Is Magical B/P/S Damage going the way of the Dodo?

[P. G. Macer]

I’ve been dwelling on this idea for a long time, at least since Monsters of the Multiverse came out, and further convinced this was happening by the One D&D UAs.

I believe magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage will not be a thing in the next iteration of D&D.

In MP: MotM, powerful monsters that did magical B/P/S in their Volo’s Guide or Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes iterations instead deal force damage. In the UAs for One D&D, especially the one which came out today (Druid and Paladin), we see evidence of that in several cases.
The Oath of Devotion’s Sacred Weapon feature, instead of making the weapon’s damage magical, gives the option to turn its type to radiant. Likewise, the generic Familiar and Steed statblocks deal radiant, psychic, or necrotic damage depending on creature type instead of more “mundane” damage types.
The gutted Moon Druid no longer has magical Wild Shape attacks, but instead has Elemental Wild Shape (which is similar to the 2014 PHB feature in name only) change your wild shape attacks to an elemental damage type.

There are other features scattered around, which I can dig up if requested, but I feel that’s enough at the moment to support my position.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's a very likely scenario.

Which makes one wonder about things like magic weapons. Or the magic weapon spell.

Maybe they're trying to do away with the whole "need a magic weapon to overcome resistances" thing? But they haven't changed those resistances in MotM, so...

[Slingbow]

That's a very likely scenario.

Which makes one wonder about things like magic weapons. Or the magic weapon spell.

Maybe they're trying to do away with the whole "need a magic weapon to overcome resistances" thing? But they haven't changed those resistances in MotM, so...

Seems like damage resistance will eventually be moot.

[Osuniev]

I would hope they instead make it relevant by not allowing "magic weapons" to just overcome all of it (and giving appropriate resistances to elemental damage so as not to favor casters too much). But you're probably right.

[Trask]

I hope they don't. In a Bounded Accuracy world, resistance/immunity to nonmagical damage is an important setting conceit to explain how mundane armies don't overcome powerful liches and extraplanar invasions

[stoutstien]

I hope they don't. In a Bounded Accuracy world, resistance/immunity to nonmagical damage is an important setting conceit to explain how mundane armies don't overcome powerful liches and extraplanar invasions

Eh. I hear that but just wide generic "magic type" is also kinda disappointing outside of really cool stuff like a sentient weapon.

I want my cool weaknesses that can be leveraged because the party spent time delving in forgotten lore and circumstances and planning to matter pass a blanket yes/no.

[Mastikator]

I hope they don't. In a Bounded Accuracy world, resistance/immunity to nonmagical damage is an important setting conceit to explain how mundane armies don't overcome powerful liches and extraplanar invasions

I'd rather just have specific ones like silvered, adamantine, mithral, byeshk, infernal steel, etc. Letting magic beat everything greatly cheapens those IMO. I know it's hyper convenient to never have to care about it when my +1 long sword just always works, but it effectively removes that aspect from the game.

[Gignere]

I think if magical weapon damage overcoming resistance is done away with, it would be an improvement to the game. Many of the creatures with weapon resistance right now becomes a snooze fest with just having +1 or even just a moon touched weapon. When obviously their CR budget gives substantial weight to B/P/S resistance.

If they kept the materials goes through resistance might be interesting to see martials weighing the options of should I give up on my +2 weapon and attack with my silvered short sword, so trading accuracy for overcoming resistance. I think this makes the game more interesting.

[Psyren]

Magic Weapon is still a spell in the UAs. I'm not saying your theory is incorrect, but it begs the question of what that spell will do if this is the case.

Also, many of the MPMM monsters still have "resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, slashing" and the like.

[MoiMagnus]

I believe magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage will not be a thing in the next iteration of D&D.

That's an interesting thought.
I wonder how they will handle magical weapons. Does that mean that the "+1" sword will be replaced by "+1 and now the damage is fire/radiant/whatever" sword?

In the best case scenario, that would mean more emphasis on elemental resistances and which element to use, and not just for spellcasters but also for martials (having weapons of different elements).

[JonBeowulf]

That's an interesting thought.
I wonder how they will handle magical weapons. Does that mean that the "+1" sword will be replaced by "+1 and now the damage is fire/radiant/whatever" sword?

In the best case scenario, that would mean more emphasis on elemental resistances and which element to use, and not just for spellcasters but also for martials (having weapons of different elements).

Or maybe just a general rule that "if the weapon has an additional property, the weapon is magical". So a +X weapon, an alt-damage weapon, a weapon that mimics a spell effect (cast Misty Step once per day), or any such rider makes the weapon magical and bypasses the mundane B/P/S immunity or reduces it to resistance to mundane B/P/S so any such weapon is not a "we win" button.

[Bane's Wolf]

If they kept the materials goes through resistance might be interesting to see martials weighing the options of should I give up on my +2 weapon and attack with my silvered short sword, so trading accuracy for overcoming resistance. I think this makes the game more interesting.

Definitely agreed

the generic "Magic weapon" is easy to find in most games, and it makes all monsters suddenly squishy.
I would love to have a reason to invest in a magic weapon (for everyday fighting), a silvered Shortsword (for were-wolves), an adamantine hammer (for golems), and a holy spear (for deamons and undead).

Currently all a player needs is a magic sword to cover all bases, which is fine, but boring

[Oramac]

I would love to have a reason to invest in a magic weapon (for everyday fighting), a silvered Shortsword (for were-wolves), an adamantine hammer (for golems), and a holy spear (for deamons and undead).

And a Bag of Holding to carry it all.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I also like my verisimilitude. It's far simpler to "carry a +1 sword" than it is to "carry 4 different weapons for 4 different situations".

Sure, you could make the argument that you need to prepare for the fight by having the correct weapon in-hand, and everything else in the Bag of Holding. But there's a lot of "if" in that argument. IF you can get all 4+ weapons. IF you can get a Bag of Holding. IF you know what you're fighting ahead of time. IF the DM doesn't use different monster types in the same combat.

Sometimes simple is better.

[stoutstien]

And a Bag of Holding to carry it all.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I also like my verisimilitude. It's far simpler to "carry a +1 sword" than it is to "carry 4 different weapons for 4 different situations".

Sure, you could make the argument that you need to prepare for the fight by having the correct weapon in-hand, and everything else in the Bag of Holding. But there's a lot of "if" in that argument. IF you can get all 4+ weapons. IF you can get a Bag of Holding. IF you know what you're fighting ahead of time. IF the DM doesn't use different monster types in the same combat.

Sometimes simple is better.

Banes and other applied substances can handle this outside of 1-3 major material types

[JackPhoenix]

Definitely agreed

the generic "Magic weapon" is easy to find in most games, and it makes all monsters suddenly squishy.
I would love to have a reason to invest in a magic weapon (for everyday fighting), a silvered Shortsword (for were-wolves), an adamantine hammer (for golems), and a holy spear (for deamons and undead).

Currently all a player needs is a magic sword to cover all bases, which is fine, but boring

Funny thing is, the golf bag of weapon effect was a common complaint back when that was a thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And a Bag of Holding to carry it all.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I also like my verisimilitude. It's far simpler to "carry a +1 sword" than it is to "carry 4 different weapons for 4 different situations".

Sure, you could make the argument that you need to prepare for the fight by having the correct weapon in-hand, and everything else in the Bag of Holding. But there's a lot of "if" in that argument. IF you can get all 4+ weapons. IF you can get a Bag of Holding. IF you know what you're fighting ahead of time. IF the DM doesn't use different monster types in the same combat.

Sometimes simple is better.

I agree with this. In addition, it's basically a "martial tax". Now you need N magic items of the right weapon type instead of just 1.

[Blackdrop]

I wonder if one way to do it would be that magic weapons always defeat resistance and have special material weapons have an extra effect. So your +2 longsword would work fine against the werewolf, but a non-magical silver longsword would do double damage and hit the werewolf with the poisoned condition or something.

[Psyren]

I agree with this. In addition, it's basically a "martial tax". Now you need N magic items of the right weapon type instead of just 1.

Agreed. Meanwhile the casters can roll up not only with an array of elemental spells to choose from, they can even use feats to just stick with the same one most of the time.

