werewolves, devils, ghosts, wizards with Stoneskin, all because it's got the generic juice called "magic." This is part of a larger thematic gripe I have with D&D's implicit worldbuilding, where magic is treated as a kind of vague stuff that things either have or don't; this is just a rather glaring example.

The more interesting approach is suggested by things like resistance being bypassed by silver or adamantine or what have you, but all those instances wuss out and say "or just do it with magic weapons. Whatever."

Works great in non-interactive fiction, but sucks in game.

3.0 tried it and I cannot stress enough how unbelievably AWFUL it was for martials. Needed to kill a Demon? Better have a silver weapon. A Devil? Well, now you better have a Cold Iron weapon. Constructs? Adamantite weapon. Any high level creature required at least a +3 weapon (back when weapons went up to +5).

And if you didn't have the right weapon, you were **** out of luck, because it meant every attack you made was made like -15 damage.

These super specific immunities are really nice for a perfectly tailored story like a book, but in D&D you'll be fighting a variety of monsters, so unless the DM is willing to hand you a small arsenal of weapons, you're bound to find yourself being useless in like half the encounters.

And if the DM does give you an arsenal of weapons, then they lose their uniqueness just the same.

[Catullus64]

Works great in non-interactive fiction, but sucks in game.

3.0 tried it and I cannot stress enough how unbelievably AWFUL it was for martials. Needed to kill a Demon? Better have a silver weapon. A Devil? Well, now you better have a Cold Iron weapon. Constructs? Adamantite weapon. Any high level creature required at least a +3 weapon (back when weapons went up to +5).

And if you didn't have the right weapon, you were **** out of luck, because it meant every attack you made was made like -15 damage.

These super specific immunities are really nice for a perfectly tailored story like a book, but in D&D you'll be fighting a variety of monsters, so unless the DM is willing to hand you a small arsenal of weapons, you're bound to find yourself being useless in like half the encounters.

And if the DM does give you an arsenal of weapons, then they lose their uniqueness just the same.

I remember liking that game aspect of 3.5. (The materials bit; the DR/+X Enhancement Bonus thing was irritating) Maybe it was because I had good DMs, but it always pushed us into doing reconnaissance and preparation against more difficult foes. Maybe it's just 'cuz I was usually a Rogue, and therefore used to my attacks being ineffective against half the enemies in the game anyway.

And I've never bought into the whole "Can't deal damage = Useless" thing, certainly not in an edition as flexible as 5th.

[PhantomSoul]

Works great in non-interactive fiction, but sucks in game.

3.0 tried it and I cannot stress enough how unbelievably AWFUL it was for martials. Needed to kill a Demon? Better have a silver weapon. A Devil? Well, now you better have a Cold Iron weapon. Constructs? Adamantite weapon. Any high level creature required at least a +3 weapon (back when weapons went up to +5).

And if you didn't have the right weapon, you were **** out of luck, because it meant every attack you made was made like -15 damage.

These super specific immunities are really nice for a perfectly tailored story like a book, but in D&D you'll be fighting a variety of monsters, so unless the DM is willing to hand you a small arsenal of weapons, you're bound to find yourself being useless in like half the encounters.

And if the DM does give you an arsenal of weapons, then they lose their uniqueness just the same.

I find it works well on the other hand:
- You can get special-material weapons without them being too strong elsewhere
- It encourages you to actually change weapons and make decisions about that
- It gives you spots where you can give martials the advantage if they're prepared, e.g. from bonus damage, special effects or vulnerability (which is otherwise rare)

Now, there are some assumptions for it, of course (e.g. some level of predictability or pattern they could figure out [e.g. relying on fairy tales and real-world beliefs/superstitions, having it not usually be specific to a CREATURE but instead to some group of them where justified], usually leaving magic and non-magic weapons as resisted rather than immunities).

But that magic weapon could easily not fit settings and campaigns as well (especially with the assumption or expectation you need to give them out or you're a mean/rude/antagonistic DM)... but having cold-wrought iron or the right type of wood be advantageous against Fey? Cool. Silvered against Fiends or some subset? Cool. And the world can accommodate those plus integrate them into "passive" world-building.

[Tanarii]

- It gives you spots where you can give martials the advantage if they're prepared, e.g. from bonus damage, special effects or vulnerability (which is otherwise rare)

It'd be better balanced IMO if instead of weapon resistances and a lot lower hit points, they were given a specific weapon vulnerability and slightly higher hit points.

That way it's not hurting weapon wielders while given Magic wielders a big advantage. Instead it's making them overall tougher, while giving those that weapon wielders research the specific vulnerability and prepare for it an advantage.

[MaxWilson]

It'd be better balanced IMO if instead of weapon resistances and a lot lower hit points, they were given a specific weapon vulnerability and slightly higher hit points.