[stoutstien]

I wonder if one way to do it would be that magic weapons always defeat resistance and have special material weapons have an extra effect. So your +2 longsword would work fine against the werewolf, but a non-magical silver longsword would do double damage and hit the werewolf with the poisoned condition or something.

Kinda the direction I took for my WIP.

The basic questions:
what if we took the design space used by damage type and resistance/immunity and made them more interactive for the players/heroes?

Could one make a weapon/attack action subsystem that was more than "pick the biggest damage die that you can make the most attacks with," while avoiding it from becoming unapproachable from those with 0 experience in TTRPGs?

Could one model the Zweihänder and the rapier to support the fantasy rather than an afterthought tact on as a means to make HP go away?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Kinda the direction I took for my WIP.

The basic questions:
what if we took the design space used by damage type and resistance/immunity and made them more interactive for the players/heroes?

Could one make a weapon/attack action subsystem that was more than "pick the biggest damage die that you can make the most attacks with," while avoiding it from becoming unapproachable from those with 0 experience in TTRPGs?

Could one model the Zweihänder and the rapier to support the fantasy rather than an afterthought tact on as a means to make HP go away?

You could...at the cost of bloating the action resolution stage. And for something like weapon attacks (which are rather core to the whole combat system) you'd have to rewrite the entire system from the ground up. Things that happen a lot can't take very much effort or thought to resolve. Otherwise you have sludge.

Resistance and immunity is a relatively boring, high-procedure feature. High-procedure because you have to track damage types separately--a sword that does magical piercing + radiant means tracking those two damage rolls separately instead of rolling them together and adding. Boring because it's just numerical modulation. And there's not much you can do about it without either rewriting the combat system or switching weapons (which causes the whole martial tax thing).

Instead, I find it better to do some combination of
a) increasing the HP of things that should be hard to kill (using regeneration if appropriate).
b) giving conditional, specific weaknesses. Things like shutting down regeneration, giving disadvantage on attacks for a time, causing it to act differently, etc. An example of this is the flesh golem + fire thing.

is the best course. Save immunities for things that really, fictionally, shouldn't ever possibly get hurt by something (ie fire elementals and fire). And those should be blatantly obvious from the description of the creature. No, poisoning an earth elemental should just fail. And then drop resistances 99% of the time.

[Bane's Wolf]

And a Bag of Holding to carry it all.

Or have the artificer make you a Final Fantasy 7 Fusion Sword, 7 in one, for every occasion :smalltongue:

I do get the point about the martial tax. I personally don't think carrying a few extra tools around is a big deal, but it can be a problem if a player isn't into it.
I just like the "monster hunter" idea. Find out what monster it is, find it's weakness, prepare your equipment for the fight.

I can understand that it's not every person's cup of tea



Instead, I find it better to do some combination of
a) increasing the HP of things that should be hard to kill (using regeneration if appropriate).
b) giving conditional, specific weaknesses. Things like shutting down regeneration, giving disadvantage on attacks for a time, causing it to act differently, etc. An example of this is the flesh golem + fire thing.


Yes!
This would be very cool :smallsmile:

i'm one of those folks who would like my fighter to have a tool for most situations.
It bugs me that almost no enemies care if the damage is slashing, piercing or bashing. For 99% of monsters, it's all the same

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or have the artificer make you a Final Fantasy 7 Fusion Sword, 7 in one, for every occasion :smalltongue:

I do get the point about the martial tax. I personally don't think carrying a few extra tools around is a big deal, but it can be a problem if a player isn't into it.
I just like the "monster hunter" idea. Find out what monster it is, find it's weakness, prepare your equipment for the fight.

I can understand that it's not every person's cup of tea


And hope you're only fighting one variety of thing. That's the fatal flaw with that (and putting too much power into the ranger's Favored Enemy)--heterogenous groups are the default.

And since magic items aren't player entitlements in 5e, the whole "golf bag of weapons" idea, if given teeth, just makes a mess and particularly hurts the ones who aren't doing the best.

Imagine the howls if most creatures were like Rakshasas, except with particular spells they could actually be hurt/affected by. So "immune to all spells except magic missile and witch bolt".

[Bane's Wolf]

And hope you're only fighting one variety of thing. That's the fatal flaw with that (and putting too much power into the ranger's Favored Enemy)--heterogenous groups are the default.

And since magic items aren't player entitlements in 5e, the whole "golf bag of weapons" idea, if given teeth, just makes a mess and particularly hurts the ones who aren't doing the best.

Imagine the howls if most creatures were like Rakshasas, except with particular spells they could actually be hurt/affected by. So "immune to all spells except magic missile and witch bolt".

The howls would be spectacular. But i would probably have fun with it :smalltongue:

I want to see the aberration that simply eats and grows off of Arcane magic, or the Undead Lord who cannot be touched by Divine magic.

But yeah, these should be pretty rare monsters. It can get tiring fast when you just don't have the tools.

But back on topic:
I still like my idea, but i can agree that it might not work for "default DnD" and its settings.
The golf bag of weapons is perhaps suited to a Witcher type game

Perhaps best we keep these to homebrew :smallwink:

[Psyren]

Thinking about it more, I think OP is onto something. Magic Weapon might simply let you change your weapon type to Radiant/Necrotic or maybe Force in OneD&D, and Elemental Weapon from the Primal list will become more valuable as well. The plus side to this is that every resistance to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing will work on those types regardless of weapon, which will make monsters and barbarians alike easier to parse.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The howls would be spectacular. But i would probably have fun with it :smalltongue:

I want to see the aberration that simply eats and grows off of Arcane magic, or the Undead Lord who cannot be touched by Divine magic.

But yeah, these should be pretty rare monsters. It can get tiring fast when you just don't have the tools.

But back on topic:
I still like my idea, but i can agree that it might not work for "default DnD" and its settings.
The golf bag of weapons is perhaps suited to a Witcher type game

Perhaps best we keep these to homebrew :smallwink:

I agree to that.

I had lots of fun (the party got PTSD :smallbiggrin:) from a very simple monster--it was a giant tree that had grown up in a wild magic zone. As such, it could use a reaction to replicate any spell it saw cast within 30' of it, choosing new targets. Using your casting stat. Totally unfair. But I'd warned them that the region was really unfriendly to magic, and they'd already fought things that reacted...weirdly...to magic.

There were two of them within 30' of each other. The wizard cast steel wind strike. The 5 members of the party were all within 30' of each other...nearly TPK'd them. They got a lot more cautious after that. And then the paladin used cure wounds, thinking it would cast it on the party. But then it healed itself.

Another fun set of monsters was a reverse ooze--

A whole bunch of small elementals. When one was dropped to zero, it didn't really die...yet. If there was another one within a certain distance, they'd fuze and grow one size bigger, regaining its health. They'd only die if they were alone for more than 1 full round at 0 HP. And they were all "programmed" to move toward the downed ones and moved pretty fast. This stopped when there was only one, a Huge (IIRC) one. They'd also gain new abilities with each size--things like a burst that disrupted magic (more wild-magic elementals), teleporting right before being hit (effectively shield, but a reaction teleport that pre-empts the hit instead).

I find that active abilities (which might be actions or things like auras that trigger when someone does something) are the most interesting. Stuff that merely modulates incoming and outgoing damage and conditions? Not so much.

[sithlordnergal]

I suspect it might be going away for NPCs, but not for PCs. While I know it can hurt verisimilitude, I kind of prefer the "Magic weapon trumps Resistance" of 5e. I can remember in 3.5 when they had a lot more resistance types. As a result you needed to carry way too many weapons. Silvered, Adamantine, Cold Iron, Anarchic, Axiomatic, Flaming, Slashing, Piercing, Bludgeoning...It was a mess. Sure, you couldn't just bypass resistances with a simple +1 warhammer, but I don't think having all those different resistance types was worth it in the end

[Snails]

I agree with this. In addition, it's basically a "martial tax". Now you need N magic items of the right weapon type instead of just 1.

We so missed you, Expected Wealth By Level table!:smallfrown:

[Lunali]

I hope they don't. In a Bounded Accuracy world, resistance/immunity to nonmagical damage is an important setting conceit to explain how mundane armies don't overcome powerful liches and extraplanar invasions

The correct answer to that question is that the rules of D&D only apply with respect to PCs. Everyone else in the world follows the rules of storytelling.

[Arkhios]

[weapon damage] could very well be a damage type itself.

[stoutstien]

You could...at the cost of bloating the action resolution stage. And for something like weapon attacks (which are rather core to the whole combat system) you'd have to rewrite the entire system from the ground up. Things that happen a lot can't take very much effort or thought to resolve. Otherwise you have sludge.

Resistance and immunity is a relatively boring, high-procedure feature. High-procedure because you have to track damage types separately--a sword that does magical piercing + radiant means tracking those two damage rolls separately instead of rolling them together and adding. Boring because it's just numerical modulation. And there's not much you can do about it without either rewriting the combat system or switching weapons (which causes the whole martial tax thing).

Instead, I find it better to do some combination of
a) increasing the HP of things that should be hard to kill (using regeneration if appropriate).
b) giving conditional, specific weaknesses. Things like shutting down regeneration, giving disadvantage on attacks for a time, causing it to act differently, etc. An example of this is the flesh golem + fire thing.

is the best course. Save immunities for things that really, fictionally, shouldn't ever possibly get hurt by something (ie fire elementals and fire). And those should be blatantly obvious from the description of the creature. No, poisoning an earth elemental should just fail. And then drop resistances 99% of the time.

I did I bad job outlining. Nothing new for me.

So at the core, 5e weapons has P/S/B types, a little wiggle room for damage die size, and a handful of tags/categories such as reach or loading. Add in a mini blurb for silvered weapons that's about the extent for (weapons) as "choice" that are player facing outside of<spells that channel via weapons>, <restrictions due to tag(sneak attack)>, and the rare <not spell but magic with weapons>.


Almost none of this is character facing. it's all things that take place at the meta level. Great sword vs great axe is a popular topic that falls in this category. usually boils down to the fact that the math around 2d6 is superior to 1d12 in most cases but magic X act as a trump.
As much as I personally enjoy little math problems like that, as a game design principle it a waste of page base, and more importantly, cognitive load.

How I'm approaching it all:

Starting with the damage types themselves. I'm gutting them. Resistance/immunity/vulnerability is rare and mostly slapdash in application. It's sole job is to make the weapon table larger. Weapon damage is weapon damage. I'm calling it trauma as a place holder.

Simple and martial(needs a name change) weapons still exist. If anything the gap between them is going to grow and the proficiency to use the latter is going to more difficult to aquire. They are going to keep the slight damage die size increase but they are going to have tags/descriptions that are interactive for those who specialize in using them. I haven't decided if this is going to be located on the class level of design or the weapons themselves but the two major options are:

glancing blows- as long as the target's AC is below X you always deal X damage even on a miss. This applies to normal damage roll as well. ( want combat to be quick, chaotic and dangerous. This allows it because no matter what a giant axe being swung around it likely to hit even if not a full up square blow.)

piercing blows- as long as your attack roll total exceeds the targets AC by X you deal X extra damage.
(Finding the soft spot or gaps in armor.)

As of now these two options are mutually exclusive but I haven't sat down and played with the math to see if I could put them in some kind of mixed format. Although the total goal is to keep it fairly streamlined and simple. NPCs have the opportunity for these as well and the majority of the active defensive features are going to interact with them. So a shield can prevent the first glancing or piercing blow in a round which is a good thing because Both these options are impactful. not only am I cutting HP totals drastically down I am also cutting attacks. Currently the highest attack any single hero could perform in a single round is three and two of those attacks are circumstantial. (One of my design goals was to take the average three to four rounds of combat and shrink it into a single one and at the same time make the actions more fluid so feels like combat not like chess).

Even the toughest hero, the barbarian, who can weather blows that would fell others isn't going to survive more than 3-4 direct blows. In the same vein if the barbarian gets close enough to swing their giant ax at the lich it's probably dead..redead.... temporarily more dead.
most martials have ways of jump up in the turn order with their attack at the cost of accuracy but glancing damage means that they could "go" last and still kill first. Like I said I want combat to feel dangerous and at no point in time while it's going on do I want the players to feel like it's predetermined or as easy as ABC.


As far as weaknesses go I'm just blanketing under the term Banes. The only creatures that aren't affected directly by weapons are ones that are completely incorporeal. Resistance is modeled purely by either more health, some sort of active defense, or higher AC. All three are interactive on the player and hero level.

Banes are just that. In a sense most games already has them with things like holy water. All I'm doing is putting a little blurb on the NPC card that says BANES/ list of things, actions or materials.

An example of this in my games I have a creature that are roughly translate into marrow trolls. Creatures that ambush prey with a venomous bite and then wait for them to die and for the flesh to be removed by time/scavengers so they can consume the bones. Because I spend so much time being stationary they are extremely tough just by the nature of having an entire ecosystem growing on top of them most of the time. Even if all trolls have an an aversion to fire these trolls have inadvertently found a way around this by being covered in damp Moss and slightly rotten vegetation. They have 2 banes. They can't see in the daylight and they can't consume flesh or else they die in the same manner as the inflect.

The 100% should be world building tools before anything else rather than some pathetic attempt at balance and a weak handed attempt at rationalizing it afterwards.

Unironically I'm flipping the script on spell casters and they actually have a much harder time. Weapons are basically Force damage now and are applicable in 99.9% of the situations where spells need much more consideration if you are looking solely at damage. I think right now I only have two options where they're at will abilities come anywhere close to what a weapon can do. Everyone else better learn how to shoot a bow or swing something prevention enough to defend themselves.
Adventuring is dangerous and combat more so. In my setting deities actively walk the planes and even they don't look for it more than absolutely necessary.

[Anonymouswizard]

I agree with this. In addition, it's basically a "martial tax". Now you need N magic items of the right weapon type instead of just 1.

Eh, low level martials already want a half dozen weapons (main P/B/S, emergency ranged/melee option, socially acceptable weapon for towns/events, hidden dagger in case you have to leave all weapons at the door). I don't see the reason why that should change at higher levels beyond magic weapons requiring attunement (which as TWF is meant to be a major option probably shouldn't be a thing). It also wouldn't be a terrible thing to rework the game to have nonmagical weapons remain viable even up to the level cap, potentially through something like letting crits ignore resistance (but not immunity) and giving martials crit range boosts.

However the game should probably settle on either the physical damage type or material as the thing martials need to care about, and honestly I'd go for the former. It's easy to add a new material to the game, and suddenly that's another 200,000sp martials have to spend, it's a lot harder to add another physical damage type. Let materials be occasional weaknesses if you must have them.

On that note, material components should probably be re-emphasised for casters instead of letting foci sub for most of them. Maybe not in the old way or to cart-wizard extents, but it could be a nice check on their power.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Rather then say expand damage resistances we need more monsters with vulnerabilities, and it doesn't need to be a full on DOUBLE DAMAGE. Everyone has a calculator it could be as simple as x1.25 for an extra 25%.
Maybe just the weapon die rolls are doubled, so the blessed silver great-sword does 4d6+X against demons instead of 2d6+x. Additional dice from class features and the like aren't effected. Or the base weapon damage is just maximized. The silvered longsword does 8 damage against the werewolf instead of 1d8.

[Bane's Wolf]

I agree to that.

I had lots of fun (the party got PTSD :smallbiggrin:) from a very simple monster--it was a giant tree that had grown up in a wild magic zone. As such, it could use a reaction to replicate any spell it saw cast within 30' of it, choosing new targets. Using your casting stat. Totally unfair. But I'd warned them that the region was really unfriendly to magic, and they'd already fought things that reacted...weirdly...to magic.

There were two of them within 30' of each other. The wizard cast steel wind strike. The 5 members of the party were all within 30' of each other...nearly TPK'd them. They got a lot more cautious after that. And then the paladin used cure wounds, thinking it would cast it on the party. But then it healed itself.