Yeah, Vulnerability is a great mechanic. Just for the record, here's all of the monsters with vulnerabilities that I know of:

Atropal: radiant
Awakened shrug/tree: fire
Cave Fisher: fire, when below half HP
Mummy (any type including Mummy Lord): fire
Dust mephit: fire
Earth elemental: thunder
Fire snake: cold
Flumph: psychic (why?)
Ice mephit: bludgeoning, fire
Magma mephit: cold
Skeleton (any type including Minotaur): bludgeoning
Rakshasa: piercing from magic weapons wielded by good creatures
Salamander: cold
Scarecrow: fire
Shadow demon: radiant
Shadow: radiant
Slithering tracker: fire, cold
Treant: fire
Twig blight: fire
Wood woad: fire

It feels like there should be more than that, doesn't there? In particular the absence of vulnerabilities to cold iron seems wrong, and maybe silver too.

[Boci]

It feels like there should be more than that, doesn't there? In particular the absence of vulnerabilities to cold iron seems wrong, and maybe silver too.

In order for there to be vulnerability to cold iron, 5th ed would first have to have cold iron, which got cut post 3.5.

[Unoriginal]

It feels like there should be more than that, doesn't there? In particular the absence of vulnerabilities to cold iron seems wrong, and maybe silver too.


In order for there to be vulnerability to cold iron, 5th ed would first have to have cold iron, which got cut post 3.5.

I agree that Vulnerability is an underused mechanic which the game would benefit from using more, but I'm glad that 5e ditched the whole cold iron thing.

"Cold iron" is simply iron, not a special substance. And IMO I find it better if there is no "basically silver, but this one is for demons and fey" substance.


https://youtu.be/fu2eC0dFf_w

[PhoenixPhyre]

My issue with vulnerability is that it becomes a case of "can you hit the vulnerability? No threat. Can you not hit it? Super mega threat (or slog)". And in many cases, there's just not a good way for a lot of classes to hit various vulnerabilities.

Double damage is just too much. Maybe if there were gradients of vulnerability, but then you've got a complex mess.

In general, I'm not super fond of resistances or vulnerabilities. Mainly because when you have a mixed damage type, handling resistance/vulnerability to part of the damage is annoying and slows things down. Instead of rolling all the dice and then modifying the result, you end up having to roll part, remember how much that was, modify it, then roll the rest...

[PhantomSoul]

My issue with vulnerability is that it becomes a case of "can you hit the vulnerability? No threat. Can you not hit it? Super mega threat (or slog)". And in many cases, there's just not a good way for a lot of classes to hit various vulnerabilities.

Double damage is just too much. Maybe if there were gradients of vulnerability, but then you've got a complex mess.

In general, I'm not super fond of resistances or vulnerabilities. Mainly because when you have a mixed damage type, handling resistance/vulnerability to part of the damage is annoying and slows things down. Instead of rolling all the dice and then modifying the result, you end up having to roll part, remember how much that was, modify it, then roll the rest...

For my tables, Vulnerability has been +50%, which is much more reasonable (otherwise agreed that double is a huge difference). It's more fun if there's a cool effect, but +50% is somewhat more reasonable if just wanting to favour more variety and interest in martials.

[MaxWilson]

I agree that Vulnerability is an underused mechanic which the game would benefit from using more, but I'm glad that 5e ditched the whole cold iron thing.

"Cold iron" is simply iron, not a special substance.

I'm agnostic on whether cold iron has to be distinct from normal iron (or even steel). My concern is that whatever it is, faeries should be vulnerable to it.


My issue with vulnerability is that it becomes a case of "can you hit the vulnerability? No threat. Can you not hit it? Super mega threat (or slog)". And in many cases, there's just not a good way for a lot of classes to hit various vulnerabilities.

I don't think monsters and encounters should be written in such a way that merely having access to a vulnerability always renders them "no threat". (Tell that to Mab...) At most it turns enemies into glass cannons, but cannons are still cannons.

Let's say at 10th level you're trapped with a hundred civilian miners inside a mine shaft. There's a bunch of Star Spawn between you and the exit, and at the main line of resistance you expect to find a couple dozen Grues, two Hulks, two Manglers, and a Seer. Fortunately you know of a vein of tungsten in this mine, AND you happen to know that Star Spawn are vulnerable to tungsten. With twenty-four hours of work from the miners, or a Fabricate spell, you can extract and forge enough tungsten for a dozen tungsten spears. This gives you at least four options:

1) Try to hammer your way through the Star Spawn with four PCs, using good tactics and spells, just like any other encounter.

2) Rally the miners to fight with you and then hammer through the Star Spawn with four PCs and N miners, accepting the fact that there will be casualties among the bravest miners as a necessary evil compared to everybody dying.

3) As above, but Fabricate (or other similar abilities) a dozen tungsten spears first to cut the difficulty by roughly a quarter (enemy durability halved, but not against Fireballs/etc., and enemy firepower unaffected).

4.) As above, but without Fabricate you must hold off repeated assaults from Star Spawn sallies, receiving short rests in between but no long rests (unless you get lucky or split the party), until a furnace can be jury-rigged, metal mined, and spears forged.

Which options a given party has available to them is obviously affected by their builds, and which option they select of those available will be affected by RP and by player perceptions of risk.