Another fun set of monsters was a reverse ooze--

A whole bunch of small elementals. When one was dropped to zero, it didn't really die...yet. If there was another one within a certain distance, they'd fuze and grow one size bigger, regaining its health. They'd only die if they were alone for more than 1 full round at 0 HP. And they were all "programmed" to move toward the downed ones and moved pretty fast. This stopped when there was only one, a Huge (IIRC) one. They'd also gain new abilities with each size--things like a burst that disrupted magic (more wild-magic elementals), teleporting right before being hit (effectively shield, but a reaction teleport that pre-empts the hit instead).

I find that active abilities (which might be actions or things like auras that trigger when someone does something) are the most interesting. Stuff that merely modulates incoming and outgoing damage and conditions? Not so much.

This is amazing! :smallbiggrin:

I may just steal and repurpose your Wild Magic Tree. It sounds like a beautifully traumatizing adversary.
And sticking to the theme of this post, i might add qualities to it that make it vulnerable to damage from Axes, specifically, and resistant to all other weapons (making sure to give my players enough warning and planning time. I'm not cruel. not completely :smallwink:)


Rather then say expand damage resistances we need more monsters with vulnerabilities, and it doesn't need to be a full on DOUBLE DAMAGE. Everyone has a calculator it could be as simple as x1.25 for an extra 25%.
Maybe just the weapon die rolls are doubled, so the blessed silver great-sword does 4d6+X against demons instead of 2d6+x. Additional dice from class features and the like aren't effected. Or the base weapon damage is just maximized. The silvered longsword does 8 damage against the werewolf instead of 1d8.

Yes :smallbiggrin:
this idea intrigues me.
I don't want to whip out my calculator, but maximized damage sounds cool...

For my games, i may give the werewolf the usual resistance to normal weapons, normal damage with the magic sword, but Maximized damage with a silver sword(magic or not)

[Samayu]

I’ve been dwelling on this idea for a long time, at least since Monsters of the Multiverse came out, and further convinced this was happening by the One D&D UAs.

I believe magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage will not be a thing in the next iteration of D&D.

In MP: MotM, powerful monsters that did magical B/P/S in their Volo’s Guide or Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes iterations instead deal force damage. In the UAs for One D&D, especially the one which came out today (Druid and Paladin), we see evidence of that in several cases.
The Oath of Devotion’s Sacred Weapon feature, instead of making the weapon’s damage magical, gives the option to turn its type to radiant. Likewise, the generic Familiar and Steed statblocks deal radiant, psychic, or necrotic damage depending on creature type instead of more “mundane” damage types.
The gutted Moon Druid no longer has magical Wild Shape attacks, but instead has Elemental Wild Shape (which is similar to the 2014 PHB feature in name only) change your wild shape attacks to an elemental damage type.

There are other features scattered around, which I can dig up if requested, but I feel that’s enough at the moment to support my position.

So what is the answer for magic weapons? Non-magical weapons deal b/p/s, but magical ones deal Force damage? And then certain monsters will have resistance or immunity to b/p/s?

[P. G. Macer]

So what is the answer for magic weapons? Non-magical weapons deal b/p/s, but magical ones deal Force damage? And then certain monsters will have resistance or immunity to b/p/s?

I’m not sure, but what you suggested is a distinct possibility IMHO. Another possibility (in the grand WotC tradition of hosing the martial classes in favor of the spellcasters) is that most magic weapons still deal B/P/S, and just aren’t effective where they are in 5e. I think that it’s unlikely that’s the route the designers will take, but given things like the Ravnica Backgrounds made it to print, who knows?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

In games terms it's a pretty awkward mechanic. Martials generally don't have a lot of other effective options, so if you include monsters with BPS resistance and don't hand out magical sticks you're basically hamstringing your martials. So then it becomes mostly irrelevant. I suppose it still is a limit on most summoning spells with most casters, which most of the time isn't a bad thing. However, this whole interaction highlights one of the scenarios where Shepherd Druids are way OP: DM throws a bunch of monsters out with BPS resistance (amongst other resistances), most casters have to adjust tactics at least somewhat, but the Shepherd's summoned minions can really hammer monsters who's CR is based on resistances rather than HP.

Ultimately I find things that provide either vulnerability or resistance to one of B, P, or S far more interesting, particularly for martials. They can adjust tactics to occasionally move away from their default fighting style without being totally neutered. This is more in line with what casters have to deal with when they run across monsters with resistances and immunities.

[Bane's Wolf]

Ultimately I find things that provide either vulnerability or resistance to one of B, P, or S far more interesting, particularly for martials. They can adjust tactics to occasionally move away from their default fighting style without being totally neutered. This is more in line with what casters have to deal with when they run across monsters with resistances and immunities.

Agreed. I'd love to see the B, P, and S actually matter a bit more.
Currently, the only important aspect of a weapon seems to be its damage Dice

[Oramac]

Ultimately I find things that provide either vulnerability or resistance to one of B, P, or S far more interesting, particularly for martials. They can adjust tactics to occasionally move away from their default fighting style without being totally neutered. This is more in line with what casters have to deal with when they run across monsters with resistances and immunities.


Agreed. I'd love to see the B, P, and S actually matter a bit more.
Currently, the only important aspect of a weapon seems to be its damage Dice

Agreed.

Treat B/P/S as equivalent to fire/cold/acid/etc. A monster who is resistant/immune to fire? The wizard uses acid spells. Resistant/immune to necrotic? Use radiant (or fire/cold/etc).

I see no reason why B/P/S should be any different. Resistant/immune to slashing? Use bludgeoning. Resistant/immune to bludgeoning? Use piercing. The argument has been made ad nauseum that edged weapons can effectively deal all 3 damage types, so let them. And it wouldn't be hard to make a Spiked Maul that can do piercing or bludgeoning, for example.

[stoutstien]

Agreed.

Treat B/P/S as equivalent to fire/cold/acid/etc. A monster who is resistant/immune to fire? The wizard uses acid spells. Resistant/immune to necrotic? Use radiant (or fire/cold/etc).

I see no reason why B/P/S should be any different. Resistant/immune to slashing? Use bludgeoning. Resistant/immune to bludgeoning? Use piercing. The argument has been made ad nauseum that edged weapons can effectively deal all 3 damage types, so let them. And it wouldn't be hard to make a Spiked Maul that can do piercing or bludgeoning, for example.

That's exactly why it doesn't work though because, unlike spell, weapons aren't taking a non descriptive amount of space and hand economy. Doing this way leads to the golf bag of sharp things to use. And if all weapons deal all types then there no reason to separate them past playing rock, paper, scissors. False options with no value.

The whole angle of "martials need more hurdles to jump through because spell casters have them" seems to be forgotten thay spell inherently have so many options to begin with that the hurdles aren't really that. At most they are 3 inches tall.

[Hytheter]

Giving more things one of BPS resistance instead of all three doesn't make damage types matter or make martial combat more interesting, it just means the fighter has to carry three weapons. Same goes for having a bunch of specific material based resistances. It's just more clubs in the golf bag, more words to write on your character sheet. Making it actually matter would require a meaningful IE less permissive inventory system where you can't just carry one of everything, but the general play culture seems to oppose inventory management.



In MP: MotM, powerful monsters that did magical B/P/S in their Volo’s Guide or Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes iterations instead deal force damage.

I just want to note that this kind of change really super sucks for barbarians. Make of that what you will.


Everyone has a calculator it could be as simple as x1.25 for an extra 25%.

Everyone has a calculator, but few want to pull it out and fiddle with it every time they deal damage. Would be a lot easier to use an additive method instead.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

I’ve been dwelling on this idea for a long time, at least since Monsters of the Multiverse came out, and further convinced this was happening by the One D&D UAs.

I believe magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage will not be a thing in the next iteration of D&D.

In MP: MotM, powerful monsters that did magical B/P/S in their Volo’s Guide or Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes iterations instead deal force damage. In the UAs for One D&D, especially the one which came out today (Druid and Paladin), we see evidence of that in several cases.
The Oath of Devotion’s Sacred Weapon feature, instead of making the weapon’s damage magical, gives the option to turn its type to radiant. Likewise, the generic Familiar and Steed statblocks deal radiant, psychic, or necrotic damage depending on creature type instead of more “mundane” damage types.
The gutted Moon Druid no longer has magical Wild Shape attacks, but instead has Elemental Wild Shape (which is similar to the 2014 PHB feature in name only) change your wild shape attacks to an elemental damage type.

There are other features scattered around, which I can dig up if requested, but I feel that’s enough at the moment to support my position.


Oh, I hope it does.

Same with the distinction between magical and non-magical damage.

I would very much like Fire to be Fire, Bludgeoning to be Bludgeoning, and getting hit in the face with a chair thrown from a Barbarian or Catapult spell to just **be** damage.

You can still have creatures with specific resistances or whatever, especially at high levels, but it will be more like “resist piercing damage” or “immune to fire damage”.

You can even have spells and features that ignore those resistances/immunities.

Cold Iron could ignore the BPS damage resistance of fey. Spells can say “this spell ignores resistances to XYZ damage”.

Overall fire is fire and piercing is piercing.

[sithlordnergal]

Oh, I hope it does.

Same with the distinction between magical and non-magical damage.

I would very much like Fire to be Fire, Bludgeoning to be Bludgeoning, and getting hit in the face with a chair thrown from a Barbarian or Catapult spell to just **be** damage.

You can still have creatures with specific resistances or whatever, especially at high levels, but it will be more like “resist piercing damage” or “immune to fire damage”.

You can even have spells and features that ignore those resistances/immunities.

Cold Iron could ignore the BPS damage resistance of fey. Spells can say “this spell ignores resistances to XYZ damage”.

Overall fire is fire and piercing is piercing.


...But the only time the distinction between magical and non-magical damage matters is with BPS. Fire damage is just Fire damage, doesn't matter if its from a Fireball or a Torch. Same with all the other damage types. Sure, you'd be hard pressed to find a non-magical source of Force or Necrotic damage, but they're technically not considered magical damage, nor does anything resist mundane forms of that damage. I can't think of a single creature that resists, or is immune to, non-magical Fire damage.

The distinction between non-magical BPS and magical BPS is kind of the exception to all the other damage types.

[PhoenixPhyre]

...But the only time the distinction between magical and non-magical damage matters is with BPS. Fire damage is just Fire damage, doesn't matter if its from a Fireball or a Torch. Same with all the other damage types. Sure, you'd be hard pressed to find a non-magical source of Force or Necrotic damage, but they're technically not considered magical damage, nor does anything resist mundane forms of that damage. I can't think of a single creature that resists, or is immune to, non-magical Fire damage.

The distinction between non-magical BPS and magical BPS is kind of the exception to all the other damage types.

:pedantry:

There actually isn't magical BPS either. They erattad all those entries to say "BPS from a non-magical weapon". There is no magic/non-magic distinction for damage types. There is only
* damage type
* source of damage (which might be magical or not).

:/pedantry:

[sithlordnergal]

:pedantry:

There actually isn't magical BPS either. They erattad all those entries to say "BPS from a non-magical weapon". There is no magic/non-magic distinction for damage types. There is only
* damage type
* source of damage (which might be magical or not).

:/pedantry:

Good point, there isn't magical BPS. XD Though BPS is still the only damage type that cares if the source of the damage is magical or not. I can't think of a single creature that resists an elemental damage type from a non-magical source.

[Oramac]

I can't think of a single creature that resists an elemental damage type from a non-magical source.

That's actually a good point. 5e at least doesn't make a distinction between magic fire damage and non-magic fire damage. Or any other non-BPS damage type, for that matter.

So hit someone with a ray of frost or dunk them in liquid nitrogen? Hit em with witch bolt or a natural lightning bolt? Stand in a campfire or fireball? All the same thing, as far as monsters are concerned. Kinda weird.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Good point, there isn't magical BPS. XD Though BPS is still the only damage type that cares if the source of the damage is magical or not. I can't think of a single creature that resists an elemental damage type from a non-magical source.

Agreed. I was just being pedantic because, well, that's who I am.

[Bane's Wolf]

Giving more things one of BPS resistance instead of all three doesn't make damage types matter or make martial combat more interesting, it just means the fighter has to carry three weapons. Same goes for having a bunch of specific material based resistances. It's just more clubs in the golf bag, more words to write on your character sheet. Making it actually matter would require a meaningful IE less permissive inventory system where you can't just carry one of everything, but the general play culture seems to oppose inventory management.

I respectfully want to disagree with this.
Giving more things one BPS resistance, or even immunity, (and especially Vulnerability) absolutely makes Damage types matter.
It can potentially make martial combat more interesting by forcing the martials to adapt and make new plans. Perhaps start improvising weapons, or flee the fight to prepare for the next time. Perhaps get their caster friend to put elemental charms on their weapon.

I'm not saying every monster should have these qualities, but definitely more of them. And only where it makes sense.
Your basic foot-soldier isn't going to have these qualities. Your weapons will work fine 90% of the time. But the occasional special encounter where the optimal strategy doesn't work makes for more interesting encounters and stories.

Martial characters get proficiency to ALL martial weapons. They can use any weapon they pick up. This is a feature of the warrior "Type"
If every weapon is equally good against every monster, there is no reason for this. The exact same effect could be produced by giving Martial proficiency in one melee and one ranged weapon, since they are never going to change...


I just want to note that this kind of change really super sucks for barbarians. Make of that what you will.

Here i agree with you.
If most monsters now deal non BPS damage, barbarians are going to need an overhaul.
That said, its a "new" edition. This is an opportunity for them to re-balance monster design, alongside class design. I'll keep fingers crossed that non BPS damage is a small selection of monsters.

[Anonymouswizard]

There's probably a good argument for just having 'weapon' as a damage type. The game is pretty much halfway there already, and honestly the weapon table is boring enough as it stands that I'd happily just use 13th Age style class based damage. I'd also probably remove 'resistance/immunity to nomagical...' unless magic weapons don't return to not only being expected, but actively noted as to when PCs should get them.

Yes, 'you must get the Master Sword to defeat Ganon' is a trope. But it's annoying when the GM still hasn't dropped a single bloody magic crossbow when you're built around the things. Or magic greataxe, or halberd, or whatever weapon you want to use (double club?). Or when a 90% martial party (it happens) doesn't have a way around it.

[Hytheter]

I respectfully want to disagree with this.
Giving more things one BPS resistance, or even immunity, (and especially Vulnerability) absolutely makes Damage types matter.
It can potentially make martial combat more interesting by forcing the martials to adapt and make new plans. Perhaps start improvising weapons, or flee the fight to prepare for the next time.

They won't need to use an improvised weapon or run away if they just carry three weapons, which is trivial to do because weapons are cheap and carry capacity is generous. Which was the entire point of my post. In the worst case scenario you waste one attack with a longsword before drawing your mace. That's not interesting gameplay, it's just a momentary annoyance and some inventory clutter.

The reason it works for spellcasters is because they have a limited number of spells they can know/prepare at once. They have to choose between Fireball and Lightning Bolt or else give up on some other spell, but Martials give up next to nothing by carrying a mace and rapier for when their longsword isn't cutting it*.

*Pun not intended but I'll take it

[Gignere]

They won't need to use an improvised weapon or run away if they just carry three weapons, which is trivial to do because weapons are cheap and carry capacity is generous. Which was the entire point of my post. In the worst case scenario you waste one attack with a longsword before drawing your mace. That's not interesting gameplay, it's just a momentary annoyance and some inventory clutter.

The reason it works for spellcasters is because they have a limited number of spells they can know/prepare at once. They have to choose between Fireball and Lightning Bolt or else give up on some other spell, but Martials give up next to nothing by carrying a mace and rapier for when their longsword isn't cutting it*.

*Pun not intended but I'll take it

I don’t know given popularity of PAM and GWM I’d argue swapping for an adamantine dagger is just as limiting as spells maybe even more so because characters have even less feats.

[Joe the Rat]

I agree with this. In addition, it's basically a "martial tax". Now you need N magic items of the right weapon type instead of just 1.

It's a tax, in gold and encumbrance. You don't need N magic weapons, you need N weapons of different types. Silver sword, iron sword, adamantine pick, one of which is magical covers the traditional bases (or iron sword, silver hammer, adamant pick for the old schooler crowd). Any more material or traits needed to overcome resistances is probably best for specific games themed around difficult monsters and finding weaknesses.