Vulnerability is not eliminating any threats here, but neither is there a super mega threat (especially if you're willing to sacrifice some miners).

However I do agree that vulnerability should be more fine-grained than double or nothing. A given monster could take +50%, double, or triple damage from a given vulnerability and it wouldn't be too complicated to print in a MM. Succubus: "Takes triple damage from weapons wielded by a virgin," done.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm agnostic on whether cold iron has to be distinct from normal iron (or even steel). My concern is that whatever it is, faeries should be vulnerable to it.



I don't think monsters and encounters should be written in such a way that merely having access to a vulnerability always renders them "no threat". (Tell that to Mab...) At most it turns enemies into glass cannons, but cannons are still cannons.

Let's say at 10th level you're trapped with a hundred civilian miners inside a mine shaft. There's a bunch of Star Spawn between you and the exit, and at the main line of resistance you expect to find a couple dozen Grues, two Hulks, two Manglers, and a Seer. Fortunately you know of a vein of tungsten in this mine, AND you happen to know that Star Spawn are vulnerable to tungsten. With twenty-four hours of work from the miners, or a Fabricate spell, you can extract and forge enough tungsten for a dozen tungsten spears. This gives you at least four options:

1) Try to hammer your way through the Star Spawn with four PCs, using good tactics and spells, just like any other encounter.

2) Rally the miners to fight with you and then hammer through the Star Spawn with four PCs and N miners, accepting the fact that there will be casualties among the bravest miners as a necessary evil compared to everybody dying.

3) As above, but Fabricate (or other similar abilities) a dozen tungsten spears first to cut the difficulty by roughly a quarter (enemy durability halved, but not against Fireballs/etc., and enemy firepower unaffected).

4.) As above, but without Fabricate you must hold off repeated assaults from Star Spawn sallies, receiving short rests in between but no long rests (unless you get lucky or split the party), until a furnace can be jury-rigged, metal mined, and spears forged.

Which options a given party has available to them is obviously affected by their builds, and which option they select of those available will be affected by RP and by player perceptions of risk.

Vulnerability is not eliminating any threats here, but neither is there a super mega threat (especially if you're willing to sacrifice some miners).

Problem is that vulnerability (as written) is equivalent to halving the enemy hit points. In order to still be a threat, the enemies have to have immense damage output--there's a decent chance that they won't even get to act before getting cleaned up. If the monster has 60 hp, their CR drops by one step. If they had 120 hp, their CR drops by 2 steps. Which means they had to have CR = level + 2 just to be on par.

I know you love to throw Deadly*N combats, but that's basically a recipe for rocket tag. First hit wins. And that's not something a lot of groups are comfortable with.

At double damage, there's not many monsters who would even get a chance to be cannons at all. They'd be dead before they act unless they all win initiative (in which case the party is up a creek, since they can likely drop one or more PCs before they get to go).

And that scenario? Throws all the "railroad" flags. There's a group of enemies that
* happens to be vulnerable to something
* and you know that
* that are attacking a mine where that one specific vulnerability is mined
* that also has enough resources to build a furnace and refine the material[1]
* and the know-how to make weapons out of them
* all in 24 hours?

Not a chance. That's so many extreme coincidences that it'd shatter any type of verisimilitude. And relies heavily on the party having a wizard with a particular spell prepared...or being willing to sacrifice lots of people.

[1] to nit pick, tungsten is not easy to mine, nor is it easy to refine. Nor to work. You're looking at a huge mass of very specialized equipment and processes and people...none of which would be around a mine, especially not in a fantasy setting.

[Tanarii]

My issue with vulnerability is that it becomes a case of "can you hit the vulnerability? No threat. Can you not hit it? Super mega threat (or slog)". And in many cases, there's just not a good way for a lot of classes to hit various vulnerabilities.

Double damage is just too much. Maybe if there were gradients of vulnerability, but then you've got a complex mess.
Yes, I should have chosen a word other than vulnerability, which has specific 5e meaning.

Slightly more hps and slightly more damage from specific special weapons would be fine. +50% hit points and damage from specific weapons would indeed turn those monsters kind of sloggy. Except maybe in some very special circumstances, where you really do want them very resistant to everything except the special weapon, so they felt as dangerous as lore. Even an optional DM sidebar for some specific enemies, with a CR change note for boosted hit points and vulnerability. Lycanthropes and Vampires would be good candidates that wanted to run a gothic / truly dangerous versions of them.

I guess I just don't like the idea that Magic often just bypasses things that have a weapon resistance. Given how accessible and easy to use Magic is in 5e. So I'm trying to think how to make something a little hardier vs everything except the vulnerability, but only a little more vulnerable to the specific weapon kind, to avoid the golf-bag-of-weapons effect. And maybe in some specific creatures, for some DMs and in some campaigns, it can become a lot and a lot.

[MaxWilson]

Problem is that vulnerability (as written) is equivalent to halving the enemy hit points. In order to still be a threat, the enemies have to have immense damage output--there's a decent chance that they won't even get to act before getting cleaned up. If the monster has 60 hp, their CR drops by one step. If they had 120 hp, their CR drops by 2 steps. Which means they had to have CR = level + 2 just to be on par.

It's not halving HP, it's halving HP against some threats. (Not Fireball, not Magic Missile, not Spirit Guardians, not PWK...)

Furthermore, monsters don't rely entirely on their HP for their threat. They can have multilayered defenses like Counterspell, Shield, teleportation, regeneration, and so on. Take Flameskulls for example--does their threat level evaporate if you happen to have a Sling of Double Damage To Flameskulls? Nope. They're still gonna nuke you from the air with a Fireball--all you're doing is reducing how many times they still pew pew you with fire rays instead. Or what about a Meazel? Even with a double damage weapon, you still don't want to be grappled and teleported by one.


I know you love to throw Deadly*N combats, but that's basically a recipe for rocket tag. First hit wins.

No, you're imagining the dynamics incorrectly. It's not first hit wins. If I had to characterize it I would say "best target prioritization wins," but basically it's about who can control the terms of engagement better. You can get the first hit in and still lose, if you chose poorly whom to hit and with what.

E.g. consider how much the fight changes if the PCs send in a Mage Armored Air Elemental or two first under Greater Invisibility to kill both Star Spawn Manglers! Without them as a lurking hidden threat, the fight is basically a cakewalk.


And that scenario? Throws all the "railroad" flags.

I reject that characterization of a scenario that's deliberately designed to allow three different success outcomes (1. civilians all okay, 2. monsters defeated with civilian casualties, 3. PCs gain XP and treasure but civilians all die) and four approaches to the problem, plus whatever players invent with their creativity.


There's a group of enemies that
* happens to be vulnerable to something
* and you know that
* that are attacking a mine where that one specific vulnerability is mined
* that also has enough resources to build a furnace and refine the material[1]
* and the know-how to make weapons out of them
* all in 24 hours?

Not a chance. That's so many extreme coincidences that it'd shatter any type of verisimilitude.

You don't see any reason for Star Spawn to want to take out a source for their vulnerability? It's an obvious strategic goal. It's definitely an unfortunate coincidence (for the Star Spawn) that four 10th level PCs happen to be there when they launch their attack, but no intel is perfect, and putting the PCs in places where they can make a difference is kind of the DM's job.


And relies heavily on the party having a wizard with a particular spell prepared...or being willing to sacrifice lots of people.

Those are only two of the four options, and the players may be able to create additional options.

Bottom line: I'd like to see more entries that say stuff like "(Succubus) Vulnerabilities: takes triple damage from weapons wielded by virgins." More vulnerabilities would be interesting from an RP and adventuring-out-of-combat angle.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@MaxWilson

It's not just attacking the mine. It's the mine having readily accessible veins of a material that can be extracted, refined, and converted into weapons by the things on hand. Which shatters my verisimilitude--you can't just build a forge like that. And raw ore isn't the raw material that works for fabricate--you must refine it into metal, since the weapons aren't tipped with chunks of ore. And just building a foundry capable of even handling iron[1], let alone something serious is a massive undertaking with serious requirements.

Basically, for something like that to actually give a meaningful set of options, you have to heavily stack the deck in all sorts of ways that destroy the integrity of the world.

[1] you might get away with copper, but you'd be better just melting down everyone's cash for that. Refining is hard. And to pick on the particular example, tungsten is roughly twice that of iron--you need a chemical refinery. So the set of materials that make any kind of sense for that scenario is...basically the empty set.



Bottom line: I'd like to see more entries that say stuff like "(Succubus) Vulnerabilities: takes triple damage from weapons wielded by virgins." More vulnerabilities would be interesting from an RP and adventuring-out-of-combat angle.

That's the sort of thing that'd just get gamed and metagamed into oblivion. Every time I've used vulnerabilities, it's either been a farce (when they happen to hit the vulnerability) or a frustrating slog. It's the epitome of a puzzle monster--find the vulnerability and the problem becomes solved. And that's anticlimactic in the extreme.

Look at trolls with their regeneration. Are they interesting? No. At least not because of that.

And how does "takes extra damage" translate into anything but combat?

I find things like this to be fundamentally boring. It rewards a particular type of play that I find horribly un-fun, and ends up with a lot of overhead (tracking damage sources and doing the math there is just annoying).

Instead, if I were to use things like vulnerability or resistance as anything other than "tiny thing that evokes something about the monster but really doesn't have much effect", it'd be a major quest portion--finding the way to drop the enemy's immunities via a set of adventures. And it'd only be for the biggest, most climactic battles. Not just "has flag set on character sheet/weapon." That's just boring design.

Like anything, vulnerabilities (and resistances/immunities) wear out their welcome really really fast in my experience. It's better to just adjust the HP so it matches the threat they should be.