There are places where overcoming resistance (or immunity) should be magic or X (devils and silver, fae and iron, for example). This is good for lower-level encounters, or for times where magic may not be readily available to all combatants. But there are times where I think overcoming immunity ought to be X only. If lycanthropes were immune to all nonsilver, or if they were just resistant to magical weapon damage, it gives them a bit more threat, and the lore weaknesses important deeper into the levels.

With the ubiquity of magical attacks, I suppose the other way to do it is to shift towards vulnerabilities. For the lycanthrope, double HP, give immunity to regular BPS, and vulnerability to silver (and radiant, for moonbeam's sake) creates a window where a silver sword is more effective than scorching rays... and Paladins are the default Hunters of Dread Monsters.

I also think that some creatures ought to be resistant to magical damage of all types, but I am happy leaving that as a design preference for my own adventures.

[Hytheter]

I don’t know given popularity of PAM and GWM I’d argue swapping for an adamantine dagger is just as limiting as spells maybe even more so because characters have even less feats.

Why would you buy and adamant dagger if you specialise with glaives?

Either way, it's not 'just as limiting' as spell choice. Sure, it may hurt your damage output to switch but the fact is you can switch. Whereas a spellcaster simply cannot cast Fireball at all if they didn't prepare it that day.

[Bane's Wolf]

It's a tax, in gold and encumbrance. You don't need N magic weapons, you need N weapons of different types. Silver sword, iron sword, adamantine pick, one of which is magical covers the traditional bases (or iron sword, silver hammer, adamant pick for the old schooler crowd). Any more material or traits needed to overcome resistances is probably best for specific games themed around difficult monsters and finding weaknesses.

There are places where overcoming resistance (or immunity) should be magic or X (devils and silver, fae and iron, for example). This is good for lower-level encounters, or for times where magic may not be readily available to all combatants. But there are times where I think overcoming immunity ought to be X only. If lycanthropes were immune to all nonsilver, or if they were just resistant to magical weapon damage, it gives them a bit more threat, and the lore weaknesses important deeper into the levels.

With the ubiquity of magical attacks, I suppose the other way to do it is to shift towards vulnerabilities. For the lycanthrope, double HP, give immunity to regular BPS, and vulnerability to silver (and radiant, for moonbeam's sake) creates a window where a silver sword is more effective than scorching rays... and Paladins are the default Hunters of Dread Monsters.

I also think that some creatures ought to be resistant to magical damage of all types, but I am happy leaving that as a design preference for my own adventures.

Agreed with everything, but especially "the other way to do it is to shift towards vulnerabilities".

I we leave the the current rules in place, as is, but more creatures simply have vulnerabilities to B, or P or S, or to materials, it stops being a "Tax" on martials.
Combat works just like before, but now the prepared or knowledgeable warrior has an advantage in the fight.


In some ways, this add a rules backing for established archetypes:

- Clerics traditionally carry bludgeoning weapons (because skeletons are vulnerable to B)

- Monster hunters always have a silver sword (Were-creatures are vulnerable to silver)

- Every vampire hunter brings a crossbow (Vampires are vulnerable to "critical hits from piercing weapons" (crit in this case being a shot at the heart...) )

- Deamon hunters make sure they can always deal Radiant damage, through holy water and blessed weapons. (fiends vulnerable to radiant)

[JackPhoenix]

Why would you buy and adamant dagger if you specialise with glaives?

Because carrying around multiple 10'+ polearms is rather impractical.

[stoutstien]

Why would you buy and adamant dagger if you specialise with glaives?

Either way, it's not 'just as limiting' as spell choice. Sure, it may hurt your damage output to switch but the fact is you can switch. Whereas a spellcaster simply cannot cast Fireball at all if they didn't prepare it that day.

Wait you are arguing that making martials juggle weapons is good because casters lack options and works arounds?

[Hytheter]

Wait you are arguing that making martials juggle weapons is good because casters lack options and works arounds?

...No? I'm arguing that making martials juggle weapons is pointless.


Because carrying around multiple 10'+ polearms is rather impractical.

Not by the rules it isn't. Again, that's my whole point, you need meaningfully limiting inventory rules if you want the choice between weapons to be meaningful. As it stands, carrying a whole bunch of weapons is trivial, so the distinction between them is practically irrelevant.

[Hurrashane]

- Clerics traditionally carry bludgeoning weapons (because skeletons are vulnerable to B)


I thought it was because older editions a cleric wasn't allowed to draw blood.

"In earlier editions of D&D, clerics were typically proficient only with bludgeoning weapons, with the rationale being that clerics aren't supposed to shed blood. Further, this rule was often claimed to be inspired actual, historical dicta issued by the medieval Catholic Church governing the conduct of their clergy."

Anyway, I prefer not having to switch up weapons. If I make a character and imagine them as an awesome sword fighter having to use a mace or something isn't fun.

Having to carry umpteen different weapons of varying types and materials isn't fun for me either.

Making B/P/S matter more really just screws over the classes that have limited weapon choices. Rogues are really screwed, there's no finesse bludgeoning weapons and the only slashing one they could sneak attack with are thrown axes. Archers are also out of luck, good luck finding ranged bludgeoning weapons, there's what? The boomerang?

[Mastikator]

TBH resistance to non-silvered should be very rare. It should rather nullify a special ability, like vampire's regeneration. Most creatures should just not be resistant to normal B/P/S

[Anonymouswizard]

The 'blunt weapons don't draw blood' thing is a myth anyway.

If you really want weapons to matter you need to started giving them more meaningful situational tags. Enemy has a shield so pull out your beared axe. Use the bill for mounted enemies and so on (I'd give me re examples but I'm not a weaponologist).

[Unoriginal]

They want to simplify statblocks as much as possible to "prevent DMs from making mistakes".

The new version of Heavy Armor Master protects against B/P/S damage, no mention of magic weapons.

So yeah, you can expect the D&Done version of the Githyanki raid leader with their traditional magic silver sword to just deal non-slashing damage. Probably Psychic (or Radiant if they felt daring that day).

[Oramac]

They want to simplify statblocks as much as possible to "prevent DMs from making mistakes".
snip

Ugh. As I said in the other thread, "if you make it idiot-proof, you only create better idiots".

They need to design the ******* game, not pander to the lowest common denominator.

[Hurrashane]

The new version of Heavy Armor Master protects against B/P/S damage, no mention of magic weapons.



Rage also doesn't make that distinction. Rage just protects from BPS, magic or non magic.

Seems to me new HAM got a slight buff.

[Unoriginal]

Rage also doesn't make that distinction. Rage just protects from BPS, magic or non magic.

Indeed, I doubt they will change that for D&done.



Seems to me new HAM got a slight buff.

I thought the same when I first read the playtest document, but then I remembered how they removed all magic BPS from the monsters.

So now HAM does not protect against a bunch of attacks it used to at least partially block.

[stoutstien]

They want to simplify statblocks as much as possible to "prevent DMs from making mistakes".

The new version of Heavy Armor Master protects against B/P/S damage, no mention of magic weapons.

So yeah, you can expect the D&Done version of the Githyanki raid leader with their traditional magic silver sword to just deal non-slashing damage. Probably Psychic (or Radiant if they felt daring that day).

Eh. Maybe but stat blocks have also gotten super bloated and nothing they have changed has addressed that so I think what they are actually doing is making them more predictable for players not easier to apply.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

...But the only time the distinction between magical and non-magical damage matters is with BPS. Fire damage is just Fire damage, doesn't matter if its from a Fireball or a Torch. Same with all the other damage types. Sure, you'd be hard pressed to find a non-magical source of Force or Necrotic damage, but they're technically not considered magical damage, nor does anything resist mundane forms of that damage. I can't think of a single creature that resists, or is immune to, non-magical Fire damage.

The distinction between non-magical BPS and magical BPS is kind of the exception to all the other damage types.

This is not really correct.


From D&D Beyond

“Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance. For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters.”

[Unoriginal]

Eh. Maybe but stat blocks have also gotten super bloated and nothing they have changed has addressed that so I think what they are actually doing is making them more predictable for players not easier to apply.