[MaxWilson]

@MaxWilson

It's not just attacking the mine. It's the mine having readily accessible veins of a material that can be extracted, refined, and converted into weapons by the things on hand. Which shatters my verisimilitude--you can't just build a forge like that. And raw ore isn't the raw material that works for fabricate--you must refine it into metal, since the weapons aren't tipped with chunks of ore. And just building a foundry capable of even handling iron[1], let alone something serious is a massive undertaking with serious requirements.

Basically, for something like that to actually give a meaningful set of options, you have to heavily stack the deck in all sorts of ways that destroy the integrity of the world.

Eh, then you're just nitpicking for me not knowing much about industrial metallurgy. Fine, it's a vein of pure tungsten then instead of ore, created long ago by a magical empire, and it takes 24 hours to get the old local foundry up and running. Or it's copper, as you suggest, and the Star Spawn are here for a different reason such as gathering slaves with mining knowhow for a separate project. The important point is that Star Spawn have a vulnerability and a reason to be here, and the players can exploit it, given time or the right spells.

That makes it an adventure hook, not a railroad. Railroads resist attempts to steer.


And to pick on the particular example, tungsten is roughly twice that of iron--you need a chemical refinery. So the set of materials that make any kind of sense for that scenario is...basically the empty set.

Even if the Star Spawn are vulnerable to tungsten ore too?



It's the epitome of a puzzle monster--find the vulnerability and the problem becomes solved. And that's anticlimactic in the extreme.

Hah. You take the 10th level party and the spears and I'll take the Star Spawn, and let's see how anticlimactic the fight really is.


Look at trolls with their regeneration. Are they interesting? No. At least not because of that.

Keith Baker seems to find them pretty interesting, what with Droam and its (icky) troll meat obsession.

Underwater trolls, or trolls under bridges over rivers, are also pretty interesting. (Still easily dealt with via Chill Touch, but interesting nonetheless because their behavior MAKES SENSE.)


Instead, if I were to use things like vulnerability or resistance as anything other than "tiny thing that evokes something about the monster but really doesn't have much effect", it'd be a major quest portion--finding the way to drop the enemy's immunities via a set of adventures. And it'd only be for the biggest, most climactic battles. Not just "has flag set on character sheet/weapon." That's just boring design.

Wait, so it's a railroad to give players a way to acquire weapons that can exploit vulnerabilities, but if you make it inconvenient enough to require a "major quest" then it's not a railroad?? I'm afraid we disagree.


Like anything, vulnerabilities (and resistances/immunities) wear out their welcome really really fast in my experience. It's better to just adjust the HP so it matches the threat they should be.

"The threat they should be"?

The threat monsters pose depends upon how players approach them. Building in vulnerabilities gives more possible angles of approach, and adds roleplaying possibilities, but you're talking here as if it's some kind of mathematical process by which you're trying to predict how the players will play the game and then adjust their effective HP accordingly. Essentially it sounds like you're advocating Combat As Sport. If so, no wonder you hate the miner scenario--there's no way to predict e.g. whether the PCs will exploit the vulnerability or not. It's a (mildly) Combat As War scenario and it will only frustrated Combat As Sport DMs.

As with everything in D&D, don't use monsters that are ill-suited for your DMing playstyle.

[Chronos]

Quoth MaxWilson:

A given monster could take +50%, double, or triple damage from a given vulnerability and it wouldn't be too complicated to print in a MM. Succubus: "Takes triple damage from weapons wielded by a virgin," done.
Triple damage written into the statblock, fine. But I don't think I want all of my players arguing about whose character is or is not a virgin.

[stoutstien]

I'm a fan of using damage thresholds as a stand in for resistance and vulnerability. It's easy to adjust by fixed values rather than +/- 100% damage. So for example a skeleton would have DT/5 against piercing and V/5 against blunt. A nice side effect of doing it this way is I don't have to play the game of attack versus save versus magical versus mundane.

[Tanarii]

Triple damage written into the statblock, fine. But I don't think I want all of my players arguing about whose character is or is not a virgin.
DM can just make an assumption by looking at the player, and apply it to the PC. :smallamused:

[BerzerkerUnit]

Still isn't a requirement to hand them out at all let alone a set time or level. As long as the players were aware of the importance of bypassing resistance and immunity they have plenty of options to do so without relying on finding item X.

Martial characters like rogue and fighter have extremely limited options. Spellcasters are forced to take magic weapon for 3 and 4 to insure they can be force multipliers instead of being the sole reliable source of damage.

To the OP: level 5 and then every 4 levels after.
As a major reward consider going the next tier up 2-3 levels early. So at level 5 you’d get a +1 sword, as a major reward it could “awaken” to a +2 at 7th, or break in service to a king who rewards them with a +2. Otherwise they upgrade at ~9th.

[MaxWilson]

DM can just make an assumption by looking at the player, and apply it to the PC. :smallamused:

Oh. It wasn't until just now that I realized you guys are viewing "virgin" as a negative trait and object of mockery. I'm a virgin myself so it didn't occur to me that there would be any problems just asking the player, if it wasn't already clear from backstory.

[Unoriginal]

I thought of some ways 5e could portray the "vulnerable to/weakened by X" trope while still following the 5e design principles:

-Attacks made on the creature with something made of X are done with advantage.

-The creature takes additional damage (necrotic, radiant, etc) from attacks done with X/takes damage when in contact or at Y distance of X (either once per round or every times it happens).

-The creature has disadvantage on attack rolls made against a target who is wielding/carrying X.

-The creature has disadvantage on saves when in contact/at Y distance of X.

-The creature is affected by Z condition (poisoned, restrained, stunned, etc) if in contact with/ at Y distance of X, even if they would normally be immune to Z condition.

-The creature as one of more stats diminished by a certain amount if damaged by/in contact with/at Y distance of X, either once every times it happens or per round.

-Two or more of the above at the same time.


Each of those possibilities could be an automatic result, or dependent on a save (with or without an "if save is a success, creature isn't affected for 24h" clause), but some people don't like how a fixed save will be easier to succeed by targets once they've reach a certain power level (others may like it, in a "fighting off the kryptonite" fashion).

[Tanarii]

Oh. It wasn't until just now that I realized you guys are viewing "virgin" as a negative trait and object of mockery. I'm a virgin myself so it didn't occur to me that there would be any problems just asking the player, if it wasn't already clear from backstory.
Honest to deity sarcasm on my part. I was making fun of the way it is commonly seen as a thing to mock among or against youngsters, and often assumed based on physical appearances.

I wouldn't deign to judge. I've experienced enough shock (or at least bemusement) that I haven't knocked out some kids to understand that people's assumptions are just weird.

[stoutstien]

Martial characters like rogue and fighter have extremely limited options. Spellcasters are forced to take magic weapon for 3 and 4 to insure they can be force multipliers instead of being the sole reliable source of damage.

To the OP: level 5 and then every 4 levels after.
As a major reward consider going the next tier up 2-3 levels early. So at level 5 you’d get a +1 sword, as a major reward it could “awaken” to a +2 at 7th, or break in service to a king who rewards them with a +2. Otherwise they upgrade at ~9th.

Limited options are still options. Also guaranteeing magical items at certain points remove all the benefits for those options.

[Unoriginal]

Honest to deity sarcasm on my part. I was making fun of the way it is commonly seen as a thing to mock among or against youngsters, and often assumed based on physical appearances.

I wouldn't deign to judge. I've experienced enough shock (or at least bemusement) that I haven't knocked out some kids to understand that people's assumptions are just weird.

People are surprised you haven't knocked out some kids? Are you a Hajime no Ippo boxer?

[MaxWilson]

Honest to deity sarcasm on my part. I was making fun of the way it is commonly seen as a thing to mock among or against youngsters, and often assumed based on physical appearances.

I wouldn't deign to judge. I've experienced enough shock (or at least bemusement) that I haven't knocked out some kids to understand that people's assumptions are just weird.

No worries. I'm certainly not embarrassed by the subject. I was just puzzled earlier by Chronos's post implying that it would be a contentious subject at his table.


I thought of some ways 5e could portray the "vulnerable to/weakened by X" trope while still following the 5e design principles:

-Attacks made on the creature with something made of X are done with advantage.

-The creature takes additional damage (necrotic, radiant, etc) from attacks done with X/takes damage when in contact or at Y distance of X (either once per round or every times it happens).

-The creature has disadvantage on attack rolls made against a target who is wielding/carrying X.

-The creature has disadvantage on saves when in contact/at Y distance of X.

-The creature is affected by Z condition (poisoned, restrained, stunned, etc) if in contact with/ at Y distance of X, even if they would normally be immune to Z condition.

-The creature as one of more stats diminished by a certain amount if damaged by/in contact with/at Y distance of X, either once every times it happens or per round.

-Two or more of the above at the same time.


Each of those possibilities could be an automatic result, or dependent on a save (with or without an "if save is a success, creature isn't affected for 24h" clause), but some people don't like how a fixed save will be easier to succeed by targets once they've reach a certain power level (others may like it, in a "fighting off the kryptonite" fashion).

Thanks for this list. It's thought provoking and will affect my monster designs going forward.

[Sigreid]

Honest to deity sarcasm on my part. I was making fun of the way it is commonly seen as a thing to mock among or against youngsters, and often assumed based on physical appearances.

I wouldn't deign to judge. I've experienced enough shock (or at least bemusement) that I haven't knocked out some kids to understand that people's assumptions are just weird.

I've only ever seen it mocked in movies to be honest. Don't think I've ever met anyone in real life that asked or cared.

Edit: It is generally not considered much of a topic for polite discussion among people who aren't drunk.

[Tanarii]

No worries. I'm certainly not embarrassed by the subject. I was just puzzled earlier by Chronos's post implying that it would be a contentious subject at his table.
Could just be that they don't want discussions about PCs sex lives at their table. Having experienced enough immature youngster "roleplaying" on the topic, I could empathize with that.