More predictable, yes, but I don't think it's just for players.

[stoutstien]

More predictable, yes, but I don't think it's just for players.

Eh. I'd say the reasoning would look like
VTT> players> those ppl who they wish they could ditch from the model but are actually buying everything.

[Unoriginal]

Eh. I'd say the reasoning would look like
VTT> players> those ppl who they wish they could ditch from the model but are actually buying everything.

Indeed. Less predictable statblocks are harder to put in VTT.

[Anonymouswizard]

Ugh. As I said in the other thread, "if you make it idiot-proof, you only create better idiots".

They need to design the ******* game, not pander to the lowest common denominator.

True, if there's any particular way for an idiot to cause an encounter to catastrophically fail the idiot will find it, so don't make a pin that can be inserted backwards. But really the original spellcasting monster statblocks were a bit ridiculous, requiring a fair amount of system mastery and tending to have higher level spells and more slots than the PCs. Meanwhile current spellcasting enemies are probably too simple for anybody but a beginner GM.

There's probably a decent middle ground, where Spellcasters are meaningfully different without being too hard to run. Some of it is probably providing a post-buffs statblock and noting what can be dispelled, and being willing to describe multiple abilities in the statblock. As lot as people like to complain about it there's a serious market of GMs who don't need Spellcasters to have two dozen spells and use the same system as PCs, although most probably don't want necromancers and enchanters to function like archers with a trick (evokers? I'm theoretically fine with it as long as their trick is 'explody magic arrows').

[PhoenixPhyre]

True, if there's any particular way for an idiot to cause an encounter to catastrophically fail the idiot will find it, so don't make a pin that can be inserted backwards. But really the original spellcasting monster statblocks were a bit ridiculous, requiring a fair amount of system mastery and tending to have higher level spells and more slots than the PCs. Meanwhile current spellcasting enemies are probably too simple for anybody but a beginner GM.

There's probably a decent middle ground, where Spellcasters are meaningfully different without being too hard to run. Some of it is probably providing a post-buffs statblock and noting what can be dispelled, and being willing to describe multiple abilities in the statblock. As lot as people like to complain about it there's a serious market of GMs who don't need Spellcasters to have two dozen spells and use the same system as PCs, although most probably don't want necromancers and enchanters to function like archers with a trick (evokers? I'm theoretically fine with it as long as their trick is 'explody magic arrows').

Personally, I hate current spellcaster stat blocks because 99% of everything on there is a waste of space and organized horribly. A creature who will live (in active combat) for 3-4 rounds tops (if they don't get focus-fired down within the first round, which is what usually happens once they cast their first spell) doesn't need a dozen spell slots or spells. Especially when most of those spells aren't actually useful under any situation where you'd need a stat block (cases where the PCs are on-screen, combat or not).

That doesn't mean the MotM versions are better--as with most things from recent WotC, they kinda suck. Decent ideas, crappy implementation.

[stoutstien]

--as with most things from recent WotC, they kinda suck. Decent ideas, crappy implementation.

We need this on a sticker.

[Oramac]

True, if there's any particular way for an idiot to cause an encounter to catastrophically fail the idiot will find it, so don't make a pin that can be inserted backwards. But really the original spellcasting monster statblocks were a bit ridiculous, requiring a fair amount of system mastery and tending to have higher level spells and more slots than the PCs. Meanwhile current spellcasting enemies are probably too simple for anybody but a beginner GM.

There's probably a decent middle ground, where Spellcasters are meaningfully different without being too hard to run. Some of it is probably providing a post-buffs statblock and noting what can be dispelled, and being willing to describe multiple abilities in the statblock. As lot as people like to complain about it there's a serious market of GMs who don't need Spellcasters to have two dozen spells and use the same system as PCs, although most probably don't want necromancers and enchanters to function like archers with a trick (evokers? I'm theoretically fine with it as long as their trick is 'explody magic arrows').


Personally, I hate current spellcaster stat blocks because 99% of everything on there is a waste of space and organized horribly. A creature who will live (in active combat) for 3-4 rounds tops (if they don't get focus-fired down within the first round, which is what usually happens once they cast their first spell) doesn't need a dozen spell slots or spells. Especially when most of those spells aren't actually useful under any situation where you'd need a stat block (cases where the PCs are on-screen, combat or not).

As per usual, I both agree and disagree.

The original spellcaster stat blocks were/are a mess. There's a ton of non-combat stuff in them that won't get used 99% of the time. But those non-combat things also give clear and unambiguous indications of how a monster could be played by the DM. Keep in mind that it's very likely the party will see and interact with a monster many times before actually fighting that monster. Having clearly defined non-combat spells and features helps in the pre-combat phases of The Story.

That said, I think the MOTM monsters took the streamlining too far. For the record, I like the concept, but all the guts were removed. Again, designing to the lowest common denominator. A middle ground between the two would be welcome.


as with most things from recent WotC...Decent ideas, crappy implementation.


We need this on a sticker.

Damn right we do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As per usual, I both agree and disagree.

The original spellcaster stat blocks were/are a mess. There's a ton of non-combat stuff in them that won't get used 99% of the time. But those non-combat things also give clear and unambiguous indications of how a monster could be played by the DM. Keep in mind that it's very likely the party will see and interact with a monster many times before actually fighting that monster. Having clearly defined non-combat spells and features helps in the pre-combat phases of The Story.

That said, I think the MOTM monsters took the streamlining too far. For the record, I like the concept, but all the guts were removed. Again, designing to the lowest common denominator. A middle ground between the two would be welcome.


Note that needed for PC interactions (ie stat blocks) =/= needed for combat. I'm fine with having some non-combat stuff on there. But most of it? A random jumble of spells, most of which are either ultra situational or would never make sense to cast "on screen." If you want good narrative helps, add that to the surrounding text, not the stat block. Because stat blocks are inherently generic, not specific to individuals.

In my experience, generic-stat-block spellcasters are mooks. Not the named guys--those get custom crafted (or at least heavily altered ) stat blocks. And when I'm looking at generic cult acolyte #34, I don't want to have to reference a bunch of other sources to figure out what the heck he's going to do this turn.

I'd love for them to present tactical suggestions in the text. Things like "His bread and butter XYZ, using ABC for aoe and QRTZ if he needs to run away, with P used as his default concentration spell." Or break out the stat block differently--instead of PC-type lists of slots, say

Main Concentration Spell: Hypnotic Pattern (2x 3rd).
Main Aoe: Fireball (2x 4th, 1x 3rd).
Single Target: Magic Missile (3x 2nd, 2x 1st)
Defensive: Shield (2x 1st), Counterspell (1x 3rd).
Assumed to be active: Mage Armor.
At will: Firebolt (2d10)

Or whatever (spells picked from memory, not assumed to be an actual loadout).

Does that cut down on tactical flexibility? Absolutely. But presents clear "hey, use this" instructions. And also states (if you read between the lines) how many spell slots of each level he's got and what the cantrips do (having to reconstruct that from caster level is obnoxious in the moment).

[Oramac]

If you want good narrative helps, add that to the surrounding text, not the stat block

The problem is, many people don't read the surrounding text.


I'd love for them to present tactical suggestions in the text. Things like "His bread and butter XYZ, using ABC for aoe and QRTZ if he needs to run away, with P used as his default concentration spell." Or break out the stat block differently--instead of PC-type lists of slots, say

Main Concentration Spell: Hypnotic Pattern (2x 3rd).
Main Aoe: Fireball (2x 4th, 1x 3rd).
Single Target: Magic Missile (3x 2nd, 2x 1st)
Defensive: Shield (2x 1st), Counterspell (1x 3rd).
Assumed to be active: Mage Armor.
At will: Firebolt (2d10)

Or whatever (spells picked from memory, not assumed to be an actual loadout).

Does that cut down on tactical flexibility? Absolutely. But presents clear "hey, use this" instructions. And also states (if you read between the lines) how many spell slots of each level he's got and what the cantrips do (having to reconstruct that from caster level is obnoxious in the moment).

I'd be thrilled with this approach. Who knows, maybe we'll see it in the Monsters UA for ODnD. I like the idea, and if an individual DM wants to change it up, they can.