People are surprised you haven't knocked out some kids? Are you a Hajime no Ippo boxer?Ying Jow Pai but even brats don't deserve that lol

[Boci]

Oh. It wasn't until just now that I realized you guys are viewing "virgin" as a negative trait and object of mockery. I'm a virgin myself so it didn't occur to me that there would be any problems just asking the player, if it wasn't already clear from backstory.

I don't think Chronos was implying being a virgin was bad, just that they don't want "Has your character had sex?" to be a question with mechanical implications at their table, which is fair I feel.

[Unoriginal]

Thanks for this list. It's thought provoking and will affect my monster designs going forward.

Thank you, this is very high praise.

Interestingly enough, while I didn't check the monsters before making this list, some of the Vampire's weaknesses are close of those options, so there is definitively space for it in the 5e monster design (even if the Vampire's statblock is far from the most well-written one).

[MaxWilson]

I don't think Chronos was implying being a virgin was bad, just that they don't want "Has your character had sex?" to be a question with mechanical implications at their table, which is fair I feel.

That's a fairly crass way to put it, but arguendo let's pretend then that I gave a different example, like "Orcus: takes triple damage from weapons wielded by humanoids upon whom the sun has never shined."

Different people like different styles of game, and clearly some people in this thread would hate rare, niche vulnerabilities like that because most of the time they don't apply, but to me they add interest because they can influence the gameworld. (Now you know why Orcus stays out of the Underdark!)

[Boci]

That's a fairly crass way to put it, but arguendo let's pretend then that I gave a different example, like "Orcus: takes triple damage from weapons wielded by humanoids upon whom the sun has never shined."

Again though, that could lead to argument, that you don't want the character being a recluse in their backstory who only ever left the house in the dark having mechanical implications. The problem for Chronos may be less about sex specifically and more about backstory suddenly having the potential to make your character deal x3 against certain opponents.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thank you, this is very high praise.

Interestingly enough, while I didn't check the monsters before making this list, some of the Vampire's weaknesses are close of those options, so there is definitively space for it in the 5e monster design (even if the Vampire's statblock is far from the most well-written one).

I could actually get behind some of those. My big objection is to vulnerability as written (ie double damage), because it's just way too potent and makes too much of a difference--it's always the right option if you can do it. That functionally reduces the set of meaningful options, instead of expanding it.

These? There are actual choices involved. I'd still not use them super frequently (mainly for speed of play, as well as not overstaying their welcome), but for special creatures, it makes sense.

[Unoriginal]

My favorite of that type of immunities in myths and legends is Grendel and his mother, from Beowulf.

They're completely immune to all human-made weapons. Beowulf first unknowingly bypasses that immunity by fighting Grendel bare-handed and naked (to "make it fair" as Grendel is also bare-handed and naked, plus not 'trained as a warrior'), then by grabbing a Giant-made blade from Grendel's mother's hoard and killing her with it.

[MaxWilson]

Again though, that could lead to argument, that you don't want the character being a recluse in their backstory who only ever left the house in the dark having mechanical implications. The problem for Chronos may be less about sex specifically and more about backstory suddenly having the potential to make your character deal x3 against certain opponents.

Somehow I doubt there will be any such arguments in actual play. For most characters the answer is obvious: "of course I've been in sunlight. Who hasn't?" For those who want to claim otherwise, just say, "Remember that week-long trip we took overland three sessions ago to sell the magic carpet? Sunlight."

If you want to exploit the vulnerability you're going to have to spend actual effort finding someone who genuinely hasn't, and is willing to work with you against Orcus. Maybe you can make an alliance with the Drow.

Vulnerabilities are most interesting when they're nontrivial to exploit.

[Boci]

Somehow I doubt there will be any such arguments in actual play. For most characters the answer is obvious: "of course I've been in sunlight. Who hasn't?" For those who want to claim otherwise, just say, "Remember that week-long trip we took overland three sessions ago to sell the magic carpet? Sunlight."

If you want to exploit the vulnerability you're going to have to spend actual effort finding someone who genuinely hasn't, and is willing to work with you against Orcus. Maybe you can make an alliance with the Drow.

Vulnerabilities are most interesting when they're nontrivial to exploit.

Yeah, that is a problem. You're taking a niche appeal of extreme vulnerability based on not the weapon but the wielder, and now the players can't even use it, they can just get an NPC to do it for them, further reducing the appeal of such a design choice.

I think insread of triple damage, "can only be permanently slain" may be better. That way the party finds a drow willing to help them, beats up orcus on their own, then has the drow stab them for the last 1d4+3 damage. I feel more players would like that addition than needing to involve NPCs in a major fight to be able to exploit a vulnerability.

[Amnestic]

My favorite of that type of immunities in myths and legends is Grendel and his mother, from Beowulf.

They're completely immune to all human-made weapons. Beowulf first unknowingly bypasses that immunity by fighting Grendel bare-handed and naked (to "make it fair" as Grendel is also bare-handed and naked, plus not 'trained as a warrior'), then by grabbing a Giant-made blade from Grendel's mother's hoard and killing her with it.

Gonna rules lawyer Beowulf by pointing out that his fists are definitely "human-made weapons".

[PhantomSoul]

Gonna rules lawyer Beowulf by pointing out that his fists are definitely "human-made weapons".

Apparently the DM agreed!

[Unoriginal]

Gonna rules lawyer Beowulf by pointing out that his fists are definitely "human-made weapons".

Unarmed strikes aren't weapons, by definition.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, that is a problem. You're taking a niche appeal of extreme vulnerability based on not the weapon but the wielder, and now the players can't even use it, they can just get an NPC to do it for them, further reducing the appeal of such a design choice.

Tastes vary. CAW vs. CAS.

[Boci]

Tastes vary. CAW vs. CAS.

Tastes vary yes, but that doesn't change the fact that combining two niche aspects will almost always yield an even smaller target audience.

[MaxWilson]

Tastes vary yes, but that doesn't change the fact that combining two niche aspects will almost always yield an even smaller target audience.

From my perspective you're the one insisting on restricting the range of valid vulnerabilities in the game to only a subset of those in folklore.

[Boci]

From my perspective you're the one insisting on restricting the range of valid vulnerabilities in the game to only a subset of those in folklore.

I'm not insisting on anything. I'm pointing out that whilst perfectly valid, the ones you have suggested so far tend to be quite niche in appeal, sometime combining multiple areas. I also recommended ways you could have such factors be relevant without needing the party to do things might not find enjoyable.

[FrancisBean]

Works great in non-interactive fiction, but sucks in game.

3.0 tried it and I cannot stress enough how unbelievably AWFUL it was for martials. Needed to kill a Demon? Better have a silver weapon. A Devil? Well, now you better have a Cold Iron weapon. Constructs? Adamantite weapon. Any high level creature required at least a +3 weapon (back when weapons went up to +5).

And if you didn't have the right weapon, you were **** out of luck, because it meant every attack you made was made like -15 damage.

I'm surprised nobody has yet posted the obvious (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0062.html).

[sithlordnergal]

Anyone else think that the binary of "magic weapons" for the purposes of bypassing resistance and immunity is kind of lame on a thematic level? Like they're missing out on the possibility to really lean into cool fantasy tropes of invulnerability and weaknesses. To cite some of the most widely known examples:

Mythology: Loki's dart doesn't succeed in killing Baldr because it was "magic", but because he found the one material, mistletoe, that Freya didn't make swear an oath not to harm him.

Fantasy Literature: Merry's barrow-blade doesn't succeed in wounding the Witch King because it's "magic", but because it's "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor."

In D&D, by contrast, the same sword will cut through the unnatural resilience of werewolves, devils, ghosts, wizards with Stoneskin, all because it's got the generic juice called "magic." This is part of a larger thematic gripe I have with D&D's implicit worldbuilding, where magic is treated as a kind of vague stuff that things either have or don't; this is just a rather glaring example.

The more interesting approach is suggested by things like resistance being bypassed by silver or adamantine or what have you, but all those instances wuss out and say "or just do it with magic weapons. Whatever."

It is a lot more boring on a thematic level, I'll give you that. But at the same time, I can see why they simplified it. Back in 3.5 they messed around with damage reduction that was a lot more thematic, but a lot more complicated. For example, certain creatures could only be harmed by "Good" weapons, and "Good" was a property that could be found on magic weapons or granted to a weapon via a spell. Fighting a werewolf? You needed a silvered weapon. Finding a Skeleton? It resisted all weapon damage except bludgeoning.

On the one hand, it was a really cool system that allowed for a ton of thematic weapons and fights...but on the other hand your 3.5 character ended up carrying an entire armory of weapons to use in specific circumstances. You'd have a Silvered Morningstar, Adamantine Morningstar, Cold-Iron Morningstar, the list goes on. Additionally, weapons that dealt multiple damage types were amazing since you could choose what damage type to deal.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've only ever seen it mocked in movies to be honest. Don't think I've ever met anyone in real life that asked or cared. I guess that's a generational change. Topic came up no small amount in my teen years, and the tenor of such conversations were often such as you find among teenagers. Mockery, full on, was in non trivial amounts in the military at that point in time. Perhaps that's no longer the case.

[Pex]

Triple damage written into the statblock, fine. But I don't think I want all of my players arguing about whose character is or is not a virgin.

Think of the laughter when it's revealed the bard is and paladin isn't.

[Chronos]

It's a combination of not wanting to argue about obscure details of backstory in the middle of a fight, and that argument being about sex specifically makes it more awkward (even among mature adults). I mean, yeah, it's clear for a few members of my group (the druid definitely is a virgin, and the bard definitely is not), and I could probably make pretty good guesses for some of the others, but it's still awkward.

[Gignere]

Now imagine a Fighter 8 who's never gotten his hands on a full set of plate and is still wearing chainmail, but who has inherited a Bag of Tricks and an intelligence network of faerie spies and smugglers. Is he being treated unfairly? IMO no.

Doesn’t this depends on what the casters get though? Like if the wizard already has staff of magi/power which helps them do their job even better, I’ll say the fighter is being quietly to asked to quit.