The only thing I'd add is a bolded line for "Main Social Spell: XYZ thing". This way, you have the non-combat indicator, but it doesn't take up multiple lines or slots in the stat block. Just one line giving a base from which a DM can build/change to suit.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is, many people don't read the surrounding text.


Can't fix people who won't read by adding more text. I have zero sympathy for "people who don't actually read the text and only take the stat block or table have a degraded experience." The stat blocks and tables need to be interpreted in context of the surrounding text.



I'd be thrilled with this approach. Who knows, maybe we'll see it in the Monsters UA for ODnD. I like the idea, and if an individual DM wants to change it up, they can.

The only thing I'd add is a bolded line for "Main Social Spell: XYZ thing". This way, you have the non-combat indicator, but it doesn't take up multiple lines or slots in the stat block. Just one line giving a base from which a DM can build/change to suit.

Sure. I think I just ignored that one.

[sithlordnergal]

I'd be good with adding a bit of flavor text to add to the narrative for the caster. Even the 3.5 MM had fun little blurbs about some of the more interesting monsters, and how you might encounter them.

[Unoriginal]

I'd love for them to present tactical suggestions in the text. Things like "His bread and butter XYZ, using ABC for aoe and QRTZ if he needs to run away, with P used as his default concentration spell."

They did that for The Wilds Beyond the Witchlight NPCs.

Proving they can do it, but won't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They did that for The Wilds Beyond the Witchlight NPCs.

Proving they can do it, but won't.

Honestly, having a sentence or two (more for more complex monsters) for every monster (or at least every type of monster such as Blue Dragons if there aren't differences between the ages) would be wonderful. Doesn't have to be much, just

Skeleton: Prefers to stay at range and shoot its shortbow, switching to shortsword if it can't safely break contact.
Zombie: Charges straight in at nearest enemy, no concern for personal safety.
Or whatever.

[Anonymouswizard]

Personally, I hate current spellcaster stat blocks because 99% of everything on there is a waste of space and organized horribly. A creature who will live (in active combat) for 3-4 rounds tops (if they don't get focus-fired down within the first round, which is what usually happens once they cast their first spell) doesn't need a dozen spell slots or spells. Especially when most of those spells aren't actually useful under any situation where you'd need a stat block (cases where the PCs are on-screen, combat or not).

That doesn't mean the MotM versions are better--as with most things from recent WotC, they kinda suck. Decent ideas, crappy implementation.

Which is why I said there's probably a decent middle ground. Both versions need more work, MM stat blocks need fewer slots and a more direct selection of spells, and MotM dtule casters need to be iterated on until the Devs start giving them more options. Both styles are better for different people, although I suspect we'll see focus on MotM style casters because they're just straight up easier for new GMs to use (and WotC knows that D&D has a relative lack of enthusiastic GMs).


Plus I'd love for potentially every stat block having sections for utility and social approaches/powers added. I think many people would find it useful to know how a Marid engaged in conversation at a glance, whether that's intimidation or going immediately for Charm Person.

ETA: Zombie: Social: BRAAAIIIIINS

[sithlordnergal]

So, i'm going to go against the grain, I actually prefer the old way of doing casters, where they had full spell slot progression, or Warlock spell slot progression. Now I won't lie, the spell selection sucked for all of them, and spells are always the first thing I end up changing out. However, I found the full casters to be really handy because they can be good for more than just a few rounds.

I don't know how often its utilized in other tables, but I know my parties tend to hire one or two NPCs, or occasionally have NPCs join them for a mission or two. By giving those NPCs proper spell slot progression they can last for more than one encounter. They can keep up with the players, which helps to drive home that the players aren't the only adventurers out there.

I do wish their spell selection had been a lot better, as most NPC spell lists are trash. But I can understand why...they limited themselves to what can be found in the SRD for the most part, and tried to make the spell selection thematic in some way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, i'm going to go against the grain, I actually prefer the old way of doing casters, where they had full spell slot progression, or Warlock spell slot progression. Now I won't lie, the spell selection sucked for all of them, and spells are always the first thing I end up changing out. However, I found the full casters to be really handy because they can be good for more than just a few rounds.

I don't know how often its utilized in other tables, but I know my parties tend to hire one or two NPCs, or occasionally have NPCs join them for a mission or two. By giving those NPCs proper spell slot progression they can last for more than one encounter. They can keep up with the players, which helps to drive home that the players aren't the only adventurers out there.

I do wish their spell selection had been a lot better, as most NPC spell lists are trash. But I can understand why...they limited themselves to what can be found in the SRD for the most part, and tried to make the spell selection thematic in some way.

If I'm going to have a party-accompanying NPC, I'm going to build them a bit more intentionally and not use a generic NPC stat block. People don't hire Acolyte #42, they hire Bob, the rejected priest candidate of <religion>. If there are friendly generic NPCs alongside, they're rarely of any significance and I don't generally even run them more that cursorily. And never spell-casters (or anyone else of significant power). Because I don't want to take any more of the table's spotlight than I have to.

[sithlordnergal]

If I'm going to have a party-accompanying NPC, I'm going to build them a bit more intentionally and not use a generic NPC stat block. People don't hire Acolyte #42, they hire Bob, the rejected priest candidate of <religion>. If there are friendly generic NPCs alongside, they're rarely of any significance and I don't generally even run them more that cursorily. And never spell-casters (or anyone else of significant power). Because I don't want to take any more of the table's spotlight than I have to.

Eh, I find the generic statblocks to be handy for party-accompanying NPCs. I'll change up gear and spells as needed, but outside of that they remain the same NPC. Bob the Warrior ends up having the same stats as Knight #23, only he uses a Warhammer, Shield, and Scale Mail instead of a Greatsword and Plate. I've also had a fair number spell casters on the Party's side. Usually they take the role of a Cleric, but I've given them Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks as allies. Never seemed to take away the table's spotlight. As long as you don't tell the party that Bob is a Knight with different gear, I find they tend not to notice.

[stoutstien]

What the DMG needed was a section dedicated to helping DMs find the style and layout of their stat blocks.

Seems obvious but at least once every
few months when at a con or local shop running something and they see my layout they are surprised that it's an option.

[Anonymouswizard]

What the DMG needed was a section dedicated to helping DMs find the style and layout of their stat blocks.

Seems obvious but at least once every
few months when at a con or local shop running something and they see my layout they are surprised that it's an option.

Last time I ran D&D and Shadowrun (by far the crunchiest games I've run, particularly WRT enemies) I made power point slides for every enemy I thought I might use, alongside common variations (e.g. for Shadowrun I had every level of corporate goon redone for every metatype), which in D&D required a lot of reworking because 3.5. I then printed them out four to a sheet of A4, cut them up, and I suddenly had Enemy Cards I could use instead. Curate before a session to only have the ones I needed and suddenly combat became a lot easier.

Of course this required working out what I personally found useless. So yes, discussion on determining your personal style would be useful.


As to NPC tagalongs, honestly I could pretty easily just make a quick character sheet that'll do instead of using a generic statblock. Particularly with the Sidekick classes, but even without them it would be pretty easy.

[JackPhoenix]

Not by the rules it isn't. Again, that's my whole point, you need meaningfully limiting inventory rules if you want the choice between weapons to be meaningful. As it stands, carrying a whole bunch of weapons is trivial, so the distinction between them is practically irrelevant.

Last time I've checked, most player characters still only had 2 hands. And 10' stick is 10' stick, you don't need any arbitrary inventory rules to make carrying it around inconvenient.


Making B/P/S matter more really just screws over the classes that have limited weapon choices. Rogues are really screwed, there's no finesse bludgeoning weapons and the only slashing one they could sneak attack with are thrown axes. Archers are also out of luck, good luck finding ranged bludgeoning weapons, there's what? The boomerang?

You can't sneak attack with thrown axes, but there's a sling for bludgeoning damage.

[Lord Vukodlak]

You can't sneak attack with thrown axes, but there's a sling for bludgeoning damage.

At the start of a campaign I always tell the Rogue in case we run into skeletons, and almost always there will be some skeletons in one of those early adventures.